Covid III: Delta Force

[Calm]

Quote

the group taking it was 29% less likely to become infected with the virus in the first place.”

Hopefully those who jump on this will keep to the low dose and not think more is better.

I would be taking it normally (daily low dose was recommended as not a bad idea for another thing years ago,  but I can’t handle even the buffered version).

Edited October 11, 2021 by Calm

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

Hopefully those who jump on this will keep to the low dose and not think more is better.

I would be taking it (daily low dose was recommended as not a bad idea for another thing years ago,  but I can’t handle even the buffered version.

Exactly!  I would in no way recommend that people start taking this as a preventative measure for Covid (even at the low dose) without further study.  This is just one small study in Israel with meager results as a prophylactic.  As we can see with Ivermectin, one small study with meager results is not enough to justify its use.  Many other studies showed no benefit whatsoever with Ivermectin.  We have to look at the comprehensive picture and one small study is not enough.  It needs to be replicated in larger studies, preferably in the states.    I hope people don't run with it quite yet. 

For prevention of blood clots with active Covid though, I personally would probably take it if I tested positive.  Everyone should talk to their own PCP though.  It would only need to be taken short-term (max - 2 weeks) and there is more than enough data to know that it can reduce clotting risk.

Edited October 11, 2021 by pogi

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, pogi said:

As we can see with Ivermectin, one small study with meager results is not enough to justify its use.  Many other studies showed no benefit whatsoever with Ivermectin.

And the one most cited as positive could be a fraud…resulting in throwing off meta analyses.

https://grftr.news/why-was-a-major-study-on-ivermectin-for-covid-19-just-retracted/

Quote

 “That almost entirely reverses any argument for using ivermectin,” Meyerowitz-Katz explained in response to Brown and Sheldrick’s findings because “the Elgazzar study is the single biggest piece of research” conducted on ivermectin.

He was also keen to rerun the results of two recent meta-analyses that found an overall positive effect for ivermectin, this time without the Elgazzar data. (A meta-analysis is a type of scientific paper that summarises the existing evidence on a specific topic by aggregating the results of smaller trials). After excluding the data from the Elgazzar study, he found that the effect for ivermectin drops significantly with no discernible effect on severe disease. Meyerowitz-Katz later also reran the analysis while excluding an additional poor-quality study and found that after this ivermectin showed no effect in treating COVID-19.

 

[Raingirl]

My brother was just diagnosed with Covid. For the second time! He had it last November, as well. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

'AstraZeneca antibody cocktail succeeds in late-stage study to treat COVID-19, company says'

Quote

AstraZeneca’s experimental COVID-19 drug has helped cut the risk of severe disease or death in a late-stage study, the British drug maker said on Monday ...

AstraZeneca’s therapy, delivered via injection, is the first of its kind to show promise both as a preventative medicine and as a treatment for COVID-19 following multiple trials. It is designed to protect people who do not have a strong enough immune response to vaccines ...

AZD7442 contains laboratory-made antibodies designed to linger in the body for months to contain the virus in case of an infection. A vaccine, in contrast, relies on an intact immune system to develop targeted antibodies and infection-fighting cells.

“An early intervention with our antibody can give a significant reduction in progression to severe disease, with continued protection for more than six months,” said Mene Pangalos, executive vice-president at AstraZeneca.

 

[mtomm]

The aspirin theory explains why my sister's physician said everyone should be taking a baby aspirin after your immunization then ongoing/everyday.  I just started because my immunized brother who got COVID but was not hospitalized just very sick, ended up with a blood clot from his thigh to his calf. He is doing well on blood thinners but I'm not taking chances. As a family with a history of clots and strokes it just seems wise. 

[Ipod Touch]

I really don't understand why all of these kook theories are being offered here.

It isn't hard.  Follow the CDC and get vaccinated.  Done.  End of story.  All other treatments are conspiracy theories perpetuated on facebook.

[Ipod Touch]

LOL @ folks who downvoted my comment above.

Enjoy your horse dewormer.  

[Calm]

You are misrepresenting why people downvoted you. 
 

The ones who did are like many on this thread and that is they follow the science, which means first and foremost vaccinations, but thankfully there appear to be some hopeful treatments, not including horse dewormer. 
 

If all you are going to do is drive by with snide remarks that don’t reflect the vast majority for posts in this thread, then please refrain from posting in this thread (I am asking as the opening poster).  I believe it qualifies as details. 

Edited October 13, 2021 by Calm

[pogi]

On 10/11/2021 at 5:17 PM, Raingirl said:

My brother was just diagnosed with Covid. For the second time! He had it last November, as well. 

Sorry to hear that.  Was he vaccinated after the first infection?

[juliann]

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7.pdf

European Journal of Epidemiology  

Increases in COVID‑19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States

S. V. Subramanian1,2  · Akhil Kumar3 Received: 17 August 2021 / Accepted: 9 September 2021 © Springer Nature B.V. 2021

[pogi]

18 hours ago, mtomm said:

The aspirin theory explains why my sister's physician said everyone should be taking a baby aspirin after your immunization then ongoing/everyday.  I just started because my immunized brother who got COVID but was not hospitalized just very sick, ended up with a blood clot from his thigh to his calf. He is doing well on blood thinners but I'm not taking chances. As a family with a history of clots and strokes it just seems wise. 

I'm glad to hear your brother is doing well.  Be cautious with aspirin though.  Long-term aspirin use is not without its own very serious risks.  I personally think it is probably a good idea to use with active infection, as it is very short term, or if you have a personal history of stroke or heart attack, otherwise it is important to be aware of the potential risks.  Coincidentally, this was just published the other day and addresses how recommendations for low-dose aspirin use to prevent blood clots are changing in light of new evidence and studies - a few snippets from the article:

Quote

Bleeding risks for adults in their 60s and up who haven't had a heart attack or stroke outweigh any potential benefits from aspirin, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force said in its draft guidance.

For the first time, the panel said there may be a small benefit for adults in their 40s who have no bleeding risks. For those in their 50s, the panel softened advice and said evidence of benefit is less clear.

"Aspirin use can cause serious harms, and risk increases with age,"

Aspirin is best known as a pain reliever but it is also a blood thinner that can reduce chances for blood clots. But aspirin also has risks, even at low doses — mainly bleeding in the digestive tract or ulcers, both of which can be life-threatening.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50260509/advice-shifting-on-aspirin-use-for-preventing-heart-attacks

 

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, juliann said:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7.pdf

European Journal of Epidemiology  

Increases in COVID‑19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States

S. V. Subramanian1,2  · Akhil Kumar3 Received: 17 August 2021 / Accepted: 9 September 2021 © Springer Nature B.V. 2021

This study is going viral among anti-vexers. Here is the proper perspective of the author:

Quote

 

A Harvard Study Is Going Viral Among Anti-Vaxxers. The Author Says They Are All Wrong.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/10/subramanian-harvard-covid-vaccines/

 

 

Edited October 13, 2021 by pogi

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

This article is going viral among anti-vexers. Here is the proper perspective of the author:

 

I liked this part of it:

Subramanian points to countries like Israel, which have high rates of both vaccination and new infections. But instead of concluding that such data means vaccines are useless, Subramanian says his findings suggest that it’s unwise to ignore other treatments and precautionary steps—say, masks or lockdowns. In other words, he writes, the “sole reliance on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19 and its adverse consequences needs to be re-examined… other pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions may need to be put in place alongside increasing vaccination.”

Over email, Subramanian insisted that the positive effects of vaccines are not in doubt: “Other research has clearly and definitively established that the vaccines significantly reduce the risk of hospitalization and mortality.” 

 

[juliann]

38 minutes ago, pogi said:

This study is going viral among anti-vexers. Here is the proper perspective of the author:

 

Which is what is in his article. What is your point?

[The Nehor]

55 minutes ago, juliann said:

Which is what is in his article. What is your point?

The that article is being abused probably. Because it is. A lot.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Which is what is in his article. What is your point?

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The that article is being abused probably. Because it is. A lot.

Yes, that's my point.  Just giving context from the author in response to how it is being used online. 

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes, that's my point.  Just giving context from the author in response to how it is being used online. 

Because how idiots use important information is always the most important thing, right? Forget the content. That is a bit too ad hominem for me and a good example of why we aren't makling good headway with covid. 

[The Nehor]

Just now, juliann said:

Because how idiots use important information is always the most important thing, right? Forget the content. That is a bit too ad hominem for me and a good example of why we aren't makling good headway with covid. 

When many of those idiots are determining policy……yes. The incorrect spin of that paper is likely to have a larger impact on the world than the data it actually contains.

Welcome to the post-truth world. It is awful.

[nuclearfuels]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

Increases in COVID‑19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States

Yep

[nuclearfuels]

21 hours ago, mtomm said:

As a family with a history of clots and strokes it just seems wise. 

Yes. Being prudent is wise. I highly recommend it

[nuclearfuels]

On 10/1/2021 at 5:06 PM, Harry T. Clark said:

It's adorable how you worship the vaccine and won't consider alternatives, thinking that the vaccine is somehow equal with religious tenets.  Would you force someone to take the vaccine if they had natural immunity?  Do you agree with what is going on it Australia?

This is not the place for examining and finding out for ourselves the truth and reality of things.

 

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Yep

*bangs head against wall*

[bsjkki]

I read the report earlier this morning. Reading the original source is usually the best way to go. Humility and respect are usually more persuasive than what we’ve seen lately. 
 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Because how idiots use important information is always the most important thing, right? Forget the content. That is a bit too ad hominem for me and a good example of why we aren't makling good headway with covid. 

I think you are reading far beyond what I said in my post, Juliann.  "Forget the content"?  I am trying to give voice to the author of the study who is being drowned out be these so called "idiots".   What is wrong with that?  How is that "ad hominem" exactly? You are the one who called them "idiots", not me.  I am not the one attacking them...you are the one doing that with personal attacks - "idiots".  I am so confused how you can say that while accusing me of "ad hominem".    I truly don't know what your problem is with my post.  

Do you think the author doesn't deserve a voice in contextualizing the study and defending it against people who want to twist it and manipulate the words?  I am DEFENDING the content, not dismissing it.  I love how antivaxers and covid deniers are using an article which actually promotes masks and shutdowns in conjunction with vaccines.  That is hilarious! 

So, I (or my approach) is the  reason "we aren't making good headway with covid"?  That is out of line and unfair Juliann.  You seem to be implying that I am not open to anything that has legitimate promise to treat or protect against Covid.  Why, because I didn't buy into the Ivermectin and hydrochloroquin nonsense being promoted by antivaxers?   Seriously, you are being too edgy and unfair with me.  I have nothing against Mercks new drug to treat Covid, I have nothing against steroids used to treat it, I have nothing against anti-coagulants, I have nothing against monoclonal antibody treatments, I have nothing against anything that is demonstrated to actually work.  I applaud all effort to find new treatments and effective prophylactics. 

The reason we aren't making good headway is because people won't listen to science and the medical field and wear appropriate masks, social distance, or get vaccinated.  Instead, lets attack and blame nurses like me who promote such preventive measures as outlined in this study and have personally vaccinated countless thousand of people against Covid.  

 

Edited October 13, 2021 by pogi