Covid III: Delta Force

[bsjkki]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Even though it feels like it has been around forever, lets not forget that this virus only started really picking up in the US about 1 year ago - the fact that we already have a promising effective antiviral against Covid in the works is miraculously to me.  I don't think people realize what goes into developing and getting a medicine on the market.  

Viral infections are notoriously hard to treat with antivirals. There are not a lot of antivirals for that reason.  The fact that Merck has already developed an effective antiviral is surprisingly great news.   Not a lot of good data on Vitamin D to "push it"- 

See also:

 https://www.webmd.com/lung/vitamin-d-covid-19-what-to-know#1

https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/vitamin-d-may-not-protect-against-covid-19-previously-suggested-331358

 

 

 

Vitamin D studies out of Israel with hospitalized patients are newer. What does it hurt to encourage people to get their vitamin D levels up? I think people should be able to discuss options with their doctor and try some things that have shown promise. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Vitamin D studies out of Israel with hospitalized patients are newer. 

Which studies are you talking about?

A well-controlled and randomized study out of Brazil found that treating hospitalized patients with vitamin D was ineffective.  This was published in Feb 2021.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776738

If newer studies using different methods found better results, I'd be happy to see it. 

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

What does it hurt to encourage people to get their vitamin D levels up? I think people should be able to discuss options with their doctor and try some things that have shown promise. 

Encouraging people to have healthy vitamin D levels is fine - if you are not deficient, no need to take it.    We have always done that.  I agree that people should be able to discuss things with their doctor, but for the CDC to "push" vitamin D as an "early treatment for Covid" is premature.  Not enough data, that I have seen.  If there is brand new data, later than April 2021 (from previous links I posted reviewing Vitamin D evidence) that is fine, but we have to look at it in context of all other data. 

Recommending vitamin D for general health is one thing - the CDC recommending it to the general population specifically for early treatment of Covid is whole other thing.  There are laws that restrict those kinds of claims without clinical trials showing strong evidence of the claim.  We need more evidence.  What is the proper dosing, timeline, and schedule to be effective?  How effective is it?  What if I am not vitamin D deficient, do I need to take it - would it even help? What is the risk for vitamin D toxicity at the recommended dose?  The strictness and regulations against making premature and unsubstantiated medical claims for herbs, vitamins, and drugs is a good thing. 

Edited October 28, 2021 by pogi

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Which studies are you talking about?

A well-controlled and randomized study out of Brazil found that treating hospitalized patients with vitamin D was ineffective.  This was published in Feb 2021.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776738

If newer studies using different methods found better results, I'd be happy to see it. 

Encouraging people to have healthy vitamin D levels is fine - if you are not deficient, no need to take it.    We have always done that.  I agree that people should be able to discuss things with their doctor, but for the CDC to "push" vitamin D as an "early treatment for Covid" is premature.  Not enough data, that I have seen.  If there is brand new data, later than April 2021 (from previous links I posted reviewing Vitamin D evidence) that is fine, but we have to look at it in context of all other data. 

Recommending vitamin D for general health is one thing - the CDC recommending it to the general population specifically for early treatment of Covid is whole other thing.  There are laws that restrict those kinds of claims without clinical trials showing strong evidence of the claim.  We need more evidence.  What is the proper dosing, timeline, and schedule to be effective?  How effective is it?  What if I am not vitamin D deficient, do I need to take it - would it even help? What is the risk for vitamin D toxicity at the recommended dose?  The strictness and regulations against making premature and unsubstantiated medical claims for herbs, vitamins, and drugs is a good thing. 

So why don’t they push people to check with their doctor and make sure their vitamin D levels are optimal? Seems like a simple psa to push for the sake of public health and covid.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/vitamin-d-helps-the-body-fight-coronavirus-major-israeli-study-claims/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/1-in-4-hospitalized-covid-patients-who-lack-vitamin-d-die-israeli-study/

Edited October 28, 2021 by bsjkki

[bsjkki]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Which studies are you talking about?

A well-controlled and randomized study out of Brazil found that treating hospitalized patients with vitamin D was ineffective.  This was published in Feb 2021.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776738

If newer studies using different methods found better results, I'd be happy to see it. 

Encouraging people to have healthy vitamin D levels is fine - if you are not deficient, no need to take it.    We have always done that.  I agree that people should be able to discuss things with their doctor, but for the CDC to "push" vitamin D as an "early treatment for Covid" is premature.  Not enough data, that I have seen.  If there is brand new data, later than April 2021 (from previous links I posted reviewing Vitamin D evidence) that is fine, but we have to look at it in context of all other data. 

Recommending vitamin D for general health is one thing - the CDC recommending it to the general population specifically for early treatment of Covid is whole other thing.  There are laws that restrict those kinds of claims without clinical trials showing strong evidence of the claim.  We need more evidence.  What is the proper dosing, timeline, and schedule to be effective?  How effective is it?  What if I am not vitamin D deficient, do I need to take it - would it even help? What is the risk for vitamin D toxicity at the recommended dose?  The strictness and regulations against making premature and unsubstantiated medical claims for herbs, vitamins, and drugs is a good thing. 

The risk of vitamin d toxicity is incredibly low. People have to take enormous amounts. Any supplement or drug when taken in enormous amounts that are not recommended can cause issues. No reason not to recommend people take a supplement  and make sure their levels are optimal. Even advertising obesity is a major risk factor for complications, may encourage some people to improve their overall health. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/how-much-vitamin-d-is-too-much#TOC_TITLE_HDR_3

Edited October 28, 2021 by bsjkki

[bsjkki]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/28/opinion/covid-vaccine-hybrid-natural-immunity.html
 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2021 by bsjkki

[The Nehor]

50 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/28/opinion/covid-vaccine-hybrid-natural-immunity.html
 

 

 

“As scientists and policymakers consider the power of hybrid immunity, it is reasonable to recommend a single dose for children without serious health problems who have had Covid-19. If parents are unsure whether their children have been previously infected, antibody tests may be performed when they receive their first vaccine dose. While these tests may not pick up all children who have had Covid-19, they would pick up most, and only children with no confirmed infection could be recalled for a second dose. Such an approach could also help release doses for the many other countries with low vaccine supply and high-risk adults who have not been vaccinated. The approach should at least be considered for further research.”

“There are other reasons not to factor natural immunity into vaccination decisions. It can be difficult to add antibody tests to determine who has had Covid-19 to an already logistically challenging vaccine rollout. In countries like the United States with deep political divisions over vaccines, a “one size fits all” strategy may be preferable to a more tailor-made approach that could create confusion, spark anti-vaccine sentiment and prevent the issuance of vaccine passports.”

I agree with the author of the opinion piece that this consideration would be such a huge mess in the United States that it is probably not worth changing policy over it. Would cause more trouble than it is worth.

[bsjkki]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I agree with the author of the opinion piece that this consideration would be such a huge mess in the United States that it is probably not worth changing policy over it. Would cause more trouble than it is worth.

I could argue effectively that not acknowledging natural immunity is causing problems. Trust is a huge issue for public health. People read. They know the CDC is pushing a one size fits all agenda and they don’t like it.

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I could argue effectively that not acknowledging natural immunity is causing problems. Trust is a huge issue for public health. People read. They know the CDC is pushing a one size fits all agenda and they don’t like it.

They have acknowledged natural immunity. That article’s only real argument is that someone who has previously had Covid and has detectable antibodies may only need one dose of the vaccine.

Trust is a huge issue. Mostly because a lot of people are lying about public health but it is generally not the public health officials.

I doubt there is a huge contingent of the population that is arguing for one vaccine dose if they have previously had the disease and have antibodies. The divide tends to be over wanting to not get the vaccine at all which that article does not support.

[Hamba Tuhan]

57 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Trust is a huge issue for public health. People read. They know the CDC is pushing a one size fits all agenda and they don’t like it.

I work for a member of our local parliament and grasp your concern. In my opinion, this matter has parallels in the institutional Church as well.

On the one hand, there are very good reasons to try to keep the narrative as simple as possible. Not doing so is often seen as poor 'governance'. But it also creates space for people who have an agenda to sow distrust: 'They're not telling you the whole truth! What are they hiding?'

There are therefore very good reasons to include as much nuance and complexity as possible in the narrative, but experience has shown that doing so really can really muddy the messaging and create confusion and therefore hesitancy -- which, during a public health emergency, is also seen as bad 'governance'. And people who have an agenda to sow distrust seem to be equally capable of using nuance and complexity as vehicles: 'They can't keep their story straight! It's contradictory or inconclusive. They're just trying to confuse you!'

The intersection of rhetoric, policy, and psychology is a very messy space.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[The Nehor]

It is preprint but first good study I have seen on the effects of vaccination on “long covid”.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.26.21265508v1?rss=1

The short version is that after being vaccinated with one dose of vaccine there was no statistically significant change in getting “long covid”. With two vaccine doses it does seem to lower the risk of getting the effects of “long covid” though only in those below age 60. For 60 and older no statistically significant difference.

Edit: Fixed first sentence as I forgot to mention the study is about vaccination.

Edited October 29, 2021 by The Nehor

[bsjkki]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/covid-vaccinated-likely-unjabbed-infect-cohabiters-study-suggests

[The Nehor]

For those unfamiliar with long covid click through to this for one of the worst case cases:

Most cases are milder than that but many are still debilitating.

[bsjkki]

My father in law was not tested because he was vaxxed and had minor cold symptoms. My mother in law insisted on getting tested before going on a trip and visiting relatives. They both had covid. Immunity is waning and more breakthrough infections will occur and, as always, the elderly are at higher risk.  They were vaccinated the earliest. 
https://www.fox29.com/news/woman-wasnt-tested-by-urgent-care-because-she-was-vaccinated-but-later-dies-of-covid-19?taid=617ad734ee4a9700012772dc&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=twitter

 

[pogi]

18 hours ago, bsjkki said:

So why don’t they push people to check with their doctor and make sure their vitamin D levels are optimal? Seems like a simple psa to push for the sake of public health and covid.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/vitamin-d-helps-the-body-fight-coronavirus-major-israeli-study-claims/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/1-in-4-hospitalized-covid-patients-who-lack-vitamin-d-die-israeli-study/

This first study was published in July of 2020 and is considered in the comprehensive review of vitamin D studies from my previous links. 

From the link: "However, others are cautioning broad conclusions, saying other factors may be involved."

The second study is not peer reviewed yet and has one major limitation - it didn't have any controls to isolate vitamin D deficiency as an independent factor.  This is a major issue discussed in the links I posted as vitamin D deficiency is also correlated with older age, hypertension, obesity, diabetes, etc. all of which we know are risk factors for severe Covid and death.  So, is it really the low vitamin D that is placing them at risk, or is that just a coincidental correlation with these other factors that we know are positively associated with severe Covid/death?

I think the medical community remains unconvinced of a positive link.  I agree with you that is certainly doesn't hurt to make sure your vitamin D levels are up to par, but I disagree with investing millions of public dollars into a massive nation-wide PSA campaign that links vitamin D with Covid.  I think that is dangerous, especially at a time when everything said in public health is being scrutinized the the nth degree.  Every claim and wasted time/dollar on spreading information that is later found to be false would be further damaging on public trust in our officials.  

Edited October 29, 2021 by pogi

[pogi]

17 hours ago, bsjkki said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/28/opinion/covid-vaccine-hybrid-natural-immunity.html

 

This information is a little misleading in that it talks about the risks of myocarditis in children from vaccine, but neglects to mention that the risk of myocarditis in children is actually greater from natural infection than from the vaccine.  It doesn't discuss the fact that it is 18-24 age range that is actually at greatest risk for myocarditis and not in younger children.  It doesn't distinguish between the risk of Pfizer (extremely low risk) and Modena.  It doesn't discuss the lower dose given to young children.   It almost makes it sound like it is safer for children to get the natural infection than it is to be vaccinated.  I disagree.  

Edited October 29, 2021 by pogi

[bsjkki]

I guess the approach is let’s not try these benign things that may help.

[Robert J Anderson]

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2109730

Here is a comprehensive study from Israel showing that roughly half of the myocarditis cases were from the pfizer vaccine. 50% is pretty serious.  Perhaps the supposed cure needs to be reevaluated.

Quote

Results

Among 304 persons with symptoms of myocarditis, 21 had received an alternative diagnosis. Of the remaining 283 cases, 142 occurred after receipt of the BNT162b2 vaccine; of these cases, 136 diagnoses were definitive or probable. The clinical presentation was judged to be mild in 129 recipients (95%); one fulminant case was fatal. The overall risk difference between the first and second doses was 1.76 per 100,000 persons (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33 to 2.19), with the largest difference among male recipients between the ages of 16 and 19 years (difference, 13.73 per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 8.11 to 19.46). As compared with the expected incidence based on historical data, the standardized incidence ratio was 5.34 (95% CI, 4.48 to 6.40) and was highest after the second dose in male recipients between the ages of 16 and 19 years (13.60; 95% CI, 9.30 to 19.20). The rate ratio 30 days after the second vaccine dose in fully vaccinated recipients, as compared with unvaccinated persons, was 2.35 (95% CI, 1.10 to 5.02); the rate ratio was again highest in male recipients between the ages of 16 and 19 years (8.96; 95% CI, 4.50 to 17.83), with a ratio of 1 in 6637.

A study in the nordic countries showed a heightened risk in teenage males for myocarditis after taking the Moderna vaccine:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/10/covid-vaccine-related-myocarditis-rare-usually-mild-studies-say

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I guess the approach is let’s not try these benign things that may help.

Again, I don't think you are considering the time and effort that would be diverted from things we do know work, and the exceptional cost and burden for tax payers to create and run a nationwide campaign and PSA for a cause that may or may not even work.  I think you understand that public health officials can't just go out and recommend that the general public all go to their PCP and get their blood drawn to check for vitamin D deficiency as a preventative measure against Covid, when such measures are not yet substantiated.  If they don't allow companies to make unsubstantiated health claims for their vitamins and herbs, why in the world would it be ok for them to make such claims?  

Your original complaint was that they are not "pushing early treatments for Covid".  I think it would be unjustified, unethical, and not medically/scientifically sound to "push" any of these unsubstantiated claims as "early treatments for Covid".

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2109730

Here is a comprehensive study from Israel showing that roughly half of the myocarditis cases were from the pfizer vaccine. 50% is pretty serious.  Perhaps the supposed cure needs to be reevaluated.

A study in the nordic countries showed a heightened risk in teenage males for myocarditis after taking the Moderna vaccine:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/10/covid-vaccine-related-myocarditis-rare-usually-mild-studies-say

 

"The cure"??? What are you talking about?

Wow!  That is quite the spin!  "50% is pretty serious" huh?

Shall we put that in context and not spin it out of recognition for what it is saying?   

283 cases of myocarditis diagnosed after 5.1 million doses of vaccine given.

136 were definitive or probably caused from Pfizer.

129 cases were "mild".  

In other words, of 5,100,000 doses, there were 136 cases of myocarditis from Pfizer.   What are the odds of getting myocarditis from Pfizer exactly? 0.00002% chance?  

Of 5,100,000 doses there were only 7 moderate to severe cases of myocarditis.  That is a 0.000001% chance of having a moderate to severe case.

Now Robert, would you please do your due diligence and compare those rates of myocarditis to what we see happen from natural infection with Covid?  On top of that, can you please add on the risk of hospitalization (around 100/week in the US) due to COVID in children and death (around 700 in the US), then please tell me if you think we should be "reevaluating" the "cure" (I assume you mean the vaccine -which is not a "cure").  

Quit causing doubt in a life saving vaccine without doing your due diligence. 

[Robert J Anderson]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

"The cure"??? What are you talking about?

Wow!  That is quite the spin!  "50% is pretty serious" huh?

Shall we put that in context and not spin it out of recognition for what it is saying?   

283 cases of myocarditis diagnosed after 5.1 million doses of vaccine given.

136 were definitive or probably caused from Pfizer.

129 cases were "mild".  

In other words, of 5,100,000 doses, there were 136 cases of myocarditis from Pfizer.   What are the odds of getting myocarditis from Pfizer exactly? 0.00002% chance?  

Of 5,100,000 doses there were only 7 moderate to severe cases of myocarditis.  That is a 0.000001% chance of having a moderate to severe case.

Now Robert, would you please do your due diligence and compare those rates of myocarditis to what we see happen from natural infection with Covid?  On top of that, can you please add on the risk of hospitalization (around 100/week in the US) due to COVID in children and death (around 700 in the US), then please tell me if you think we should be "reevaluating" the "cure" (I assume you mean the vaccine -which is not a "cure").  

Quit causing doubt in a life saving vaccine without doing your due diligence. 

Now Pogi, please show us the studies that back up your claim that getting myocarditis from covid greatly outweighs the chance of getting it from the vaccine.  The israeli study shows half got it from the vaccine and half got it from covid itself.

Perhaps you need to stop being such a homer for the pharmaceutical industry?

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Now Pogi, please show us the studies that back up your claim that getting myocarditis from covid greatly outweighs the chance of getting it from the vaccine.  The israeli study shows half got it from the vaccine and half got it from covid itself.

Perhaps you need to stop being such a homer for the pharmaceutical industry?

 

Congratulations, you have just earned my first down vote that I have ever given. 

Please Robert, do your due diligence and actually read it! 

That is not at all what it showed.  The study showed that of the 283 cases of myocarditis that happened after vaccination, half got it from Pfizer and half got it from other Covid vaccines (not from natural infection).  Is somebody posting that interpretation on-line or something? 

Verbatim from the study:

Quote

In our study, the rate of myocarditis in the general unvaccinated population was 1 per 10,857 and can be compared with findings indicating that myocarditis was more common after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination, as reported previously by Barda et al.

At least read it first!   This is unethical fearmongering over a life saving vaccine that actually reduces risk of myocarditis in children as compared to natural infection.  

Quote

Perhaps you need to stop being such a homer for the pharmaceutical industry?

Perhaps you need to stop being a parrot for your unethical, bogus, fearmongering, social media BS.  

I lose patience with crap stunts like this.  This is unjustifiable and blatant misrepresentation and manipulation of data being spread online, influencing people like you who don't do their homework.  You should be irater at whoever shared this misinformation with you and see them for the scum bags that they are.   This is not a game! 

Edited October 29, 2021 by pogi

[ksfisher]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

Congratulations, you have just earned my first down vote that I have ever given. 

Please Robert, do your due diligence and actually read it! 

That is not at all what it showed.  The study showed that of the 283 cases of myocarditis that happened after vaccination, half got it from Pfizer and half got it from other Covid vaccines (not from natural infection).  Is somebody posting that interpretation on-line or something? 

Verbatim from the study:

At least read it first!   This is unethical fearmongering over a life saving vaccine that actually reduces risk of myocarditis in children as compared to natural infection.  

Perhaps you need to stop being a parrot for your unethical, bogus, fearmongering, social media BS.  

I lose patience with crap stunts like this.  This is unjustifiable and blatant misrepresentation and manipulation of data being spread online, influencing people like you who don't do their homework.  You should be irater at whoever shared this misinformation with you and see them for the scum bags that they are.   This is not a game! 

I think at this point he's just trolling you.

[Rain]

Got my covid booster. No side effects.

[pogi]

49 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think at this point he's just trolling you.

I honestly don't know.  I think he may genuinely be deceived.  I guarantee that he doesn't go out and read these studies in his own spare time.  My best guess as to how he came across it is from an antivaxxer spreading misinformation online and trying to manipulate perceptions of the vaccine.  They probably told him what it said and what conclusions to make about it, and because it goes along with his preconceived notions he doesn't even think to verify the information or read the article for himself.   Then he parrots the information here and other places.  And thus the toxic spread of lies is perpetuated across the web.  It preys on the intellectually lazy and takes advantage of those who want to believe what it says as it confirms their own bias. 

Option 2 - he has zero reading comprehension.

Option 3 - he is trolling me. 

My best guess is option 1 (because I see it happen a lot), then number 3, and least likely is number 2.   Not very good options, any way you look at it. 

Edited October 29, 2021 by pogi

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Robert J Anderson said:

Here is a comprehensive study from Israel showing that roughly half of the myocarditis cases were from the pfizer vaccine. 50% is pretty serious.  Perhaps the supposed cure needs to be reevaluated.

Quote

Primary Children's Hospital is seeing an average of eight to 12 children each day due to COVID-19... Three to five of those children on average are in the intensive care unit.

...Pavia said the hospital is also seeing more cases of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, also known as MIS-C.

...It can result in severe illness to multiple organ systems, such as the heart, lungs, blood, kidneys or brain. Children who develop MIS-C are often hospitalized and require intensive care due to low blood pressure, shock or heart issues.

Pavia noted that MIS-C typically begins about 30 days after an original COVID-19 infection, and can affect kids who had only a mild infection. He said the hospital has now seen 120 children with the complication, and continues to observe an increase in the weeks following the start of the school year.

The best way to prevent MIS-C is to prevent getting the infection in the first place, even a mild infection, the pediatric infectious disease specialist said, celebrating the approval of a "powerful new tool" for kids ages 5-11 in the vaccine's impending approval for that age group.

In the last 28 days, unvaccinated residents have faced 19 times greater risk of dying from COVID-19, 10.8 times greater risk of being hospitalized, and 5.3 times greater risk of testing positive for COVID-19 than vaccinated people, health department officials said.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50272568/primary-childrens-still-seeing-increase-in-covid-19-complications-state-confirms-1810-new-cases

But lets disregard this and spread misinformation about the risks of the vaccine in children to dissuade parents from vaccinating their children and fear-monger some more about the vaccine.
 

Edited October 29, 2021 by pogi