Madelaine McMasters Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said: You would think the loss of 400k lives due to misinformation would be enough but nope. 4 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said: 9 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said: https://www.salon.com/2021/03/29/deborah-birx-says-trumps-covid-response-may-have-cost-400000-lives-did-she-do-enough/ That was the second link returned by googling "400,000". More than 546,000 Americans have died from COVID-19. first link from 'american lives lost pandemic" Arielle, read what @Pamela Galli actually said. She counted lives lost due to "misinformation" about the pandemic, not Covid-19 itself. There's a difference, and you missed it. ETA: Pam, if I too missed your meaning, say so. Edited March 30, 2021 by Madelaine McMasters 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 1 minute ago, Madelaine McMasters said: Arielle, read what @Pamela Galli actually said. She counted lives lost due to "misinformation" about the pandemic, not Covid-19 itself. There's a difference, and you missed it. ETA: Pam, if I too missed your meaning, say so. Though I am not going to look for the sites again, there are those who blame the entire death toll on misinformation. Reality I think is quite a ways away from that. USA especially had some extreme events happening last year that really pushed up the numbers if those numbers actually reflect people who died of covid vs those who died with covid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 32 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: About c19early.com Did a "massive international study" show a much lower COVID-19 mortality rate in countries where hydroxychloroquine was prescribed to patients? No, that's not true: The "C19study" is not a massive international study. It is an anonymous collection of words and graphics referring to other scientific papers, but does not itself qualify as a scientific paper or study: No medical expert has taken responsibility by putting their name on the contents; no data source is given for the information conveyed by the graphic chart in the study; the written material in the "C19study" misstates the results of at least two real scientific studies it lists as proof of its claims. This is what I mean. Check your sources. I'm all for using any means necessary to fight Covid. With supporting FACTS. I don't see where you pulled that "massive international study" quote from but then isn't a meta-analysis exactly that? A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies. Meta-analysis can be performed when there are multiple scientific studies addressing the same question, with each individual study reporting measurements that are expected to have some degree of error. Wikipedia I already stated their reasonings for not putting their names on the site and paper as they convey it in their FaQ. The studies and data sources are all listed under each sub-section with direct links to the studies themselves. When you say they misstate the results, do you mean they tweaked the actual data or the conclusions the original authors had? So what do you propose should be used for fighting Covid in those instances where the vaccines are not available or cannot be safely used on segments of the population? You've been all about vaccines and virulently against any alternatives but that leaves no room for all those who fall between the cracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 15 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said: USA especially had some extreme events happening last year that really pushed up the numbers if those numbers actually reflect people who died of covid vs those who died with covid. Because there are so many ways to die of COVID-19, the numbers still undercount the effects of the virus. For example, few cardiac fatalities are tested post mortem for the virus, even though we now know that a substantial share of them are directly caused by effects of the undetected virus. I've come to realize that one of those "extreme events" in the US last year, the election, will end up responsible for saving many lives around the globe. Were it not for the election, the previous administration would have followed its instinct to go full Bolsonaro and none of that Operation Warp Speed money would have poured into risky large-scale production of vaccines before they were authorized for use. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said: So what do you propose should be used for fighting Covid in those instances where the vaccines are not available or cannot be safely used on segments of the population? What Trump took when he was seriously sick: a monoclonal antibody cocktail, and dexamethasone to control cytokine storms. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 (edited) What's a few hundred thousand lives, I mean between friends, of course..? Edited March 30, 2021 by Love Zhaoying /sarcasm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 Just now, Qie Niangao said: What Trump took when he was seriously sick: a monoclonal antibody cocktail, and dexamethasone to control cytokine storms. Did you happen to note that all the Canadian Provinces have now put a stop to AstraZeneca vaccines for those under 55 and over 60? "The National Advisory Committee on Immunization, which provides guidance for the country, updated its advice, and is now recommending the shot not be given to those under the age of 55, while its potential link to blood clots is investigated further. This follows weeks of questions in Europe about what connection the dose might have to blood clots that a small number of recipients have experienced. Multiple provinces, including Ontario, Alberta, Prince Edward Island and Quebec, have now paused rollout of their doses." https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2021/03/29/new-astrazeneca-restriction-just-the-latest-bump-in-covid-vaccines-long-winding-road.html?rf Official solutions are becoming increasingly limited as they seem to find the side effects of vaccines to be not so rare. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 14 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said: I don't see where you pulled that "massive international study" quote from but then isn't a meta-analysis exactly that? A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies. Meta-analysis can be performed when there are multiple scientific studies addressing the same question, with each individual study reporting measurements that are expected to have some degree of error. Wikipedia I already stated their reasonings for not putting their names on the site and paper as they convey it in their FaQ. The studies and data sources are all listed under each sub-section with direct links to the studies themselves. When you say they misstate the results, do you mean they tweaked the actual data or the conclusions the original authors had? So what do you propose should be used for fighting Covid in those instances where the vaccines are not available or cannot be safely used on segments of the population? You've been all about vaccines and virulently against any alternatives but that leaves no room for all those who fall between the cracks. Not I haven't been against anything but your cited website actually. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 2 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: Not I haven't been against anything but your cited website actually. Sorry Rowan but I see that as weak justification. It had no political bias and simply correlated all the available studies for alternative remedies. Are you evading my question about your stance on suitable alternatives for those falling between the cracks or worse, if vaccines wind up being worse then what it is supposed to prevent? 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 18 hours ago, Rowan Amore said: I have no resistance to what works. My resistance is always to the questionable websites you continue to post. Nothing more. 1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said: This is what I mean. Check your sources. I'm all for using any means necessary to fight Covid. With supporting FACTS. Try reading what I wrote. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 In case I haven't been clear enough for some people, I have nothing against using any means necessary to fight Covid. Posting crap websites is what I'm against in support of ANY agenda. Clear now? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 4 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said: Did you happen to note that all the Canadian Provinces have now put a stop to AstraZeneca vaccines for those under 55 and over 60? Wait, we're back on vaccines again? Okay... ... well I haven't seen anything about an over-60 limitation, but the under-55 limit makes some sense at this point because it's easy to use up all the near-term expected AstraZeneca vaccine on those over 55 and use Pfizer and Moderna for those few younger than 55 who meet the current eligibility criteria. There will be a lot more data on which to base guidance by the time there's any AstraZeneca vaccine to spare. (The dirty little secret here, I suspect, is that they really should only restrict it from females under 55 who had been pregnant at some point in their lives, who seem to be the only folks who got the rare blood clot, hypothesized to be a special auto-immune response in just that particular population. The under-55 thing makes sense because the immune response "mellows" with age, and pregnancy—carrying around a whole alien organism—might well prime the immune system in unusual ways. But just between Canadians, I cannot imagine the Trudeau administration ever denying females anything while allowing males to have the same thing, so we'll just pretend it's purely an age-specific effect.) 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 4 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said: Wait, we're back on vaccines again? Okay... ... well I haven't seen anything about an over-60 limitation, but the under-55 limit makes some sense at this point because it's easy to use up all the near-term expected AstraZeneca vaccine on those over 55 and use Pfizer and Moderna for those few younger than 55 who meet the current eligibility criteria. There will be a lot more data on which to base guidance by the time there's any AstraZeneca vaccine to spare. (The dirty little secret here, I suspect, is that they really should only restrict it from females under 55 who had been pregnant at some point in their lives, who seem to be the only folks who got the rare blood clot, hypothesized to be a special auto-immune response in just that particular population. The under-55 thing makes sense because the immune response "mellows" with age, and pregnancy—carrying around a whole alien organism—might well prime the immune system in unusual ways. But just between Canadians, I cannot imagine the Trudeau administration ever denying females anything while allowing males to have the same thing, so we'll just pretend it's purely an age-specific effect.) LOL @ alien organism Thanks for that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 12 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said: Wait, we're back on vaccines again? Okay... ... well I haven't seen anything about an over-60 limitation, ok that was apparently the recommendation a month ago and now they have flip flopped on that March 15. https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-not-recommended-in-people-65-and-older-naci-1.5329033 OTTAWA -- Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) is not recommending the use of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine in individuals aged 65 years and older, due to “the insufficiency of evidence of efficacy in this age group at this time.” This sort of flip flopping is what makes people lose confidence in the system of medical, pharma and political realms. It's really a small wonder there is so much conspiracy theories around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 Bolsonaro has been pushing hydroxychloroquine in Brazil since early in the pandemic. He had Brazil's military pharma labs produce it, and Brazil's health system (SUS) recommend it. For months now, people have been claiming that it works very well (Arielle's big graphic claims 23-73% "improvement", whatever that means) and saves lives. Bolsonaro got Covid, took HCQ and proclaimed it cured him, 100%. People have claimed that big pharma got it banned in the US to they could sell expensive vaccines. HCQ proponents cite lower per capita per day infection and death rates in developing countries that have systemic familiarity with HCQ for malaria treatment and were using the drug against Covid-19. Many of those same people were arguing against their own conclusion by simultaneously claiming that western democracies (particularly the US) were exaggerating case and death rates, to sell expensive vaccines. Mexico just adjusted its Covid-19 death toll figures up by 60%. The vaunted magic of third world alternative treatments for Covid-19 is crumbling. Brazil is currently losing 12.6 people per million per day (and rising), with 5700 people per million per day becoming infected . At the US peak in early January (before we'd vaccinated even 2% of the population), we were at 10.5 deaths per million per day, with 24,300 people per million per day becoming infected. At our peak, we were diagnosing >24K new patients per day and losing ten of them. Brazil is currently diagnosing only 5700 per day and losing nearly 13 of them.* All those numbers are awful. Brazil's are more awful, and getting worse. The US sent two million doses of HCQ to Brazil last May. I don't think any of it has been used. Brazil didn't need them, already having a national stockpile of the stuff to treat malaria. The Brazilian government, from Bolsonaro down to regional health care officials, has been recommending use of HCQ. Patients have been demanding it. Doctors, following the research (much of it conducted in Brazil) have been hesitant to prescribe it. India is the world's largest producer of HCQ (70%), and tried banning exportation of it last year to conserve it for Covid-19 use at home. Trump's threat to retaliate caused a reversal of the export ban. Indian pubic front-line workers were given HCQ tablets to distribute prophylactically as they canvassed neighborhoods looking for Covid-19 cases. India's case and death rates are now rising at the highest rate since the pandemic began. For various reasons, their numbers are not nearly as bad as ours were, or Brazil's are, but they're rocketing in the wrong direction. I like to come at these questions from different angles. Since the first suggestion of HCQ as an effective treatment for Covid-19, I've been expecting to see major perturbations in the HCQ market. Even in the most recent forecasts, the bulk of expected HCQ market growth is still being attributed to increased Malaria pressure, brought about by mosquitoes basking in... global warming. Here's a graph of the price of HCQ pills in the US last year. That's not surprising, the FDA pulled EUA approval of HCQ for Covid-19 on June 15. The current price per unit in India is around 60 rupees for a strip of 10. That's about eight cents per pill. For comparison, paracetamol (Tylenol/acetaminophen) is about a penny a pill. There doesn't seem to be strong market demand for HCQ, even in nations that heavily promote it. The causes of our various situations are far more complex than my simple analysis comprehends, but if HCQ is a magic bullet, I'd expect continued and significant use, somewhere on Earth. *My calculations are based off current worldometer.info data. 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 12 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said: This sort of flip flopping is what makes people lose confidence in the system of medical, pharma and political realms. It's really a small wonder there is so much conspiracy theories around it. This reminds me of Dad giving me driving directions... Dad: Turn left up ahead. Me: K. Dad: Turn right here. Me: K. Dad: Take the next left. Me: K Dad: at the light, turn right. Me: What the hell are you doing? You keep changing your mind! Dad: Okay, take the next right. Me: K. Dad: Take the next right. Me: K. Dad: Take the next right. Me: We're gonna die in this loop. Dad: See! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 24 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said: This sort of flip flopping is what makes people lose confidence in the system of medical, pharma and political realms. It's really a small wonder there is so much conspiracy theories around it. You know, I'd pretty much forgotten the "not yet for seniors" thing, it was so completely academic at the time. There was no AstraZeneca vaccine to speak of in Canada then, with little on the horizon for months. (We're just now starting to get hand-me-downs from the States, thankfully.) It was pretty well known that this age-specific guidance would be updated once results came in from studies with older patients, probably well before there was vaccine available to use: Quote “Efficacy in this age group will be updated as additional data becomes available from currently ongoing trials,” said Health Canada. and indeed that turned out to be the case. That's not to say AstraZenaca (and let us not forget Oxford) screwed the pooch over and over again, undermining their credibility and, unfortunately, that of COVID vaccines in general. It's a real problem. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted March 30, 2021 Share Posted March 30, 2021 51 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said: There doesn't seem to be strong market demand for HCQ, even in nations that heavily promote it. Things that make you go, "Hmmmmmm.." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 3 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said: There doesn't seem to be strong market demand for HCQ, even in nations that heavily promote it. The causes of our various situations are far more complex than my simple analysis comprehends, but if HCQ is a magic bullet, I'd expect continued and significant use, somewhere on Earth. I think Ivermectin is the new bullet based on the amount of videos and articles I have been noting from various sites. It seems to have a better efficacy than HCQ did and doesn't come with the political baggage. "Ivermectin, traditionally used as an anti-parasitic medication, has gained more and more attention as a potential preventative or treatment measure for COVID-19. We discuss the evidence behind these uses with a focus on COVID-19 prevention using Ivermectin. Specifically, a study on several thousand healthcare workers that reported an 83% decrease in COVID-19 infections in those that took two doses of Ivermectin." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 5 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said: 10 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said: I think Ivermectin is the new bullet based on the amount of videos and articles I have been noting from various sites. It seems to have a better efficacy than HCQ did and doesn't come with the political baggage. What happened to bleach, and bright lights? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 I'm probably just gonna pass on this whole vaccination thingy.. Think I'm Immune.. hehehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evah Baxton Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 If there is enough vaccine to vaccinate everyone who wants / needs it, will you be afraid of the people who chose not to vaccinate? I haven't heard a good reason why I should be worried about others once I am fully vaccinated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyssa Greymoon Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 54 minutes ago, Evah Baxton said: If there is enough vaccine to vaccinate everyone who wants / needs it, will you be afraid of the people who chose not to vaccinate? I haven't heard a good reason why I should be worried about others once I am fully vaccinated. Never getting COVID under control. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted March 31, 2021 Share Posted March 31, 2021 59 minutes ago, Evah Baxton said: If there is enough vaccine to vaccinate everyone who wants / needs it, will you be afraid of the people who chose not to vaccinate? I haven't heard a good reason why I should be worried about others once I am fully vaccinated. Depends what "expert" you listen to. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.