Covid-19 News

  • The mechanisms of action of Ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2: An evidence-based clinical review article


    Considering the urgency of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, detection of various new mutant strains and future potential re-emergence of novel coronaviruses, repurposing of approved drugs such as Ivermectin could be worthy of attention. This evidence-based review article aims to discuss the mechanism of action of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2 and summarizing the available literature over the years. A schematic of the key cellular and biomolecular interactions between Ivermectin, host cell, and SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 pathogenesis and prevention of complications have been proposed.

  • Abstract

    Considering the urgency of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, detection of various new mutant strains and future potential re-emergence of novel coronaviruses, repurposing of approved drugs such as Ivermectin could be worthy of attention

    This is also the Conclusion.. not just the abstract.

    "Considering the urgency of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, simultaneous detection of various new mutant strains and future potential re-emergence of novel coronaviruses, repurposing of approved drugs such as Ivermectin could be worthy of attention."

    Its good to see that something survived the editorial 'process'

    Its very much a watered down non-controversial conclusion..

    but the editor is still "cautious." no hippocratic oath to worry about...just.. "status"


    • 22 June 2021

      Editor’s Note: Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by the editors and the publisher. A further editorial response will follow the resolution of these issues.

  • To those here who say there is no censorship against vaccine alternatives, especially ivermectin, this is a indefinable example.!

    I have viewed several of their videos and agree that they are spot on with delivering news, not conjecture. This is Nazi / Communist type action.

    Some here will disagree... that ivermectin needs "more study". BS! This is not about ivermectin, it is about censorship, plain and simple.

    All I can say to those who agree with this censorship is "remember, YOU will be next! " It is always the case.

  • Still I think that a lot of deaths seam to not be reported in VAERS and it is incomplete.

    There was a deep investigative paper about VAERS reporting that did find out that at most 10% of all cases end up there. Worst case was 99% missing. I think with deaths we are in the 10% region.

    Why:: Everything in VAERS is damage to big pharma at least from the marketing/finance point of view - but these guys today rule these companies. Everything in VAERS is damage to healthcare thanks to hospital ratings! So pharma pay hospitals for not reporting what is great for both.

    So basically what we today see is a war between finance=greed=FM/R/J/B mafia and the population. There is no more freedom of press. Most (a large majority) deputies in Western state parliaments are FM/R/J/B because for election you need money and the media owned by FM/R/J/B.

    So what we did win/learn thanks to CoV-19 is the deep insight that western states are just a slight margin better than China.

    Study Conclusion

    The study concluded that the lack of reporting or selective reporting of adverse effects in published clinical trials can promote a false impression of safety and misinform clinical and policy decisions and that the NHS, policy makers, and patients all need reliable information about the benefits and adverse effects of treatments to make good, informed decisions.

    As said: Studies are made to show either 60% or 70% improvements, that finally decide on how high the price for a drug can be lifted. Look ate the opioids story and teh criminal company owner that still keeps some billions made of killing 1'000'000 Americans...

    As an internal rule of FM/R/J/B :: No member can go to jail except for protecting the group. This "victim" then is rewarded with a large chunk of money... Far more than e.g. the opioids victim families ever will get....

  • The media is finally taking notice!

    Heart inflammation link to Pfizer and Moderna jabs

    The European Medicines Agency said the side-effects were more common in younger men.

    The medicines safety body said the benefits of Covid vaccines continue to far outweigh any risks.

    But doctors and patients have been advised to be aware of the symptoms of heart inflammation

    These include chest pain, a feeling of breathlessness and a pounding or fluttering heartbeat. Anyone with these symptoms should see a doctor.

    Two conditions were linked to the vaccines - inflammation of the heart muscle itself, known as myocarditis, and inflammation of the fluid-filled sac the heart sits in, known as pericarditis.

    The EMA analysis of cases found:

    Pfizer-BioNTech - 145 cases of myocarditis and 138 cases of pericarditis out of 177m doses given

    Moderna - 19 case of myocarditis and 19 cases of pericarditis out of 20 million doses given

    Five people died. The review said they were all either elderly or had other health conditions.

    The UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has also been investigating the link.

    It reported: "A consistent pattern of cases occurring more frequently in young males and shortly after the second dose of the vaccines.

    "These reports are extremely rare, and the events are typically mild with individuals usually recovering within a short time with standard treatment and rest," it added.

    Most cases are thought to be within 14 days of vaccination.

    While the risk is very rare, it is more likely to develop in young people - who are currently the focus on the vaccination campaign in the UK.

    I'm fully vaccinated, but how can I prove it?

    When will I get my second jab?

    What do over-18s need to know about the vaccine?

    Concerns about the side-effects have already played into the UK debate around vaccinating children, who are at lower risk of Covid.

    Myocarditis and pericarditis will be officially listed as side-effects in the UK and Europe, mirroring a move by the regulators in the US last month.

    "The chance of these conditions occurring is very low, but you should be aware of the symptoms so that you can get prompt medical treatment to help recovery and avoid complications," the EMA said.

    The link with heart inflammation was found only in the vaccines that rely on mRNA technology to train the immune system.

    There was no link found for vaccines such as Oxford-AstraZeneca or Janssen, which use a genetically modified virus.

    However, the EMA has advised anyone with a history of capillary leak syndrome should not be given the Janssen vaccine. This is a rare but serious syndrome in which fluid leaks from blood vessels in the body.

  • Concerns about the side-effects have already played into the UK debate around vaccinating children, who are at lower risk of Covid.

    And the 110'000 nervous disorders in Europe up to date from Pfizer,.. 185'000 from Astra !! 36'000 Moderna.

    tiny numbers....

    confirm and go to letter C --> covid

    Compare with Ivermectin. Total 1400 cases for 40 years about 2 new cases overall/month.

    Astra has some 80'000 new cases/month 50% with/ including nervous disorders.

  • Don’t buy the hysteria: The Delta variant is actually less dangerous…ually-less-dangerous/amp/

    On Wednesday, the Delta variant became America’s dominant COVID strain. Yet it’s no cause for panic: The numbers — especially in Britain, which Delta hit hard — show it causes far fewer hospitalizations and deaths, while vaccines remain highly effective against it.

    Most media hype the fear: “Americans should be more concerned about the Delta variant,” a Forbes piece declares. “Scientists have good reasons to sound the alarm,” New York magazine insists. “It’s hard to understand how worried to be,” a CNN analysis claims.

    No, actually, the numbers are clear. Yes, Delta, first found in India, does appear more contagious than the Alpha variant first found in Britain — about 50 percent more transmissible, which is why it’s outpaced Alpha there.

    Rising cases even prompted Prime Minister Boris Johnson to delay the end of restrictions. But the huge case spike didn’t lead to similar hospitalization or death spikes, so Britain’s back on track to lift regulations July 19.

    The seven-day average of new UK cases is above 25,000, the highest since late January, when the weekly average had just dropped from a peak of 50,000. But only 2,000 COVID cases are hospitalized, vs. nearly 40,000 in January. Daily deaths average under 20, vs. more than 1,000 in January.

    Similarly: Israel, despite a spike in Delta cases, is seeing deaths in the single digits over the last month.

    In other words, Delta looks to be less lethal than previous variants, despite media scare stories.

    This makes sound scientific sense: Evolution favors variants that are more contagious — but also ones that are less deadly because killing the host reduces the chances for spread.

    And the vaccines still work well. Public Health England found Pfizer’s vax was 96 percent effective at preventing hospitalization from the Delta variant. An Israeli study found it was 94 percent effective at preventing severe illness.

    Yes, Australia extended a two-week lockdown into three in the face of its Delta spike. But its vaccination rate isn’t even 10 percent. While America didn’t meet President Biden’s goal of 70 percent of adults with at least one shot by July 4, we’ll be there any day now.

    US cases are rising mainly in areas lax with the vax. States with below-average jab rates have triple the number of new cases compared with above-average states. Arkansas has five times the national average of new cases — because not even 35 percent of its residents are fully vaccinated, vs. nearly 60 percent nationwide.

    And while Delta caused a 10 percent rise in daily US cases late last month, COVID hospital admissions actually dropped.

    Overcautious health bureaucrats miss the forest for the trees: Dr. Anthony Fauci is now urging even the vaccinated to still mask in areas of high transmission. Los Angeles County wants everyone to mask up again indoors, following the World Health Organization’s recommendation. Worse, education officials across the country are questioning school reopening plans as Delta cases rise.

    Wrong: The only rational response is to work harder to get the holdouts jabbed. Biden announced Tuesday he’ll send “COVID-19 Surge Response teams” to get more shots to primary-care doctors and pediatricians, expand mobile clinics and even go door to door. That’s the smart way to keep the country on the road to normalcy, even as the fearmongers try to hold us back.

    • Official Post

    You have to be careful about the use of deaths vs infections data. Normally there's a 3-4 week lag between getting sick and dying. For example, a senior UK politician announced that there were 27,334 positive cases recorded on Monday, with 358 patients admitted to hospital and nine deaths within 28 days of a positive test. This sounds promising, but going back 4 weeks, a likely time for seriously sick people who would later die to be admitted there were less than 9,000 cases. So the real death rate is 3X the apparent one.

  • FM1 - you really should know better than that.

    Let's split this into two separate questions:

    (1) does that opinion piece you posted contain any information in support of its claims?

    (2) what is the evidence for delta lethality?

    (1) evidence given fro COVID delta being less lethal

    hospitalisation low in UK => delta less lethal.

    No, hospitalisation low in UK => 87% over 18 1st dose vaccinated, 65% first dose only vaccinated.

    I can show you the real world figure from UK and Israel that put protection from serious disease at 93% after two doses. Even after one dose their is significant protection, though not nearly as good.

    There are reasons why things like mask mandates on public transport remain a good idea (even in the UK)

    Imagine, if you are one if you are one of the people immunocompromised etc for who the vaccine does not work, what you would feel? Maybe you reckon that freedom for everyone not to wear masks (and therefore certainty that most will not do this) counts more than the well-being of those who for no fault of their own remain vulnerable? That is I guess a political decision.

    Even with high adult vaccination rates all of our children will catch COVID. Some will need hospital treatment, some will die. I'm not saying we can avoid that, but we need to smooth out the child deaths so there is not a peak in hispital intensive care bed demand and more children die than needed.

    Viruses become less lethal over time

    Any scientist looking at COVID will tell you this generalisation does not (at the moment) apply to COVID. Viruses become less lethal if they can reproduce better by being less lethal. That is the case if milder infections go undetected and therefore spread teh disease. thus far however the variants that are evolutionarily successful manage it by improving the binding of COVID with our cells, so that smaller doses will overwhelm defences and become infections. That mechanism also makes the virus more lethal. We don't know when these "easy gain in cell infection" mutations will stop and then, perhaps, we might get "less severe disease" mutations outperforming the curreant variant.

    (2) How lethal is delta (to the unvaccinated?)

    I have not found any good evidence on this yet. It took a very long time to work out the true lethality of original COVID. there was some evidence from the UK that it might be more lethal. The CFR for delta in the UK is very low, because most cases, and nearly all of the more at risk cases, are vaccinated. There was some evidence that delta was more lethal looking at the unvaccinated section of the population but this is not (to me) reliable. we need to wait for more research.

    Still, the internet meme that delta is obviously less lethal (coming from populations whose at risk segment has been vaccinated) is just wrong.


    Delta is less lethal (a lot less lethal) if you are vaccinated. You can still catch it, but with on average much less severe illness.

    Delta lethality for those unvaccinated who have not previously caught COVID is unknown. There are arguments for it to be more lethal - because it has mutations that increase infectivity of human cells which mean it is more likley to overwhem the immune system. There was some guardian rported data from 38K cases in the Uk that it was more lethal. I would not trust this early data and anyway have not found a preprint. Newspaper reports without source data are suspect.

    It is ironic that the segment of the population who shouts most loudly that delta is nothing to worry about is the same segment who will be hesitant to vaccinate themselves, or their children. Wel, for those not vaccinated, super-high delta COVID rates in the population (a given) will mean they will ctach it. we will end up knwing, at great human cost, how lethal it is for those not vaccinated.

    Disclaimer. I am what you might call a "vaccine warrior". I see the (not yet fully known) risks from COVID as being by far personally more dangerous than the (not fully known0 risks from vaccines,. From mRNA vaccines we have estimates of risks (of reported heart inflammation , usually temporary - not death) between

    1:10,000 - the selected anti-vax links posted here - which i now want to examine again to see how those figures are claculated - they seem way out of line.

    1:100,000 - estimated from MRHA after 11,000,000 2nd doses

    1:1,000,000 - estimated by EHA after 100,000,000 2nd doses

    The MHRA says it has received 102 reports of inflammation following doses of the Pfizer jab, and seven cases following administration of the Moderna jab.

    Roughly 18 million first and 11 million second doses of the Pfizer vaccine have been given out in the UK, while around 880,000 Moderna first doses have been given.

    The EMA says, after 177 million total Pfizer doses were given out, 283 inflammation cases were reported.

    And after 20 million Moderna doses, 38 inflammation cases were reported.…l-outweigh-risks-12352560

    These figures all need some careful scrutiny:

    (1) I've considered 2nd doses because reports of heart inflammation are much higher then.

    (2) Heart inflammation (caused by an immune response) is a potentially serious side effect leading to death or serious injury but in most cases - especially the young, it is temporary with no permanent effects.

    (3) The young appear more likely to have this aberrant immune response (not surprising) but also are relatively less likely to have serious problems from it.

    (4) Comparing this with the natural rate of heart problems in older people the vaccination signal is not seen because lower than other rates. In young people it is seen. it is a difficult comparison to do precisely since both vaccine side effects and delta COVID lethality and long-term effects are not fully understood. But we have to do it.

    The equation for "is it safe to vaccinate young people" should be made relating known COVID risks and known vaccine risks. Given that everyone who is unvaccinated will catch COVID it is a straight comparison. There are unknown long-term COVID risks - known to exist at a relatively high rate (long COVID) and unknown long-term vaccine risks (not known to exist, and some upper bound on them from lack of a signal 1 year on from phase II/III testing).

    FM1 - interested in how you see the analysis above. Am I a "vaccine warrior" slanting my judgement of relative risk? What am i leaving out? I do not want to mislead anyone here. though we cannot give medical advice here - god knows we are not qualified and i would not want the responsibility, we are all personally making shc decisions for our families and we should do this with the best posisble information.

  • COVID-19 Hit Affluent Whites & Blacks Harder in Twist Findings in New Study…st-findings-in-new-study/

    An interesting new study published in the AACC’s The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine indicates that both Blacks falling on the lower socioeconomic spectrum and affluent whites were more likely to get infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. That finding contradicts many expectations, or perhaps bias-driven assumptions as to who was actually more at risk during this pandemic. The study was conducted by a multi-center team led by a corresponding author from the University of Washington School of Medicine and Washington Kaiser Permanente.

    The Research Question

    Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S., racial disparities have been evident in both COVID-19 prevalence and access to pandemic-related healthcare services. Racial and ethnic minority groups are disproportionately represented among COVID-19 cases, but are disproportionately underrepresented among those who’ve received the vaccine. Given that race is a sociocultural construct, it is therefore important to understand how different sociocultural factors contribute to these inequities so that the U.S. can implement informed policies and programs to mitigate them. As the country struggles to reach herd immunity through vaccination, it is crucial to achieve a deeper understanding of the causes of disparities at the start of the pandemic, as it is likely that these same causes are hindering COVID-19 vaccination efforts in the present.


    Breaking research published in AACC’s The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine has found that, at the start of the pandemic, the two demographic groups most likely to get COVID-19 were low socioeconomic status Black people and high socioeconomic status White people. This indicates that the impact of socioeconomic status on COVID-19 prevalence is race-specific, an insight that could help to guide efforts to overcome gaps in COVID-19 vaccine distribution.

    The Study

    To shed light on this issue, a team of researchers led by Dina N. Greene, PhD, of Washington Kaiser Permanente in Seattle, analyzed the SARS-CoV-2 test results and demographics of 126,452 patients at eight different healthcare institutions in both urban and rural areas across the U.S. From this analysis, they found that from February – May 2020, Black patients made up 38.2% of all positive test results but only 22% of all tests, while White patients made up 54.5% of all tests but only 27.7% of positive test results. The researchers also found that socioeconomic status was a significant predictor for contracting SARS-CoV-2. Surprisingly, however, socioeconomic status had the opposite effect on White and Black patients, with higher socioeconomic status increasing the odds of a positive test for White patients, but decreasing the odds for Black patients.

    Did Affluent Whites Feel Insulated?

    The study authors speculate that one potential explanation for this finding is a lack of concern among affluent White people due to the perception that they’re insulated from harm. As an example of this, the researchers cite a poll of 8,000 California voters in the Sacramento region during the first months of the pandemic. This poll found that almost one-third of White respondents never feared for their physical safety during California’s initial lockdown order, which is more than three times greater than the number of Blacks who felt that way.

    About AACC

    Dedicated to achieving better health through laboratory medicine, AACC brings together more than 50,000 clinical laboratory professionals, physicians, research scientists, and business leaders from around the world focused on clinical chemistry, molecular diagnostics, mass spectrometry, translational medicine, lab management, and other areas of progressing laboratory science. Since 1948, AACC has worked to advance the common interests of the field, providing programs that advance scientific knowledge, expertise, and innovation.

    Lead Research/Investigator

    Dina N. Greene, PhD, Washington Kaiser Permanente in Seattle

    Call to Action: Check out the full study here.

  • National English Public Health Study Indicates Children Deaths from COVID Extremely Rare…rom-covid-extremely-rare/

    A recent UK-based study authored by researchers from University College London as well as the University of York, University of Bristol, and the University of Liverpool represent perhaps the most complete such study yet on record concerning children and COVID-19. Analyzing public health data across England, the team of investigators found that COVID-19 isn’t as dangerous to children as many suspect and that mass media portrays on a near-nightly basis. In fact, the overwhelming majority of children that have died due to SARS-CoV-2 actually involved underlying health circumstances. Complicating any true risk analyses is challenged by the high relative prevalence of asymptomatic and non-specific disease manifestations. The authors conclude key analyses must factor in the differences among children and young people that have died due to SARS-CoV-2 versus those who passed away due to alternative conditions while coincidently testing positive for the novel coronavirus. Risk within the cohort isn’t evenly distributed as children over 10, from ethnic minorities (Asian or Black) and with comorbidities face a higher risk than the rest. TrialSite suspects other social determinants of health such as socioeconomic levels could be a factor. The study still needs to go through the peer-review vetting process but discussion is merited. The authors note that of all the children and young people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 99.995% survived. This means that the mortality rate for children and young people that die directly due to SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19, represents a mortality rate of 2/million for the 12,023,568 children and young people residing in England. Hospitalization, the study finds, is also rare in this cohort.

    COVID-19 Deaths due to Underlying Conditions

    The team of authors reported that 105 children and young people died as a result of “all causes during the first pandemic year in England.” Out of that total, 61 of the individuals also happened to have tested positive for COVD-19, while 25 died directly due to the COVID-19 infection. Another 22 passed away as a result of acute infection and 3 died from PIMS-TS.

    Uneven Risks within General Cohort

    The researchers further identified that those children and young people 10 and over, as well as individuals from ethnic minorities such as Black and Asians as well as subjects with comorbidities, experience higher rates of mortality as compared to other children.

    Vaccine Implications

    The BBC ran a report on the study and quoted lead researcher Prof. Russell Viner who suggested it wasn’t necessarily a straightforward answer whether to vaccinate or not. But the research certainly suggests that select groups facing more risk (e.g. those that are older on the spectrum and have co-morbidities and/or ethnic minorities) for example.

    The researcher was quoted, “I think from our data, and in my entirely personal opinion, it would be very reasonable to vaccinate a number of groups we have studied, who don’t have a particularly high risk of death, but we do know that their risk of having severe illness and coming to intensive care, while still low, is higher than the general population.”

    The BBC article indicated that when it comes to vaccination of children it will be helpful to study the data gleaned from mass vaccination campaigns in the United States and Israel, as it could be helpful in decision making.


    The English research team found that “SARS-CoV-2 is very rarely fatal in children and young people, even among those with underlying comorbidities.” The authors emphasized these results indicate consideration for all stakeholders—from the children’s families to health policymakers and doctors concerning “future shielding and vaccination” activities.

    Lead Research/Investigator

    Clare Smith, NHS England and Improvement, Corresponding Author

    Call to Action: The study results were uploaded to ResearchSquare.

    Deaths in Children and Young People in England following SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first pandemic year: a national study using linked mandatory child death reporting data

  • You have to be careful about the use of deaths vs infections data. Normally there's a 3-4 week lag between getting sick and dying.

    With delta you get early symptoms and thus also can get early treatment. With Ivermectin I expect only death among people age > 75 or with comorbidity factors.

    Nobody needs to die from CoV-19. This happens only in totally corrupt states. Look at Uttar Pradesh! Poor rural state performs best world wide. Except states (NZ) in total isolation.

  • The authors note that of all the children and young people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 99.995% survived.

    61 tested positive with what PCR cycle? A positive test is no reason to be in the list of CoV-19 deaths. Severe symptoms must be there too. We here had no deaths among these age groups. Statistics still shows 1 case but imported and very sick on arrival.

    So UK kids are way more in danger ?? Really and why?

    To calm down: The mortality from flu is much higher than from CoV-19 - among kids. But we had no flu this year... Now shall we count the excess survivor kids due to CoV-19?

  • Thank you toffoli for reminding us all about VAERS (the US adverse vaccine reaction database). Stefan above has I think pointed out how difficult it is to extract vaccine safety info from it or anything similar. Basically, at the low rates we are measuring you get a lot of people, especially older ones, naturally having problems. In addition COVID (before vaccine reponse has build up) can lead to excess figures. The US system is particularly unfortunate because anyone can report adverse reactions and anti-vax propaganda there is strong, so there will be much over-reporting. The VAERS database shows reported problems coincidental with vacines, not problems from vaccines.

    In each country the vaccine regulators have their own different monitoring systems for reporting adverse vaccine reactions. Let us stick on short-term ones. The long-term ones (if any) are more difficult to detect at low rates - they get tracked from phase II/III trials and are not (so far) found from any COVID vaccine - they are pretty unusual in vaccines - , but this is with only 50K people or so. Maybe over time we will be able to amalgamate data from all such trials. In any case the long-term effects of COVID are also very uncertain and known to be bad (long COVID). So personally I would compare short-term risks, where things are more certain in both cases.

    Personally again, I would go with the MRHA figures, because the UK with a unified well functioning health system and a lot of transparency (means you can trust stuff) should be picking up more of the problems and analysing them fairly. We are getting 1:100,000 reports of heart inflammation from the mRNA vaccines. That is expected since adverse immune responses in a very few people is always expected when you inject them with stuff. And it is a short-term side effect and in most cases it goes away with no lasting effects. however it is serious, and can have lasting effects or death. (i'd guess maybe 25% of these reports result in death - not sure - I am sure we have the figures somewhere).

    I cannot comment on whether the US strong feeling that US medical establishment and government medical regulators are out to kill people by misrepresenting safety data. All i can say is that i do not believe such things happen everywhere. In Europe we have many independent medical regulatory systems (and the EHA). It would have to be an awfully big conspiracy and i don't believe it.

    I think one thing you maybe forget is that all these safety judgements in emergency situations are uncertain. We have incomplete data.

    Equally, the risks of COVID are uncertain, we have incomplete data, for the same reasons.

    The overwhelming majority of people accept these two uncertainties but looking at available evidnece see the known and posisble unknown COVID rsiks as being a lot higher than the known and unknown vaccine risks.

    That puts the cross-over for age at which your nearest and dearest are less at risk from COVID (which you can be sure they will catch with no vaccine) than from the vaccine very low. As time goes on we can be more precise about risks and that cut-off age will probably (I hope) get lower. Both risks (vaccine and COVID) are low for 14 years olds. But I'd want to do the right thing if I still had a 14 year old child and could get a vaccine. I think i'd go for vaccination as being lesser of two evils. In that case I'd do a more careful an longer scan of all the uptodate figures than are in this post to try to be surer.

  • The authors note that of all the children and young people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 99.995% survived.

    That puts the death rate at 1:20,000

    Much higher than the current bounds on vaccine AR rates. But it is a meaningless statistic unless you give a precise age cutoff for young people.

  • With delta you get early symptoms and thus also can get early treatment. With Ivermectin I expect only death among people age > 75 or with comorbidity factors.

    Nobody needs to die from CoV-19. This happens only in totally corrupt states. Look at Uttar Pradesh! Poor rural state performs best world wide. Except states (NZ) in total isolation.

    W - you do remember the exponential age dependency of mortality in COVID?

    Perhaps you were forgetting the amazingly youthful population age distribution in Utta Pradesh? Nearly half of the population under age 20?…ar-pradesh-population.php

  • First, I am vaccinated and not an anti Vaxer, nor do I spend any time reading those sites. Your personal opinion of trialsite shows your bias. I vaccinated because I'm heading towards 70 and have household considerations. No data from the UK shows delta is more lethal the vaccines are now in real-world time at 86% effective from death and now lower for mild and severe cases. Yes you are a vaccine warrior if you still continue to push children vaccination with all the data now available that points to cardiac issues in even healthy kids. The data clearly shows children severe cases or death from Covid is more rare than vaccine issues. Ivermectin in trials and studies has proven effective even in long covid. Oh and I really don't believe anything I read until I can find a second source. I don't think you can say the same.

    Sorry about the ramblings I just got up

  • W - you do remember the exponential age dependency of mortality in COVID?

    Perhaps you were forgetting the amazingly youthful population age distribution in Utta Pradesh? Nearly half of the population under age 20?…ar-pradesh-population.php

    So what is your point? Kids don't get it? Seasonal? Can't be vaccination so exactly why was there such a sudden drop Thomas? If kids don't get it why vaccinate? If it's not seasonal, why the sudden drop, can't be ivermectin, not enough good info for using. So Thomas why the drop in cases?

  • The authors note that of all the children and young people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 99.995% survived.

    That puts the death rate at 1:20,000

    Much higher than the current bounds on vaccine AR rates. But it is a meaningless statistic unless you give a precise age cutoff for young people.

    This is exactly why you are a vaccine warrior, you play samantics the data for 18-30 year olds seems pretty solid the 12-17 is less clear but still disturbing