Covid-19 News

  • External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • According to Professor Bellomo, the study provides high quality evidence that, in patients with septic shock, the combination of high dose intravenous vitamin C, thiamine and hydrocortisone is not superior to usual care with hydrocortisone alone:

    This is the correct answer. V-C has been used in many treating protocols (up 72g intravenous!!). The results were always mixed most of the time 1/3 positive 1/3 negative rest neutral. So there must be a positive effect but V-C is not the driving factor. Just more research needed.


    The answer of Dr. Marik is simple. Action is needed within 6 hours of symptoms onset. The study broadly violated these rules with an average onset of treatment after 14.5 hours. So this sounds like the Oxford HCQ killers again. So one more Dr. Mengele paper liked by THH...


    If you believe that most experts are part of a conspiracy to hide the truth, but do not have the expertise yourself to evaluate claims,

    Of course you did prove this for you many times...We still wait for your ONS data adjustment. But as said undergrad math is needed....May be to far away for you now.

  • Louisiana’s Largest Health System Fines Employees if Their Spouses Don’t Get COVID-19 Vaccine


    Louisiana’s Largest Health System Fines Employees if Their Spouses Don’t Get COVID-19 Vaccine
    Ochsner Health, Louisiana’s largest health system, covered by TrialSite from time to time for technological innovation, now reaches deeper into the
    trialsitenews.com


    Ochsner Health, Louisiana’s largest health system, covered by TrialSite from time to time for technological innovation, now reaches deeper into the private lives of their employees during these unprecedented times. First, they issued the mandate that employees would need to get the vaccine or lose their job. Now, however, the health system insists that employees get financially punished if their domestic sponsor or spouse can prove they have been vaccinated. Of course, this policy only applies if the partner or spouse is also covered under the health system’s employee benefit package. Specifically, the employee will be dinged a $100 “surcharge” per day until their partner or spouse gets in and gets the jab. Up to $2,400 can be taken from the employee over the year.


    Starting in 2022, this “spousal COVID vaccine fee” could mean that employees get up to $2,400 deducted annually from the employee’s standard bi-weekly paycheck, reported Emily Woodruff for the New Orleans Times-Picayune. The fees don’t extend to children, but the financial coercion reported here is striking, to say the least.


    The news came in a letter to employees accessed by the local media. CEO Warner L. Thomas sent the letter after an “evaluation of plan benefits, services and costs,” reported Woodruff. The CEO went on the record in the letter:


    “The reality is the cost of treating COVID-19, particularly for patients requiring intensive inpatient care, is expensive, and we spent more than $9 million on COVID care for those who are covered on our health plans over the last year.”


    While Ms. Woodruff of the Times-Picayune reports that Ochsner’s move represents a growing trend, so many questions are raised from patient privacy to all sorts of medical liberty-related issues in the context of a risk-based model.


    Clearly, the health system is passing the costs on the employee. The health system (employer) seeks to mitigate COVID-19 costs through forcing the vaccination. But what if there is an adverse event? They do happen. Of course, there is no pharmaceutical company nor hospital liability due to the PREP Act during this declared emergency.


    Call to Action: TrialSite community—what are your thoughts about the action of employers mandating spouses/partners to get vaccinated or pay significant fines


    Ochsner will make unvaccinated spouses of employees pay $200 per month to remain insured
    As the deadline nears for Ochsner Health employees to get vaccinated or lose their jobs, the health system is also increasing pressure for employees' family…
    www.nola.com

  • Patients with Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis in COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia


    Patients with Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis in COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia
    Reports of COVID-19 vaccination adverse events, specifically thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) associated with either the Oxford-AstraZeneca
    trialsitenews.com


    Reports of COVID-19 vaccination adverse events, specifically thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) associated with either the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCov-19) and Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2S), raised notice among physician specialists around the world. A group of experts affiliated with the Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis With Thrombocytopenia Syndrome Study Group organized a study manifesting in an international registry of patients with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) after they received a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. They sought to understand better the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with CVST with TTS (CVST-TTS). Specifically, they sought to test whether patients with CVST-TTS would present clinical features and a degraded prognosis; in parallel, they studied patients with postvaccination CVST without TTS suggesting a clinical profile in this cohort similar to patients with CVST pre-COVID-19 pandemic.


    In this study, the investigators describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients diagnosed with CVST post-COVID-19 vaccination with and without TTS. TrialSite provides a brief summary breakdown for the community and a link to the study for more detailed reading.


    What is CVST and TTS?

    CVST or cerebral venous sinus thrombosis involves blood clots. More specifically, it indicates the presence of a blood clot in the dural venous sinuses (which drain blood from the brain), the central veins, or both. Symptoms can include bad headache, visual symptoms, any number of symptoms associated with a stroke. Treatment is usually done with anticoagulants (medicines that treat blood clotting) such as low molecular weight heparin. Rarely but at times, thrombolysis (enzymatic destruction of the blood clot) is employed.


    TTS or thrombocytopenia syndrome is characterized by thrombosis formation (blood clots) combined with thrombocytopenia (low blood platelet levels) and can be classified into two tiers based on location of thrombosis and severity of symptoms. It is associated with the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine.


    What kind of study was this?

    Observational cohort study using data collected from an international registry of consecutive patients diagnosed with CVST within 28 days of COVID-19 vaccination.


    What was the data of the study?

    March 29 to June 18, 2021


    How many hospitals? Countries?

    81 hospitals in 19 countries


    What was used for reference data?

    Patient data involving cases of CVST between 2015 and 2018 pulled from a known international registry.


    What were the study results?

    The study covered 116 patient cases involving postvaccination CVST, 78 (67.2%) had TTS, of whom 76 had been vaccinated with AstraZeneca; (32.8%) had no manifestation of TTS. A control group of 207 patients with CVST prior to the COVID-19 pandemic were included.


    A total of 63 of 78 (81%), 30 of 38 (79%), and 145 of 207 (70.0%) patients, respectively, were female, and the mean (SD) age was 45 (14), 55 (20) and 42(16) years, respectively.


    As reported in JAMA Neurology, concomitant thromboembolism occurred in 25 of 70 patients (36%) in the TTS group, 2 of 35 (6%) in the no TTS group, and 10 of 206 (4.9%) in the control group while in-hospital mortality rates equaled 47% (36 of 76; 95% CI, 37-58), 5% (2 of 37; 95% CI, 1-18) and 3.9% (8 or 207; 95% CI, 2.0-7.4), respectively.


    The mortality rate was 61% (14 of 24) among patients in the TTS group diagnosed prior to the condition generated interest in researchers as well as 42% (22 of 53) among patients diagnosed thereafter.


    What’s the researcher’s conclusion?

    The study team uncovered a distinct clinical profile and high mortality rate associated with patients meeting criteria for TTS post-COVID-19 vaccination.


    Does this study inform risk of COVID-19 vaccine adverse event vs. SARS-Cov-2 infection?


    No. While CVST-TTS is a severe condition, this study didn’t set out to assess whether the risks associated with a particular COVID-19 vaccine outweighed the benefits. Specifically, the authors point out that the “denominator of persons receiving each of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is unknown, and therefore, we were not able to determine the absolute risk of CVST-TTS after vaccination.”


    Is COVID-19 associated with risk of thrombotic events?

    Yes. In addition, of course to hospitalization and death risks (which have gone down since the onset of the pandemic), the disease itself could pose more risk for blood clotting-related events than the vaccine, according to one study. But no one can definitively declare the risk profile answer here.


    What are some study limitations?

    Limitations include a lack of central adjudication of CVST diagnosis, and study outcome measures could introduce imprecision and bias. The study authors only had data up to hospital discharge, precluding evaluation of long-term consequences of CVST-TTS. The study team notes that “differences in patients with postvaccination CVST and the historical control group should be taken into account as well as other limitations.


    Authors can be found here.


    Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis in SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine–Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia
    This cohort study describes the clinical characteristics and outcome of patients with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination with and…
    jamanetwork.com

  • Dear all,


    The repetition is getting to me + the depressing idea that a site I normally like has become an anti-vax lie spreader.


    Perhaps somone could PM me if W ever gets any data to back up even one of his Wyttenfacts?


    I actually greatly enjoy the data stuff, but not the insults. I can give them as well as anyone - but i get bored when it happens too much.


    THH

  • Perhaps somone could PM me if W ever gets any data to bac

    It all depends on you doing your homework.


    But we all can feel with you and see your desperation as you certainly are not able to prove your FUD.


    Please correct the UK infection rate/100'000 data for age group 40..50 double vaxx with your claimed ONS data!!


    COVID-19 vaccine surveillance reports (weeks 19 to 38)
    Data on the real-world effectiveness and impact of the COVID-19 vaccines.
    www.gov.uk

  • I'm to old to be bothered by insults, I would prefer less heat and more meat so to speak :) as well but I do try to listen to

    all of you and I agree that it's a bit too much on one side sometimes. Anyhow I would like to repeat that It is unlikely that

    there is a conspiracy among the research community. If USA was the only land in the sea then issues with VAERS etc would be more

    interesting to discuss. But we have e.g. Sweden which is one of the most monitored people in the world, where almost everything about

    our health is in databases, with a high medical standard. Our databases in centrally organized with quite good quality of the data therein.

    Expect the order 90-95% correctly filled in medical records. Dead or not is of cause 100% but there is errors in other fields of the record

    that are more difficult to fill in from the full medical record that is more decentralized information closer to the local doctor as there is a huge

    process here to avoid to much sharing and keep integrity of the patients. Anyhow we do not see many of the issues discussed here in our

    databases by out researchers, And then we have is it? 30 something other countries that similarly do not find that. I find the debate sane here with

    mostly experts speaking about what is known here and in the world about covid. Sometimes wrong, yes, but always honest and, when wrong

    admitting they where wrong and then focused to adapt and try to improve. Actually any leader that is always right is not a good leader and a

    political system that does not allow errors is also not optimal. As an engineer I now from a lot of experience that ignoring that things can go

    wrong and implement systems that does not take into account of error is certain to fail miserably. I also know that I would get fired if I never

    accepted that I could make an error, hell I assume every shit I make to have errors and go back and forth even in my sleep to find them.

  • Sorry for the spam. My special skills is actually not math statistics or engineering or cold fusion. I'm a dedicated scheme hacker at heart mostly working in

    the guile scheme community on my free time so when I'm silent I usually have a creative period coding in scheme. I really love a a good coded

    algorithm, I have coded a prolog engine that matches even the most featurefull open source prolog with respect to features (slow though), on guile

    and has also coded python engine and most of the standard modules in scheme so I'm a sort of expert in python and prolog as well. If you want any help

    that relates to this let me know. Java C++, PLC programming at work where I'm more of a practical implementer and not a language expert. If you like programming I

    really would like to invite you to the #guile, #scheme or ##prolog communities on libera, very open and friendly environments, just not very busy.


    As we say,

    Happy Hacking

  • Population Wide Epidemiological Geography Demonstrates Vaccination Doesn’t Correlate to Reduction in SARS-CoV-2 Infection


    Population Wide Epidemiological Geography Demonstrates Vaccination Doesn’t Correlate to Reduction in SARS-CoV-2 Infection
    A Harvard population health geographer and student researcher out of Canada sought to determine if increases in SARS-CoV-2 cases were unrelated to
    trialsitenews.com


    A Harvard population health geographer and student researcher out of Canada sought to determine if increases in SARS-CoV-2 cases were unrelated to vaccination levels across 68 countries worldwide and 2947 counties around the United States. Led by SV Subramanian in Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, this study leveraged Our World in Data for cross-country analysis, collecting and analyzing data up to September 3, 2021. They computed the COVID-19 cases per 1 million people for 68 nations and counties across America and assess the percentage of the population that was fully vaccinated. The study verified TrialSite analyses that nations and countries with higher vaccination rates don’t experience lower Sars-CoV-2 cases per 1 million people. The evidence is absolutely showing the narrative pushed by POTUS as not data-driven nor correct. Rather the evidence points to the need to rethink the vaccine-centric vaccine to eradicate the pathogen in favor of a more diversified, open, and flexible approach. POTUS and his handlers need to immediately cease picking on the unvaccinated—as they continue driving a wedge between people that need to be brought together. Unfortunately, given mounting data points in a different direction, POTUS has succumbed to handlers that seek divisiveness as a tool for political gain, not actual care for patients and the overall population.


    They found that at the national level, they could not distinguish between the percentage of fully vaccinated people and new COVID-19 cases in the last seven days, meaning that vaccination was not leading to less cases. TrialSite has found his to be the case both at the national level in the USA and when looking at the most vaccinated nations such as Iceland.


    Ironically in this study, the authors found a “marginally positive association such that counties with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.” Using Israel as an example, the authors demonstrate how over 60% of that Mideastern population—fully inoculated—“had the highest COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last 7 days.”


    Moreover, as the authors reviewed Iceland and Portugal, they also identified a “lack of meaningful association between percentage population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases.” In both cases, each nation had 75%+ of the population fully vaccinated yet experienced greater numbers of COVID-19 cases per 1 million than nations such as Vietnam and South African, which only had 10% of their respective populations immunized against COVID-19.


    USA Findings

    When delving into American data, the authors have a similar pattern to other countries. They found “no significant signaling of COVID-19 cases decreasing with higher percentages of population fully vaccinated.”


    Conclusion

    The mass vaccinates to eradicate thesis is increasingly under fire as a faulty one—although driven by influential figures such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and chief medical advisor to POTUS, the whole premise that the pandemic is one of the unvaccinated appears by the day to be more a political ploy than science-based statement.


    The researchers in this study show that complete reliance on a mass vaccination strategy to mitigate and overcome COVID-19 “needs to be re-examined, especially considering the Delta (B.1.167.2) variant and likelihood of future variants.”


    The authors are correct that “Other pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions” are needed in addition to the immediate dropping of divisive and destructive politics of the type POTUS has employed more than likely influenced by handlers such as Fauci.


    The authors here share the change to a different, data and scientific rather than political driven narrative is of utmost concern. Declaring, “Such course correction, especially with regards to the policy narrative, becomes paramount with emerging scientific evidence on real-world effectiveness of the vaccines.”


    Lead Research/Investigator


    S.V. Subramanian, Ph.D., Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health


    Akhil Kumar,


    Call to Action: Check out the study published as correspondence in the European Journal of Epidemiology.


  • Ironically in this study, the authors found a “marginally positive association such that counties with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.” Using Israel as an example, the authors demonstrate how over 60% of that Mideastern population—fully inoculated—“had the highest COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last 7 days.”

    We found this too some weeks ago.



    The vaccine terrorists (THH) will be enjoyed. The share holders of Pfizer became aware of this few days ago and did sink the Pfizer share by about 100$ or 30%...

  • This study is of no value at all as the infected are collected over 1 year without any mention of the CT cycle number. Everything above CT 28 is no real infection above 32 is just fake positive. Further the time of vaccination is not given. This is important as we know that the most vulnerable get CoV-19 from the first shot already and after this are missing.

    Related...this article caught my attention the other day: https://www.lifesitenews.com/o…ide-danger-of-covid-jabs/


    They claim the CDC's CT guidance to hospitals are used to skew the stats to inflate the unvaccinated case numbers:


    "The CDC also has two different sets of testing guidelines — one for vaccinated patients and another for the unvaccinated. If you’re unvaccinated, CDC guidance says to use a cycle threshold (CT) of 40, known to result in false positives. If you’re vaccinated, they recommend using a CT of 28 or less, which minimizes the risk of false positives"


    Some other interesting information in the article. Not sure it is all true (some like the CDC classifying anyone <14days from last jab as unvaccinated we already knew about) as they do not source well, but if it is as they claim I would like to know the rationale for the CDC's decisions.

  • DR Campbell positive on new

    Anti Viral treatment.


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • Shane - ivermectin is parasite medicine.


    Equine ivermectin (easiest way to get it) is horse parasite medicine. Not controlled quite the same way as when used for humans, though I'm not sure it is very dangerous. Doctors don't like people taking vetinerary products though.


    The idiots who get in to trouble with it are ODing themselves.

    You don't get it. The Mirror's undercover reporter's sting operation resulted in the back alley buying of pills intended for human use made by MSD. The horse version is in a paste. I know little about horses, but I would guess if you tried and put a pill down its throat, you would lose a finger or two.


    Of course, the story is more appealing when a reporter lies, and makes it appear to be about an illicit black market for "horse parasite medicine" as the article says. Oh, there they go again, those silly Qanon/right winger/conspiracy nuts, buying horse paste. Tish, tish.

  • Is COVID-19 associated with risk of thrombotic events?

    Yes. In addition, of course to hospitalization and death risks (which have gone down since the onset of the pandemic), the disease itself could pose more risk for blood clotting-related events than the vaccine, according to one study. But no one can definitively declare the risk profile answer here.

    Just one blatant misinformation from TSN. Do you think the person writing this is not aware of the literature, or deliberately over-egging vaccine risks relative to COVID? I don't know.


    The risk profile from blood clotting events from COVID and from vaccines is well summarised in that self-controlled study of 20 million UK people.


    You can see precisely what are the relative risks (they are much higher for COVID infection than for vaccine). And this type of study, self-controlled, is uniquely free of any possible confounders.


    Risk of thrombocytopenia and thromboembolism after covid-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 positive testing: self-controlled case series study
    Objective To assess the association between covid-19 vaccines and risk of thrombocytopenia and thromboembolic events in England among adults. Design…
    www.bmj.com


    Objective To assess the association between covid-19 vaccines and risk of thrombocytopenia and thromboembolic events in England among adults.

    Design Self-controlled case series study using national data on covid-19 vaccination and hospital admissions.

    Setting Patient level data were obtained for approximately 30 million people vaccinated in England between 1 December 2020 and 24 April 2021. Electronic health records were linked with death data from the Office for National Statistics, SARS-CoV-2 positive test data, and hospital admission data from the United Kingdom’s health service (NHS).


    Participants 29 121 633 people were vaccinated with first doses (19 608 008 with Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) and 9 513 625 with Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2 mRNA)) and 1 758 095 people had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. People aged ≥16 years who had first doses of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines and any outcome of interest were included in the study.

    Main outcome measures The primary outcomes were hospital admission or death associated with thrombocytopenia, venous thromboembolism, and arterial thromboembolism within 28 days of three exposures: first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine; first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine; and a SARS-CoV-2 positive test. Secondary outcomes were subsets of the primary outcomes: cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and other rare arterial thrombotic events.


    Results The study found increased risk of thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (incidence rate ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.47 at 8-14 days) and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (5.27, 4.34 to 6.40 at 8-14 days); increased risk of venous thromboembolism after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (1.10, 1.02 to 1.18 at 8-14 days) and after SARS-CoV-2 infection (13.86, 12.76 to 15.05 at 8-14 days); and increased risk of arterial thromboembolism after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination (1.06, 1.01 to 1.10 at 15-21 days) and after SARS-CoV-2 infection (2.02, 1.82 to 2.24 at 15-21 days). Secondary analyses found increased risk of CVST after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (4.01, 2.08 to 7.71 at 8-14 days), after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination (3.58, 1.39 to 9.27 at 15-21 days), and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test; increased risk of ischaemic stroke after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination (1.12, 1.04 to 1.20 at 15-21 days) and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test; and increased risk of other rare arterial thrombotic events after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (1.21, 1.02 to 1.43 at 8-14 days) and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.

    Conclusion Increased risks of haematological and vascular events that led to hospital admission or death were observed for short time intervals after first doses of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines. The risks of most of these events were substantially higher and more prolonged after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination in the same population.

  • Correlation is not causation. But, particularly here, where infection rate depends on history of past R values.


    For example, a country with no COVID control measures would have a higher faster peak than one that did (where control is vaccine, lockdown, etc).


    Therefore after say 12 months (given just one wave) it would have herd immunity and a much lower rate than a neighbouring country with control methods.


    We then have complications: multiple variants - spread of variants in different countries at different times, effects of vaccination and lockdowns, fact that without very complete vaccination there is not much effect on R, fact that some countries 9or states) have naturally higher spreading rate, and the rate influences the infection level which infuences political response to it, etc.


    The association here is meaningless.


    What is meaningful is that COVID control measure do not get rid of COVID. Lockdowns slow it down but this is only a delaying tactic. Vaccine (unless it gets R < 1, something current vaccines are not likely to do with delta) also only slow it down.


    Of course vaccines have the effect that with a high ifection rate you can still have low hospital demand and deaths, as in the UK, and life as normal.


    You do not need population epidemiology to see this!


    You might think that delaying is pointless but it might prove worthwhile. if a drug comes along that halves death rate, then by delaying an epidemic peak you have saved 50% of your population. And by flattenning peaks you prevent hospitals from overflowing and therefore have enough intensive care beds.


    In the early days of the pandemic delaying was justified by let us wait till we have the vaccine. With a fully 9and recently) vaccinated population you have 20X fewer deaths coming from an epidemic peak and the same amount less of heath resource use. It turns a disaster into a nasty version of winter flu.


    Maybe the US politics does not see things like this - i'm sorry - but as the most prolific vaccine warrior here it is how I (and any aware sane person) would see things.


    One thing though. the UK has a high infection rate (and has been consistently high). It is nowhere near herd immunity from natural infection. It has static 9juts) infection numbers from combo of 20% now natural immunity and 80% vaccine immunity.


    Both these types of immunity wane so in terms of infection rate it is still a delaying action.


    luckily we have advantages in the future:

    • Even though resistance wanes, vaccination, or, better, vaccination + infection, reduces disease severity. (Infection alone does that too, but you need very high rates to gte enough people infected for that to help at population level)
    • New drugs are coming online. If ivermectin works that will e known in a few months. Molnupiravir may make a big difference - it is a well-targeted smart anti-viral. There are many other possibles.
    • We will eventually get better vaccines, though maybe as with Flu need shots every year.


    So a holding action, keeping people alive for now while not needing lockdown, is not a bad idea.


    You can tell from my posts here that while I detest people who are ideological and push anti-vaccine memes for some intellectual reason - not able to see the big picture - i agree that any simple-minded anlysis of the complex interation between epidemic control, epidemics, and population health and freedom will fall down.


    It is just that at the moment vaccines are so obviously the most powerful available measure, I can't understand why anyone would not acknowledge that.


    And although vaccines (like drugs) have risks - COVID vaccines more so than most others - the relative risks of vaccines and COVID a long way way favour vaccines. Unfortunately people don't look at risks mathematically. They vcount memes, and think no smoke without fire, and if aware of risks will tend not to get vaccinated because the vaccine risk is immediate on vaccination, the COVID risk is uncertain and in the future.


    that leads naturally to personal decisions which are strongly against personal interests. It is why i'm sympathetic with governments who (unlike me) simplify things and say the vaccines are safe. That is true - as a simplification. And any more accurate message will misinform people who react to ideas rather than cruching all the numbers and coming to a calm informed decision. There are lots of those reactors around.


    I worry here that some might be reators - in the sense that the weight of scientific sounding posting here is strongly on the antivax side of the argument. No matter that the quality of those posts is rubbish - that fact is not obvious and probably not believed by many here. So then the pro-vax side wins arguments only when i spend a lot of time in detail rebutting, dredging up detailed subgroups stats, a even then because some here will ignore anything contrary to their views you have to dollow logical arguments carefully to see the real pro-vax resolution.


    It is why the internet advice is not to engage with anti-vax memes intellectually and instead engage with the feelings people have that lead them to find such memes attractive. I agree with the psychology there but I like the stats, I am not much interested in PR, so it is not what i do.


    Unfortunately it is what the other side (TSN is pre-eminent in doing this well) does. These are not however two sides arguing equally. For example:


    • ivermectin is clearly not a good bet. That does not mean it has no effect - any drug could have some effect. The evidence so far is not on its side, and there has now been a lot of evidence. I have seen no evidence of suppression - far from it - the political campaign means that many big trials are looking at it - to be fair there are not that many viable repurposed drugs to look at. Many people react to the way moist of the ivermectin hype comes from people with an anti-vax agenda. That is true, but as with all such arguments it should be ignored. What should not be ignored is the overall result of those meta-analyses, and also the level of bias uncovered in the low quality pro-ivermectin trial results.
    • remdesivir is of only marginal use - it seems. I agree that it got regulatory approval relatively easily because it was backed by money, but the evidence for it while not great is a bit better than the evidence for ivermectin (mainly because positive not negative lab results, and less real-world negative evidence). one weird factor allowing it to keep regulatory approval is that people can't black market it - its approval does no harm.
    • molnupiravir is interesting because there is so little real world evidence for or against, and the lab evidence is great. So I am staying very hopeful, but not counting chickens there. I'm not clear about safety profile.
    • the let us have a cocktail that will save us view is one I bought into early in this story. It seems very reasonable. I'd still want to have a good diet, and in terms of immune system the biggest easy intervention is take lots of exercise build up muscle mass (which I would be rubbish at doing). But you can see from here that people view a cocktail of possibly beneficial but most likely of no benefit drugs as providing large levels of protection. That is a misjudgement.
    • And, finally, the vaccine good or bad arguments. it amazes me that they are still being waged when the evidence is so stacked on one side. people maybe want to see how governmnets might have cut corners, be underestimating risks. All possible. But personally, when the risk balance is so strong, it is silly to care about a 10% adjustor. The arguments over personal risks for children are interesting. I thought the US was quick to approve vaccines for them. that is lucky for the rest of the world, we now have so much safety info that judgements can be made. The argument there is mostly about whether vaccines should not go to old people in other countries because they would have a much larger effect there. If you are a 15 year old in Portsmouth dying of COVID who would definitely not die had you been vaccianted earlier that seems a poor argument. But then anecdotes do not make good whole population governance.
    • The vaccine infection data (efficacy against infection). It is sort of irrelevant, given what the current vaccines do and don't achieve. But the mRNA vaccines give you about 50% infection protection some time after second dose. Info from israel shows very strong benefit 2 - 4 weeks out from a booster dose (factor of >10X better protection from infection). How that wanes - we will find out - but that it is so good initially means boosters work. They also provide some 10X better protection against serious illness than vaccine 6 months old, which itself provides some 5X better than no vaccine. So you can see why personally I'm glad (for selfish reasons) we have them in the UK for over-50s.
    • The vaccine safety equation. I find myself scared of needles, etc. But realistically more scared of a COVID infection that does such nasty things to all the organs in your body. The amounts of foreign substance from vaccinations are so minuscule - and much smaller than the amount of nasty foreign RNA you get from a COVID infection. People see natural immunity as somehow less risky because of no artificial stuff. But, in terms of somatic effect, COVID RNA and generated proteins is much more nasty both in terms of quality (more different foreign things) and quantity (millions of times more of it, reproducing, infusing cells throughout the body with powerful immune-twisting chemicals) than the little bits of COVID proteins made by the vaccines. And the mRNA vaccine itself has level 1000s of times lower than the small bit of foreign protein it makes. Vaccines remain dangerous because allergic reactions to foreign stuff is what our bodies sometimes do, even tiny amounts. But allergic reactions get worse with larger quantities, and infections provide that. Which is why that Portsmouth 15-year-old dies of COVID myocarditis.


    That is the trouble. Anecdotes make great anti-vax stories. The W - my uncle caught COVID and was fine story sort of sounds convincing even though a moment's thought will show you that it is expected, and zero evidence. W probably believes it is good evidence - that is the way human brains work.


    THH

  • Blood Thinner Drugs Reduce COVID-19 Hospitalization & Mortality Based on Latest University of Minnesota & Collaborators


    Blood Thinner Drugs Reduce COVID-19 Hospitalization & Mortality Based on Latest University of Minnesota & Collaborators
    As recent research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) indicates, COVID-19 patients at times can succumb to abnormal blood clots
    trialsitenews.com


    As recent research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) indicates, COVID-19 patients at times can succumb to abnormal blood clots triggered by intense inflammation—raising the risk of severe illness and death. Recently a trio of academic medical centers sought out to verify this hypothesis. A study led by University of Minnesota with collaborators at Mayo Clinic and University of Basel, Switzerland researchers, conducted a prospective cohort study centering on subjects 18 years of age and up diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 4th to August 27th, 2020. Involving 12 hospitals and 60 clinics of M Health Fairview system (USA). The study team investigate linkages between A) 90-day anticoagulation therapy among outpatients before COVID-19 diagnosis and the risk for hospitalization and mortality and B) inpatient anticoagulation therapy and mortality risk. Led by Sameh Hozayen, MD, MSC, assistant professor of Medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School, the study team sought to test whether anticoagulant drugs used to inhibit blood clots who previously struggled with clots in the lungs or legs benefitted from use during the earlier part of the pandemic. Anticoagulants, of course, are used to address secondary clots. The evidence strengthens that this class of economical drug has a positive impact on COVID-19 outcomes.


    The Study Team

    Using de-identified data from M Health Fairview and after obtaining appropriate ethical committee approval, the study was a collaborative effort between U of M Medical School faculty Chris Tignanelli, Michael Usher, Zachary Kaltenborn, Surbhi Shah, and Diana Zychowski; U of M School of Public Health faculty Ryan Demmer, Pamela Lutsey, and Sydney Benson; and Basel University Pathology Institute faculty Alexander Tzankov and Jasmin Haslbauer.


    The Results

    With the study uploaded to Lancet Open Access Clinical Medicine, the study team found a few important points, including 1) those patients on anticoagulants prior to SARS-CoV-2 infection are hospitalized less frequently even if they are older and struggle with chronic conditions; 2) these blood thinner drugs lessen the mortality rate by almost half regardless if they are used before or after SARS-CoV-2 infection or for that matter if they were first administered when the patient was admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 care and 3) patients in the hospital will benefit from anticoagulants reports the University of Minnesota Medical School News writer Kat Dodge.


    Challenge

    The investigators found one problem with medication adherence. Suppose patients would simply follow through and take their anticoagulant medication. In that case, they can “potentially reduce the bad effects of COVID-19’ reports Dr. Hozayen. The investigator reports that at the health system (M Health Fairview) as well as other centers, “there are protocols for starting blood thinners when patients are first admitted to the hospital for COVID-19.” This is because these investigators are convinced blood thinners are “a proven vital treatment option.”


    Lead Research/Investigator

    Sameh Hozayen, MD, MSC, assistant professor of Medicine at the University of Minnesota Medical School


    Call to Action: Momentum grows to include anticoagulants as part of standard COVID-19 care. Read the entire study here.


    DEFINE_ME