Covid-19 News

Quote from JedRothwell

That is incorrect. Experts say they know how much this type of virus mutates, and rate is low. Much lower than influenza. They are confident a vaccine can be found that will drive it into extinction if it is deployed correctly.

That's what the experts at the CDC and elsewhere say. I do not know where you are getting your information, but it t wrong.

I fear that this will change as we put more pressure on the virus with vaccines. usually there is a lot of immunity that forces viruses to change. with everyone pristine there is less pressure to mutate and do this for the virus now. So from a naive reason im a bit worrid. well see.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I, and most people, disagree with you about vaccines. They are effective against Flu, and this virus looks a better target than Flu. Since routine over-65 vaccination deaths from Flu are vastly down, and that is without vaccinating the entire population and getting herd immunity, so knocking out the epidemic. Don't expect 100% effectiveness, but do expect, eventually, enough to knock it out of the population in any country that has good vaccine take-up, and also to provide > 75% protection from mortality. one of my concerns for the US is that vaccine take-up will be very poor, but I'd hope not.

The question is what reasonable medication as prophylaxis will reduce the severity of COVID. I don't think a few internet videos and outlying doctors with poor evidence makes HCQ a good bet. We still don't know for sure. But, you should ask yourself, how can Zelencko or any oteh chalk face doctor know, without an RCT, that their favourite cure actually works. You will notice that those who are convinced HCQ is good dose all their patients, and thus do not even anecdotally have a control group. most people recover from COVID. The true IFR is around 0.7%. if you are seeing outpatients with mild cases of the disease that does not go up much. If you are seeing patients who already have low O2 levels (the normal criterion for hospital admission) then the mortality rate is much higher.

The doctors who are genuinely convinced their treatment works will never gather evidence about whether it works. you need comparable samples of 500 patients both on and off the therapy, at least, to get even anecdotal data. No-one who is convinced a therapy helps will collect this for obvious reasons.

The ones who are not convinced, and try RCTs, find it does not work. Pay attention to what Stefan is saying about Sweden where there is absolutely no politics in the HCQ issue.

As for Ivermectin the problem is that the theory is less good than HCQ (because EQ50 looks a bit high compared with typical safe doses, though i am not certain about this). I just have not seen any evidence. I wish very much we had more and broader testing of possible therapies. Too mnay people jumped on HCQ, leaving less capacity to test other things. But even so we are getting better therapies.

What you want is a good prophylatic. You are right, there is not enough proper testing. It is very difficult to arrange, for obvious reasons. I don't myself see any of the candidates here as having strong evidence, so make sure anything you take on a 10% bet it might help a bit if you do get COVID is very safe. Zinc, Vit D, possibly Quercetin would be my list. And, as Stefan says, don't neglect other precautions: hand-washing, social distancing, masks. (Effectiveness of masks to you personally is still being debated - but there seems some view they might help. They certainly help others).

Do you really want to increase your chances? Read the modern scientific literature on how to boost your immune system generally, but specifically T-cell immune system, since this seems to be key to beating COVID, and follow it. Probably the biggest easily changeable factor is exercise, and then sleep.

Much more speculative, and difficult, catch the correct type of coronavirus cold (only about 10% of colds come from CVs).

THH

Display More

I guess we will have to disagree. I did not say a vaccine was ineffective in keeping societal flu cases down. I said it was usually less than 50% effective.

"Reviews of past studies have found that, on average, the flu vaccine is about 50% to 60% effective for healthy adults who are between 18 and 64 years old. The vaccine may sometimes be less effective."

https://www.mayoclinic.org/dis…s%20be%20less%20effective.

Even if it was 75% effective, that means 25% might still get the flu. So one a personal level, vaccines do not guarantee you any immunity on the personal level. 60% is quite low and as Jed often says... that is what the experts say not me.

Your confidence in RCT's is much greater than mine. While I am not a statistician, I am quite familar with experimental design. (DOE). There are so many variables that it is quite difficult to make a robust and fool proof test. Especially when it comes to medicine, because so much of the data is subjective. It is a doctor's opinion of status etc. And then the design is quite subjective as well. Just look at the Recovery fiasco. It is not just a few posters here that are knocking it.

And while I take your thoughts on many subjects as logical and valid, I guess I disagree somewhat on this. RCT's are certainly valuable, but they are not the last word in my opinion. I am not just looking at a few examples of outlying doctor tales posted here either. I have done my share of searching the internet, read various sources and have personal witness as well. In my opinion, your lack of RCT does not out weight the available evidence for prophylactic use.

Remember, I am not talking about deaths door treatment. I am not talking about severe case hospitalization treatment. I am talking "I have the sniffles treatment". I do not think you have ANY evidence that HCQ is ineffective for this function NOR that it is dangerous (under physicians care) We should not cloud or mix the two various scenarios up.

HCQ and Remedisvir are quite the pair. Yet I do not understand why you are so against HCQ but I do not see you stating the same with Remedisvir. Do you honestly think the data for Remedisvir is good? That people should be paying $$$$$ big dollars for it? So "harmless" HCQ taken early... cheap and possibly a very large up side.... Remedisvir... only given late... extremely costly... and the data says you probably will still die, just a couple days later.

Now why not a campaign against it?

Quote from stefan

I fear that this will change as we put more pressure on the virus with vaccines.

Experts say it does not change with other viruses of this type. I do not know the details; you can read the technical papers and mass media summaries in places like the New York Times and Scientific American.

Also, you do not put "pressure" on a virus with a vaccine. You kill it off. A vaccine does not work the way an antibiotic works on bacteria. When you stop taking the antibiotic before you have finished the full course, this leaves some variations of the bacteria alive. Those variations can multiply and you end up with antibiotic resistant varieties. That does not happen with viruses. The virus that a vaccine is specifically targeted to eradicate is eradicated. There are no vaccine-resistant forms of polio or smallpox in any human population. The only reason there is still any polio is because some populations have not been vaccinated. When they are vaccinated, polio is eradicated as effectively as it was in 1955.

With seasonal influenza and some other rapidly changing viruses, there are many varieties and a vaccine can only be target 3 of them. If the patient happens to have one that is not covered, he may get influenza despite the inoculation, although it is often a mild case.

It is true that a mutated but still closely similar virus to one form of influenza might be partially killed off by a vaccine targeted to the original form. Influenza is a moving target. The surface features that the vaccine targets (literally targets) change constantly and rapidly. But experts say there are not many similar but changing forms of COVID-19 that would not be targeted by a vaccine. The target area on the surface of the virus is the same in all varieties examined so far, and it is unlikely to change.

Quote from Bob#2

To me, much is about risk versus possible benefits. Masks have a reasonable theory behind them. There is zero risks in wearing them. (Keeping one clean of course) The benefits could be a lower viral load (good for me) and reduced exposure for others. (Good for them) So I do not see why wearing masks are such a big deal.

Yes they are uncomfortable and a bit of a nuisance. However that said.... I do not have to wear one 10 hours a day. I have a lot of contact with people, but for short periods of time. So my mask is on during close contact and then off, while driving, working at home, etc. I might have different views if I had to wear one for 8 hours straight!

As far as effectiveness, see my response to THH.

As you say, the theory is clear. The question is how this pan out in real life. The flip side is that even a nonsymptomatic spreader with mask will spread less. The downside is that people may feel less inclind to stay at home when sick mildly, to distance less and also missuse the mask and you end up loosing. Add to this that if you are the rare user of a mask, at least here, everybody will avoid you and you will get larger distances to people due to this signal. If everybody use them you will find that you get closer to people because now everybody have them and the signal is lost or at least not as strong. So masks are more complicated then the theory. So actually if i where at risk i would prefer that masks are not mandatory and use a mask myself

Quote from JedRothwell

Experts say it does not change with other viruses of this type. I do not know the details; you can read the technical papers and mass media summaries in places like the New York Times and Scientific American.

Also, you do not put "pressure" on a virus with a vaccine. You kill it off. A vaccine does not work the way an antibiotic works on bacteria. When you stop taking the antibiotic before you have finished the full course, this leaves some variations of the bacteria alive. Those variations can multiply and you end up with antibiotic resistant varieties. That does not happen with viruses. The virus that a vaccine is specifically targeted to eradicate is eradicated. There are no vaccine-resistant forms of polio or smallpox in any human population. The only reason there is still any polio is because some populations have not been vaccinated. When they are vaccinated, polio is eradicated as effectively as it was in 1955.

With seasonal influenza and some other rapidly changing viruses, there are many varieties and a vaccine can only be target 3 of them. If the patient happens to have one that is not covered, he may get influenza despite the inoculation, although it is often a mild case.

It is true that a mutated but still closely similar virus to one form of influenza might be partially killed off by a vaccine targeted to the original form. Influenza is a moving target. The surface features that the vaccine targets (literally targets) change constantly and rapidly. But experts say there are not many similar but changing forms of COVID-19 that would not be targeted by a vaccine. The target area on the surface of the virus is the same in all varieties examined so far, and it is unlikely to change.

Display More

experts here say that we probanly will not kill it and it will linger in the background for a long time. Well se I expect that depends on how effective the vaccine is and the number of people that will take the vaccine. Im really not that optimistic about kiling it.

Quote from JedRothwell

The only reason there is still any polio is because some populations have not been vaccinated. When they are vaccinated, polio is eradicated as effectively as it was in 1955.

Tetanus vaccines were developed in 1924. They are still 100% effective. Tetanus viruses have not evolved into vaccine resistant forms. There are practically no recorded examples of patients who got tetanus after a vaccination within the recommended duration of effectiveness (10 years).

https://www.historyofvaccines.…/content/articles/tetanus

Tetanus has not been eradicated because it survives outside the human body. Polio and smallpox do not exist outside the body, so they can be eradicated.

Most experts say COVID-19 is a relatively slow-evolving species, like tetanus and polio. (Maybe not that slow, but slow enough. I do not know the details.)

Quote from JedRothwell

Also, you do not put "pressure" on a virus with a vaccine. You kill it off. A vaccine does not work the way an antibiotic works on bacteria. When you stop taking the antibiotic before you have finished the full course, this leaves some variations of the bacteria alive. Those variations can multiply and you end up with antibiotic resistant varieties. That does not happen with viruses. The virus that a vaccine is specifically targeted to eradicate is eradicated. There are no vaccine-resistant forms of polio or smallpox in any human population. The only reason there is still any polio is because some populations have not been vaccinated. When they are vaccinated, polio is eradicated as effectively as it was in 1955.

Vaccines do cause resistance to viruses.

Immunity after a vaccine is not 100% - or else why would they have so many rounds of OPV in India. So, inherently there is an opportunity for variants.

Vaccines cause complex interactions in the population and that is why Polio is not eradicated in somec countries. With IPV it would be closer. But then again, the root causes of poor sanitation and ill health are the way to really eracidate the Indian/Philippines situations.

As for Polio being eracidated in the 1950's it is also not true. One of the tell-tale signs is reclassification of polio cases to transverse myletis. As you know they played games with stats then too, just like the "died with Covid" today.

There are good resources on this such as the video Dissolving Illusions on youtube. Get educated.

Quote from stefan

experts here say that we probanly will not kill it and it will linger in the background for a long time.

Not the experts I have read in the New York Times, Sci. Am., the CDC or the W.H.O. Which experts did you read? Where are they?

There are always differences of opinion between experts. Especially physicists. Especially physicists working on cold fusion. Ask 3 of them a question and you will get 5 different answers.

Quote from Navid

Vaccines cause complex interactions in the population and that is why Polio is not eradicated in somec countries.

Nope. The vaccine works as effectively as it did when it was developed. (The Sabin version in 1959.) There are no vaccine resistant versions of polio. The only reason it has not been eradicated is politics, war and stupidity have prevented some populations from getting the vaccine.

Quote from JedRothwell

Nope. The vaccine works as effectively as it did when it was developed. (The Sabin version in 1959.) There are no vaccine resistant versions of polio. The only reason it has not been eradicated is politics, war and stupidity have prevented some populations from getting the vaccine.

You are so utterly misinformed about the history of this (which is complex) that a debate isn't even worthwhile.

Here is a quick resource to show that vaccine derived polio is greater than wild polio.

It is a complex space. Educate yourself then you can have an opinion.

Quote from JedRothwell

Not the experts I have read in the New York Times, Sci. Am., the CDC or the W.H.O. Which experts did you read? Where are they?

There are always differences of opinion between experts. Especially physicists. Especially physicists working on cold fusion. Ask 3 of them a question and you will get 5 different answers.

Well then we have to wait and see which expert is right. the mutation rate is 1/2 of influensa. Does not look that big difference to me and here we have a pristine virus that infects way more than 2x people compared to influenca. I know that corona is kind of optimal and you see basically less strains out there in the wild because of this (and not because of the mutation rate) but i have a lingering feeling that the expert i refer to have a point.

Quote from Bob#2

My oldest son however weighs 138 pounds and cannot gain an ounce. (38 years old)

That was about me until I hit 50 now its 170. But my BMI is 24 so I am OK.

Obesity is the #1 (by some reports) the main "controllable" comorbidity here in the US. You can't do much about age or a lost lung.

Quote from Navid

You are so utterly misinformed about the history of this (which is complex) that a debate isn't even worthwhile.

Nope. I have read everything you pointed. "Vaccine derived" forms are not the same kind of thing as antibiotic resistant bacteria. No expert in this article or any other expresses doubt that if the war and politics could be pushed aside, we could eradicate polio. It is no more resistant to the vaccine than it was in 1959.

Letter to Fauci ..from the Land of the Free.

Will Fauci bother to answer?

https://www.thedesertreview.co…ea-80b5-bf80983bc072.html

"Open letter to Dr. Anthony Fauci regarding the use of Hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19

• By George C. Fareed, MD Brawley, California Michael M. Jacobs, MD, MPH Pensacola, Florida Donald C. Pompan, MD Salinas, California

"You are largely unchallenged in terms of your medical opinions.

You are the de facto “COVID-19 Czar."

This is unusual in the medical profession in which doctors’ opinions are challenged by other physicians in the form of exchanges between doctors at hospitals

, medical conferences, as well as debate in medical journals.

You render your opinions unchallenged, without formal public opposition from physicians who passionately disagree with you.

It is incontestable that the public is best served when opinions and policy are based on the prevailing evidence and science,

and able to withstand the scrutiny of medical professionals.

Yet, you continue to reject the use of hydroxychloroquine,

except in a hospital setting in the form of clinical trials, repeatedly emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting its use.

Hydroxychloroquine, despite 65 years of use for malaria, and over 40 years for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis,

with a well-established safety profile, has been deemed by you and the FDA as unsafe for use in the treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 infections.

Your opinions have influenced the thinking of physicians and their patients, medical boards, state and federal agencies, pharmacists, hospitals,

and just about everyone involved in medical decision making.

Indeed, your opinions impacted the health of Americans, and many aspects of our day-to-day lives including employment and school.

Those of us who prescribe hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin/doxycycline believe fervently that early outpatient use

would save tens of thousands of lives and enable our country to dramatically alter the response to COVID-19.

We advocate for an approach that will reduce fear and allow Americans to get their lives back.

Quote from RobertBryant

Letter to Fauci ..from the Land of the Free.

Will Fauci bother to answer?

People who follow the "The Lyin’tific Method" as opposed the Scientific Method (credit to the ethical skeptic) don't need to answer to anyone.

Fauci/NIH/CDC is a non-governmental proxy, which act on its behalf and are not impeded by the public scrutiny and accountability. Translation: he's allowed to profit from his work and favor industries if he wishes.

In an effort to push a vaccine out the door, this type of entity is willing to employ risk against its own people. Fauci knows this risk requires great effort to measure (how do we know how many people we might save?) So they will refuse to intervene and their denial of action is signalled as virtue - doing nothing is prudent!

It's a f'd up system folks, and if you don't believe that by now you must wear a dunce cap.

Quote from JedRothwell

Tetanus viruses have not evolved into vaccine resistant forms.

Did you have to many Whisky's today?.. Tetanus is not a virus....

Quote from THHuxleynew

I, and most people, disagree with you about vaccines. They are effective against Flu, and this virus looks a better target than Flu. Since routine over-65 vaccination deaths from Flu are vastly down, and that is without vaccinating the entire population and getting herd immunity, so knocking out the epidemic. Don't expect 100% effectiveness, but do expect, eventually, enough to knock it out of the population in any country that has good vaccine take-up, and also to provide > 75% protection from mortality.

Who is sponsoring your vaccine advertising?? Eventually enough?...

Vaccines against flue were never effective in the sense that these are a real protection. Many people get more sick form the flue vaccine than from the flue.

And here again : Who is sponsoring your vaccine advertising ?? Every year at least one shot - really big business!

Quote from Bob#2

Yet I do not understand why you are so against HCQ but I do not see you stating the same with Remedisvir. Do you honestly think the data for Remedisvir is good?

I have no particular attachment to Remdesivir. I've not seen RCT evidence showing it results in better outcomes for patients. But, based on the test that got it approved, either such evidence will be forthcoming or that early RCT will be discredited. i don't put much faith in it. Why am i not negative, because there is not yet high quality negative evidence (not that I've seen, anyway). I am wait and see, just as i am wait and see for HCQ as prophylactic.

However, if the RCT that got it approved is real, as people seem to believe, it will help hospitals by reducing treatment times, which would be vital for local peaks in the epidemic, and useful everywhere. So you should not dismiss it because of politics - which seems to be happening here. The two RCTs released so far look pretty weak positive evidence though.

Here is a decent non-political UK review of Remdesivir from June - we should get more evidence soon:

https://www.nice.org.uk/advice…covid19-pdf-1158180847045

The included studies in this review suggest some benefit with remdesivir compared with placebo
for reducing supportive measures including mechanical ventilation and time to recovery in patients
with mild or moderate, or severe COVID-19 disease who are on supplemental oxygen treatment.
However, no statistically significant differences were found for mortality and serious adverse
events (fewer reported with remdesivir compared with placebo). More treatment discontinuations
were reported with remdesivir compared with placebo due to adverse events (Wang et al. 2020). A
subgroup analysis reported in Beigel et al (2020) suggests that some groups may benefit more than
others however this data needs to be interpreted with caution given the wide confidence intervals
and lack of adjustment for multiplicity. Therefore this limits the applicability to clinical practice
when assessing which patients are most likely to benefit from remdesivir.

Quote from THHuxleynew

it will help hospitals by reducing treatment times

And here again : Who is sponsoring your Remedisvir advertising ??

Are you aware that people dying on Gilad crap Remedisvir do die 7-10 days longer and overall Hospital usage increase with Remedisvir?????

Quote from Wyttenbach

Vaccines against flue were never effective in the sense that these are a real protection. Many people get more sick form the flue vaccine than from the flue.

Tut Tut. More Wyttenfacts. And bordering on antivax propaganda - which is very harmful to the world just now.

Flu is a very nasty disease. A lot worse than a cold, even if it is not as lethal as COVID. It is much worse than the common vaccine side effects, which are at worst a mild temperature for 1-2 days.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-…gramme-2019-to-2020-1.pdf

30% - 60% protection provided by vaccine.

side effects of vaccine.

https://www.livescience.com/40…ect%2C%20Schaffner%20said.

According to the CDC, mild side effects from the flu shot include soreness, redness or swelling at the injection site, low-grade fever and aches. Only about 1 percent to 2 percent of people who get a flu shot will have fever as a side effect, Schaffner said.

Rare but serious side effects can occur, including allergic reactions. Symptoms of serious side effects include difficulty breathing, swelling around the eyes or lips, hives, racing heart, dizziness and high fever. If you experience serious side effects, you should seek medical care immediately, the CDC says.

For children, side effects from the flu nasal spray can include runny nose, wheezing, headache, vomiting, muscle aches and fever. For adults, side effects include runny nose, headache, sore throat and cough. These side effects last a short time compared to the actual flu illness, the CDC says.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Tut Tut. More Wyttenfacts. And bordering on antivax propaganda - which is very harmful to the world just now.

FUD: Alert! THH guarantees you 100% protection (vaccine work) from a flue vaccination!! Buy it with guarantee = money/ live back if it does not work...

Flue vaccination is a lottery some forget the personal protection and will die despite vaccination. Only in average deaths are reduced.

But more severe is THH's mental perturbation as he claims people are anti vaxer's if these question a single vaccine.

May be he really is the most ugly spin doctor on this forum that obviously missed some basic education.