Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

I'll go with the India study and this study over the CDC right now. Natural Immunity is better than having the vaccine.

Durability of SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses at 12-months post-infection


"Our data show that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces polyfunctional memory T cells 62 detectable at 12-months post-infection"

 

Paper doesn't say how well natural immunity works against Delta.

 

You moved the goal posts, I was responding to the ? of safety of ivermectin.

But since you brought up this study they used a rather low dose, in fact at one point they increased the dose.
The primary end point was simply this.... "whether patients required extended observation in the emergency room or hospitalization." I would also suggest the end point of "6 hours in the ER" is meaning less as many many patients are told to go to the ER by PCP's and Health departments if "they feel worse" purely as a CWA. The study lumped admission and ER trip in the same group. I don't think they should have.

Looking at who specifically was admitted would be more meaningful and length of admission.

Also length of time to start the any drug can have a huge impact. We see this with the Regeneron drug.

While that's an important thing to look at its hardly is the only measure of if a medication has positive effects.

 

Ivermetcin is a drug to fight parasites. It's very effective at doing so. It's why there is CDC approval for this specific use for the drug, as well as OTC versions that can be used on livestock like cows and horses. If you do not have a parasite issue, then one should not take ivermitcin. Here in the US, for our population, parasite infections are uncommon. In India, especially poorer parts, different story.

As far as treating COVID-19, large scale study shows ivermitcin has no benefit. Considering there are side effects to the drug, there is no reason to use ivermitcin to fight COVID-19, and side effect reasons not to use it. If a COVID-19 patient also has parasites, then ivermitcin will help clear that infection, and may help that patient recover. But bottom line? Only use ivermitcin to fight parasites.

 

That is consistent with other data I have seen from Alessandro Setti's group in California. However, your posted link says nothing about comparing longterm T-Cell nucleation between natural infection vs vaccine. From what I remember they are equivalent.

 

They aren't. Two different studies but natural immunity is better




https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.15.21249731v2.full.pdf

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.25.21261093v1.full.pdf

 

Study from UK on Delta in schools.


As Delta infections spiked, COVID cases in schools fell—a lesson from England

"The data comes from a study conducted by the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics (ONS), showing infection rates were lower in children attending school than in the greater population, suggesting that the great reopening of schools in September will not necessarily bring about another new wave of infections.

An estimated 0.27% of elementary school students, 0.42% of middle to high school students, and 0.27% of teachers tested positive for COVID-19 between June 14 and July 6. This is compared with autumn 2020, when around 1% of elementary school students and staff tested positive, while 1.22% of high school students and 1.64% of staff tested positive."

 

Wow you speak with such authority, yet you didn't address the issue with the study you lean on for your expert opinion.

Your leaning on one trial that should have looked at other endpoints such as decrease in viral shedding time, decrease in viral load, length of time with symptoms etc.
Just looking who when to the ER or got admitted is a very simplistic way deciding if a med has benefit.




Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infectio... : American Journal of Therapeutics (lww.com)

"Meta-analysis of 15 trials, assessing 2438 participants, found that ivermectin reduced the risk of death by an average of 62% (95% CI 27%–81%) compared with no ivermectin treatment [average RR (aRR) 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.73; I2 = 49%]; risk of death 2.3% versus 7.8% among hospitalized patients in this analysis, respectively (SoF Table 2 and Figure 3). Much of the heterogeneity was explained by the exclusion of one trial44 in a sensitivity analysis (average RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.17–0.58, n = 2196, I2 = 22%), but because this trial was at low risk of bias, it was retained in the main analysis. The source of heterogeneity may be due to the use of active comparators in the trial design. The results were also robust to sensitivity analyses excluding 2 other studies with an active treatment comparator (average RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23–0.74, n = 1809, I2 = 8%). The results were also not sensitive to the exclusion of studies that were potentially at higher risk of bias (average RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.10–0.80, 12 studies, n = 2095, I2 = 61%), but in subgroup analysis, it was unclear as to whether a single dose would be sufficient. The effect on reducing deaths was consistent across mild to moderate and severe disease subgroups. Subgrouping data according to inpatient and outpatient trials was not informative because few outpatient studies reported this serious outcome. The conclusions of the primary outcome were also robust to a series of alternative post hoc analyses that explored the impact of numerous trials that reported no deaths in either arm. Extreme sensitivity analyses using a treatment arm continuity correction of between 0.01 and 0.5 did not change the certainty of the evidence judgments "


I would say the jury is still out.

Don't paint me as pushing it, I'm saying it shouldn't be dismissed so out of hand.

As far as side effects...

"Meta-analysis of 11 trials, assessing 1533 participants, found that there was no significant difference between ivermectin and control in the risk of severe adverse events (aRR 1.65, 95% CI 0.44–6.09; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence, downgraded for imprecision and study design limitations). Seven severe adverse events were reported in the ivermectin group and 2 in controls. The SAEs were as follows: 2 patients in the Mahmud trial107 had esophagitis (this is a known side effect of doxycycline, which was coadministered with ivermectin in this trial); one patient in the study by Krolewiecki et al106 had hyponatremia (this trial used high-dose ivermectin for 5 days); and 2 patients in a study from Turkey115 had serious “delirium-like behavior, agitation, aggressive attitude, and altered state of consciousness,” which the authors attributed to metabolic insufficiencies in MDR-1/ABCB1 or CYP3A4 genes, screening for which was a study feature. In the Lopez-Medina et al85 trial, there were 2 SAEs in each arm"

 

There were two meta-analysis over the effects of ivermectin on COVID. This one, and this one, with a few of the same authors, which was retracted because it falsified data. Both analysis relied on much of the same meta data. I'm surprised this one has not been retracted yet.

And again, the most recent study, which isn't metadata, but an actual, double blind study with a control group, found no benefit from using ivermectin. This data and study should carry more weight, because it relies on first-hand data, and not a conglomeration of metadata.

So if you have parasites, take ivermectin. It's very effective with few side effects. If you have COVID and don't have parasites, don't take it. No benefit.

 

I can't keep up with this thread and every page.

But has anyone started to question the information out of Israel and how it is so different than what is being reported here?

According to the Israeli Health Ministry COVID-19 data dashboard on August 11, 2021, the number of serious COVID-19 cases reached 405 yesterday, the highest one-day total since March 2021.

Furthermore, about 250 of these patients were fully vaccinated, known as a 'breakthrough case.'

Israel's COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Cases Exceed 50% — Precision Vaccinations

If this information is true. Wednesday there were 405 serious cases of Covid reported and just over 60% were fully vaccinated. I get they have more of their older population vaccinated. And that group is more susceptible to serious disease. But they have 59.7% fully vaccinated. Which means they are at a 1:1 whether you are vaccinated or not for serious cases. I have not seen anything since the mid July report where they had 20 deaths to date that month and 15 were fully vaccinated. But these numbers being reported are from Israel.

Yet in the news here. We hear that it is over 90% of those in the hospital are unvaccinated. Something is not right.

***I do not know anything about this site but I do not see any red flags. And they link to what they say is the Israel Dashboard though I cannot read Hebrew so someone may want to confirm .***

 

My office is 90% vaxed. Our Executive Director just reinstituted a full mask policy anyway.

 

Just baffling. The number one place this thing spreads is at the house. Now if you are in a small office in close quarters with employees for an extended time that would be right behind the home as where this thing spreads.

Something tells me your Executive Director does not where a mask at the most common place this things spreads. Now maybe he lives alone but point being if you truly believe the mask works...the one place you should be wearing it all the time is at home.

 

How does it get into the home in the first place?

 

Does not matter. If the mask works the place you should wear it the most would be the place it spreads most commonly. I mean people care about their family...don't they?

 

That doesn't answer the question (the obvious answer is that one person in the household brought the Covid into the house, likely from work, shopping, events, etc. and, being a contagious illness, spread it to the other members of the house). I'll ask another question that you likely won't answer because the answer doesn't support your point: if we could stop the person who brings it into the house in the first place from getting it, would the other people in the house get Covid from that person?

 

I can respect the person who does wear a mask all the time around their family. I do not think they need to. But they at least actually believe it works and are not just wearing it for political theater. I feel for the people who wear it out of fear. The virtue crowd I do not feel for. Propaganda is real and it works.

 

The mask does not work. You are not going to stop the virus with a mask. But I am sure you wear one at the house with your family? Or do you just wear it for the public to see?

Covid is going to spread.

 

Why do dentists wear masks at work but not at home? Is it just for the public to see?

 

SHE is currently single and lives alone. I have an office where I can isolate as do much of our staff. We have retail and public facing staff in construction that face a lot of people but almost all of that staff is vaxed. I have a staff of 26. 23 of which have stated they are vaccinated.

 

This really is not worth responding to. Do you really think Dentists go out in public wearing the mask they use for procedures?

If you are going to suggest policy for helping slow the spread of a virus and you believe masks work. Would you suggest they be worn at the most common place the virus spreads? Or would you just recommend when you go to indoor public settings (many of which are not common places for the spread)?

I get you likely just wear your mask for the public to see as I think the reality is you know it does not work. Or maybe you do believe it works and you wear it around your family all the time? That would be a respectable position. But something tells me you are more of virtue wearer if I were guessing as I don't picture you as one who is living in fear? Am I right or wrong?