Coronavirus, Covid 19 Discussion and How It Has Affected Your Daily Life Chat Thread

[h2oratt]

True, clinical trial with humans are expensive to run, and ivermectin is inexpensive, and off patent. A very nice drug, but definitely not harmless!
Mary

No drug is harmless. The first thing we learn in my herbalist class is. Just because it is natural doesn’t mean it can’t cause harm.

 

[Qwerty3159]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/study-covid-variant-pfizer-vaccinated-unvaccinated

This is unfortunate for those who recieved the pfizer vax. It makes you 8x more likely to get the South African Variant than the non-vaccinated. This is seriously bad news.

8x more likely to get that particular strain, , not 8x more likely to get infected, as that was the only one able to “break through” the vaccine barrier. The unvaccinated people presumably were equally likely to get any number of strains, so that group was infected with multiple strains. Very selective reading on your part, but I don’t blame you entirely as this is typical sensational journalism.
If I dump some marbles of different sizes into a bucket with different sized holes in the bottom, I expect to have marbles of all different sizes filter through. Now if I dump marbles of all different sizes into a bucket with only small holes, only the small marbles should fall through. This does NOT mean that the bucket with smaller holes meant you have a higher rate of marbles falling through, just a disproportionately higher rate of marbles of that one size as only the smallest can fit through. If only the South African strain was making its way around you wouldn’t see more vaccinated people getting it that unvaccinated. This is elementary school principles.

Also, that study has been criticized widely because it uses a ridiculously small sample group, (Really, 400?!) and it has yet to be peer reviewed (or should I say “silenced and censored”)? However the small sample size in a way speaks to the efficacy of the vaccine as this study was looking at only people who had been infected despite being vaccinated. The publishers of the study also cautioned this small sample size, and they explained that it was based purely on a small supply of people who got infected after being vaccinated in Israel.

 

[AmeliaBedelia]

No one can make a lot of money on drug like ivermectin. Unless you stand to make a lot of money off a drug , no one will fund a clinical trial.

This. The skeptic in me also thinks it's not promoted here because people might see it as an alternative to the (lucrative) vaccines.

If I were high risk, I'd be asking my doctor for ivermectin until I could get a vaccine.

 

[AmeliaBedelia]

8x more likely to get that particular strain, , not 8x more likely to get infected, as that was the only one able to “break through” the vaccine barrier. The unvaccinated people presumably were equally likely to get any number of strains, so that group was infected with multiple strains. Very selective reading on your part, but I don’t blame you entirely as this is typical sensational journalism.
If I dump some marbles of different sizes into a bucket with different sized holes in the bottom, I expect to have marbles of all different sizes filter through. Now if I dump marbles of all different sizes into a bucket with only small holes, only the small marbles should fall through. This does NOT mean that the bucket with smaller holes meant you have a higher rate of marbles falling through, just a disproportionately higher rate of marbles of that one size as only the smallest can fit through. If only the South African strain was making its way around you wouldn’t see more vaccinated people getting it that unvaccinated. This is elementary school principles.

Also, that study has been criticized widely because it uses a ridiculously small sample group, (Really, 400?!) and it has yet to be peer reviewed (or should I say “silenced and censored”)? However the small sample size in a way speaks to the efficacy of the vaccine as this study was looking at only people who had been infected despite being vaccinated. The publishers of the study also cautioned this small sample size, and they explained that it was based purely on a small supply of people who got infected after being vaccinated in Israel.

Very good metaphor to explain the sensationalist statistics! Thanks!

 

[Winter Creek Coop]

8x more likely to get that particular strain, , not 8x more likely to get infected, as that was the only one able to “break through” the vaccine barrier. The unvaccinated people presumably were equally likely to get any number of strains, so that group was infected with multiple strains. Very selective reading on your part, but I don’t blame you entirely as this is typical sensational journalism.
If I dump some marbles of different sizes into a bucket with different sized holes in the bottom, I expect to have marbles of all different sizes filter through. Now if I dump marbles of all different sizes into a bucket with only small holes, only the small marbles should fall through. This does NOT mean that the bucket with smaller holes meant you have a higher rate of marbles falling through, just a disproportionately higher rate of marbles of that one size as only the smallest can fit through. If only the South African strain was making its way around you wouldn’t see more vaccinated people getting it that unvaccinated. This is elementary school principles.

Also, that study has been criticized widely because it uses a ridiculously small sample group, (Really, 400?!) and it has yet to be peer reviewed (or should I say “silenced and censored”)? However the small sample size in a way speaks to the efficacy of the vaccine as this study was looking at only people who had been infected despite being vaccinated. The publishers of the study also cautioned this small sample size, and they explained that it was based purely on a small supply of people who got infected after being vaccinated in Israel.

I never said, nor did the article, that vaxxed were 8x more likely to get covid, but I specifically said more likely to get the SA Variant. And that wasn’t the only variant able to break through hotrod. Only 5.4% of the vaxxed had the SA variant. What didnthe other 94.6% have? Oh yeah, other variants.

 

[h2oratt]

This. The skeptic in me also thinks it's not promoted here because people might see it as an alternative to the (lucrative) vaccines.

If I were high risk, I'd be asking my doctor for ivermectin until I could get a vaccine.

I did. I was told that he wasn’t allowed to prescibe it.

 

[Qwerty3159]

What didnthe other 94.6% have? Oh yeah, other variants.

Where is the evidence of this?
Don’t you think that if the entire (small as it is) sample size of vaccinated folks that tested positive ALL had variants that would be the bigger news? They wouldn’t be flaunting that wimpy 5% around. Again it seems like we agree on the fundamental points and that you’re choosing to accept only the details that support your position.

No, I think it’s much more likely that at least a good number of these cases involved those that were infected or exposed prior to the second vaccination, as we discussed pages back the resistance takes some time to build and there is a grey area of time where you can be both vaccinated and get sick.

 

[Qwerty3159]

Also that study compared people who only had ONE shot. There’s two doses for a reason, after all. Based on this alone it makes me seriously question any merit that the study holds. I have to assume that a bunch of those measly 400 infections were from people that got exposed prior to the first shot or got sick when they weren’t at full protection. Remember that there is a set period of a few weeks between shots, so it’s very possible that a good number of these cases came from folks that got infected before they even had the shot (basing this on incubation period and efficacy rate of Pfizer after only one shot). These news outlets you’ve linked aren’t interested in clearly presenting all the facts from the study for many reasons, but partially because they want the material to be easily consumable, by the masses, at the cost of clarity and any semblance of unbias.

Being surprised that folks were still infected when the vaccination process wasn’t complete is like being surprised that your marbles fell out of your bucket before you were able to plug them. Personally I’d rather have a bucket with just one small hole rather than a bucket with a ton of different holes, it’s gonna make carrying my marbles a lot more difficult. I wish you and your leaky bucket the best of luck with whatever decisions you make in this topic, but so far I’m unimpressed and I don’t share your concerns.

Hard as it may be to believe, I really do have an open mind on this topic but so far I haven’t seen any convincing evidence to change my mind about vaccines. Everything that I have seen so far consists of poor journalism, imperfect studies, and selective presentation of facts.

 

[electrycmonk]

Update, 6 month on and our two kiddos who were positive at beginning of October are as follows. (+ asymptomatic) is doing okay so far. Her scholastics are okay as well. (+ positive) is a “long hauler” ... a couple months ago iirc one of the 1st smells she got back was (drum roll)... the smell of puppy poo. (They got a few puppies over the Covid summer/fall, so ... no it’s not the phantom smells other “long haulers are getting”) she is still having a sizable brain fog and the gpa shows it. Here smell and taste is slowly returning in sporadic ways and not on a continuous basis. Some spurs some day’s & rarely any sweets to this day. Occasional salty.

Our local friend who working in the medical field is also a “long hauler” and they got it in July, iirc. Their exhaustion is still plaguing them as is the severely diminished sense of smell and taste. Still has sizable pain management issues too.

 

[Winter Creek Coop]

Also that study compared people who only had ONE shot. There’s two doses for a reason, after all. Based on this alone it makes me seriously question any merit that the study holds. I have to assume that a bunch of those measly 400 infections were from people that got exposed prior to the first shot or got sick when they weren’t at full protection. Remember that there is a set period of a few weeks between shots, so it’s very possible that a good number of these cases came from folks that got infected before they even had the shot (basing this on incubation period and efficacy rate of Pfizer after only one shot). These news outlets you’ve linked aren’t interested in clearly presenting all the facts from the study for many reasons, but partially because they want the material to be easily consumable, by the masses, at the cost of clarity and any semblance of unbias.

Being surprised that folks were still infected when the vaccination process wasn’t complete is like being surprised that your marbles fell out of your bucket before you were able to plug them. Personally I’d rather have a bucket with just one small hole rather than a bucket with a ton of different holes, it’s gonna make carrying my marbles a lot more difficult. I wish you and your leaky bucket the best of luck with whatever decisions you make in this topic, but so far I’m unimpressed and I don’t share your concerns.

Hard as it may be to believe, I really do have an open mind on this topic but so far I haven’t seen any convincing evidence to change my mind about vaccines. Everything that I have seen so far consists of poor journalism, imperfect studies, and selective presentation of facts.

You went to the buckets again.