Treatment versus Vaccine

[kingswood71]

So effectiveness going from 90% to 64% is a good thing, how?

You know you can concede the vaccine isn’t doing as well as predicted and still see them as a valuable tool.

Concede what? I actually didnt think it was ever that high in stopping symptomatic covid so that has come as a surprise to me. The key msg is that its 93% effecitve at stopping serious cases.
You know you can concede that the vaccine is doing a great job at keeping fully vaccinated people alive

 

[Fryman]

I actually didnt think it was ever that high in stopping symptomatic covid

Based on what?

 

[Goosecat]

It's the very first step in the critical thinking process. They teach this at uni.

The reason being that unless the source is valid - you're not really getting facts. You're getting opinions. And any cherry picked facts within are used to support an opinion. Which means it's biased.


An opinion on vaccines is largely irrelevant anyway, as facts are what are important. But an opinion on vaccines from someone who isn't qualified may be entertaining to some, but it's a waste of time to most.

Critical thinking source analysis, as taught at university level today has descended to such basic levels of primary analysis as to be almost a misnomer.
The very material itself is structured to direct individuals to particular sources almost without question, including government.
Do not also forget that critical thinking in and of itself is no more important than creative thinking when considering all human perception both internally and externally.
Aside from that; if an individual for example comes out with a line of thinking stating the ABC, CNN or Sky for example are not a credible source of information due to there purported bias, whilst ignoring any actual data or facts detailed within that medium by for example a professorial expert on a particular topic, they have not understood the real concepts of critical thinking. That same professor may have numerous, peer reviewed papers and studies sitting in "Credible Source" reservoirs from which it is appropriate to draw reference. That information does not suddenly become unusable or incorrect.
The ability to actually analyse and genuinely separate "good" sources is not so basic and primary as you and much current western education systems teach.
Don't get dragged into the basic, primary level of analysis taught at university level today. and lose the ability to drill down to root.

 

[kingswood71]

Based on what?

Based on the phase 3 trial. That phase was completed in March, prior to Delta, which showed high efficacy. Once delta spread, the efficacy was always going to reduce due to mutations and that its 40-60% more transmissible than Alpha. Studies found that its 1000x higher viral load than the Wuhan strain, and also can infect people previously infected with that strain.

Viral infection and transmission in a large well-traced outbreak caused by the Delta SARS-CoV-2 variant

Viral infection and transmission in a large well-traced outbreak caused by the Delta SARS-CoV-2 variant Baisheng Li1,2#, Aiping Deng1,2#, Kuibiao Li3#, Yao Hu1,2#, Zhencui Li1,2#, Qianling Xiong1,2,4, Zhe Liu1,2, Qianfang Guo1,2, Lirong Zou1,2, Huan Zhang1,2,Meng Zhang1,2, Fangzhu Ouyang1,2...

virological.org

Doesnt take a genius to know that as a virus mutates, some efficacy against the original strain will occur.
The key point, is that the vaccine still reduces severe cases by 93%. If future mutations drop this rate then booster doses will be developed.

 

[Fryman]

Based on the phase 3 trial. That phase was completed in March, prior to Delta, which showed high efficacy. Once delta spread, the efficacy was always going to reduce due to mutations and that its 40-60% more transmissible than Alpha.

So you knew all along that a delta strain was coming and that the vaccine was going to drop in effectiveness.

That’s amazing. With such foresight you must have posted this somewhere, so we have evidence of your prediction.

Otherwise it looks like a post-hoc rationalisation in order to not look foolish. But I’m sure that’s not the case.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Critical thinking source analysis, as taught at university level today has descended to such basic levels of primary analysis as to be almost a misnomer.
The very material itself is structured to direct individuals to particular sources almost without question, including government.
Do not also forget that critical thinking in and of itself is no more important than creative thinking when considering all human perception both internally and externally.
Aside from that; if an individual for example comes out with a line of thinking stating the ABC, CNN or Sky for example are not a credible source of information due to there purported bias, whilst ignoring any actual data or facts detailed within that medium by for example a professorial expert on a particular topic, they have not understood the real concepts of critical thinking. That same professor may have numerous, peer reviewed papers and studies sitting in "Credible Source" reservoirs from which it is appropriate to draw reference. That information does not suddenly become unusable or incorrect.
The ability to actually analyse and genuinely separate "good" sources is not so basic and primary as you and much current western education systems teach.
Don't get dragged into the basic, primary level of analysis taught at university level today. and lose the ability to drill down to root.

You've basically used a heap of words to agree with me.

 

[kingswood71]

So you knew all along that a delta strain was coming and that the vaccine was going to drop in effectiveness.

That’s amazing. With such foresight you must have posted this somewhere, so we have evidence of your prediction.

Otherwise it looks like a post-hoc rationalisation in order to not look foolish. But I’m sure that’s not the case.

We knew that the B1.617 lineage had a reduced antibody neutralizing effect. This has been known since at least May.
No great prediction at all. I am surprised you didnt know this.....

 

[Fryman]

We knew that the B1.617 lineage had a reduced antibody neutralizing effect. This has been known since at least May.
No great prediction at all. I am surprised you didnt know this.....

Just show me when the vaccine was rolled out where you were telling people the effectiveness was going to end up at 60%.

Should be easy, you saw this coming a mile away.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Just show me when the vaccine was rolled out where you were telling people the effectiveness was going to end up at 60%.

Should be easy, you saw this coming a mile away.

What does "effectiveness at 60%" mean?

 

[Fryman]

What does "effectiveness at 60%" mean?

Read the thread.

 

[kingswood71]

Just show me when the vaccine was rolled out where you were telling people the effectiveness was going to end up at 60%.

Should be easy, you saw this coming a mile away.

The effectiveness at stopping infections or the effectiveness at altering disease outcomes? These are 2 separate and different measures.
The outcome measure of severe covid risk reduction is 93% aprox. In what world is that not effective??
And yes, me and every other health professional saw mutations coming a mile away too.....
In fact, I have been telling my patients since first the vaccination day that neither vaccine prevents them from catching covid, but is very effective at reducing their risk of ending up in ICU or hospital. I thought everyone knew this.
Vaccine effectiveness nearly always ends up lower than efficacy.

 

[Fryman]

The effectiveness at stopping infections or the effectiveness at altering disease outcomes? These are 2 separate and different measures.
The outcome measure of severe covid risk reduction is 93% aprox. In what world is that not effective??

You know I was referring to effectiveness in preventing covid infections.

This whole argument is because you are too arrogant to even admit that the vaccine losing its effectiveness at preventing infections is a bad thing.

Looks like Pfizer is down to 42% effectiveness at stopping delta infections.

New study raises alarms about Pfizer's vaccine against Delta

Here's what that means for the millions who got Pfizer's shot.

fortune.com

 

[kingswood71]

You know I was referring to effectiveness in preventing covid infections.

This whole argument is because you are too arrogant to even admit that the vaccine losing its effectiveness at preventing infections is a bad thing.

Looks like Pfizer is down to 42% effectiveness at stopping delta infections.

New study raises alarms about Pfizer's vaccine against Delta

Here's what that means for the millions who got Pfizer's shot.

fortune.com

Have you read the phase 3 study?
The study looked at covid infections 7 days AFTER the second dose. Even someone with even basic scientific knowledge would know that the first primary end point (efficacy at stopping infection) would not translate to real world effectiveness. And its not especially the most relevant end point. The most relevant end point is the efficacy at preventing severe covid, which has translated very well to effectiveness.
I dont think you understand the difference between the 2 definitions.
Secondly, Australia was saying way way back in January that "Vaccinated individuals will be protected from the worst of COVID-19 but will not be protected from becoming infected. None of the vaccines that have been approved for use have demonstrated that they can stop transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19)—conclusive data is not available yet. Importantly, in preventing severe COVID-19 that requires hospitalisation, both the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines are equally effective. Accordingly, the Academy supports the current Australian Government vaccination strategy, informed by the best available expertise and science.
Public confusion has arisen around the implications of 62% or 95% effectiveness of first-generation COVID-19 vaccines. These figures represent the AstraZeneca AZD1222 and Pfizer BioNTech BTB162b vaccines’ respective effectiveness rates at protecting an infected person from developing mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms"

Academy statement on the pandemic, vaccines and misinformation | Australian Academy of Science

www.science.org.au

Where they say "public confusion"...Thats you.

 

[Goosecat]

Some positive Ivermectin opinion. One might note these patients received just a single dose and the authors acknowledge receiving Pfizer speaking fees. Basically it was an attempt through recruiting low risk patients and providing one single dose to prove it's ineffectiveness IMHO. Yet still the authors could not, without completely losing credibility, conceal the positive responses.

"Interpretation
Among patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors for severe disease receiving a single 400 mcg/kg dose of ivermectin within 72 h of fever or cough onset there was no difference in the proportion of PCR positives. There was however a marked reduction of self-reported anosmia/hyposmia, a reduction of cough and a tendency to lower viral loads and lower IgG titers which warrants assessment in larger trials."

Link

The effect of early treatment with ivermectin on viral load, symptoms and humoral response in patients with non-severe COVID-19: A pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial

Among patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors for severe disease receiving a single 400 mcg/kg dose of ivermectin within 72 h of fever or cough onset there was no difference in the proportion of PCR positives. There was however a marked reduction of self-reported anosmia/hyposmia...

www.thelancet.com

 

[DougKlingston]

Some positive Ivermectin opinion. One might note these patients received just a single dose and the authors acknowledge receiving Pfizer speaking fees. Basically it was an attempt through recruiting low risk patients and providing one single dose to prove it's ineffectiveness IMHO. Yet still the authors could not, without completely losing credibility, conceal the positive responses.

"Interpretation
Among patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors for severe disease receiving a single 400 mcg/kg dose of ivermectin within 72 h of fever or cough onset there was no difference in the proportion of PCR positives. There was however a marked reduction of self-reported anosmia/hyposmia, a reduction of cough and a tendency to lower viral loads and lower IgG titers which warrants assessment in larger trials."

Link

The effect of early treatment with ivermectin on viral load, symptoms and humoral response in patients with non-severe COVID-19: A pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial

Among patients with non-severe COVID-19 and no risk factors for severe disease receiving a single 400 mcg/kg dose of ivermectin within 72 h of fever or cough onset there was no difference in the proportion of PCR positives. There was however a marked reduction of self-reported anosmia/hyposmia...

www.thelancet.com

I'm sending this message on behalf of Bojurrow who was removed from this board largely for touting the benefits of Ivermectin.

I contracted COVID in Florida about two weeks ago. Luckily, I had put my money where my mouth is and secured 16 Ivermectin pills from a doctor on the FLCCC website. Now those pills were meant to be used as a preventative, but the day they arrived was the same day I lost my taste and smell, so I used them straightaway for treatment.

So, does Ivermectin work in my experience? Like a wonder a drug. The only symptoms I ever had were a low-grade fever and that was gone the second day. That was it. My brother contracted COVID around the same time I did and he had a similar experience with Ivermectin. The virus was gone within 24 hours.

If Ivermectin were used as a preventative, COVID would no longer be an issue anywhere. The fact that it is being withheld from the public will eventually be seen as a criminal act. People are needlessly dying from a very treatable illness because appropriate therapy is being kept from them.

I've included a photo of my bottle with the Big Footy website visible in background.

 

[iameviljez]

So, does Ivermectin work in my experience? Like a wonder a drug. The only symptoms I ever had were a low-grade fever and that was gone the second day. That was it. My brother contracted COVID around the same time I did and he had a similar experience with Ivermectin. The virus was gone within 24 hours.

If Ivermectin were used as a preventative, COVID would no longer be an issue anywhere.

Two swallows does not a summer make. I'm glad you and your brother got through, but bluntly put, that is not the basis of a proof that Ivermectin cures COVID.

If Ivermectin was a reliable way to manage COVID, don't you think that professional health bodies and governments would be advocating for it by now? Nobody has anything to gain from people continuing to die from COVID and countries continuing to lock down economies, bar Netflix and funeral directors... least of all healthcare staff.

 

[HTT]

I'm sending this message on behalf of Bojurrow who was removed from this board largely for touting the benefits of Ivermectin.

I contracted COVID in Florida about two weeks ago. Luckily, I had put my money where my mouth is and secured 16 Ivermectin pills from a doctor on the FLCCC website. Now those pills were meant to be used as a preventative, but the day they arrived was the same day I lost my taste and smell, so I used them straightaway for treatment.

So, does Ivermectin work in my experience? Like a wonder a drug. The only symptoms I ever had were a low-grade fever and that was gone the second day. That was it. My brother contracted COVID around the same time I did and he had a similar experience with Ivermectin. The virus was gone within 24 hours.

If Ivermectin were used as a preventative, COVID would no longer be an issue anywhere. The fact that it is being withheld from the public will eventually be seen as a criminal act. People are needlessly dying from a very treatable illness because appropriate therapy is being kept from them.

I've included a photo of my bottle with the Big Footy website visible in background.

So we’ve got a sample size of two showing that ivermectin works

 

[kingswood71]

So we’ve got a sample size of two showing that ivermectin works

I once had the flu. I took a drink of pepsi and felt better. Pepsi cures the flu.

 

[The 747]

So we’ve got a sample size of two showing that ivermectin works

There are a few pretty generous assumptions in this post.

 

[kingswood71]

There are a few pretty generous assumptions in this post.

Yep.
We technically have a sample size of 2 with self-reported improvement of symptoms and one claim of viral clearance at 24 hours.
We have no: Evidence of a reduction in viral load. Evidence of improvements in measured cytokines and acute phase reactants. No measurements of immunglobulins. No measurements v placebo (maybe brother should have had a sugar pill).
I once had a cut on my hand. I ate vegemite and the next day the cut was healing. Vegemite improves healing times.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I'm sending this message on behalf of Bojurrow who was removed from this board largely for touting the benefits of Ivermectin.

I contracted COVID in Florida about two weeks ago. Luckily, I had put my money where my mouth is and secured 16 Ivermectin pills from a doctor on the FLCCC website. Now those pills were meant to be used as a preventative, but the day they arrived was the same day I lost my taste and smell, so I used them straightaway for treatment.

So, does Ivermectin work in my experience? Like a wonder a drug. The only symptoms I ever had were a low-grade fever and that was gone the second day. That was it. My brother contracted COVID around the same time I did and he had a similar experience with Ivermectin. The virus was gone within 24 hours.

If Ivermectin were used as a preventative, COVID would no longer be an issue anywhere. The fact that it is being withheld from the public will eventually be seen as a criminal act. People are needlessly dying from a very treatable illness because appropriate therapy is being kept from them.

I've included a photo of my bottle with the Big Footy website visible in background.

You bought a drug from a doctor?

 

[projectv]

I'm sending this message on behalf of Bojurrow who was removed from this board largely for touting the benefits of Ivermectin.

I contracted COVID in Florida about two weeks ago. Luckily, I had put my money where my mouth is and secured 16 Ivermectin pills from a doctor on the FLCCC website. Now those pills were meant to be used as a preventative, but the day they arrived was the same day I lost my taste and smell, so I used them straightaway for treatment.

So, does Ivermectin work in my experience? Like a wonder a drug. The only symptoms I ever had were a low-grade fever and that was gone the second day. That was it. My brother contracted COVID around the same time I did and he had a similar experience with Ivermectin. The virus was gone within 24 hours.

If Ivermectin were used as a preventative, COVID would no longer be an issue anywhere. The fact that it is being withheld from the public will eventually be seen as a criminal act. People are needlessly dying from a very treatable illness because appropriate therapy is being kept from them.

I've included a photo of my bottle with the Big Footy website visible in background.

You could have just logged in as Bojurrow to post that you know.

 

[Azillolz]

Two swallows does not a summer make. I'm glad you and your brother got through, but bluntly put, that is not the basis of a proof that Ivermectin cures COVID.

If Ivermectin was a reliable way to manage COVID, don't you think that professional health bodies and governments would be advocating for it by now? Nobody has anything to gain from people continuing to die from COVID and countries continuing to lock down economies, bar Netflix and funeral directors... least of all healthcare staff.

I'm not usually a pusher of conspiracy theories, but...
From the sale of the COVID Vaccine: Pfizer is expected to make US$26 Billion in revenue, Moderna is expected to earn US$18.4 Billion in revenue. This isn't counting the potential sales from booster shots in the coming years.
In the US, the Pharmaceutical industry spent the most money in lobbying out of any other sector (US$306 million in 2020 https://www.statista.com/statistics/257364/top-lobbying-industries-in-the-us/)
IverMectin and Hydroxychloroquine are brand name drugs and are very cheap for that reason. Therefore Drug companies don't make that much profit off medicines like them.
If drug companies could make a steady income stream in the Billions selling Covid Vaccines, they would hate for a drug already out to be as effective in treating COVID.
This isn't saying Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine works at all, but instead that there is a benefit for both Governments and Pharmaceutical companies to have COVID vaccines as the only treatment Method. It's naive to believe that this couldn't be the case.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

On the topic of treatments, it's coverd here for anyone who is interested in the 'official' position:

COVID-19 treatments

Find out how we are using evidence in our approach to COVID-19 treatments to keep Australians safe.

www.health.gov.au

 

[The 747]

I'm not usually a pusher of conspiracy theories, but...
From the sale of the COVID Vaccine: Pfizer is expected to make US$26 Billion in revenue, Moderna is expected to earn US$18.4 Billion in revenue. This isn't counting the potential sales from booster shots in the coming years.
In the US, the Pharmaceutical industry spent the most money in lobbying out of any other sector (US$306 million in 2020 https://www.statista.com/statistics/257364/top-lobbying-industries-in-the-us/)
IverMectin and Hydroxychloroquine are brand name drugs and are very cheap for that reason. Therefore Drug companies don't make that much profit off medicines like them.
If drug companies could make a steady income stream in the Billions selling Covid Vaccines, they would hate for a drug already out to be as effective in treating COVID.
This isn't saying Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine works at all, but instead that there is a benefit for both Governments and Pharmaceutical companies to have COVID vaccines as the only treatment Method. It's naive to believe that this couldn't be the case.

Sure BUT if there was a cheap easily available drug that treated COVID effectively do you think that a couple of big pharmaceutical companies are powerful enough to prevent anyone but conspiracy theorists from finding out about it? If they are that powerful they don't need sales or revenue.