Covid-19 Wuhan Coronavirus (COVID-19) - Part 4 - Ivermectin doesn't work either.

[Chief]

Continued in Part 5:

Covid-19 - Wuhan Coronavirus (COVID-19) - Part 5 - Get vaccinated.

https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/covid-19/Documents/in-focus/covid-19-vaccination-case-surveillance-051121.pdf In the peak fortnight of the outbreak to date (25 August to 7 September), the COVID-19 case rate among 2-dose vaccinated people was 49.5 per 100,000 while in unvaccinated...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Crankyhawk]

That's my point, you don't have leverage. There is excess demand for vaccine, so they can just cancel the contract and sell elsewhere

no i'm confused here- i'm not blaming astra zeneca for the actions taken by the italian government.
I am wanting compo out of the italian government
That shouldn't cause AZ to tear up the contract? Unless AZ is owned by the EU?

 

[Crankyhawk]

We banned their tech firm from our country and wanted inspectors with nuclear inspector powers to investigate them. Where has Rob R suggested anything close to that?

Only people upset about this are those that hate the EU, and it's for reasons that have zero to do with Australia

I don't trust any other country tbh. And we see how s**t truck our leaders are; it stands to reason that those of other countries are going to be as bad or worse. Why should I then trust them

 

[Seeds]

What bad behaviour have the citizens done?

Nothing. Dont be a twat

Citizens are responsbile for their leaders. They are the ones that vote them in. They are the ones who demand in opinion polls for society to open up.

the only reason australia didnt open up in june is because the people told the politicians overwhelmingly through polls that they didnt want that to happen. That was not the case in europe.

italy opened up to foreigners last summer. They will do it again this summer. Meanwhile we will have been in lockdown for two whole years Or more by the timevwe are vaccinated.

 

[The Dice Man]

Citizens are responsbile for their leaders. They are the ones that vote them in. They are the ones who demand in opinion polls for society to open up.

the only reason australia didnt open up in june is because the people told the politicians overwhelmingly through polls that they didnt want that to happen. That was not the case in europe.

italy opened up to foreigners last summer. They will do it again this summer. Meanwhile we will have been in lockdown for two whole years Or more by the timevwe are vaccinated.

What mate?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Meanwhile we will have been in lockdown for two whole years Or more by the timevwe are vaccinated.

Hopefully you make parole soon, what with good behaviour and all that.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Viruses are going to eventually be the trigger that will kill many of us, and they will 100% definitely kill someone you know.

I cannot recommend these two clips highly enough for the novice to gain an introductory understanding of viruses.

Find ~90 minutes to watch & absorb these videos. Educate yourself about this. It's important. You will understand this significantly better afterwards.

 

[Frank Bunn]

The simplest critique of the McCullough study is that it was published last August but it hasn’t budged the dial. Those charged with assessing the evidence here and abroad are generally recommending against the use of HCQ for the treatment of COVID. As more evidence comes in it appears to be affirming their position.

That's not a critique. It sounds like you haven't read any of the studies cited by the BMJ or McCullough. I've read them all and none of them are persuasive for or against the use of HCQ in reducing hospitalisation or deaths in vulnerable people such as the very elderly and those with serious medical conditions. There was general consensus in the studies that HCQ has no serious adverse effects when applied in the correct dosage - which you would expect for a drug that has been safely used for decades.

As for the Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce they picked two studies (from the BMJ list) to evaluate HCQ as a post-exposure prophylaxic.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2016638

​

The median age of participants was 40 years. Participants self diagnosed whether they had contracted Covid-19. Only 2 participants needed hospital treatment, one in each group.​

​

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2021801

​

2.314 participants were assigned to receive HCQ or receive usual care ie unblinded to both staff and participants. There was no placebo group. Elderly patients were included but 73% were female - whereas it's been established that males are more vulnerable to Covid-19.​

The Taskforce rated their confidence in these study results as low for almost every measure due to imprecision, serious inconsistency and serious risk of bias. Yet, given this low confidence, lack of placebo group in the main study, and general consensus of no serious adverse effects - they came up with a summary recommendation of

Based on the available evidence, post-exposure prophylactic hydroxychloroquine is probably no more effective at preventing COVID-19 infection than placebo, and results in more adverse events.​

This statement is at odds with the evidence as are the decisions to prohibit use of HCQ by Australian doctors. There needs to be further studies on HCQ, yet you get statements like this from the BMJ.

Concerning hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine prophylaxis, more than 80 trials planning to enrol at least 100 000 participants are registered or ongoing. The high certainty evidence that has emerged regarding the lack of effect of hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis suggests that funders and researchers should reconsider the initiation or continuation of these trials.​

 

[Chief]

Sorry sorted - when it comes to choosing between the opinions of people who have read the studies, I’ll take the people who do it for a living over yours and Donald’s.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Sorry sorted - when it comes to choosing between the opinions of people who have read the studies, I’ll take the people who do it for a living over yours and Donald’s.

You can find plenty of experts who disagree with the orthodox view on HCQ, such as Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy AM MB BS PhD DSc FRACP FRCP(A) RS(N), Foundation Professor Pathology, Medical School University Newcastle, Clinical Immunologist and (Previous) Head of the Newcastle Mucosal Immunology Group, with special interest in airways infection and vaccine development, member of the Australian Academy of Science’s COVID-19 Expert Database.

But if you paid attention, when I looked into the studies he was relying on in support of HCQ use I found they were just as unpersuasive as the studies cited by BMJ and the Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce against it.

I provided links. I reckon even someone like yourself, who doesn't do it for a living, could spot when the summaries and conclusions reached are not supported by the evidence cited.
Such as a claim from a major study that use of HCQ did no better than a placebo - when there was no placebo used.
Such as claims that HCQ should not be used because of the adverse effects - when there was general consensus in the studies that HCQ has no serious adverse effects when applied in the correct dosage.
Such as making a recommendation of non-use based on evidence that was rated low confidence, imprecise, seriously inconsistent and with serious risk of bias.

 

[mcnulty]

I've read them all

That’s nice. Mate, you’ve been spectacularly wrong about everything in this thread, from the very start. You could apply the George Costanza rule to you, pick the opposite of everything you’ve said and we’d have this thing licked.

Sorry if that’s harsh, but anyone could scroll through and see for themselves. Pardon me if I have a slightly sceptical view on your analysis. I’ll stick with the experts.

 

[Frank Bunn]

That’s nice. Mate, you’ve been spectacularly wrong about everything in this thread, from the very start. You could apply the George Costanza rule to you, pick the opposite of everything you’ve said and we’d have this thing licked.

Sorry if that’s harsh, but anyone could scroll through and see for themselves. Pardon me if I have a slightly sceptical view on your analysis. I’ll stick with the experts.

LOL. You won't even look at evidence when it is put under your nose. If you can't keep up just say so.

 

[mcnulty]

LOL. You won't even look at evidence when it is put under your nose. If you can't keep up just say so.

The evidence you want to hear? That the rest of the world is for some reason ignoring? Do we really need to go back and recap your thoughts on COVID from the start? It’s truly hilarious. Posting graphs of the UK and Swedens success right before they got clobbered by the second wave was perhaps a standout.

What’s even more hilarious is watching you try not to out yourself as an anti-vaxxer. Like some sort of weird logical mobius strip.

 

[Financialpanther]

The evidence you want to hear? Do we really need to go back and recap your thoughts on COVID from the start? It’s truly hilarious. Posting graphs of the UK and Swedens success right before they got clobbered by the second wave was perhaps a standout.

What’s even more hilarious is watching you try not to out yourself as an anti-vaxxer. Like some sort of weird logical mobius strip.

They prefer to be called Plague Enthusiasts

 

[Snake_Baker]

That's not a critique. It sounds like you haven't read any of the studies cited by the BMJ or McCullough. I've read them all and none of them are persuasive for or against the use of HCQ in reducing hospitalisation or deaths in vulnerable people such as the very elderly and those with serious medical conditions. There was general consensus in the studies that HCQ has no serious adverse effects when applied in the correct dosage - which you would expect for a drug that has been safely used for decades.

As for the Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce they picked two studies (from the BMJ list) to evaluate HCQ as a post-exposure prophylaxic.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2016638

​

The median age of participants was 40 years. Participants self diagnosed whether they had contracted Covid-19. Only 2 participants needed hospital treatment, one in each group.​

​

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2021801

​

2.314 participants were assigned to receive HCQ or receive usual care ie unblinded to both staff and participants. There was no placebo group. Elderly patients were included but 73% were female - whereas it's been established that males are more vulnerable to Covid-19.​

The Taskforce rated their confidence in these study results as low for almost every measure due to imprecision, serious inconsistency and serious risk of bias. Yet, given this low confidence, lack of placebo group in the main study, and general consensus of no serious adverse effects - they came up with a summary recommendation of

Based on the available evidence, post-exposure prophylactic hydroxychloroquine is probably no more effective at preventing COVID-19 infection than placebo, and results in more adverse events.​

This statement is at odds with the evidence as are the decisions to prohibit use of HCQ by Australian doctors. There needs to be further studies on HCQ, yet you get statements like this from the BMJ.

Concerning hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine prophylaxis, more than 80 trials planning to enrol at least 100 000 participants are registered or ongoing. The high certainty evidence that has emerged regarding the lack of effect of hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis suggests that funders and researchers should reconsider the initiation or continuation of these trials.​

HCQ is a complicated treatment, and it's metabolic factors are not fully understood. It puzzles me that laypersons are vehemently arguing its merits & pitfalls.

 

[Brad Goodman]

HCQ is a complicated treatment, and it's metabolic factors are not fully understood. It puzzles me that laypersons are vehemently arguing its merits & pitfalls.

What agenda they have for doing so puzzles me more.

 

[Snake_Baker]

What agenda they have for doing so puzzles me more.

I assume it's tabloid level political allegiances in most instances.

 

[Seeds]

Are melbournians still wearing masks inside Public places? If so why?

No other states are and unlike Victoria other states are still bringing in foreigners through the borders.

 

[FRUMPY]

Are melbournians still wearing masks inside Public places? If so why?

No other states are and unlike Victoria other states are still bringing in foreigners through the borders.

Yep, no virus out there but need to wear masks in shopping centres etc.....

I cbf'd wearing one the other day in a shopping centre. I reckon about 10% of adults weren't wearing them.

Sent from my CPH2005 using Tapatalk

 

[Seeds]

Yep, no virus out there but need to wear masks in shopping centres etc.....

I cbf'd wearing one the other day in a shopping centre. I reckon about 10% of adults weren't wearing them.

Sent from my CPH2005 using Tapatalk

So even though there is no virus in the community and No way for it to get into the community with international borders to victoria completely locked you guys are still wearing masks in shopping centres? Wow.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Are melbournians still wearing masks inside Public places?

Yes.

If so why?

It's assists with my shoplifting.

 

[Chief]

there is no virus in the community and No way for it to get into the community

This isn’t 100% of course.

 

[Frank Bunn]

HCQ is a complicated treatment, and it's metabolic factors are not fully understood. It puzzles me that laypersons are vehemently arguing its merits & pitfalls.

I guess that's you out of the climate change threads then, along with everyone else!

But we are not discussing how HCQ works. We are talking about whether it works, in particular if it can reduce hospitalisations and deaths in vulnerable populations for early treatment with Covid-19. And whether it is safe at normal dosages.

I'm not arguing that HCQ should be used. Just saying that the summary positions on efficacy and safety of HCQ from bodies like the BMJ and Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce are unsupported by their own cited evidence. In response to what I've posted all I have got in return are ad hominem attacks and little snips that avoid genuine discussion.

 

[Frank Bunn]

So even though there is no virus in the community and No way for it to get into the community with international borders to victoria completely locked you guys are still wearing masks in shopping centres? Wow.

Don't blame the people. There's a $200 fine for not wearing a mask in shopping centres.

Meanwhile 20,000 people without were allowed into Kardinia Park to watch a pre-season friendly...

 

[FRUMPY]

Don't blame the people. There's a $200 fine for not wearing a mask in shopping centres.

Meanwhile 20,000 people without were allowed into Kardinia Park to watch a pre-season friendly...

Yep and the morbidly obese can eat their large big Mac meal without a mask in the shopping centre but we have to wear one when not eating ......

Such a tricky virus but it is nice enough to not attack us when eating

Sent from my CPH2005 using Tapatalk

 

[Snake_Baker]

I guess that's you out of the climate change threads then, along with everyone else!

Huh?

But we are not discussing how HCQ works. We are talking about whether it works, in particular if it can reduce hospitalisations and deaths in vulnerable populations for early treatment with Covid-19. And whether it is safe at normal dosages.

"How" it works and "whether" it works are mutually exclusive aspects of the drug treatment. Sars-CoV-2 does not have any simple type of a-b-c.........pathogenisis, and HCQ treatment has a complicated series of pharmacodynamics, some of which can mitigate infection (endocytosis inhibition dependent upon the stage of infection), and others which can cause complications downstream with immunomodulatory factors (cytokines) that can interfere with existing immunity factors, or complicate other detrimental pathologies. HCQ treatment has a significant "domino effect" that is much more complicated than you appear to understand.

I'm not arguing that HCQ should be used. Just saying that the summary positions on efficacy and safety of HCQ from bodies like the BMJ and Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce are unsupported by their own cited evidence. In response to what I've posted all I have got in return are ad hominem attacks and little snips that avoid genuine discussion.

Likewise, I would not trust information from any organisation that had been commandeered by bureaucrats, but I am not basing my comments on these organisations anyway. If you want a local example then look no further than Brett Sutton in Victoria and his comments on the "UK strain" in recent weeks. He is either staggeringly ignorant or politically corrupted.

It appears your argument is political, not medical.