PlagueWatch 2020-23 - Coronavirus

[tbyers11]

She could be relying on foreign data. This, for example. It has not yet been peer-reviewed but that does not make it inaccurate in its findings. I'm generally leery of meta-studies, but there is this one on ivermectin. Interesting stuff.

See the two links above. Untested may not be the appropriate descriptive term. I'm not sure highly effective is appropriate either given we're now debating boosters to the end of time.

Here are two more studies of foreign data (study 1 and study 2) from India very similar to the one you provided from Israel. Neither of them show any significant reduction in time to to negative RT-PCR in the ivermectin group vs placebo.

Study 2 was cited by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and and the Covid-19 National Task Force in their decision last week to drop the usage of Ivermectin from their revised "clinical guidance for management of adult Covid-19 patients".

I agree that untested is probably not the appropriate term for ivermectin. I would say tested with inconclusive to no effect would be the accurate term.

I would also like to parse "debating boosters until the end of time". COVID will not be eradicated but it will become endemic. Will we need an annual booster (like flu) or every few years (like other vaccines). Probably. If that is what you mean by end of time then I agree.

However, when enough people get vaccinated or (in the case of the US get vaccinated plus get infected) we will be able to reopen society without putting undue strain on our healthcare system. Look at Denmark and Iceland. High vaccination rates lead to decreased transmission and decreased severe cases and the cautious opening of society. If the US had hit 70% of total population vaccinated today we could there now. However, we are currently at ~56% and taking the hard, long way and likely won't get there for several more months.

[Bostondevil]

What if she is correct?

She is prescribing a medication for an, as yet, unproven off label use to a family member who is not her patient - that's a medical ethics no-no. Yes, I am assuming her husband is not her patient because that's another medical ethics no-no. So, from a medical ethics point of view, she cannot be correct and there is no "what if", her actions are wrong.

So far the studies are not showing ivermectin to be more useful than vaccines. When you just look at potential side effects, ivermectin is much worse than a vaccine. One of the known side effects, rare but known, is temporary blindness. It's a known side effect. Temporary blindness. Ethical physicians do not give medications that might cause temporary blindness for unproven off label uses to family members, they just don't.

[Bostondevil]

I'm not sure why you would assume the only way she could be wrong is lack of education. People are wrong in spite of their education and in the face of mountains of opposing evidence all the time. Smart people are especially good at rationalizing their dumb beliefs/conclusions to convince themselves that it must be true after all. Is this the first time people are realizing that there are medical professionals who are not pro-vax?

Hmmm, I am assuming a lack of public health experience which, yes, means I am assuming she does not have an MPH and/or has never worked in a public health capacity (not all MDs have public health experience). Why do I make this assumption? Because I cannot name a single public health professional who is anti-vax. Yes, many medical professionals are also public health professionals, but not all. Not all public health professionals have MDs.

I do think any public health professional who came out as anti-vax would be chased out of the profession, so, yes, there is an orthodoxy to the profession. But that orthodoxy is based on evidence. I would like to think that if the data no longer backed up that orthodoxy, public health professionals would change with the data, but I will concede that might be difficult for those who are mid career or beyond. People do get set in their ways. That said, there have been no studies that show vaccines do not work. There have been no studies that show any of the covid vaccines available in the US do not work.

[Bostondevil]

And my unvaccinated brother has covid.

[sagegrouse]

And my unvaccinated brother has covid.

I hope he recovers quickly and completely.

[Bostondevil]

I hope he recovers quickly and completely.

Me too - thank you.

[mph]

And my unvaccinated brother has covid.

Sorry to hear that BD. Prayers for your brother’s recovery.

[DukieInKansas]

And my unvaccinated brother has covid.

I'm sorry to hear this. I hope he doesn't have severe symptoms and recovers quickly.

[Skydog]

You have a much greater degree of confidence in the competence of the media than I.

Yes I believe that the media would report a peer reviewed double blind randomized control trial that found ivermectin was effective. Even if you think CNN & NYT wouldn’t report it (they would) then Fox News and OAN certainly would be blaring it 24/7.

She could be relying on foreign data. This, for example. It has not yet been peer-reviewed but that does not make it inaccurate in its findings. I'm generally leery of meta-studies, but there is this one on ivermectin. Interesting stuff.

Show me a peer reviewed randomized control study that shows ivermectin is even 1/2 as effective as a vaccine and you will have my attention.

See the two links above. Untested may not be the appropriate descriptive term. I'm not sure highly effective is appropriate either given we're now debating boosters to the end of time.

The fully vaccinated make up 65-70% of our nation but only about 10% of the hospitalized covid patients in the US. Note also that the very elderly are highly overrepresented in this group. But still 90% of severe covid cases requiring hospitalization come from the smaller and younger cohort. And if you look at deaths the imbalance is even greater. I take that as proof that the vaccine is amazingly effective against a very, very nasty and persistent bug. The fact that it will require boosters doesn’t make it less effective, just less convenient. In fact the booster may make it more effective than ever. Nobody says flu shots are ineffective because they are annual. Tetanus shots aren’t considered ineffective even though they have to be repeated every few years.

Then she provided tremendous service to her patients and greatly embarrassed the established authorities in the medical field. Her patients will thank her. The established authorities will pillory her, much as you do here.

Im confused. Is her goal to embarrass established medical authorities? Is that the goal of her patients? Is that your goal?

The bolded above is an unproven assertation. Per the CDC, "There is insufficient evidence for the Panel to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. "

You are right - I shouldn’t have called it junk science.

Your suggestion that any doctor that does not toe the party line should be banned from practicing and sent to re-education seems . . . imprudent.

I’m not in favor of banning any medical professional for not following a “party line.” You are the one that brings politics into this discussion. I am talking about science. Show me good solid research that proves that eating 3 grasshoppers is safe and effective way to stop covid and I will be eating 3 grasshoppers as soon as I can find them.

And if, when discussing ivermectin, the doc told her patients something like “There are a few preliminary, exploratory studies of ivermectin with mixed results. A couple studies found it effective, a few studies found it ineffective. But this treatment continues to be evaluated and when randomized control studies have been carried out I will be glad to give you a recommendation based on their findings.” That would be fine because it is a fair and balanced representation of our current scientific knowledge.

But if, as you claim, she recommends this inadequately tested and unproven treatment over a treatment that has been proven to reduce risk of hospitalization and dying by over 90%? Yes, then Im in favor of stopping her from practicing medicine. Same as I would if a doc was recommending his cancer patients to skip their radiation treatments and instead take an herbal supplement he read about in a couple non-peer-reviewed paper.

My comments above.

[ClemmonsDevil]

My comments above.

Good stuff. Sporked.

[jv001]

And my unvaccinated brother has covid.

Prayers for a speedy recovery. God bless.

[aimo]

And my unvaccinated brother has covid.

Sorry to hear this. Hope he recovers quickly.

[Ultrarunner]

Two people - Bostondevil and Skydog - suggested that a comment of mine - toeing the party line - injected politics into the discussion. While a fascinating look into their headspace, it does not. Common usage of the expression ranges much further than politics.

Wikipedia:"Toe the line" is an idiomatic expression meaning either to conform to a rule or standard, or to stand poised at the starting line in a footrace. Other phrases which were once used in the early 1800s and have the same meaning were toe the mark and toe the plank."
Cambridge Dictionary: to do what someone in authority tells you to do although you may not agree with it

Bostondevil also stated there is no party line. I disagree. There are at least two distinct party lines that I can identify. Only one is represented on this board. Should any individual be so foolish as to not conform, they get blasted by multiple posters. Slightly dissenting voices or those who ask questions such as "What if she's right?" interrupt the acoustics of the chamber.

Bostondevil, I hope your brother has a very mild case and a full recovery!

[Lord Ash]

Two people - Bostondevil and Skydog - suggested that a comment of mine - toeing the party line - injected politics into the discussion. While a fascinating look into their headspace, it does not. Common usage of the expression ranges much further than politics.

Wikipedia:"Toe the line" is an idiomatic expression meaning either to conform to a rule or standard, or to stand poised at the starting line in a footrace. Other phrases which were once used in the early 1800s and have the same meaning were toe the mark and toe the plank."
Cambridge Dictionary: to do what someone in authority tells you to do although you may not agree with it

Bostondevil also stated there is no party line. I disagree. There are at least two distinct party lines that I can identify. Only one is represented on this board. Should any individual be so foolish as to not conform, they get blasted by multiple posters. Slightly dissenting voices or those who ask questions such as "What if she's right?" interrupt the acoustics of the chamber.

Bostondevil, I hope your brother has a very mild case and a full recovery!

Nice of you to offer the definition, but you omitted *the key point*; you didn't say "toe the line" you said "toe the PARTY line," which you did NOT provide a definition for.

Guess what meaning the word "party" adds? Hint: this is not about agreeing with someone about your birthday party.


Ahhhhh, there we go.



As for party lines on this forum... yes, I would agree there are two general groups that people break down into when it comes to covid and vaccinations. We are lucky to have a number of professionals and experts in this particular field who add to the conversation, and yes, those professionals and experts DO seem to largely agree about this topic.

But the idea that only one side is represented on this board is ridiculous. You yourself represent another take on things. So does Blue. So have several people.

Now, does that mean that two different takes are VALUED by the large majority of this forum? No. This forum tends to be made up mostly of A) experts in a field and then B) people who are not experts in a field but tend to value said experts input. When someone posts things that the experts generally disagree with, and for which there is little evidence, and about an emotional topic like a multi-year pandemic that has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans... well, that might not be as valued or reflected by the majority.

And your take on what happens when people disagree is just far too "drama queen" for me. Saying "What if she is right?" isn't adding any value to the conversation, and it certainly isn't disrupting acoustics... thats a fairly naive, lazy take. Instead, it is just... well, it is boring and lazy and not really supported by any facts.

If you post using facts and data and research about a medical topic, you'll get plenty of feedback and respect and conversation. If you post neither in a thread full of actual professionals and experts... eh, you reap what you sow.

[Rich]

yes, I would agree there are two general groups that people break down into when it comes to covid and vaccinations. We are lucky to have a number of professionals and experts in this particular field who add to the conversation, and yes, those professionals and experts DO seem to largely agree about this topic.

But the idea that only one side is represented on this board is ridiculous. You yourself represent another take on things. So does Blue. So have several people.

For those who have an alternative take than the vaccines, I don't understand why there is such questioning, if not disdain, for a proven cure, that appears to be good for society, limited side effects, and seemingly few long term effects in favor of radical and less proven solutions that seem to harm people at a greater rate, especially when used without a doctor's oversight.

Put another way, why are so many people in favor of putting things in their body that they don't understand that have not been medically proven over things they are not in favor of putting in their body that they don't understand that have been medically proven? It's one thing to say I'm going to sit and wait and see if I get Covid before I put anything in my body (which I don't agree with) and another to put unproven solutions into their body when there's a proven solution that's available. I mean, isn't medicine all about putting things in our body that we as layman don't necessarily understand but have been proven by scientists and doctors to alleviate/cure what ails us?

I'm not trying to stir the pot, but I really don't understand the mindset other than "f*ck those telling me what I should do, I'm gonna do what I want to do" (even if it kills me). Would we as a country be in a completely different place right now if it was called the Trump Vaccine?

[Lord Ash]

"f*ck those telling me what I should do, I'm gonna do what I want to do" (even if it kills me).

As insane as it sounds, I think it is largely this. Some people are just jerks who don't want to listen, even if said listening is good for them.

[niveklaen]

As insane as it sounds, I think it is largely this. Some people are just jerks who don't want to listen, even if said listening is good for them.

I think it is a good deal worse than that. they are really saying, 'Don't tell me what to do. I don't care how many innocent people I kill or even if I kill myself' They want to hurt people. That is why there are tons of stories and videos of them attacking employees who ask them to put on masks and doctors who try to save their lives.

[Skydog]

Nice of you to offer the definition, but you omitted *the key point*; you didn't say "toe the line" you said "toe the PARTY line," which you did NOT provide a definition for.

Guess what meaning the word "party" adds? Hint: this is not about agreeing with someone about your birthday party.


Ahhhhh, there we go.



As for party lines on this forum... yes, I would agree there are two general groups that people break down into when it comes to covid and vaccinations. We are lucky to have a number of professionals and experts in this particular field who add to the conversation, and yes, those professionals and experts DO seem to largely agree about this topic.

But the idea that only one side is represented on this board is ridiculous. You yourself represent another take on things. So does Blue. So have several people.

Now, does that mean that two different takes are VALUED by the large majority of this forum? No. This forum tends to be made up mostly of A) experts in a field and then B) people who are not experts in a field but tend to value said experts input. When someone posts things that the experts generally disagree with, and for which there is little evidence, and about an emotional topic like a multi-year pandemic that has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans... well, that might not be as valued or reflected by the majority.

And your take on what happens when people disagree is just far too "drama queen" for me. Saying "What if she is right?" isn't adding any value to the conversation, and it certainly isn't disrupting acoustics... thats a fairly naive, lazy take. Instead, it is just... well, it is boring and lazy and not really supported by any facts.

If you post using facts and data and research about a medical topic, you'll get plenty of feedback and respect and conversation. If you post neither in a thread full of actual professionals and experts... eh, you reap what you sow.

You must spread comments …yada yada.
Very well put. Your last paragraph says it all.

[DukieInKansas]

Two people - Bostondevil and Skydog - suggested that a comment of mine - toeing the party line - injected politics into the discussion. While a fascinating look into their headspace, it does not. Common usage of the expression ranges much further than politics.

Wikipedia:"Toe the line" is an idiomatic expression meaning either to conform to a rule or standard, or to stand poised at the starting line in a footrace. Other phrases which were once used in the early 1800s and have the same meaning were toe the mark and toe the plank."
Cambridge Dictionary: to do what someone in authority tells you to do although you may not agree with it

Bostondevil also stated there is no party line. I disagree. There are at least two distinct party lines that I can identify. Only one is represented on this board. Should any individual be so foolish as to not conform, they get blasted by multiple posters. Slightly dissenting voices or those who ask questions such as "What if she's right?" interrupt the acoustics of the chamber.

Bostondevil, I hope your brother has a very mild case and a full recovery!

Nice of you to offer the definition, but you omitted *the key point*; you didn't say "toe the line" you said "toe the PARTY line," which you did NOT provide a definition for.

Guess what meaning the word "party" adds? Hint: this is not about agreeing with someone about your birthday party.


Ahhhhh, there we go.



As for party lines on this forum... yes, I would agree there are two general groups that people break down into when it comes to covid and vaccinations. We are lucky to have a number of professionals and experts in this particular field who add to the conversation, and yes, those professionals and experts DO seem to largely agree about this topic.

But the idea that only one side is represented on this board is ridiculous. You yourself represent another take on things. So does Blue. So have several people.

Now, does that mean that two different takes are VALUED by the large majority of this forum? No. This forum tends to be made up mostly of A) experts in a field and then B) people who are not experts in a field but tend to value said experts input. When someone posts things that the experts generally disagree with, and for which there is little evidence, and about an emotional topic like a multi-year pandemic that has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans... well, that might not be as valued or reflected by the majority.

And your take on what happens when people disagree is just far too "drama queen" for me. Saying "What if she is right?" isn't adding any value to the conversation, and it certainly isn't disrupting acoustics... thats a fairly naive, lazy take. Instead, it is just... well, it is boring and lazy and not really supported by any facts.

If you post using facts and data and research about a medical topic, you'll get plenty of feedback and respect and conversation. If you post neither in a thread full of actual professionals and experts... eh, you reap what you sow.

This is what makes message boards and the internet fascinating to me. People can read a comment and come up with two different interpretations. I read "toe the party line" as sticking with what the medical community is saying is the right treatment/response - so the medical community (AMA for example) is the party and not a political party. It's how I've heard the expression used throughout my life - related to company policies, school board policies, etc.. But, when I read it, I knew that people, maybe even the majority, would think along political party lines.

My take on vaccination status is that the non-vaccinated people are not of one political persuasion. Anecdotal evidence/small sample size - co-worker knows a family where husband (70+) was vaccinated but younger spouse and daughter (both Democrats) didn't think they needed to be vaccinated. They are now waiting until the designated time has passed after getting Covid so they can be vaccinated. I know several Trump supporters and they fall on both sides - some were happy to get vaccinated and some think it is all a conspiracy. My frustration is that thinking all unvaccinated people are of one political persuasion will limit attempts to change minds in a way that won't reach everyone.

Moderators - if this is too PPB, please feel free to delete.

[Lord Ash]

This is what makes message boards and the internet fascinating to me. People can read a comment and come up with two different interpretations. I read "toe the party line" as sticking with what the medical community is saying is the right treatment/response - so the medical community (AMA for example) is the party and not a political party. It's how I've heard the expression used throughout my life - related to company policies, school board policies, etc.. But, when I read it, I knew that people, maybe even the majority, would think along political party lines.

My take on vaccination status is that the non-vaccinated people are not of one political persuasion. Anecdotal evidence/small sample size - co-worker knows a family where husband (70+) was vaccinated but younger spouse and daughter (both Democrats) didn't think they needed to be vaccinated. They are now waiting until the designated time has passed after getting Covid so they can be vaccinated. I know several Trump supporters and they fall on both sides - some were happy to get vaccinated and some think it is all a conspiracy. My frustration is that thinking all unvaccinated people are of one political persuasion will limit attempts to change minds in a way that won't reach everyone.

Moderators - if this is too PPB, please feel free to delete.

You know what is funny? I also did not actually take it as a political comment either.