Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#105,554
#105,554
Mayo Clinic predicting 100,000 more deaths by the end of the year “the vast majority of them are unvaccinated”
 
#105,555
#105,555
bamawriter said:
I know of no dictionary that would support your definition of "innocence."
Click to expand...
Are they sick? If not they are innocent. Hawaii should be proving they are guilty of being sick. People shouldnt have to prove they arent sick, or innocent.

It's the entire way our justice system is supposed to work.

Typhoid Mary was proven sick. She could reasonably be quarantined. Random Hawaii travellers number 6 has not been proven sick, they should not be quarantined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 825VOL and hog88
#105,559
#105,559
kiddiedoc said:
After a little hiccup at the lab, I finally got my 8 month convalescent titers back:

Spike protein Quant Ab = 433 (reference average after two vaccines 245)

Nucleocapsid Ab Positive

Fantastic news for immunity durability! (And reassuring, given my constant/daily exposure)
Click to expand...
Ok doc…I’m assuming your test was one of the first two in the chart below. Is this correct? I ask because the antibody test I took was the third one down and my results only displayed as < or > 1.00
My result was <1.0 which is negative. I have a hard time believing there was no trace of antibodies at all . Do you know the difference in the tests?
1630527710583.png
 
#105,561
#105,561
#105,562
#105,562
bamawriter said:
Show me even remotely legitimate source that lists "innocent" as an antonym to "sick."
Click to expand...
Deleted because I had the dumb.

If they arent sick/guilty, why is the state quarantining them?

Their logic is to protect from spreading Covid. Unless they know someone has Covid there is no logic to quarantine.
 
#105,563
#105,563
LouderVol said:
Deleted because I had the dumb.

If they arent sick/guilty, why is the state quarantining them?

Their logic is to protect from spreading Covid. Unless they know someone has Covid there is no logic to quarantine.
Click to expand...

Rather than a forced 10-day quarantine, would you be okay with requiring everyone that does not wish to disclose their records to submit to a test upon exiting the plane and forcing them to quarantine at the airport until they receive a negative result?
 
#105,564
#105,564
Franklin Pierce said:
World Health Organization says it is monitoring NEW Colombian COVID variant called 'Mu' amid fears it may be vaccine-resistant as Delta infections finally slow in US

  • World Health Organization named the 'Mu' COVID-19 strain, B.1.621, a variant of concern
The World Health Organization has issued a warning about yet another new COVID-19 variant it fears could potentially evade vaccines.

That variant, called Mu, was first detected in Colombia in January, and has been announced just as the Delta variant finally appears to be peaking in the U.S.

Over 4,600 cases of the variant, whose scientific name is B.1.621, have been spotted since then, and it has spread to more than 40 countries.

WHO warns of potentially vaccine resistant 'Mu' variant that originated in Colombia | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...
So, will we need a booster for this variant as well?
 
#105,565
#105,565
bamawriter said:
Rather than a forced 10-day quarantine, would you be okay with requiring everyone that does not wish to disclose their records to submit to a test upon exiting the plane and forcing them to quarantine at the airport until they receive a negative result?
Click to expand...

Hell no, why would anyone be ok with that?
 
#105,568
#105,568
mad4vols said:
Ivermectin to prevent hospitalizations in patients with COVID-19 (IVERCOR-COVID19) a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial | BMC Infectious Diseases | Full Text

Conclusion
Ivermectin had no significant effect on preventing hospitalization of patients with COVID-19. Patients who received ivermectin required invasive MVS earlier in their treatment. No significant differences were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes.
Click to expand...

Intervention
Patients were randomized to ivermectin (N = 250) or placebo (N = 251) arms in a staggered dose, according to the patient’s weight, for 2 days.
Click to expand...
2 days on 500 participants? Really?

It normally takes 3-5 days for it to work and you guys screamed and moaned about the tests that were done in India with a million times as many patients.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolinWayne and mrMet
#105,572
#105,572
hog88 said:
Oh nos!

The issue is why in the hell should anyone be required to carry one.
Click to expand...
To determine if it's safe for that person to travel. Most states and countries don't want moronic red hats spreading a virus to their citizenry.
 
#105,573
#105,573
bamawriter said:
Didn't say they should be okay with it. I'm spitballing options for the state to act on its compelling interest to reduce the spread of Covid.
Click to expand...

Considering their numbers they cannot claim to have been effect in their efforts so they have no compelling interests in continuing their restrictions on travelers.
 
#105,575
#105,575
mad4vols said:
Ivermectin to prevent hospitalizations in patients with COVID-19 (IVERCOR-COVID19) a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial | BMC Infectious Diseases | Full Text

Conclusion
Ivermectin had no significant effect on preventing hospitalization of patients with COVID-19. Patients who received ivermectin required invasive MVS earlier in their treatment. No significant differences were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes.
Click to expand...

Good news: no safety issues with using Ivermectin.

Bad news: no appreciable impact in this study.

Some important limitations:

The fact that no significant differences were found in the primary end point of hospitalizations in this study may be due to different factors. The first is that ivermectin is not effective in this group of patients to prevent hospitalizations. The second is that the IVERCORCOVID19 trial is underpowered because the hospitalization rate was lower than expected when performed in the sample size calculation, as well as the fact that an ambitious reduction of 50–70% was estimated of primary end point. Thirdly, the dose of ivermectin adjusted to the weight of the patients was low, which on the one hand could corroborate that these doses are not effective, but alternatively could provide the opportunity to study the efficacy of higher doses of ivermectin.

#2 - Sampling issues: 35 (6.99%) required hospitalization at any point from randomization to their end of study visit. Of these, 14 (5.60%) belonged to the ivermectin group and 21 (8.37%) to the placebo group.

#3 - Dosing issues: Secondly, the mean dose of ivermectin was 192.37 μg/kg/day (SD ± 24.56), which is below the doses proposed as probably effective [20, 33].

They could have dealt with #2 by choosing a bigger initial sample but #3 is the head scratcher - why dose at a lower rate then recommended?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top