Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#121,126
#121,126
Got a package about half the size of a shoebox yesterday from some lab in IL. Correct address but wrong recipient name. No idea what it is.
 
#121,128
#121,128
Orangeburst said:
Got a package about half the size of a shoebox yesterday from some lab in IL. Correct address but wrong recipient name. No idea what it is.
Click to expand...

I’m on some call list where they think I had Medicare Part B, and these Indians call incessantly and trying to send me 4 or 6 COVID test kits. If I have time, I give them fake info and a real address.

If they really send them, a UPS store in Maryland has received at least half a dozen packages addressed to Hugh Jassol filled with COVID test kits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol, Orangeburst and allvol123
#121,141
#121,141
A friend of mine who is a doctor and has treated many patients successfully with Ivermectin told me back in the fall of 2020 that it was absolutely criminal the way doctors who were treating with Ivermectin were being treated and silenced on social media if they shared their opinion about the effectiveness of Ivermectin.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial found that ivermectin reduced the risk of infection following exposure to SARS-CoV-2 by 72%.
Ivermectin was also shown to be safe in doses and duration higher than currently used in approved indications.

Desort-Henin: The SAIVE Trial, Post-Exposure use of ivermectin in Covid-19 prevention: Efficacy and Safety Results


This study demonstrated highly statistically significant evidence in a large, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that daily oral treatment with ivermectin reduced the risk of infection following exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Ivermectin was also shown to be safe in doses and duration higher than currently used in approved indications.
 
#121,144
#121,144
VolinMichigan said:
Big data study refutes anti-vax blood clot claims about COVID-19 vaccines
Click to expand...

"The study period ran from Jan. 1, 2020 (just prior to the detection in the U.S. of COVID-19) until March 6, 2022, and was based on data from veterans aged 45 years and older from the Department of Veterans Affairs National Surveillance Tool. The data included 855,686 people who had received at least one dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and an unvaccinated control group of 321,676 people.

To clearly identify whether the vaccines might impact risk for VTE, the researchers accounted for many factors that are predictors for VTE, including age, race, sex, body mass index and others.

The study found that vaccinated individuals had a VTE rate of 1.3755 per 1,000 people, which is 0.1% over the baseline VTE rate of 1.3741 per 1,000 in unvaccinated people."

“Given the fact that the rate of VTE with COVID-19 is several orders of magnitude greater than the trivial risk from vaccination, our study reinforces the safety and importance of staying current with COVID 19 vaccinations.”

So a couple points:

1) most of the concerns I've heard about with vaccine blod clots is with younger people; particularly young males - they were not part of the study.
2) the conclusion is the risk of BC is higher for those who contract Covid but the vaccine does not prevent contracting Covid
3) young people were at particularly low risk of Covid complications

So this study does not show that the risk of BCs for young people who are not vaccinated is greater than those who get vaccinated. If the vaccine does have BC risks for young people who generally aren't at risk from Covid then it's a reasonable question to ask if the risk is merited.

A better study design would compare the young population and look at prevalence of BCs in those vaccinated vs not vaccinated. It would need to control for whether the subject had Covid or not and account for any effect vaccines have on reducing the likelihood of getting Covid.

On another note - the lead author uses the term "anti-vaxxer" which is pop culture term and an inaccurate way to describe those who raise safety issues with vaccines - it is possible to raise safety issues without being an anti-vaxxer. It's not a scientific comment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, Rasputin_Vol, davethevol and 4 others
#121,145
#121,145
volinbham said:
"The study period ran from Jan. 1, 2020 (just prior to the detection in the U.S. of COVID-19) until March 6, 2022, and was based on data from veterans aged 45 years and older from the Department of Veterans Affairs National Surveillance Tool. The data included 855,686 people who had received at least one dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and an unvaccinated control group of 321,676 people.

To clearly identify whether the vaccines might impact risk for VTE, the researchers accounted for many factors that are predictors for VTE, including age, race, sex, body mass index and others.

The study found that vaccinated individuals had a VTE rate of 1.3755 per 1,000 people, which is 0.1% over the baseline VTE rate of 1.3741 per 1,000 in unvaccinated people."

“Given the fact that the rate of VTE with COVID-19 is several orders of magnitude greater than the trivial risk from vaccination, our study reinforces the safety and importance of staying current with COVID 19 vaccinations.”

So a couple points:

1) most of the concerns I've heard about with vaccine blod clots is with younger people; particularly young males - they were not part of the study.
2) the conclusion is the risk of BC is higher for those who contract Covid but the vaccine does not prevent contracting Covid
3) young people were at particularly low risk of Covid complications

So this study does not show that the risk of BCs for young people who are not vaccinated is greater than those who get vaccinated. If the vaccine does have BC risks for young people who generally aren't at risk from Covid then it's a reasonable question to ask if the risk is merited.

A better study design would compare the young population and look at prevalence of BCs in those vaccinated vs not vaccinated. It would need to control for whether the subject had Covid or not and account for any effect vaccines have on reducing the likelihood of getting Covid.

On another note - the lead author uses the term "anti-vaxxer" which is pop culture term and an inaccurate way to describe those who raise safety issues with vaccines - it is possible to raise safety issues without being an anti-vaxxer. It's not a scientific comment.
Click to expand...

Here's another thing- VA reporting and data tools are awful. I am speaking from firsthand experience.

I hate to be this way, but anyone trying to use what comes out of that agency for any kind of rigorous study ought to be rejected outright.
 
#121,146
#121,146
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and VolinWayne
#121,149
#121,149
volinbham said:
"The study period ran from Jan. 1, 2020 (just prior to the detection in the U.S. of COVID-19) until March 6, 2022, and was based on data from veterans aged 45 years and older from the Department of Veterans Affairs National Surveillance Tool. The data included 855,686 people who had received at least one dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and an unvaccinated control group of 321,676 people.

To clearly identify whether the vaccines might impact risk for VTE, the researchers accounted for many factors that are predictors for VTE, including age, race, sex, body mass index and others.

The study found that vaccinated individuals had a VTE rate of 1.3755 per 1,000 people, which is 0.1% over the baseline VTE rate of 1.3741 per 1,000 in unvaccinated people."

“Given the fact that the rate of VTE with COVID-19 is several orders of magnitude greater than the trivial risk from vaccination, our study reinforces the safety and importance of staying current with COVID 19 vaccinations.”

So a couple points:

1) most of the concerns I've heard about with vaccine blod clots is with younger people; particularly young males - they were not part of the study.
2) the conclusion is the risk of BC is higher for those who contract Covid but the vaccine does not prevent contracting Covid
3) young people were at particularly low risk of Covid complications

So this study does not show that the risk of BCs for young people who are not vaccinated is greater than those who get vaccinated. If the vaccine does have BC risks for young people who generally aren't at risk from Covid then it's a reasonable question to ask if the risk is merited.

A better study design would compare the young population and look at prevalence of BCs in those vaccinated vs not vaccinated. It would need to control for whether the subject had Covid or not and account for any effect vaccines have on reducing the likelihood of getting Covid.

On another note - the lead author uses the term "anti-vaxxer" which is pop culture term and an inaccurate way to describe those who raise safety issues with vaccines - it is possible to raise safety issues without being an anti-vaxxer. It's not a scientific comment.
Click to expand...
That’s the dude that talks garbage nonstop about Florida… and lives in Florida. He’s a clown.
 
#121,150
#121,150
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, davethevol and VolinWayne
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top