1. #72421
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    I'm not even sure Texas' caseload counts as "so low". They're not even very good liars.
    They are lying as well as they can. And I'd bet that if they used the same counting procedures as last wave, the numbers would be a lot worse.

    If not, then the delta virus is more dangerous than the previous versions in that you get more hospitalizations from fewer cases. The previous accepted knowledge was that the delta variation was the same from a danger level but more infectious.

    EDIT: ok maybe not as much as I was thinking. Max number of cases (7 day average) was a bit over 200k at the peak of the last wave. Current is a bit over 150k (according to MSN). So we are not as far below the previous max as I thought we were.

    Having said that, we still have a situation where we have fewer cases, though not so many more, fewer deaths (MSN 7 day average is a bit over 1000 as compared to 3000 at the peak before), yet more hospitalizations. Hopefully this is due to people getting vaccinated and not fudged numbers.

    Having reviewed the numbers: What is the proper interval for getting booster shots? The numbers I just checked up imply that the vaccine is even better than advertised. I've heard 6 to 8 months (hard to believe it's only 4 months since my first shot).
    Last edited by Omega10; 2021-08-26 at 04:30 PM.

  2. #72422
    Immortal Poopymonster's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    7,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Noxx79 View Post
    I just don’t understand this. “I don’t trust the vaccine that is free, so I’m going to off label prescribe myself some livestock drugs”

    I mean I suppose it’s appropriate that these people are finally admitting they’re part of the mindless herd, but wtf?
    Comrade Noxx, are you finding trouble with Glorious Capitalism Society?
    Free = Bad.
    Pay money = Good.
    Capitalism at work!
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok


    If you look, you can see the straw man walking a red herring up a slippery slope coming to join this conversation.

  3. #72423
    Quote Originally Posted by Benggaul View Post
    Illinois: 4,451 new cases; 44 deaths
    Good news, at least for chicago, cases are down 5% from last week, hospitalizations are down 13%. positivity rate is down. Bad news is vaccination rate is flat. Granted Chicago only accounts for ~10% of that number you posted. The city is weathering this surge so far, hope we can keep it that way.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopymonster View Post
    Comrade Noxx, are you finding trouble with Glorious Capitalism Society?
    Free = Bad.
    Pay money = Good.
    Capitalism at work!
    First fish tank cleaner, now this. I think there is some animal fetish going on in this country. There is 5 millions heads of sheep in the US, oh gosh.

  4. #72424
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Oddly enough, Ivermectin may actually have some benefits, so long as it is taken with other drugs. The issue is that the studies done with them are almost all very, very small... with sample sizes of less than 100. They will often not even have a current control group, but rather go off previous data on recover and hospitalization rates.
    Ehhhhh, not so much.

    Ivermectin Shows No Clear Benefit in the Treatment of Covid-19

    This trial has already demonstrated that hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir are unlikely to be beneficial treatments for people with Covid-19 in outpatient settings and, because of the hype around ivermectin, had included the drug in a treatment arm to see if it worked. The results from that part of the trial, including over 1,300 patients, were released in summary form late this afternoon.

    They showed no benefit for ivermectin in the treatment of Covid-19. None whatsoever.

  5. #72425
    Quote Originally Posted by Benggaul View Post
    Yes; the studies are spotty, at best... which is why people shouldn't consider it a miracle cure.

    One thing that should be noted, is that the point of Ivermectin, was to take it in conjunction with other drugs... whose names escape me at the moment.

    Personally, I'll stick with the vaccines.

  6. #72426
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Yes; the studies are spotty, at best... which is why people shouldn't consider it a miracle cure.

    One thing that should be noted, is that the point of Ivermectin, was to take it in conjunction with other drugs... whose names escape me at the moment.

    Personally, I'll stick with the vaccines.
    This particular study isn't spotty though. It's pretty thorough. And it concludes that ivermectin has no effect at all. Which means if you're taking it "in conjunction with other drugs", it's the other drugs doing the heavy lifting. Ivermectin is doing squat. But those Trumpers will do anything to avoid vaccines, I guess.

  7. #72427
    Quote Originally Posted by Benggaul View Post
    This particular study isn't spotty though. It's pretty thorough. And it concludes that ivermectin has no effect at all. Which means if you're taking it "in conjunction with other drugs", it's the other drugs doing the heavy lifting. Ivermectin is doing squat. But those Trumpers will do anything to avoid vaccines, I guess.
    This is a good study, and it has a large enough sample size.

    The issue is that it is not a complete and direct refutation of those weaker studies (not counting the retracted one).

    Ivermectin is safe, and humans have taken it for a long time. I'm pretty sure I even took while in the military ( we took lots of drugs before/during/after deployments.

    The real issue is that these people are taking Ivermectin instead of getting vaccinated, and in the wrong dosage.

  8. #72428
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Ivermectin is safe, and humans have taken it for a long time.
    Neither of which I've disputed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    The real issue is that these people are taking Ivermectin instead of getting vaccinated, and in the wrong dosage.
    No, the real issue is that ivermectin doesn't do anything when it comes to COVID but people keep saying it does, which means people will continue trying to take it instead of getting vaccinated and observing safety precautions. Dosage is irrelevant; I couldn't care less if they want to Darwin themselves.

  9. #72429
    Quote Originally Posted by Benggaul View Post
    Neither of which I've disputed.



    No, the real issue is that ivermectin doesn't do anything when it comes to COVID but people keep saying it does, which means people will continue trying to take it instead of getting vaccinated and observing safety precautions. Dosage is irrelevant; I couldn't care less if they want to Darwin themselves.
    The problem is that there are studies that show it is effective when used with other medications. This study does not address that.

    I'm a fan of this study, but it is not the ultimate gotcha that people hope.

  10. #72430
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    The problem is that there are studies that show it is effective when used with other medications.
    Prayer is effective when coupled with genuine science-based medical attention. *shrug*

  11. #72431
    Quote Originally Posted by Benggaul View Post
    Prayer is effective when coupled with genuine science-based medical attention. *shrug*
    We do know that medications taken in tandem can have additional effects, both positive and negative.

  12. #72432
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    We do know that medications taken in tandem can have additional effects, both positive and negative.
    And, as you've pointed out, no such conclusive study exists for ivermectin that would suggest this is one of those cases.

    https://nbcmontana.com/news/coronavi...-delta-variant

    When it comes to ivermectin, many doctors have prescribed it despite a statement released by the drug's maker Merck, that there is no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect of the drug against COVID-19, but there is a “concerning lack of safety data in the majority of the studies.”

    Ray said health care workers would “jump at an inexpensive, safe drug that treats COVID,” but there is not any credible evidence that ivermectin works for COVID. Many publications on it have been retracted, but the drug continues to be controversially promoted for use in Latin America and South Africa despite the lack of hard evidence.
    Soooooooo yeah.

  13. #72433
    Trump supporter behavior is maybe the best example in human history of how far people will go to avoid admitting they were wrong. Horse dewormer probably isn't the last stupid thing they'll do rather than get a shot or wear a mask.

  14. #72434
    The Unstoppable Force Belize's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gen-OT College of Shitposting
    Posts
    22,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Blur4stuff View Post
    Trump supporter behavior is maybe the best example in human history of how far people will go to avoid admitting they were wrong. Horse dewormer probably isn't the last stupid thing they'll do rather than get a shot or wear a mask.
    Tbh I wish they'd just go back to downing bleach at this point

  15. #72435
    Quote Originally Posted by Benggaul View Post
    And, as you've pointed out, no such conclusive study exists for ivermectin that would suggest this is one of those cases.

    https://nbcmontana.com/news/coronavi...-delta-variant



    Soooooooo yeah.
    I agree, most of the "in favor" studies are small, and weak. But, they still exist.

    Just as they were not conclusive, mainly due to methodology, this study is not conclusive, because it is not a direct refutationnto the findings of those weaker studies.

    I would love a large-scale study that covers those additional variables. That way, we do have a true conclusion.

  16. #72436
    Quote Originally Posted by Belize View Post
    Tbh I wish they'd just go back to downing bleach at this point
    Seriously, we are only getting to heard immunity 2 ways. Non-maskers and non-vaxxers either:
    1) get the damn shot and mask up
    2) die

    Obviously I'd prefer the option that didn't kill off innocent bystanders, and drag this out another year. But we're stuck at the mercy of these idiots, so what can we do?

  17. #72437
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    40,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Blur4stuff View Post
    Trump supporter behavior is maybe the best example in human history of how far people will go to avoid admitting they were wrong.
    The term "evolution" is cropping up. I've said for years that Trump's rabid fanbase would rather die than admit they made a mistake. At the time, it was pretty metaphorical. We're seeing deathbed recantings, or sobbing statements from greiving families, that have made it very literal.

    By the way, while "let's use this livestock drug to battle COVID" seems to be trending like a video of a donkey getting its head scratched by a koala, it's not all that new. The FDA was warning people back in May, apparently.

    Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19
    I mean, hard to miss that headline's intent.

    Here’s What You Need to Know about Ivermectin
    • FDA has not approved ivermectin for use in treating or preventing COVID-19 in humans. Ivermectin tablets are approved at very specific doses for some parasitic worms, and there are topical (on the skin) formulations for head lice and skin conditions like rosacea. Ivermectin is not an anti-viral (a drug for treating viruses).
    • Taking large doses of this drug is dangerous and can cause serious harm.
    • If you have a prescription for ivermectin for an FDA-approved use, get it from a legitimate source and take it exactly as prescribed.
    • Never use medications intended for animals on yourself. Ivermectin preparations for animals are very different from those approved for humans.
    Yes, that was months ago and yes, maybe some more recent studies have come out. But my favorite part is when the FDA has to point out these are drugs for livestock. Not only are the doses waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off, but the "inactive" ingredient list doesn't translate between species. Ingredients that kill tiny tiny worms don't work on viruses, which despite what you remember from the 8th-grade science class you failed out of in Arkansas L-Mentry School, viruses aren't tiny tiny worms. We shouldn't still have this discussion as recently as three days ago.

    Did your doctor prescribe it? No? Then don't fucking take it. The studies it's in or not in are not really relevant until your doctor hands you a bottle and says "use these". Do we have to also say "stop shooting up with bleach" too?

    So until
    (a) there is a specific, solid study that says "yes, it helps, either by itself or with a friend" and
    (b) the FDA signs off -- at least in emergency situations, which half the country is in, and
    (c) and your doctor hands you a bottle and says "here, take this"
    then stop listening to some random guy on TV and listen to what your doctor says. Which, spoiler alert, is probably "get the vaccine".

  18. #72438
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    this study is not conclusive, because it is not a direct refutationnto the findings of those weaker studies.
    You mean those studies that keep getting retracted?

    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I would love a large-scale study that covers those additional variables. That way, we do have a true conclusion.
    I mean, sure. What I would love is for people to wait until an actual study does the science before leaping to conclusions and gulping down various snake oils, but here we are.
    Last edited by Benggaul; 2021-08-26 at 05:51 PM.

  19. #72439
    Quote Originally Posted by Benggaul View Post
    You mean those studies that keep getting retracted?



    I mean, sure. What I would love is for people to wait until an actual study does the science before leaping to conclusions and gulping down various snake oils, but here we are.
    I even mentioned the one getting retracted. Good for those guys who caught the lies.

    There's a reason I'm not popping Ivermectin, because the science just isn't there, not yet.

    And it may never be there to show that it works.

  20. #72440
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I even mentioned the one getting retracted. Good for those guys who caught the lies.

    There's a reason I'm not popping Ivermectin, because the science just isn't there, not yet.

    And it may never be there to show that it works.
    Hard to prove a negative, but c'mon, it's been pretty thoroughly studied at this point...

    Ivermectin (Still) Lacks Scientific Support as a COVID-19 Drug

    “The hype around ivermectin is driven by some studies where the effect size for ivermectin is frankly not credible,” Paul Garner, the coordinating editor of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group, says in a statement. “Careful appraisal is the cornerstone of Cochrane’s work, and with such extreme public demands for a drug to work during the pandemic, it remains vital that we hold onto our scientific principles to guide care.”

    The team’s final analysis included 14 randomized controlled trials with a total of 1,678 adults. Six of the studies were double-blinded and placebo-controlled—factors considered to improve the quality of evidence in drug trials. Nine of the 14 studies focused on moderate COVID-19 cases in hospital settings, four on mild cases in outpatients, and one on the use of ivermectin as a preventive medicine.

    The team identified an additional 38 studies that failed to meet the review’s inclusion criteria, mainly because they contained problematic comparisons or data, or otherwise didn’t meet scientific standards for strong evidence. For example, nearly a third of the studies evaluated ivermectin alongside other treatments that varied between different groups of patients, making it difficult to extract the effect of ivermectin, specifically, from the data. Several studies classified people as COVID-19 patients without testing to make sure they had the disease with a PCR or antigen test.

    One of the excluded studies, a widely cited paper first posted late last year on the preprint server Research Square, was withdrawn a couple weeks ago following allegations of data manipulation. The study, led by researchers in Egypt, claimed to have found a dramatic effect of ivermectin treatment on COVID-19 outcomes. However, researchers identified multiple inconsistencies in the data, The Guardian reported in July, particularly regarding the numbers of patients and their dates of hospital admission.

    One patient was even reported to have left the hospital on the “non-existent date of 31/06/2020,” Jack Lawrence, a medical student in London who identified problems in the paper, tells The Guardian.

    Another study that was not included in the Cochrane review, this one carried out in Argentina, has come under increased scrutiny from scientists in the last few days after epidemiologist and blogger Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz documented multiple inconsistencies—including numbers of patients that don’t add up and implausible effect sizes—on Twitter. “As far as interventional observational trials go, this is probably the worst one I’ve ever seen,” he writes.
    There are studies ongoing, but so far none seem to have shown any credible effect ivermectin has with regards to treating COVID--with or without a combination of other meds. So let's not even give credit to that theory until it's actually proven by reliable studies, hmm? Until then it's just another piece of junk logic in a heap of wishful thinking and we shouldn't even be suggesting that it might help.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •