Coronavirus - potential Black Swan?

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

1 minute ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Dupe

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by Gigantic Purple Slug

[Confusion of VIs]

4 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:

 

I have to ask myself why certain posters here seem determined to ignore hard evidence when it's presented to them.

 

I ask myself that all the time. 

I suppose they have pre conceived views that they so desperately want to be right that they would rather believe a video quoting outlier results from a second rate uncontrolled study than multiple reviews of all of the trials conducted globally. 

If it worked the NHS would have approved it long before now.

[Bruce Banner]

25 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:

 

I have to ask myself why certain posters here seem determined to ignore hard evidence when it's presented to them.

 

 

Isn't that the drug that Oxford uni are looking into?

Trial for Covid ‘wonder drug’ that could save thousands of lives | News | The Times

[Sour Mash]

39 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

IDK about that particular treatment.

What I do believe is that it is overwhelmingly in the governments interest to try to stop covid.

My guess is that teams of experts have been looking at lots of different drugs, and have selected the ones they feel are most appropriate for evaluation based on their expertise. Coming up with studies to investigate the effect is complicated and takes time and can't be done ad hoc. Good science generally involves careful evaluation and study.

Ultimately you either believe that the government/health service are the best placed people to evaluate these things and are doing the best they can, or you don't. That doesn't mean there isn't some wonder cure out there. But it does mean that you believe the government is best placed to find it, and is trying everything it can to do so.

I doubt whether any discussion on here would change anyones' mind on the matter.

Edit : Add opinion.

Right, because the government is full of people who only have the best interests of the people at heart and would never have ulterior motives or influences acting on them.  Politicians and senior bureaucrats are paragons of virtue whose only interest is public service....

...  Unbelievable that anyone in this Forum would be 'naive' enough to believe that , but there you go.

 

 

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

Just now, Sour Mash said:

Right, because the government is full of people who only have the best interests of the people at heart and would never have ulterior motives or influences acting on them.  Politicians and senior bureaucrats are paragons of virtue whose only interest is public service....

...  Unbelievable that anyone in this Forum would be 'naive' enough to believe that , but there you go.

 

 

I think you've pretty much demonstrated my point.

 

 

 

[Will!]

3 hours ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

It doesn't appear to have lead to a rapid increase in cases though. They appear to have achieved some sort of case stability.

French ICU bed occupancy has been rising for the past 2 months, although not exponentially.

[skinnylattej]

3 hours ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

Well obviously if their case rate is higher (although it is probably not when you integrate it over time, as we have less now, but have had a lot more in the past).

Still they are running steady at 20k cases per day. If you assume a population of 60 million then that's 3000 days until everyone has had it. IDK what the % figure for herd immunity is, but say it is 50%. I don't think 4-5 years is really a practical timescale to achieve herd immunity on.

Surely immunisation  will reduce the time-scale, maybe to only 12 months!

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

1 minute ago, skinnylattej said:

Surely immunisation  will reduce the time-scale, maybe to only 12 months!

Haven't really thought about the combination tbh.

A lot of people seem to present vaccination as a strategy and herd immunity (without vaccination) as a separate one, although of course it is a lot more grey than that, and vaccination implies herd immunity in the long term I guess.

[nightowl]

6 hours ago, zugzwang said:

If they kept on promoting these false narratives after they'd been discredited then yes they were AIDS deniers.

Then editor of the Sunset Times Andrew 'Brillo Pad' Neil was one, notoriously.

https://www.badscience.net/2009/01/what-if-everything-you-thought-you-knew-about-aids-was-wrong/

 

To be an aids denier you need to say it doesn't exist. Same with covid, you need to say it doesn't exist.

So A. who are all these covid deniers on here?  B. can you back your claim up?

Edited March 7, 2021 by nightowl

[nightowl]

2 hours ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

I think the argument for herd immunity has been pretty much done to death on here.

AFAICT The issue is to infect enough of the population to achieve herd immunity on a reasonable time scale without causing so many hospitalisations that we overwhelm the health service and incur more deaths as a result.

IIRC there are two problems. One is controlling the infection rate with any degree of accuracy. The second is that any timescale that keeps the number of hospitalisations reasonable will result in an impractically long time to achieve herd immunity.

There is the final point as well that herd immunity may well only address certain strains of the virus, rendering the whole process pointless. This of course is the same for vaccinations, but the difference is that the time to achieve vaccination immunity is much less and doesn't involve anywhere near the same hospitalisation rate.

The original worry with herd immunity was to achieve it amongst the healthy population risked covid finding its way to the vulnerable as you achieve it. 

As vaccinations 'attack' the risk from the mainly elderly end of the population, oddly the herd immunity among the young idea could be back on the table....except it wont be for political reasons - which we see replicated here.

There is an idea the immunity via infection doesn't count (and even unmentionable), but then if that was the case all humans would be extinct long ago.

[zugzwang]

38 minutes ago, nightowl said:

To be an aids denier you need to say it doesn't exist. Same with covid, you need to say it doesn't exist.

So A. who are all these covid deniers on here?  B. can you back your claim up?

 

Covid denialists - The HPC Brains Trust - have variously and repeatedly made vague, hand-waving and unevidenced claims that:

Dispute the existence of the virus.

Dispute the origins of the virus.

Dispute the epidemiology of the virus.

Dispute the pathogenicity of the virus.

Dispute the idea that the virus can be detected.

Dispute the idea that the virus can be sequenced.

Dispute the idea that the virus can be vaccinated against.

Dispute the idea that the virus can be eradicated.

All the while promoting the most incredible stories of murder, intrigue and conspiracy in effort to undermine the good faith of the heathcare professions and the integrity of legitimate medical research. Irresponsible at any time; simply contemptible during a pandemic.

[Brave New World]

22 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

 

Covid denialists - The HPC Brains Trust - have variously and repeatedly made vague, hand-waving and unevidenced claims that:

Dispute the existence of the virus.

Dispute the origins of the virus.

Dispute the epidemiology of the virus.

Dispute the pathogenicity of the virus.

Dispute the idea that the virus can be detected.

Dispute the idea that the virus can be sequenced.

Dispute the idea that the virus can be vaccinated against.

Dispute the idea that the virus can be eradicated.

All the while promoting the most incredible stories of murder, intrigue and conspiracy in effort to undermine the good faith of the heathcare professions and the integrity of legitimate medical research. Irresponsible at any time; simply contemptible during a pandemic.

Yep. This is all that can be taken from this thread. Thank you.

It's made a mockery of the thought processes of sum, bringing their hpc belief set and applying it to a global pandemic. 

And as for the conspiracy, deniers here. Pitiful if their actions and mindset wasn't so contemptable.

And as for the likening of Nazi book burning as a fall back by some here, abject.

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

2 hours ago, nightowl said:

To be an aids denier you need to say it doesn't exist. Same with covid, you need to say it doesn't exist.

So A. who are all these covid deniers on here?  B. can you back your claim up?

Indeed, I don't recall anyone here denying it exists.

My own personal view is we should take it on the chin. But apparently that is a menacing eugenics based theory.

Edited March 7, 2021 by Mikhail Liebenstein

[nightowl]

37 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

 

Covid denialists - The HPC Brains Trust - have variously and repeatedly made vague, hand-waving and unevidenced claims that:

Dispute the existence of the virus.

Dispute the origins of the virus.

Dispute the epidemiology of the virus.

Dispute the pathogenicity of the virus.

Dispute the idea that the virus can be detected.

Dispute the idea that the virus can be sequenced.

Dispute the idea that the virus can be vaccinated against.

Dispute the idea that the virus can be eradicated.

All the while promoting the most incredible stories of murder, intrigue and conspiracy in effort to undermine the good faith of the heathcare professions and the integrity of legitimate medical research. Irresponsible at any time; simply contemptible during a pandemic.

To be a denialist only first claim counts - its existence.  Its origins may never be truly known, and the epidemiology and pathogenicity, sequencing etc may or may not mean its fully understood but that's not denial of its existence. 

As for eradication very few viruses have been eradicated on the planet with Smallpox the famous one, so the odds of covid being the same is slim, certainly any time soon.....but again not denial.

Speculation or opinions about the subject dont undermine anyone unless they specifically say that and health workers reputations shouldn't be borrowed for this purpose - but again its not denial

 

[Sour Mash]

3 hours ago, nightowl said:

To be a denialist only first claim counts - its existence.  Its origins may never be truly known, and the epidemiology and pathogenicity, sequencing etc may or may not mean its fully understood but that's not denial of its existence. 

As for eradication very few viruses have been eradicated on the planet with Smallpox the famous one, so the odds of covid being the same is slim, certainly any time soon.....but again not denial.

Speculation or opinions about the subject dont undermine anyone unless they specifically say that and health workers reputations shouldn't be borrowed for this purpose - but again its not denial

 

 

Shorter precis of the Ivernmectin video (the original went on for over an hour):

 

Some salient points:

Tess Lawrie - leading expert in evidence based medicine and data analysis.

Taking only the Randomised Control Tests into consideration:  68% reduction in deaths for cases. (83% if you include the better quality observational studies).

Useful in all stages of the disease:

88% reduction in infection rates (excellent prophylaxis)

Effective at preventing mild disease worsening.

Super cheap.  Maybe 10-20 dollars for a course.

 

Very well understood risk profile - literally billions of doses proscribed in the last 40 years, 1/3 of the world's population has had it at some stage.  On the WHO 'essential medicines' list.  Over those 40 years and billions of doses, 4600 adverse events and 16 deaths.  In comparison, the much favoured Remdesivir which has been proven to have zero efficacy against COVID fatalities, costs thousands of dollars for a course and is beloved of the press and medical authorities has killed 417 people over the last year alone.......  Yet finds itself eulogised in the media and on the approved COVID treatment lists.  Money really does talk, it seems, our Western medical systems really are rotten to the core.

 

But hey, no doubt our resident  'zero covid' zealot plus his other socialist, authoritarian lockdown loving comrades will just dismiss it as totally irrelevent as they know better than leading experts and multiple RCTs.  What can I say, the facts are out there and idiots who choose not to 'follow the science' are not only going to reveal themselves to be ideological dummies, they are supporting more deaths and destruction of the economy through unnecessary lockdowns.

 

 

 

[nightowl]

6 hours ago, Sour Mash said:

 

Shorter precis of the Ivernmectin video (the original went on for over an hour):

eulogised in the media and on the approved COVID treatment lists.  Money really does talk, it seems, our Western medical systems really are rotten to the core.

But hey, no doubt our resident  'zero covid' zealot plus his other socialist, authoritarian lockdown loving comrades

The media love a story especially these days where press releases are regurgitated as 'news'.  So I can see how the pharma world can win them over with careful use of the words 'may', 'possibly' being used not to commit to something but push it anyway.

I see this in how synthetic vaccine is reported superior to natural yet the 'get out' words of 'maybe' and 'could be' are all present in this. 🤔

My Spidey senses tell me something is up again.

[zugzwang]

8 hours ago, Sour Mash said:

 

Shorter precis of the Ivernmectin video (the original went on for over an hour):

 

Some salient points:

Tess Lawrie - leading expert in evidence based medicine and data analysis.

Taking only the Randomised Control Tests into consideration:  68% reduction in deaths for cases. (83% if you include the better quality observational studies).

Useful in all stages of the disease:

88% reduction in infection rates (excellent prophylaxis)

Effective at preventing mild disease worsening.

Super cheap.  Maybe 10-20 dollars for a course.

 

Very well understood risk profile - literally billions of doses proscribed in the last 40 years, 1/3 of the world's population has had it at some stage.  On the WHO 'essential medicines' list.  Over those 40 years and billions of doses, 4600 adverse events and 16 deaths.  In comparison, the much favoured Remdesivir which has been proven to have zero efficacy against COVID fatalities, costs thousands of dollars for a course and is beloved of the press and medical authorities has killed 417 people over the last year alone.......  Yet finds itself eulogised in the media and on the approved COVID treatment lists.  Money really does talk, it seems, our Western medical systems really are rotten to the core.

 

But hey, no doubt our resident  'zero covid' zealot plus his other socialist, authoritarian lockdown loving comrades will just dismiss it as totally irrelevent as they know better than leading experts and multiple RCTs.  What can I say, the facts are out there and idiots who choose not to 'follow the science' are not only going to reveal themselves to be ideological dummies, they are supporting more deaths and destruction of the economy through unnecessary lockdowns.

 

 

Western medical science should continue to lead the world for some time but there's something profoundly wrong with Western society when the conspiratorial maundering of some crazy old fart in his living room is preferred to the peer-reviewed science and professional authority of an institution like the FDA.

'Our Western medical systems really are rotten to the core.'

Absolute claptrap.

An utterly contemptible slander but wholly consistent with the paranoia and self-absorption of the Covid denialist. 

The facts are out there? Yes, they are. There are no reputable studies that support the use of Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19.

Quote

• The FDA warned that using ivermectin intended for veterinary use is dangerous and can result in severe consequences for health.
• Many studies have been conducted to find whether ivermectin can treat COVID-19, but experts say that so far, none offers conclusive evidence.
• Ivermectin has been used in the past as a treatment for parasitic infections in humans.

 

 

Oh, and Zero Covid doesn't equal lockdown forever but the exact opposite. See China, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand etc.

Lockdown-free for months... while wiping the floor with the UK economically.

The biggest giveaway is in the name:

https://www.endcoronavirus.org/

 

[Brave New World]

In an alternate reality Dr Lawrie has more wait than the Western science community.

One is impacting and bringing us out of lockdown the other isn't 

One has solutions the other musings.

The busted flush of HPC late night 'debate'

 

 

 

 

 

[Confusion of VIs]

11 hours ago, Sour Mash said:

 

Shorter precis of the Ivernmectin video (the original went on for over an hour):

 

Some salient points:

Tess Lawrie - leading expert in evidence based medicine and data analysis.

Taking only the Randomised Control Tests into consideration:  68% reduction in deaths for cases. (83% if you include the better quality observational studies).

Useful in all stages of the disease:

88% reduction in infection rates (excellent prophylaxis)

Effective at preventing mild disease worsening.

Super cheap.  Maybe 10-20 dollars for a course.

 

Very well understood risk profile - literally billions of doses proscribed in the last 40 years, 1/3 of the world's population has had it at some stage.  On the WHO 'essential medicines' list.  Over those 40 years and billions of doses, 4600 adverse events and 16 deaths.  In comparison, the much favoured Remdesivir which has been proven to have zero efficacy against COVID fatalities, costs thousands of dollars for a course and is beloved of the press and medical authorities has killed 417 people over the last year alone.......  Yet finds itself eulogised in the media and on the approved COVID treatment lists.  Money really does talk, it seems, our Western medical systems really are rotten to the core.

 

But hey, no doubt our resident  'zero covid' zealot plus his other socialist, authoritarian lockdown loving comrades will just dismiss it as totally irrelevent as they know better than leading experts and multiple RCTs.  What can I say, the facts are out there and idiots who choose not to 'follow the science' are not only going to reveal themselves to be ideological dummies, they are supporting more deaths and destruction of the economy through unnecessary lockdowns.

But somehow other experts whose job is to review all the known facts about candidate drugs aren't impressed. 

Apart from TFH conspiracy nonsense, why do you think that is. 

[zugzwang]

6 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

But somehow other experts whose job is to review all the known facts about candidate drugs aren't impressed. 

Apart from TFH conspiracy nonsense, why do you think that is. 

Not a single peer-reviewed clinical trial in a leading medical journal has shown that ivermectin is effective against coronaviruses.

The first peer-reviewed clinical trial published in a leading medical journal (JAMA) is here.  

It concludes:

Among adults with mild COVID-19, a 5-day course of ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms. The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19, although larger trials may be needed to understand the effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes.

 

[Bruce Banner]

18 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Not a single peer-reviewed clinical trial in a leading medical journal has shown that ivermectin is effective against coronaviruses.

The first peer-reviewed clinical trial published in a leading medical journal (JAMA) is here.  

It concludes:

Among adults with mild COVID-19, a 5-day course of ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms. The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19, although larger trials may be needed to understand the effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes.

 

But Oxford University are conducting trials so that may change.

Drug used to treat lice and scabies drug could cut Covid deaths by up to 75%, research suggests  | Daily Mail Online

Quote

A new trial of ivermectin as a Covid treatment is due to start shortly at Oxford University.

[Confusion of VIs]

34 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

But Oxford University are conducting trials so that may change.

Drug used to treat lice and scabies drug could cut Covid deaths by up to 75%, research suggests  | Daily Mail Online

Of course that's how science works, at least for non TFH wearers. 

 

[zugzwang]

32 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

But Oxford University are conducting trials so that may change.

Drug used to treat lice and scabies drug could cut Covid deaths by up to 75%, research suggests  | Daily Mail Online

The 75% figure comes from discredited study done in Peru last year.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/surgisphere-sows-confusion-about-another-unproven-covid19-drug-67635

Quote

Rumors of ivermectin’s potential as a COVID-19 treatment started circulating in WhatsApp groups around early April, according to clinicians in Peru who spoke to The Scientist. Along with unverified anecdotes of miraculous recoveries among patients taking the drug, García says, members of the public began sharing a paper published in Antiviral Research on April 3 that described how extremely high doses of ivermectin could block the coronavirus’s replication in a petri dish.

The title of the study, “The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro,” created a lot of confusion, García says. “It sounds like the ivermectin was approved by the FDA for the treatment of COVID,” she says. “That had nothing to do with it.”

The paper’s publication prompted a response from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which issued a warning on April 10 that the findings did not equate to evidence of ivermectin’s efficacy in COVID-19 patients, and noted that neither humans nor animals had received the drug in this study.

Later in April, Antiviral Research posted two letters to the editor that lay out concerns about the doses used in the study and a response from the authors, which states—with emphasis—“under no circumstances should self-medication be considered without the guidance of a qualified physician, and especially not using therapeutics designed for veterinary purposes!” By then, however, media outlets in Latin America had already circulated stories of ivermectin’s supposed promise in treating SARS-CoV-2 infection, and several hospitals in Peru began mentioning the drug in local clinical guidelines.

 

[miguel]

I'll wait until the peer reviewed studies are done. Until then ivermectin is the new HCQ. Sorry, the new HCQ with Zinc. I mean the new HCQ with Zinc administered early enough. No! I mean the new HCQ shoved up yer ar*e, with zinc and early enough. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by miguel

[Bruce Banner]

3 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

The 75% figure comes from discredited study done in Peru last year.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/surgisphere-sows-confusion-about-another-unproven-covid19-drug-67635

 

 

1 minute ago, miguel said:

I'll wait until the peer reviewed studies are done. Until then ivermectin is the new HCQ. Sorry, the new HCQ with Zinc. I mean the new HCQ with Zinc administered early enough. No! I mean the new HCQ shoved up yer ****, with zinc and early enough. 

 

Oxford University presumably think there may be something to it otherwise they wouldn't waste their time?