Official Thread: Coronavirus "COVID-19"

[ugly]

Because there is a narrative being pushed that vaccines are useless now, here is some data from California. The graph only goes to the week ending January 23 and deaths to the week ending Jan. 16, but it is well into the Omicron surge:

Cases (Jan 23)

541.5 unvaccinated, per 100000, per week

155.4 vaccinated, per 100000, per week

91.2 boosted, per 100000, per week

Hospitalizations (Jan 23)

94.1 unvaccinated, per million, per week

~18 vaccinated, per million, per week

9.2 boosted, per million, per week

Deaths (Jan 16)

16.1 unvaccinated, per million, per week

2.1 vaccinated, per million, per week

0.7 boosted, per million, per week

[12Bass]

Because there is a narrative being pushed that vaccines are useless now, here is some data from California.

Oh.. the NARRATIVE... yes, mostly from people who claim that the MSM is spreading a false narrative about vaccines. I've encountered quite a few people claiming that the vaccines don't work or stopped working with Omicron, and even here a few pages back someone was claiming they had no impact on transmission. The stats clearly show a strong (negative) correlation between vaccination and severe outcomes, and the boosters also seem to be working as claimed.

I see it as related to a type of confirmation bias along with ideologically-driven black and white thinking. Some people seem to read "reduced efficacy" and immediately conclude "zero efficacy" as that better fits their preferred narrative....

[UFO]

Do you know what anti-vaxxers and vaxxers have in common?


Neither will ever become fully vaxxed.

[12Bass]

Do you know what anti-vaxxers and vaxxers have in common?


Neither will ever become fully vaxxed.

[Eisberg]

My son tested positive today.

he is fully vaccinated, but didn't get his booster yet, He wasn't eligible for his booster until 4 days ago anyways.

Right now his symptoms are a really bad cold.

My wife and I have no symptoms. We'll get covid tested on Thursday, unless symptoms show up before then.

[Lazy8s]

My son tested positive today.

he is fully vaccinated, but didn't get his booster yet, He wasn't eligible for his booster until 4 days ago anyways.

Right now his symptoms are a really bad cold.

My wife and I have no symptoms. We'll get covid tested on Thursday, unless symptoms show up before then.

I hope it stays mild and passes quickly Eisberg

[Silent-Runner]

wishing the best for your son, Eisberg. Hope he pulls through without too much of a hassle

[acroig]

I hope it stays mild and passes quickly Eisberg

Seconded.

[Shapeshifter]

wishing the best for your son, Eisberg. Hope he pulls through without too much of a hassle

ditto

[SubCog]

woot! California mask mandates have been lifted!

Lots of exceptions, schools, hospitals, etc. But for the most part, no more masks.

Except Santa Clara County, where I live. The other 6 bay area counties have ended the mask mandate, but not mine. I suppose I could drive up to Menlo Park and do some maskless grocery shopping though.

[Sasquach]

woot! California mask mandates have been lifted!

Lots of exceptions, schools, hospitals, etc. But for the most part, no more masks.

Except Santa Clara County, where I live. The other 6 bay area counties have ended the mask mandate, but not mine. I suppose I could drive up to Menlo Park and do some maskless grocery shopping though.

mask mandate here looks to be on track to be lifted by the end of the month.

[Java Cool Dude]

woot! California mask mandates have been lifted!

Lots of exceptions, schools, hospitals, etc. But for the most part, no more masks.

Except Santa Clara County, where I live. The other 6 bay area counties have ended the mask mandate, but not mine. I suppose I could drive up to Menlo Park and do some maskless grocery shopping though.

I see your Santa Clara and raise you LA

[SD-[Inc]]

woot! California mask mandates have been lifted!

Lots of exceptions, schools, hospitals, etc. But for the most part, no more masks.

Except Santa Clara County, where I live. The other 6 bay area counties have ended the mask mandate, but not mine. I suppose I could drive up to Menlo Park and do some maskless grocery shopping though.

Positivity rates are still very high in my county (~14%). Last year that would be a dark red indicator on spread. But these days it means end wearing masks. I feel a little like a guinea pig. In this phase of the experiment we’ll just let people get infected and see what happen. Probably better anyway. Vaccination isn’t going to work. So may as well let nature take it’s course

[Lupine]

We're very high here too. The Oregon mask mandate is still in place until 3/31, but I expect will ultimately be lifted earlier. Not that it matters ... seems like most everyone has stopped wearing them anyway, with many businesses never requiring them throughout and zero enforcement.

As a business owner that does enforce the policies, and a wife working in early education, this whole thing has been incredibly frustration. I'm a policy person, and seeing people simply ignore rules as they see fit, especially rules designed to protect others, is obscene. At the same time, gotta say there is huge frustration in following the rules while being vaccinated and boosted, knowing that many of those not following the rules are generally the same ones that won't get vaccinated.

So yeah, ready for things to start easing up. Perhaps selfish and unkind, but at this point most everyone has accepted the risks associated with whatever decisions they've made. Why do I need to keep paying the price.

[SubCog]

So yeah, ready for things to start easing up. Perhaps selfish and unkind, but at this point most everyone has accepted the risks associated with whatever decisions they've made. Why do I need to keep paying the price.

Yup, this is how I feel about anti-vaxxers these days:

[Greasy]

I was wearing a mask up until recently when most everyone stopped around here. Mine does nothing for me if I'm the only one wearing one, so let's roll with it. Three jabs, and prob already had it twice.

[Sasquach]

Positivity rates are still very high in my county (~14%). Last year that would be a dark red indicator on spread. But these days it means end wearing masks. I feel a little like a guinea pig. In this phase of the experiment we’ll just let people get infected and see what happen. Probably better anyway. Vaccination isn’t going to work. So may as well let nature take it’s course

Thats what the antivaxxers want.

Life finds a way.....

To either kill you or let you live, you actually dont have a choice if you let nature run its course!

[Payne3d]

I was wearing a mask up until recently when most everyone stopped around here. Mine does nothing for me if I'm the only one wearing one, so let's roll with it. Three jabs, and prob already had it twice.

well that's not true if you wear a high-quality mask like kn95 or kf94 (korean standard)

these masks are designed to filter out airborne viruses

[jima13]

Thats what the antivaxxers want.

Life finds a way.....

To either kill you or let you live, you actually dont have a choice if you let nature run its course!

Not an antivaxxer myself as I've got most of the ones on this list including Smallpox which left a scar on my left shoulder for years. Also got to eat the polio sugar cube in the early 50's> https://www.historyofvaccines.org/co...story-smallpox

jmo, but calling this glorified flu shot a vaccine is a joke....show a cv vaccine that's ever worked and I might change my mind.

In the meantime I'll just keep all my computers looking for a cure

[SD-[Inc]]

Not an antivaxxer myself as I've got most of the ones on this list including Smallpox which left a scar on my left shoulder for years. Also got to eat the polio sugar cube in the early 50's> https://www.historyofvaccines.org/co...story-smallpox

jmo, but calling this glorified flu shot a vaccine is a joke....show a cv vaccine that's ever worked and I might change my mind.

In the meantime I'll just keep all my computers looking for a cure

The goal of any vaccine is to stimulate production of antibodies. Studies show this vaccine as being very effective at stimulating the production of antibodies. The problem is the mix and type of stimulation that is necessary and how that changes with each mutation of the virus. Can science keep up with mutations is the better question to ask. So far, the process has been too slow. That doesn’t mean it is impossible. Even today, after numerous mutations, the vaccine can produce enough antibodies to significantly protect people from serious side effects or death. The latest mutations are FAR more contagious. So, the efficacy of preventing infection naturally is much worse. Does that mean we give up on science? If tomorrow they crack the right formula that overcomes a lot of these difficulties it will be too late because antivax mindset has already destroyed credibility. Why not try rooting for instead of against our scientists? With all the negative press and death threats it is surprising they still come in to work today.

[Java Cool Dude]

jmo, but calling this glorified flu shot a vaccine is a joke....show a cv vaccine that's ever worked and I might change my mind.

In my experience no amount of data, graphs, plots will change your mind :shrugs:

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status.aspx

https://www.garrettcounty.org/news/2022/02/vaccinated-made-up-only-2-of-covid-19-related-deaths-in-garrett-county

[shrike126]

show a cv vaccine that's ever worked and I might change my mind.

CV = Covid?

Where are the "worked" goalposts?

[acroig]

Does that mean we give up on science? If tomorrow they crack the right formula that overcomes a lot of these difficulties it will be too late because antivax mindset has already destroyed credibility. Why not try rooting for instead of against our scientists? With all the negative press and death threats it is surprising they still come in to work today.

This!

[SD-[Inc]]

In my experience no amount of data, graphs, plots will change your mind :shrugs:

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/vaccination-status.aspx

https://www.garrettcounty.org/news/2...garrett-county

Here are some additional metrics to ponder:

Number of Covid deaths that occurred in the last 24 hours in the US = 3205
Number of people that died during the 9-11 attacks = 2996

[acroig]

CV = Covid?

Where are the "worked" goalposts?

This is a very fair question, what's the response?

[Cyko]

Not an antivaxxer myself as I've got most of the ones on this list including Smallpox which left a scar on my left shoulder for years. Also got to eat the polio sugar cube in the early 50's> https://www.historyofvaccines.org/co...story-smallpox

jmo, but calling this glorified flu shot a vaccine is a joke....show a cv vaccine that's ever worked and I might change my mind.

In the meantime I'll just keep all my computers looking for a cure

The “flu shot” is a vaccine. Always better to do a modicum of research on what you say before throwing statements like the above out there.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/flus...flu%20vaccine.

[shrike126]

The “flu shot” is a vaccine. Always better to do a modicum of research on what you say before throwing statements like the above out there.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/flus...flu%20vaccine.

Even better, he linked to this vaccine:

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/history-smallpox

Also on that site? This link for the "influenza" vaccine. It's like, right next to the link he used.

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/influenza

[12Bass]

FWIW, I think jima13 is referring to the mRNA COVID vaccines as a "glorified flu shot", not actual influenza vaccines... prefaced by the old standby "I'm not an antivaxxer, but...". However, discussion of the reasons for this likely belongs elsewhere... Also odd is that site seems to have no information on COVID vaccines.

[ugly]

Study shows that the anime convention in New York at the beginning of the Omicron wave was not a superspreader event

Summary
What is already known about this topic?

The SARS-CoV-2 Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron (B.1.1.529) variants are highly transmissible. Outbreaks have been reported among vaccinated populations in indoor settings where mask use was limited.

What is added by this report?

Despite multiple introductions as evidenced by detection of at least three sublineages of SARS-CoV-2, this investigation did not find evidence of widespread transmission among a highly vaccinated population at a large event in an indoor setting where mask use was required and monitored.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Implementing multiple prevention measures (vaccinations and boosters, consistent mask wearing, enhanced indoor ventilation, and testing after text notification) can limit the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at large events, including highly transmissible variants.

[xCLAVEx]

Co-worker just recently got covid. He sits two feet in front of me, face to face, for 8+ hours a day. He found out last Wednesday that he had it when he came down with symptoms Tuesday night, but I was exposed to him for Monday and Tuesday all day. No mask.

When I found out I figured "Whelp, time to put this immunity to the test".

It's now been 11 days, no symptoms. SUPER IMMUNITY BABY!

[acroig]

You got lucky

[SubCog]

Co-worker just recently got covid. He sits two feet in front of me, face to face, for 8+ hours a day. He found out last Wednesday that he had it when he came down with symptoms Tuesday night, but I was exposed to him for Monday and Tuesday all day. No mask.

When I found out I figured "Whelp, time to put this immunity to the test".

It's now been 11 days, no symptoms. SUPER IMMUNITY BABY!

woot!

Actually if you happen to be wearing an n95 mask, you may not have to be so lucky. They're saying that there's practically zero chance of getting infected if you're wearing one of those.

[Jay20016]

woot!

Actually if you happen to be wearing an n95 mask, you may not have to be so lucky. They're saying that there's practically zero chance of getting infected if you're wearing one of those.

[Java Cool Dude]

Co-worker just recently got covid. He sits two feet in front of me, face to face, for 8+ hours a day. He found out last Wednesday that he had it when he came down with symptoms Tuesday night, but I was exposed to him for Monday and Tuesday all day. No mask.

When I found out I figured "Whelp, time to put this immunity to the test".

It's now been 11 days, no symptoms. SUPER IMMUNITY BABY!

This peer-reviewed study confirms it:

Natural immunity alone much weaker than recovery-plus-shot, mass peer-reviewed research finds; before Omicron, those with ‘hybrid’ protection were 82% less likely to be reinfected

https://www.timesofisrael.com/covid-reinfections-far-higher-for-recovered-patients-who-shun-vaccine-israeli-study/

[ugly]

Efficacy of Ivermectin Treatment on Disease Progression Among Adults With Mild to Moderate COVID-19 and Comorbidities - The I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial

Key Points
Question
Does adding ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, to the standard of care reduce the risk of severe disease in patients with COVID-19 and comorbidities?

Findings
In this open-label randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with COVID-19 in Malaysia, a 5-day course of oral ivermectin administered during the first week of illness did not reduce the risk of developing severe disease compared with standard of care alone.

Meaning
The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.

Abstract
Importance
Ivermectin, an inexpensive and widely available antiparasitic drug, is prescribed to treat COVID-19. Evidence-based data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin are needed.

Objective
To determine the efficacy of ivermectin in preventing progression to severe disease among high-risk patients with COVID-19.

Design, Setting, and Participants
The Ivermectin Treatment Efficacy in COVID-19 High-Risk Patients (I-TECH) study was an open-label randomized clinical trial conducted at 20 public hospitals and a COVID-19 quarantine center in Malaysia between May 31 and October 25, 2021. Within the first week of patients’ symptom onset, the study enrolled patients 50 years and older with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, comorbidities, and mild to moderate disease.

Interventions
Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either oral ivermectin, 0.4 mg/kg body weight daily for 5 days, plus standard of care (n = 241) or standard of care alone (n = 249). The standard of care consisted of symptomatic therapy and monitoring for signs of early deterioration based on clinical findings, laboratory test results, and chest imaging.

Main Outcomes and Measures
The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who progressed to severe disease, defined as the hypoxic stage requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain pulse oximetry oxygen saturation of 95% or higher. Secondary outcomes of the trial included the rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and adverse events.

Results
Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79), and 28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09). The most common adverse event reported was diarrhea (14 [5.8%] in the ivermectin group and 4 [1.6%] in the control group).

Conclusions and Relevance
In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.

The world is shaken to its core. If you can't trust grifters and antivaxxers, who can you trust?

[Progression]

Efficacy of Ivermectin Treatment on Disease Progression Among Adults With Mild to Moderate COVID-19 and Comorbidities - The I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial



The world is shaken to its core. If you can't trust grifters and antivaxxers, who can you trust?

I guess this is what happens when you read the conclusions but don't read the actual study. If you read what you just posted:

Results
Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79), and 28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09). The most common adverse event reported was diarrhea (14 [5.8%] in the ivermectin group and 4 [1.6%] in the control group).

So half the ventilation and a third of deaths. Their conclusions are "correct" in the sense that, for what they were looking for, it didn't do what they wanted. However they skipped right past very important stuff. It would also be good to know how "early" they were given IVM as the main purported mechanism is the reduction of viral replication in the very early stages.

[shrike126]

I guess this is what happens when you read the conclusions but don't read the actual study. If you read what you just posted:

You know what happens when you do read the actual study instead of just cherry picking the part you're interested in? You find this part.

Secondary Outcomes

There were no significant differences between ivermectin and control groups for all the prespecified secondary outcomes

Emphasis mine. I suppose you are free to disagree with me and the authors of the study because you're thinking 4 is less than 10, checkmate study authors! But the authors of the study disagree with you.

So half the ventilation and a third of deaths. Their conclusions are "correct" in the sense that, for what they were looking for, it didn't do what they wanted.

You know what does do what they wanted? (read: keep Covid-19 from developing into a severe disease) Vaccines.

However they skipped right past very important stuff.

What, in your opinion is the "important stuff" because it looks like this was what was important in the study:

Objective To determine the efficacy of ivermectin in preventing progression to severe disease among high-risk patients with COVID-19.

You're attempting to disagree with the study authors on what they found to be the "important stuff"?

It would also be good to know how "early" they were given IVM as the main purported mechanism is the reduction of viral replication in the very early stages.

They answer that in the study:

a 5-day course of oral ivermectin administered during the first week of illness did not reduce the risk of developing severe disease compared with standard of care alone.

Your interpretation of the results of the finding aren't worth exploring. The actual study authors decided their own research gives us this bottom line:

In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.

Any other findings (i.e. "but it helps with those who get really sick from not dying") is a conclusion the study authors did not deem significant. You're reading something into their work now.

Progression, since you're reading into the study findings something I don't see actually offered up as a research conclusion, can you share with the class what your credentials are in this medical research field?

Corresponding Author: Steven Chee Loon Lim, MRCP, Department of Medicine, Raja Permaisuri Bainun Hospital, Jalan Raja Ashman Shah, 30450 Ipoh, Perak, Malaysia ([email protected]).

Author Contributions: Dr S. Lim and Mr King had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: S. Lim, Tan, Chow, Cheah, Cheng, An, Low, Song, Chidambaram, Peariasamy.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: S. Lim, Hor, Tay, Mat Jelani, Tan, Ker, Zaid, Cheah, H. Lim, Khalid, Mohd Unit, An, Nasruddin, Khoo, Loh, Zaidan, Ab Wahab, Koh, King, Lai.

Drafting of the manuscript: S. Lim, Hor, Tay, Mat Jelani, Tan, Zaid, H. Lim, An, Low, Ab Wahab, King, Peariasamy.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: S. Lim, Hor, Tan, Ker, Chow, Cheah, Khalid, Cheng, Mohd Unit, An, Nasruddin, Khoo, Loh, Zaidan, Song, Koh, King, Lai, Chidambaram.

Statistical analysis: S. Lim, Hor, Tan, King, Lai.

Administrative, technical, or material support: S. Lim, Hor, Tay, Mat Jelani, Tan, Ker, Chow, Zaid, Cheah, H. Lim, Khalid, Low, Khoo, Loh, Zaidan, Ab Wahab, Song, Koh, Chidambaram.

Supervision: S. Lim, Tan, Ker, Chow, Zaid, Cheng, Khoo, Loh, Song, Peariasamy.

[Pr3tty F1y]

The p value is >0.05, the usual cut off for statistical significance, and the confidence interval (CI) crosses 1.00. This means that there was not statistically significant difference between the groups. As far as this study's results are concerned, outcomes for the control group = outcomes for the ivermectin group. No probabilistic difference.

Much like Radioactive Man's goggles - The ivermectin, it does nothing (at least with respect toward treating patients with COVID-19 and actually producing beneficial outcomes).

[Progression]

Oof, touched a nerve, the sarcastic sting is palpable. Anyhow, let's go over it a bit.

You know what happens when you do read the actual study instead of just cherry picking the part you're interested in? You find this part.



Emphasis mine. I suppose you are free to disagree with me and the authors of the study because you're thinking 4 is less than 10, checkmate study authors! But the authors of the study disagree with you.

I didn't cherry pick, I didn't even disagree with their conclusion based on their data and parameters. I said that their conclusion was correct for what they sought after. It didn't meet what they wanted.

By the way, they didn't follow the guidelines to specify what severe disease is according to the WHO, they made it more strict which shortens the time-frame and C19 is all about its development across time, especially when it comes to early treatment. On top of that, the average admission date, 5+ days, was such that most of the points they wanted to meet would have been almost impossible as they would have happened earlier on average due to the timeline and patient's profile. These were extremely vulnerable patients. They had a ton of comorbidities and in spite of having the vaccine, got ill. So if you move the guidelines to qualify as severe disease earlier and you move the treatment date later, close to the ending phase of viral replication... for an antiviral, what do you think it's going to be the likely outcome when it comes to the development of severe disease? They were given the IVM on average 5.1 days after symptoms. Most viral replication, especially in such extremely vulnerable patients, would have already happened.

You know what does do what they wanted? (read: keep Covid-19 from developing into a severe disease) Vaccines.

Actually, it's funny you say that. In this study over ~50% were fully vaccinated and more than ~65% had at least one shot. You should let those people know it prevents disease.

Oh and for good measure and to make it clear since you brought up vaccines, which I didn't, I never argued against vaccines. That's a bit sneaky of you.

What, in your opinion is the "important stuff" because it looks like this was what was important in the study:

You're attempting to disagree with the study authors on what they found to be the "important stuff"?

It's important because I deemed it so. You are free to disagree. If I saw that data and I was developing covid and you gave me the choice between no treatment and taking Ivermectin I would be stupid not to take it given its extremely low risk profile.

If you observe two rooms, one with 51 severely ill people who are given a mysterious substance and 48 out of 51 (3 deaths, 5.9%) survive and then another room in which no one is given anything and 33 out of 43 survive (10 deaths, 23%) what would you choose?

Of course no one in the right mind would choose it! They would refuse it as they grow more and more ill! They would shout THE p-value ISN'T STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT, DO NOT GIVE IT TO ME! Yes, I am sure that's what those 10 dead people would choose again if they knew the outcome and could travel back in time.

For more nuance on p-values: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pm...es/PMC5665734/

Again, p-value is a valid critique but I don't think its the whole story when it comes to this study, especially due to the following two reasons. The first one being that the p-value of this particular outcome alone is the highest (I believe it is .09 if I remember correctly). The second and MAIN reason is the one I discussed earlier concerning the study methods and parameters:

1.- The timing of the medication given, which is 5+ days on average, is quite late. It's weird to test that late for a medication which, for this disease, the main hypothesis as to its mechanism of action is to act as an antiviral when most replication would have already happened prior to the beginning of treatment.

2.- The change in definition to qualify for severe disease which shortens the time-frame, far increasing the odds of a negative conclusion due to failure to meet the outcome wanted.

3.- The extremely vulnerable profile of these patients which exacerbates the importance of the previous 2 points.

Your interpretation of the results of the finding aren't worth exploring. The actual study authors decided their own research gives us this bottom line:

Any other findings (i.e. "but it helps with those who get really sick from not dying") is a conclusion the study authors did not deem significant. You're reading something into their work now.

No, I am not doing that, I clearly said that their conclusion made sense given the results which were based on what they specifically wanted to look for. I however think it's important to mention details in the study which I, yes, me, find very relevant. I just happen to disagree with you, I think reduction in death is pretty important as an outcome and I wouldn't blow it off based on p-value and I especially wouldn't have blown it off given the 3 point breakdown I mentioned earlier.

Progression, since you're reading into the study findings something I don't see actually offered up as a research conclusion, can you share with the class what your credentials are in this medical research field?

Can you please share with the class what the fallacies to credentials or authority mean? Oh man, I hope you and everyone you debate have a degree in philosophy, otherwise clearly nothing could be understood or settled down. We wouldn't be able to understand each other and I couldn't possibly discern whether you are right or wrong due to your or the other person's missing credentials in a conversation.

By the way, you offered nothing in terms of argumentation. Your argumentation was based on the already stated conclusions and credentials.

The only one with a fairly valid argument was Pr3tty F1y because he argued the p-value which is a very valid critique as long as, in my opinion, you don't take into consideration the methods and individual end-points of the study.

[shrike126]

Oof, touched a nerve, the sarcastic sting is palpable. Anyhow, let's go over it a bit.


I didn't cherry pick, I didn't even disagree with their conclusion based on their data and parameters. I said that their conclusion was correct for what they sought after. It didn't meet what they wanted.

By the way, they didn't follow the guidelines to specify what severe disease is according to the WHO, they made it more strict which shortens the time-frame and C19 is all about its development across time, especially when it comes to early treatment. On top of that, the average admission date, 5+ days, was such that most of the points they wanted to meet would have been almost impossible as they would have happened earlier on average due to the timeline and patient's profile. These were extremely vulnerable patients. They had a ton of comorbidities and in spite of having the vaccine, got ill. So if you move the guidelines to qualify as severe disease earlier and you move the treatment date later, close to the ending phase of viral replication... for an antiviral, what do you think it's going to be the likely outcome when it comes to the development of severe disease? They were given the IVM on average 5.1 days after symptoms. Most viral replication, especially in such extremely vulnerable patients, would have already happened.



Actually, it's funny you say that. In this study over ~50% were fully vaccinated and more than ~65% had at least one shot. You should let those people know it prevents disease.

Oh and for good measure and to make it clear since you brought up vaccines, which I didn't, I never argued against vaccines. That's a bit sneaky of you.

It's important because I deemed it so. You are free to disagree. If I saw that data and I was developing covid and you gave me the choice between no treatment and taking Ivermectin I would be stupid not to take it given its extremely low risk profile.

If you observe two rooms, one with 51 severely ill people who are given a mysterious substance and 48 out of 51 (3 deaths, 5.9%) survive and then another room in which no one is given anything and 33 out of 43 survive (10 deaths, 23%) what would you choose?

Of course no one in the right mind would choose it! They would refuse it as they grow more and more ill! They would shout THE p-value ISN'T STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT, DO NOT GIVE IT TO ME! Yes, I am sure that's what those 10 dead people would choose again if they knew the outcome and could travel back in time.

For more nuance on p-values: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pm...es/PMC5665734/

Again, p-value is a valid critique but I don't think its the whole story when it comes to this study, especially due to the following two reasons. The first one being that the p-value of this particular outcome alone is the highest (I believe it is .09 if I remember correctly). The second and MAIN reason is the one I discussed earlier concerning the study methods and parameters:

1.- The timing of the medication given, which is 5+ days on average, is quite late. It's weird to test that late for a medication which, for this disease, the main hypothesis as to its mechanism of action is to act as an antiviral when most replication would have already happened prior to the beginning of treatment.

2.- The change in definition to qualify for severe disease which shortens the time-frame, far increasing the odds of a negative conclusion due to failure to meet the outcome wanted.

3.- The extremely vulnerable profile of these patients which exacerbates the importance of the previous 2 points.





No, I am not doing that, I clearly said that their conclusion made sense given the results which were based on what they specifically wanted to look for. I however think it's important to mention details in the study which I, yes, me, find very relevant. I just happen to disagree with you, I think reduction in death is pretty important as an outcome and I wouldn't blow it off based on p-value and I especially wouldn't have blown it off given the 3 point breakdown I mentioned earlier.

Can you please share with the class what the fallacies to credentials or authority mean? Oh man, I hope you and everyone you debate have a degree in philosophy, otherwise clearly nothing could be understood or settled down. We wouldn't be able to understand each other and I couldn't possibly discern whether you are right or wrong due to your or the other person's missing credentials in a conversation.

By the way, you offered nothing in terms of argumentation. Your argumentation was based on the already stated conclusions and credentials.

The only one with a fairly valid argument was Pr3tty F1y because he argued the p-value which is a very valid critique as long as, in my opinion, you don't take into consideration the methods and individual end-points of the study.

Okay, let's start here:

Can you please share with the class what the fallacies to credentials or authority mean? Oh man, I hope you and everyone you debate have a degree in philosophy, otherwise clearly nothing could be understood or settled down.

This isn't a philosophy discussion. There's still an ebbing, but very real public pandemic health issue world wide. We can debate whether or not philosophy is akin to a disease, but I'm comfortable with the idea that at the very least, simply breathing in a room doesn't share philosophical ideas that put others in the hospital or get others killed. Public health information is, at least, peer reviewed and self corrects over time (see this study saying that Ivermectin does **** all so stop using it in hospitals).

The only one with a fairly valid argument was Pr3tty F1y because he argued the p-value which is a very valid critique as long as, in my opinion, you don't take into consideration the methods and individual end-points of the study.

This is where I'm going to stop with the rebuttal, because no one should have to step in and say words like "p-value" to explain why something isn't statistically significant in a medical research study. The authors said "Ivermectin does nothing" and you came in with "Well that's wrong because clearly it does because look the number went from 10 to 4!"

I don't have time, or really the credentials to peer review this study. And I don't agree with Rage3D's stance of letting people sort out the truth for themselves when people are misinterpreting studies to prove or disprove a point they have no actual expertise to be weighing in on. Spouting misinformation is easy.

I guess this is what happens when you read the conclusions but don't read the actual study. If you read what you just posted:

Quote:
Results
Among 490 patients included in the primary analysis (mean [SD] age, 62.5 [8.7] years; 267 women [54.5%]), 52 of 241 patients (21.6%) in the ivermectin group and 43 of 249 patients (17.3%) in the control group progressed to severe disease (relative risk [RR], 1.25; 95% CI, 0.87-1.80; P = .25). For all prespecified secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Mechanical ventilation occurred in 4 (1.7%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.30; P = .17), intensive care unit admission in 6 (2.4%) vs 8 (3.2%) (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.27-2.20; P = .79), and 28-day in-hospital death in 3 (1.2%) vs 10 (4.0%) (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.09-1.11; P = .09). The most common adverse event reported was diarrhea (14 [5.8%] in the ivermectin group and 4 [1.6%] in the control group).

So half the ventilation and a third of deaths. Their conclusions are "correct" in the sense that, for what they were looking for, it didn't do what they wanted. However they skipped right past very important stuff. It would also be good to know how "early" they were given IVM as the main purported mechanism is the reduction of viral replication in the very early stages.

You criticized someone and then quoted a study and clearly tried to argue that ivermectin did have an impact in the study.

That's medical misinformation. Stop it. Some of us have lost actual family members to this Facebook "I did my research" bullshit. Every time someone comes along and vomits some "but hydroxychloroquine worked in this study!" misinformation it means someone else now has to come along and spend twice as much time rebutting the misinformation.

It's important because I deemed it so. You are free to disagree.

Clearly I do disagree. Because it isn't important. The authors of the study said "this drug does **** all for anyone, stop using it" and that seemed very ****ing clear.

If I saw that data and I was developing covid and you gave me the choice between no treatment and taking Ivermectin I would be stupid not to take it given its extremely low risk profile.

That's the problem. If you have Covid-19, talk to your doctor. Let them work through the CDC and whatever other agency to figure out how to best approach this on an individual case by case basis. But that's not what's happening here. You don't have Covid. You're not a doctor. You're just some guy on the forum, looking at the data and saying "Oh the authors of this study missed something important." like you know what you're talking about.

If you observe two rooms, one with 51 severely ill people who are given a mysterious substance and 48 out of 51 (3 deaths, 5.9%) survive and then another room in which no one is given anything and 33 out of 43 survive (10 deaths, 23%) what would you choose?

Talk to a doctor. Get their advice. Don't look at those rooms. You know absolutely nothing about anyone in those rooms. You have absolutely no information on the medical history of those 3 people who died versus the 10, or the people who survived. You're talking about a difference of 7 people between the two groups.

I didn't cherry pick,

... proceeds to cherry pick (see above).

Seriously, no one has time to sit here and point out why you should be ignored on subjects like this. I shouldn't be listened to either. The study authors said "Ivermectin should not be used, it does absolutely nothing." If you feel they missed something, feel free to write the study authors and ask why they missed something so glaringly obvious someone on a forum figured it out so quickly. Or put together a research study or meta-analysis that demonstrates why they're wrong.

Just don't hop online and say misleading **** that someone has to take time to rebut.