Official Thread: Coronavirus "COVID-19"

[Nunz]

Interesting logic.

[acroig]

It's what it is bud, it's how I personally feel on the subject. If I was nuking posts about it then you'd have a beef but this my take on it.

[Nagorak]

Ah, the voice of common sense, finally!

Why are people still "investigating" Invermectin when crap don't work and vaccine does?

It's not even just vaccines, there's also treatments like Paxlovid, molnuvirapir, which actually appear effective.

Invermectin is something they tried early on in the pandemic when we were grasping at straws. But things have come a long way since then. It's honestly pretty ridiculous that it's still floating around as some sort of meme cure. It's long past time to move on.

Fwiw, I don't criticize the studies for being conducted, but if multiple studies keep showing limited or no effect then at some point you just have to accept that.

[acroig]

Agreed.

[mizzer]

Ivermectin, when used as a preventative, was shown to significantly reduce hospitalizations and mortality in a Brazilian study of 159,561 people.

The study was just released in January 2022.

...a total of 159,561 subjects were included in the analysis: 113,845 (71.3&#37 regular ivermectin users and 45,716 (23.3%) non-users. Of these, 4,311 ivermectin users were infected, among which 4,197 were from the city of Itaja&#237; (3.7% infection rate), and 3,034 non-users (from Itaja&#237 were infected (6.6% infection rate), with a 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.53-0.58; p < 0.0001). Using PSM, two cohorts of 3,034 subjects suffering from COVID-19 infection were compared. The regular use of ivermectin led to a 68% reduction in COVID-19 mortality (25 [0.8%] versus 79 [2.6%] among ivermectin non-users; RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.49; p < 0.0001). When adjusted for residual variables, reduction in mortality rate was 70% (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.19-0.46; p < 0.0001). There was a 56% reduction in hospitalization rate (44 versus 99 hospitalizations among ivermectin users and non-users, respectively; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.31-0.63; p < 0.0001). After adjustment for residual variables, reduction in hospitalization rate was 67% (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 023-0.66; p < 0.0001).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35070575/

More text here: https://www.cureus.com/articles/8216...score-matching

[Ravens Nest]

Ivermectin, when used as a preventative, was shown to significantly reduce hospitalizations and mortality in a Brazilian study of 159,561 people.

The study was just released in January 2022.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35070575/

More text here: https://www.cureus.com/articles/8216...score-matching

With amazing figures like that why isn't it being shouted out from the roof tops by the media....

Genuinely looks it would be of great help to everyone.

[shrike126]

Ivermectin, when used as a preventative, was shown to significantly reduce hospitalizations and mortality in a Brazilian study of 159,561 people.

The study was just released in January 2022.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35070575/

More text here: https://www.cureus.com/articles/8216...score-matching

I dunno if that would be the study I'd point to for support for using Ivermectin to treat Covid-19.

For starters, their work so far is questionable...

The FLCCC was started by eight medics and two former journalists in April 2020, at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.[3] According to its co-president, Paul E. Marik, the group has a shared interest in vitamin C.[2]

The group initially started promoting Marik's discredited sepsis treatment protocol as a treatment for COVID-19, and in April 2020 it circulated press releases promoting vitamin C, heparin, hydroxychloroquine and other drugs, before pivoting to ivermectin promotion in October 2020.[3]

In November 2021 the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine retracted a paper written by Kory, Marik, and others. The retraction was triggered when it was found the paper misreported the mortality figures of people treated for COVID-19 with the FLCCC's "MATH+" protocol, falsely making it appear to be an effective treatment.[10][11]

In January 2021, the FLCCC presented findings on the use of the anti-parasite drug ivermectin against COVID-19 to the National Institutes of Health, which ruled there was "insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19" without clinical trials.[4] A 2021 review article by FLCCC members on the efficacy of ivermectin, which was provisionally accepted by Frontiers in Pharmacology, was subsequently rejected on account of what the publisher called "a series of strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance" meaning that the article did "not offer an objective [or] balanced scientific contribution to the evaluation of ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID-19".[12] The FLCCC review article included a study from Egypt that was later retracted after anomalies were found in its data and concerns were raised about plagiarism.[13]

Source

As for that study itself, it hasn't been peer reviewed and results reproduced elsewhere. Most other studies are showing the opposite results.

It sounds promising, but two experts not associated with the study pointed out serious research flaws, including leaving questions about whether those identified as having taken the ivermectin actually did as prescribed. They also raised questions about conflict of interest by some of its authors.

Concerns about methodology
Dr. Nikolas Wada, an epidemiologist with the Novel Coronavirus Research Compendium at Johns Hopkins, raised concerns about the study's uncertainty over who was "truly taking ivermectin and vice versa" and poor control for factors that may predispose someone to catch COVID-19, among other issues.

"My primary takeaway," Wada said, "is that this paper adds nearly nothing to the knowledge base regarding ivermectin and COVID-19, and certainly does not prove its effectiveness as a prophylaxis."

Source

If this study's results are an actual thing, it seems like it would be pretty easy for others to reproduce these results.

[mizzer]

I dunno if that would be the study I'd point to for support for using Ivermectin to treat Covid-19.

For starters, their work so far is questionable...



As for that study itself, it hasn't been peer reviewed and results reproduced elsewhere. Most other studies are showing the opposite results.



If this study's results are an actual thing, it seems like it would be pretty easy for others to reproduce these results.

Their study should be questioned. That's science.

[shrike126]

With amazing figures like that why isn't it being shouted out from the roof tops by the media....

Genuinely looks it would be of great help to everyone.

Because there's questions about their methodology, no one's been able to replicate their findings, that group's previous work was shoddy at best, and there are concerns about the conflicts of interests on the part of the study authors.

If their study is accurate, the results should be easy to reproduce.

[mizzer]

With amazing figures like that why isn't it being shouted out from the roof tops by the media....

Genuinely looks it would be of great help to everyone.

It's just a study. A lot goes into recommending a drug for anything.

[ugly]

If Pierre Kory's name is on it, a good starting point is to view it with heavy suspicion

This study is in hamsters, but: Ivermectin does not protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Syrian hamster model

Abstract
Ivermectin, an FDA-approved antiparasitic drug, has been reported to have in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2. An increasing off-label use of Ivermectin for COVID-19 has been reported. We here assessed the effect of Ivermectin in Syrian hamsters infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Beta (B.1.351) variant. Infected animals received a clinically relevant dose of Ivermectin (0.4 mg/kg subcutaneously dosed) once daily for four consecutive days after which the effect was quantified. Ivermectin monotherapy did not reduce lung viral load and even significantly worsened the SARS-CoV-2-induced lung pathology. Additionally, it did not potentiate the activity of Molnupiravir (Lagevrio™) when combined with this drug. This study contributes to the growing body of evidence that Ivermectin does not result in a beneficial effect in the treatment of COVID-19. These findings are important given the increasing, dangerous off-label use of Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.

What we're seeing with ivermectin is the standard case of, 'the more you look, the less there is to see'.

[12Bass]

Obviously, more exhaustive research is needed. It simply isn't possible that Ivermectin doesn't work... my sources tell me so! My sources are trustworthy medical experts. Obviously, a global medical/scientific conspiracy is hiding the real efficacy....

Now, those experimental mRNA vaccines... THOSE DON'T WORK. What are we at now, the 15th booster?

[shrike126]

Obviously, more exhaustive research is needed. It simply isn't possible that Ivermectin doesn't work... my sources tell me so! My sources are trustworthy medical experts. Obviously, a global medical/scientific conspiracy is hiding the real efficacy....

Now, those experimental mRNA vaccines... THOSE DON'T WORK. What are we at now, the 15th booster?

After the last 2 years, I legit cannot tell if this is sarcasm or not.

[12Bass]

After the last 2 years, I legit cannot tell if this is sarcasm or not.

Too bad there's no sarcasm font.... It's satire about the continued attempts to support Ivermectin. My take is that most of it is motivated by tribalism... as a certain ideological group has been pushing it hard since 2020 and is trying to save face, resorting to scraping the bottom of the barrel for any iota of evidence to support their tribe.

[shrike126]

Too bad there's no sarcasm font.... It's satire about the continued attempts to support Ivermectin. My take is that most of it is motivated by tribalism... as a certain ideological group has been pushing it hard since 2020 and is trying to save face, resorting to scraping the bottom of the barrel for any iota of evidence to support their tribe.

I'm sorry. It's not you it's me!

[Sasquach]

I'm sorry. It's not you it's me!

just take 2 ivermectin and call me in the morning.

You will feel great again! And just as duped!

[huskylord]

I'm turning 50 this year and could use some iviagaramectin

[Sasquach]

im gonna re-look into the tide pods ingestion....

If they changed the formula maybe it'll be.....less deathy?

[SubCog]

With amazing figures like that why isn't it being shouted out from the roof tops by the media....

Genuinely looks it would be of great help to everyone.

Even if Ivermectin is a wonder-drug for Covid (which is still debated), it doesn't solve the problem of the spread of a deadly pandemic. It's easy to see why authorities want to prioritize vaccines over drug treatments, because vaccines actually address the root cause of the problem.

[SubCog]

Woot! The mask mandate in my county ended yesterday. I'm going to go to the grocery store this afternoon... I'm curious to see if people will be maskless or not.

The mandate is still in-force for schools here, but that's supposed to end on the 12th.

[Drunken Janitor]

Woot! The mask mandate in my county ended yesterday. I'm going to go to the grocery store this afternoon... I'm curious to see if people will be maskless or not.

The mandate is still in-force for schools here, but that's supposed to end on the 12th.

They end here on March 14th. I am wearing one until the end of respiratory virus season (end of April) or there abouts. My work is still requiring masks, but its not like anyone wears them properly, or at all, except for me and a couple of others.

[Greasy]

Woot! The mask mandate in my county ended yesterday. I'm going to go to the grocery store this afternoon... I'm curious to see if people will be maskless or not.

The mandate is still in-force for schools here, but that's supposed to end on the 12th.

Since they ended it here, 80% of folks aren't wearing them. Which makes wearing one much less effective. I'm sure it doesn't hurt though.

[SubCog]

Well I went to the grocery store, and EVERYONE was still wearing masks. I guess nobody wants to be the first to take it off?

[acroig]

Currently at Hilton Head Island, SC, and no one wears **** here, for a long time now.

[Sasquach]

My wife was traversing our +15 pathway system to go to work (the +15 a network of indoor pathways within our downtown buildings that connect to each other ... you can effectlvely traverse our entire downtown core just through this system without ever stepping foot outside. I think the +15 name comes from the fact that all the bridges that connect between the buildings are 15 feet above ground level). She said no one was wearing a mask lol.

Yeah once that mask mandate got lifted here in oilberta at the beginning of the month, the masks just came off.

Im gonna be part of the bunch that still uses it wherever i go.

[bill dennison]

Currently at Hilton Head Island, SC, and no one wears **** here, for a long time now.

isn't a little cold for the nude beach thing

[acroig]

isn't a little cold for the nude beach thing

Never!!

[ugly]

This one has a small sample size, but: SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) Variant Transmission Within Households - Four U.S. Jurisdictions, November 2021-February 2022

Abstract
The B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant, first detected in November 2021, was responsible for a surge in U.S. infections with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, during December 2021-January 2022 (1). To investigate the effectiveness of prevention strategies in household settings, CDC partnered with four U.S. jurisdictions to describe Omicron household transmission during November 2021-February 2022. Persons with sequence-confirmed Omicron infection and their household contacts were interviewed. Omicron transmission occurred in 124 (67.8&#37 of 183 households. Among 431 household contacts, 227 were classified as having a case of COVID-19 (attack rate [AR] = 52.7%).† The ARs among household contacts of index patients who had received a COVID-19 booster dose, of fully vaccinated index patients who completed their COVID-19 primary series within the previous 5 months, and of unvaccinated index patients were 42.7% (47 of 110), 43.6% (17 of 39), and 63.9% (69 of 108), respectively. The AR was lower among household contacts of index patients who isolated (41.2%, 99 of 240) compared with those of index patients who did not isolate (67.5%, 112 of 166) (p-value <0.01). Similarly, the AR was lower among household contacts of index patients who ever wore a mask at home during their potentially infectious period (39.5%, 88 of 223) compared with those of index patients who never wore a mask at home (68.9%, 124 of 180) (p-value <0.01). Multicomponent COVID-19 prevention strategies, including up-to-date vaccination, isolation of infected persons, and mask use at home, are critical to reducing Omicron transmission in household settings.

[Shapeshifter]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/covid-19-can-damage-brain-tissue-u-k-study-suggests-1.5810041

COVID-19 can damage brain tissue, U.K. study suggests

Some regions of the human brain may shrink after a person has caught COVID-19, according to the first study to use brain scans to show a ‘before and after’ look at the brain following infection.

A new U.K. study published Monday in the journal Nature found that there is greater tissue damage and shrinkage in the brains of those who had even mild cases of COVID-19, with most of the changes relating to areas of the brain that have to do with smell.

It’s unclear yet whether these effects are permanent or will improve with time, or what they could mean for overall brain health or function, with researchers noting that some brain loss occurs with age.

[ugly]

Risk of Long Covid in people infected with SARS-CoV-2 after two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine: community-based, matched cohort study

Abstract
Background It is unclear whether receiving two COVID-19 vaccinations before SARS-CoV-2 infection reduces the risk of developing Long Covid symptoms. We examined whether the likelihood of symptoms 12 weeks after infection differed by vaccination status.

Methods We included COVID-19 Infection Survey participants aged 18-69 years who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 26 April 2020 and 30 November 2021; we excluded participants who, before their first test-confirmed infection, had suspected COVID-19 or Long Covid symptoms, or were single-vaccinated. Participants who were double-vaccinated ≥14 days before infection were 1:1 propensity-score matched, based on socio-demographic characteristics and time from infection to follow-up for Long Covid, to those unvaccinated at time of infection. We estimated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) of Long Covid symptoms ≥12 weeks post-infection, comparing double-vaccinated with unvaccinated (reference group) participants.

Results The study sample comprised 3,090 double-vaccinated participants (mean age 49 years, 54&#37; female, 92% white, median follow-up from infection 96 days) and matched control participants. Long Covid symptoms were reported by 294 double-vaccinated participants (prevalence 9.5%) compared with 452 unvaccinated participants (14.6%), corresponding to an aOR for Long Covid symptoms of 0.59 (95% CI: 0.50 to 0.69). There was no evidence of heterogeneity by adenovirus vector versus messenger ribonucleic acid vaccines (p=0.25).

Conclusions COVID-19 vaccination is associated with reduced risk of Long Covid, emphasising the need for public health initiatives to increase population-level vaccine uptake. Longer follow-up is needed, as is the assessment of further vaccine doses and the Omicron variant.

[Silent-Runner]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/corona...ests-1.5810041

COVID-19 can damage brain tissue, U.K. study suggests

well, it seems a lot of people caught covid several times then.....

[Renocide]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/corona...ests-1.5810041

COVID-19 can damage brain tissue, U.K. study suggests

It's like the ol' "which came first" question...

The chicken or the egg.

[SD-[Inc]]

Went out to eat at a nice restaurant last week for the first time since pandemic started. It was very nice. Got sick Saturday and tested positive Monday. Luckily it’s been pretty mild. Does feel like this pandemic is out to get me. Peeked out just once and got it. Bad luck I guess. Started with a dry cough, then mild fever, and now my nose is running. Not much different than normal flu. Here is hoping it stays that way.

[A2597]

We're slowly going back out into the world as well.
So far, so good.

[huskylord]

A whole bunch of people I know are starting to get it.....just before our long overdue family vacation......got to stay away from the infected.

[Java Cool Dude]

Apparently Europe is getting stuffed once again due to BA2. Here in the US we are usually a few weeks behind Europe when it comes to getting wrecked…

[SubCog]

Numbers are way down here (SF bay area), and I figured this was basically over. I wonder why you guys are having outbreaks all the sudden? Differences in vaccination rates? Differences in mandates? Or just weird regional differences?

[koralis]

Numbers are way down here (SF bay area), and I figured this was basically over. I wonder why you guys are having outbreaks all the sudden? Differences in vaccination rates? Differences in mandates? Or just weird regional differences?

Possibly different number of boosters? Ie. Longer since the initial doses.

[SD-[Inc]]

Numbers are way down here (SF bay area), and I figured this was basically over. I wonder why you guys are having outbreaks all the sudden? Differences in vaccination rates? Differences in mandates? Or just weird regional differences?

I am vaxxed and boosted. This probably explains why I am having pretty mild symptoms. But, CDC has purposely changed strategy recently. Relying only on hospitalization cases to decide to ease masking. My county just got a green last week. But, case rates were still sorta high. I was a little concerned, but I guess we are shifting from prevention mode to treating covid more as an endemic disease. On the bright side, now that I am sick it is the first day in over 2 years I don't worry about getting sick. There is that whole potential death issue. But, after infection started, there is no choice but to ride it out. Not suggesting anyone get infected. But, it's been fairly easy so far. Here is hoping it stay that way!

[Greasy]

Omi did its job at creating herd immunity for the most part. Apparently it's finally spreading in China.

Yes the country that delivered it all over the world while walling off Wuhan. Let's see what new level of hell that population can deliver us going forward, since most of the rest of the world had already been ravaged.