The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll

[jojojo]

The Italian PM doesn't rule out making vaccination mandatory for everyone, which would be a big step:

https://www.thelocal.it/20210903/th...xpand-its-covid-vaccination-campaign/?order=0

I really don't like the approach. It's one thing suggesting that indoor hospitality or big events may require mandatory vaccination or recent supervised test. I can see the argument for it in the health and social care areas as well. I think it gets less defensible as the compulsion level expands (especially without testing as an alternative)

What do people even mean by it? No access to schools? Public transport? Supermarkets? Hospitals?

The mental model most of us carry of the unvaxxed (by choice) is the rabid antivaxxer Trumpite trying to sell snake oil and his unlucky entourage who got caught up in the misleading headlines and outright lies.

Unfortunately, in the UK at least it's likely to mean people living in the more deprived areas. It's more likely to mean ethnic minorities. More likely to mean people already disadvantaged, or already alienated from the society around them.

And that's before I start on international travel and conflicting approaches from different countries. The UK aren't currently vaccinating the 12-15s, they only plan to give one dose to the 16/17 group. Germany would view them all as unvaxxed adults - needing to quarantine, even as their younger siblings are ok to travel and their elders can get vaxxed as per requirement.

Other countries are making a third booster dose within 9 months mandatory for travelers. Not all countries will be offering that option.

Some countries only do a single vac dose for those with recent +ve PCR tests - as that looks to be as good or better protection than two vaccine doses. That pattern wouldn't be acceptable in the UK though.

All of them following the science, all of them with different answers to similar questions.

TLDR - vaccine passports are not easy fixes.

 

[snk123]

It is such a disingenuous take on Ivermectin.

Idiots have managed to politicize a critical award winning medicine that has been used for 15 years without any side effects.

 

[e.cantona]

It is such a disingenuous take on Ivermectin.

Idiots have managed to politicize a critical award winning medicine that has been used for 15 years without any side effects.

You kinda know something is up when all news outlets report the same story with exactly the same wording and angle. Nothing to see here..

 

[Pogue Mahone]

It is such a disingenuous take on Ivermectin.

Idiots have managed to politicize a critical award winning medicine that has been used for 15 years without any side effects.

No medicine has no side effects. Ivermectin has plenty. Also. “Critical award winning”. WTF?

 

[Mike Smalling]

It is such a disingenuous take on Ivermectin.

Idiots have managed to politicize a critical award winning medicine that has been used for 15 years without any side effects.

How about the fact the both the FDA and the EMA have strongly advised against using it to treat Covid-19?

 

[Classical Mechanic]

No medicine has no side effects. Ivermectin has plenty. Also. “Critical award winning”. WTF?

Some medicines are used in both humans and animal. My question is if there are more lax standards in producing animal medicines or is the advice not to use them based on different dosage sizes? When my dog was dying of cancer he was prescribed co-codamol for pain relief but under a different name. Apparently it was exactly the same as human co-codamol at about 5 times the price. Couldn't help but wonder if I should have just bought some human stuff.

 

[snk123]

No medicine has no side effects. Ivermectin has plenty. Also. “Critical award winning”. WTF?

I see you've never been infected with a parasitic infection. Ask those who have? Also, the guy literally won a Nobel prize for discovering Ivermectin

 

[snk123]

People are literally buying the shit from farm supply stores.

Like I said, idiots. Also we now have people like Alex Jones taking it live on tv.. what a way to undermine the actual use/benefit of this medicine

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

No medicine has no side effects. Ivermectin has plenty. Also. “Critical award winning”. WTF?

To be fair the team that discovered Avermectin - the original compound from which Ivermectin has been derived - won the Nobel in 2015 for its use as an anti-helminth drug. How it got co-opted into being effective against a virus is beyond me - these are fundamentally two completely unrelated immune responses.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

To be fair the team that discovered Avermectin - the original compound from which Ivermectin has been derived - won the Nobel in 2015 for its use as an anti-helminth drug. How it got co-opted into being effective against a virus is beyond me - these are fundamentally two completely unrelated immune responses.

I did not know that.

Re covid, there is actually some interesting data which shows it might have some potential as an antiviral. Small numbers though. So it’s not completely insane to talk it up as a treatment that might have some role to play in dealing with the pandemic. The madness comes from touting it as a realistic alternative (or even preferential) option to vaccines.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

I did not know that.

Re covid, there is actually some interesting data which shows it might have some potential as an antiviral. Small numbers though. So it’s not completely insane to talk it up as a treatment that might have some role to play in dealing with the pandemic. The madness comes from touting it as a realistic alternative (or even preferential) option to vaccines.

Believe that the only study showing that was in pre-print and had to be retracted due to plagiarism and data fabrication:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

If you're talking about the infamous in vitro study, the issue there is that the only doses where it became effective are also completely toxic to humans - they blasted a dish of cells with COVID on them with 5 uM of ivermectin. This is about 85 times higher than the FDA-approved dosage for oral formulations for parasitic infections - and at the FDA-approved dosages, there was no effect in vitro. There are many many compounds that you could throw on a dish to inhibit viral replication if you're willing to go above and beyond the dosages compatible with human life!

 

[Scarlett Dracarys]

I did not know that.

Re covid, there is actually some interesting data which shows it might have some potential as an antiviral. Small numbers though. So it’s not completely insane to talk it up as a treatment that might have some role to play in dealing with the pandemic. The madness comes from touting it as a realistic alternative (or even preferential) option to vaccines.

I can't begin to imagine what kind of mindset one would have to be in to think that this is a better option as compared to the vaccine.

 

[snk123]

I can't begin to imagine what kind of mindset one would have to be in to think that this is a better option as compared to the vaccine.

This.

There is “apparently” no harm in taking it in recommended dosage. Anecdotal evidence suggests it is helpful when taken early on in Covid.

There is science to back up its usage hence there are medical professionals advocating it’s use.

There is a trial going on in Oxford i believe on it as well.

It is ridiculous to label it as a “horse dewormer” and equally ridiculous to use it as an alternative to vaccine.

The problem is with these anti vaxxer idiots in the US who politicise and overuse a possible treatment.

Now there is an extreme bias for and against Ivermectin which might prove impossible to impartially actually study its benefits with regards to covid.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

This.

There is “apparently” no harm in taking it in recommended dosage. Anecdotal evidence suggests it is helpful when taken early on in Covid.

There is science to back up its usage hence there are medical professionals advocating it’s use.

There is a trial going on in Oxford i believe on it as well.

It is ridiculous to label it as a “horse dewormer” and equally ridiculous to use it as an alternative to vaccine.

The problem is with these anti vaxxer idiots in the US who politicise and overuse a possible treatment.

Now there is an extreme bias for and against Ivermectin which might prove impossible to impartially actually study its benefits with regards to covid.

There is no actual science backing its usage up and anecdotal evidence is literally worse than useless. Put just about any molecule at high enough quantities on a dish of cells and you can inhibit the growth of just about anything - when you are literal orders of magnitude above what has been already established to be safe dosages, the only possible application might be as a chemotherapy.

 

[Beans]

There is no actual science backing its usage up and anecdotal evidence is literally worse than useless. Put just about any molecule at high enough quantities on a dish of cells and you can inhibit the growth of just about anything - when you are literal orders of magnitude above what has been already established to be safe dosages, the only possible application might be as a chemotherapy.

Actually there is, I’ve posted it in this thread (actually it was on the sars thread)

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Actually there is, I’ve posted it in this thread

Well go ahead and link it then and I can tell you exactly why it is horseshit - can't be bothered searching for it

 

[Beans]

Well go ahead and link it then and I can tell you exactly why it is horseshit - can't be bothered searching for it

Sorry I posted it in the sars thread


Peer reviewed study from India:

Results
Of 3892 employees, 3532 (90.8%) participated in the study. The ivermectin uptake was 62.5% and 5.3% for two doses and single dose, respectively. Participants who took ivermectin prophylaxis had a lower risk of getting symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection (6% vs 15%). HCWs who had taken two doses of oral ivermectin had a significantly lower risk of contracting COVID-19 infection during the following month (ARR 0.17; 95% CI, 0.12-0.23). Females had a lower risk of contracting COVID-19 than males (ARR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93). The absolute risk reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 9.7%. Only 1.8% of the participants reported adverse events, which were mild and self-limiting.

Conclusion
Two doses of oral ivermectin (300 μg/kg/dose given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophylaxis among HCWs reduced the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month. Safe, effective, and low-cost chemoprophylaxis has relevance in the containment of pandemic alongside vaccine.

https://www.cureus.com/articles/648...onavirus-2-infection-among-healthcare-workers

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Sorry I posted it in the sars thread


Peer reviewed study from India:

Results
Of 3892 employees, 3532 (90.8%) participated in the study. The ivermectin uptake was 62.5% and 5.3% for two doses and single dose, respectively. Participants who took ivermectin prophylaxis had a lower risk of getting symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection (6% vs 15%). HCWs who had taken two doses of oral ivermectin had a significantly lower risk of contracting COVID-19 infection during the following month (ARR 0.17; 95% CI, 0.12-0.23). Females had a lower risk of contracting COVID-19 than males (ARR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93). The absolute risk reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 9.7%. Only 1.8% of the participants reported adverse events, which were mild and self-limiting.

Conclusion
Two doses of oral ivermectin (300 μg/kg/dose given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophylaxis among HCWs reduced the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month. Safe, effective, and low-cost chemoprophylaxis has relevance in the containment of pandemic alongside vaccine.

https://www.cureus.com/articles/648...onavirus-2-infection-among-healthcare-workers

That is an absolute joke of a study and is completely meaningless mate. First of all, they didn't do this in a double-blinded fashion - if you want to show an impact, you have to do so vs. placebo. Furthermore, they didn't age, gender, or role-match their participants and are comparing cohorts of completely different sizes AND did nothing to control for prior COVID infection. The impact factor of the journal it's been published in is 1.15 - this is pretty much Facebook-tier nonsense.

 

[RedC]

It is ridiculous to label it as a “horse dewormer”

I mean, it's not really when people are going to animal shops and buying a product labelled 'horse dewormer' and taking it.

 

[berbatrick]

Sorry I posted it in the sars thread


Peer reviewed study from India:

Results
Of 3892 employees, 3532 (90.8%) participated in the study. The ivermectin uptake was 62.5% and 5.3% for two doses and single dose, respectively. Participants who took ivermectin prophylaxis had a lower risk of getting symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection (6% vs 15%). HCWs who had taken two doses of oral ivermectin had a significantly lower risk of contracting COVID-19 infection during the following month (ARR 0.17; 95% CI, 0.12-0.23). Females had a lower risk of contracting COVID-19 than males (ARR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93). The absolute risk reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 9.7%. Only 1.8% of the participants reported adverse events, which were mild and self-limiting.

Conclusion
Two doses of oral ivermectin (300 μg/kg/dose given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophylaxis among HCWs reduced the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month. Safe, effective, and low-cost chemoprophylaxis has relevance in the containment of pandemic alongside vaccine.

https://www.cureus.com/articles/648...onavirus-2-infection-among-healthcare-workers

thanks.
taking that at face value it's not a bad result. but there are 2 major caveats.
it was done sept-oct last year - long before delta.
and, 6% vs 15% means efficiency against symptomatic infection is 60%. Not exactly great given vaccine numbers against earlier variants.

 

[Wibble]

I really don't like the approach. It's one thing suggesting that indoor hospitality or big events may require mandatory vaccination or recent supervised test. I can see the argument for it in the health and social care areas as well. I think it gets less defensible as the compulsion level expands (especially without testing as an alternative)

What do people even mean by it? No access to schools? Public transport? Supermarkets? Hospitals?

The mental model most of us carry of the unvaxxed (by choice) is the rabid antivaxxer Trumpite trying to sell snake oil and his unlucky entourage who got caught up in the misleading headlines and outright lies.

Unfortunately, in the UK at least it's likely to mean people living in the more deprived areas. It's more likely to mean ethnic minorities. More likely to mean people already disadvantaged, or already alienated from the society around them.

And that's before I start on international travel and conflicting approaches from different countries. The UK aren't currently vaccinating the 12-15s, they only plan to give one dose to the 16/17 group. Germany would view them all as unvaxxed adults - needing to quarantine, even as their younger siblings are ok to travel and their elders can get vaxxed as per requirement.

Other countries are making a third booster dose within 9 months mandatory for travelers. Not all countries will be offering that option.

Some countries only do a single vac dose for those with recent +ve PCR tests - as that looks to be as good or better protection than two vaccine doses. That pattern wouldn't be acceptable in the UK though.

All of them following the science, all of them with different answers to similar questions.

TLDR - vaccine passports are not easy fixes.

You certainly need common standards for international travel and that might well come fairly soon I'd guess. And they should be as simple as possible. No exemption for positive + 1 dose - you are vaxxed or not. No requirement for boosters until we know when/if they are needed even if a third dose to better deal with Delta becomes common. If we then find they are needed we can adjust requirements later.

Still leaves people in your circumstances in bind of course https://www.theguardian.com/austral...pants-remain-unrecognised-by-vaccine-register

Internally that will vary. Even vary state by state her I'd guess.

International and interstate travel aside I'd say pubs, restaurants, cafes and large sporting events will be the main targets but how long that will remain a requirement will vary according to who is in power, vaccination rates, infection numbers and ICU admissions.

I'd like a full vaccination record (not just covid) required for school or Uni admission (already required for schools), Medicare levy/tax increases for the unvaccinated and reduced access to some social/tax benefits (middle class welfare type payments like family tax benefits). If you don't want to play your part in society then you should pay the cost of you not participating.

 

[nimic]

The thread title edits are neat, but more or less meaningless at this point. A lot of people are never going to come back here to change their votes, so there will always be 20% waiting to take the vaccine.

 

[snk123]

I mean, it's not really when people are going to animal shops and buying a product labelled 'horse dewormer' and taking it.

Like I said - the medicine is for humans primarily. Over 2 billion people have used it for the last 15 years and there have been no serious reported side effects.

If you use an animal version of the medicine - that’s not the medicine’s fault. That’s why I don’t understand the BS headlines on media and blatant lies calling it a horse medicine.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Like I said - the medicine is for humans primarily. Over 2 billion people have used it for the last 15 years and there have been no serious reported side effects.

If you use an animal version of the medicine - that’s not the medicine’s fault. That’s why I don’t understand the BS headlines on media and blatant lies calling it a horse medicine.

Source on the 2 billion figure? That seems ludicrously high - you think ~29% of the world's population has used ivermectin?

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Ah yes, let's equate the very obvious right-wing grifter to those who do actual science. Christ on a bike

 

[Beans]

Ah yes, let's equate the very obvious right-wing grifter to those who do actual science. Christ on a bike

You don't mind that Rolling Stone, Huff Post and others just lied to you? Who cares who posted the info? I only added it because it explained what happened.

Personally I've found a lot of benefit from the Peak Prosperity podcast, where he took the opportunity to inform people about the pandemic on his primarily financial channel. He's not a loony right winger, your dismissive attitude isn't helpful.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

You don't mind that Rolling Stone, Huff Post and others just lied to you? Who cares who posted the info? I only added it because it explained what happened.

The guy works for multiple hospitals. Why are you so willing to believe something that is equally uncorroborated? He literally is involved in patient triage in the region so he has a better sense of what the overall picture is compared to a single hospital.

Also, "who cares who posted the info" - is this a fecking joke? Do you not understand that people who post things have their own agenda? To put this into a framework you might understand, would you take it on faith alone if Jurgen Klopp said something about how Man United are shit and Ronaldo is shit and Solksjaer should be fired and Jadon Sancho will flop and yadda yadda yadda? You don't think you might take that with a grain of salt given that person's personal preferences?

 

[Raoul]

Source on the 2 billion figure? That seems ludicrously high - you think ~29% of the world's population has used ivermectin?

 

[snk123]

Source on the 2 billion figure? That seems ludicrously high - you think ~29% of the world's population has used ivermectin?

It spans over 30-40 years I think since it was discovered so not outrageous to see the 2/3 billion figure.

https://www.isglobal.org/en/healthi...swers-about-ivermectin-and-covid-19/2877257/0
" To date, more than three billion treatments have been distributed in the context of the Mectizan Donation Program alone with an excellent safety profile. "

The point being, it's an incredibly safe drug and not a poisonous horse dewormer as portrayed.

 

[Ramshock]

It spans over 30-40 years I think since it was discovered so not outrageous to see the 2/3 billion figure.

https://www.isglobal.org/en/healthi...swers-about-ivermectin-and-covid-19/2877257/0
" To date, more than three billion treatments have been distributed in the context of the Mectizan Donation Program alone with an excellent safety profile. "

The point being, it's an incredibly safe drug and not a poisonous horse dewormer as portrayed.

2 to 3 billion people have not received horse de-wormer tablets.

 

[snk123]

Yes, your ignorance is funny when you're stupid enough not to take 40 years into account.

https://journals.lww.com/americanth...he_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx
The safety, availability, and cost of ivermectin are nearly unparalleled given its low incidence of important drug interactions along with only mild and rare side effects observed in almost 40 years of use and billions of doses administered.

 

[snk123]

2 to 3 billion people have not received horse de-wormer tablets.

People don't receive animal medication. Only idiots opt for that. That has been the discussion in case you haven't followed it. Ivermectin in itself is a very safe, incredibly useful drug.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

It spans over 30-40 years I think since it was discovered so not outrageous to see the 2/3 billion figure.

https://www.isglobal.org/en/healthi...swers-about-ivermectin-and-covid-19/2877257/0
" To date, more than three billion treatments have been distributed in the context of the Mectizan Donation Program alone with an excellent safety profile. "

The point being, it's an incredibly safe drug and not a poisonous horse dewormer as portrayed.

Um so you're basing this statement of fact on a single article written by a bank in Barcelona?

Yes, your ignorance is funny when you're stupid enough not to take 40 years into account.

https://journals.lww.com/americanth...he_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx
The safety, availability, and cost of ivermectin are nearly unparalleled given its low incidence of important drug interactions along with only mild and rare side effects observed in almost 40 years of use and billions of doses administered.

Ah I see, you're also basing it on a meta-analysis of absolute bullshit as I debunked previously. This paper is a fecking joke - it doesn't vet any of the studies it's looking at and it's literally cliff's notes of nonsense data.

 

[snk123]

Um so you're basing this statement of fact on a single article written by a bank in Barcelona?

Ah I see, you're also basing it on a meta-analysis of absolute bullshit as I debunked previously. This paper is a fecking joke - it doesn't vet any of the studies it's looking at and it's literally cliff's notes of nonsense data.

I don't understand what the feck are you annoyed at exactly? Are you trying to say that Ivermectin (for humans) is dangerous - because it is clearly not and there are literally hundreds of articles, data and studies you can find on that.

Also,
" The program reaches more than 300 million people in the affected areas annually, with more than 4 billion treatments donated since 1987. "
https://www.merck.com/stories/mectizan/

 

[Ramshock]

People don't receive animal medication. Only idiots opt for that. That has been the discussion in case you haven't followed it. Ivermectin in itself is a very safe, incredibly useful drug.

So are you saying that over one third of the planet or more have had worms since the 1980s?

 

[snk123]

So are you saying that over one third of the planet or more have had worms since the 1980s?

It has many uses. Maybe google because I can't be arsed anymore to convince people who've already made up their mind that it's a medicine for horses.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

I don't understand what the feck are you annoyed at exactly? Are you trying to say that Ivermectin (for humans) is dangerous - because it is clearly not and there are literally hundreds of articles, data and studies you can find on that.

Also,
" The program reaches more than 300 million people in the affected areas annually, with more than 4 billion treatments donated since 1987. "
https://www.merck.com/stories/mectizan/

Ah ok so you don't understand the difference between prescriptions and patients. Fair enough, because it's patently ludicrous to suggest that there have been that many people who have been treated with the drug.

Of course I'm not trying to say ivermectin is dangerous WHEN USED IN CLINICALLY PROVEN AND APPROPRIATE SETTINGS. Taking it willy-nilly because you read a single article online written by a bank is of course idiotic and is damaging to people who actually need it.

 

[snk123]

Ah ok so you don't understand the difference between prescriptions and patients. Fair enough, because it's patently ludicrous to suggest that there have been that many people who have been treated with the drug.

Of course I'm not trying to say ivermectin is dangerous WHEN USED IN CLINICALLY PROVEN AND APPROPRIATE SETTINGS. Taking it willy-nilly because you read a single article online written by a bank is of course idiotic and is damaging to people who actually need it.

Again, sometimes it's okay to admit that you were wrong. The figure spans over 40 fecking years so it's not ludicrous. 300 million people are given Ivermectin annually just in the merck program. It is also one of the preferred treatment for scabbies which affects millions every year. It is used for a plethora of other diseases as well.

Do you know that people are born every day? Do you know that people die as well? It's 40 years. 2-3 billion different people in 40 years is not unthinkable. I am literally mentioning official sources.
Also, the feck is that bank article? I was just tagging the sources which say that Ivermectin has been used by billions of people - not the content of the article.

Of course if you take it yourself in extreme high doses, it's idiotic. But to discredit the medicine and label it just a horse dewormer is just fecking moronic as well.

It needs to be studied/trialed as a possible treatment without any sort of bias.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Again, sometimes it's okay to admit that you were wrong. The figure spans over 40 fecking years so it's not ludicrous. 300 million people are given Ivermectin annually just in the merck program. It is also one of the preferred treatment for scabbies which affects millions every year. It is used for a plethora of other diseases as well.

Do you know that people are born every day? Do you know that people die as well? It's 40 years. 2-3 billion different people in 40 years is not unthinkable. I am literally mentioning official sources.
Also, the feck is that bank article? I was just tagging the sources which say that Ivermectin has been used by billions of people - not the content of the article.

Of course if you take it yourself in extreme high doses, it's idiotic. But to discredit the medicine and label it just a horse dewormer is just fecking moronic as well.

It needs to be studied/trialed as a possible treatment without any sort of bias.

Dude. I have worked with Merck on multiple projects. I have a PhD in Microbiology and Immunology and have been a consultant in the pharmaceutical industry for several years now. You are just wrong. I know more about this than you do - it doesn't matter how much googling you do. You are incorrect.

These numbers are always inflated to sound good on press releases. "The program reaches 300 million people annually" does abso-fecking-lutely not equate to "300 million people a year took our drug". That figure will include family members and oftentimes people who just happen to live in the same area / village as those who were treated on the basis that they are now less likely to get worms. Your blind faith in a press release would be very funny if it weren't so depressing.

It is genuinely hilarious the extent to which you take things like Merck PR statements at face value. Apparently statements from the FDA unequivocally stating that Ivermectin is ineffective against COVID aren't to be trusted, though.

 

[WPMUFC]

People don't receive animal medication. Only idiots opt for that. That has been the discussion in case you haven't followed it. Ivermectin in itself is a very safe, incredibly useful drug.

None....not one national medical body is advising ivermetctin usage for COVID, and your disingenuous and moralising posting over "a wonderful drug being besmirched" is in complete bad faith.

Your continual shifting of the goal posts to focus discussion on where ivermetctin may be useful and it's proper usage in humans has nothing to do with the fact that people are continually using the drug in non-safe ways instead of taking a safe and highly efficacious vaccine. To the point that the incorrect usage of ivermetctin via people buying ANIMAL-GRADE products is leading to hospitalisation.

People (and my making fun of Rogan) that are talking about ivermetctin as "horse dewormer" are obviously talking about it in the examples of fecking morons going to a pet store for medication instead of taking a vaccine. Making fun of a moron like Rogan is trying to highlight that he is willing to take 50 other types of medication over a vaccine, yet are the first morons to pipe up about "Gotta follow the real science bro".