• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The One Covid-19 Science and Medicine Thread Part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
...Someone who is less vaccinated may have had more infections, and gets the protection from that. ...

Some people are going to lose their **** over that.

It's a good reason to not get booster shots, because we know the protection against severe disease does last, so you're better to let the disease take its course and build up personal and herd immunity.

I'm quite amused by it.
 
Some people are going to lose their **** over that.

It's a good reason to not get booster shots, because we know the protection against severe disease does last, so you're better to let the disease take its course and build up personal and herd immunity.

I'm quite amused by it.
It's going to take even longer to sort out the variables for herd immunity.

People will lose their **** over everything COVID related no matter what.
 
Some people are going to lose their **** over that.

It's a good reason to not get booster shots, because we know the protection against severe disease does last, so you're better to let the disease take its course and build up personal and herd immunity.

I'm quite amused by it.

Wouldn’t it depend on age? Is it advisable for older people to get booster shots?
 
Wouldn’t it depend on age? Is it advisable for older people to get booster shots?

The evidence marting posted appears to say no.

You take your chances, regardless of shots.

Paxlovid still works and is available to older people in every country I can think of, so that's the way out.
 
I see that subsidised paxlovid is available to Australians between the ages of 60 and 69. It seems that beyond those ages your life is not worth saving. If I was 30 I would undoubtably see the point. As I’m over 70, not so much.
 
In DK, Paxlovid is only for 80+ and 65+ with one or more risk factors. It is unavailable for everybody else.
 
I see that subsidised paxlovid is available to Australians between the ages of 60 and 69. It seems that beyond those ages your life is not worth saving. If I was 30 I would undoubtably see the point. As I’m over 70, not so much.

I think you're reading it wrong.

According to your Department of Health, it's available to 60-69 with one medical condition, and to all 70+, regardless of medical conditions and even symptoms.

https://www.health.gov.au/health-al...ility#eligibility-for-oral-covid19-treatments
 
First large long covid (PASC) RCT showing significant reductions using Metaformin, a cheap safe drug.

Outpatient treatment of COVID-19 and incidence of post-COVID-19 condition over 10 months (COVID-OUT): a multicentre, randomised, quadruple-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(23)00299-2/fulltext
Interpretation
Outpatient treatment with metformin reduced long COVID incidence by about 41%, with an absolute reduction of 4·1%, compared with placebo. Metformin has clinical benefits when used as outpatient treatment for COVID-19 and is globally available, low-cost, and safe.

Results suggest even stronger reduction when given within 3 days of symptoms.
 
The Cleveland Clinic study that showed higher Covid infections for vaccinated v unvaccinated is also seen in this study. More importantly, the study also shows that vaccination is more protective against severe disease/hospitalization than prior infection. The Cleveland study did not evaluate severe disease as their population was relatively young, working age folks.

Large, real-world study finds COVID-19 vaccination more effective than natural immunity in protecting against all causes of death, hospitalization and emergency department visits
https://www.regenstrief.org/article...ination-more-effective-than-natural-immunity/

Significantly, the all-cause death and hospital admission rates for vaccinated individuals were 37 percent lower than the rates for those with natural immunity acquired from previous COVID infection. The rate of ED visits for all causes was 24 percent lower for vaccinated individuals than for the previously infected.
...
While the incidence of COVID infection was higher in vaccine recipients (6.7 percent) than in individuals previously infected (2.9 percent), the vaccine protected against severe disease while natural immunity did not confer the same benefit
 


Very interesting!
This large population study of the entire state of Indiana should encourage individuals everywhere to get themselves and their children vaccinated and not rely on natural immunity. ... “As vaccinated individuals were more likely to actually get COVID than those with natural immunity, the lower death rate of vaccine recipients who develop COVID appears to be due to vaccination and not to a tendency for risk-averse behaviors, such as mask-wearing, hand sanitizing and social distancing.”
(...)
The study concludes, “The significantly lower rates of all-cause ED visits, hospitalization and mortality in the vaccinated highlight the real-world benefits of vaccination. The data raises questions about the wisdom of reliance on natural immunity when safe and effective vaccines are available.”
 
New article in Science-Based Medicine by Jonathan Howard, author of the new book We Want Them Infected:
Calling me a “lockerdowner” generates likes and retweets from “free-thinkers”, but it doesn’t refute anything I wrote. Since you obviously need help, I’d like to give you a clear roadmap to refute my ideas. All you have to do is stand up for your own words and make the affirmative case that the purposeful infection of unvaccinated children and young adults was wise and a net positive.
(...)
Don’t bother trying to trick me by claiming only 1 in a million children die of COVID or that more children died of the flu. We both know I’ll spot and expose your fake statistics, as I have throughout the pandemic.
A Letter to My Critics: To Refute Me, Stand Up For Your Own Words (Science-Based Medicine, June 16, 2023)


Martin Kulldorff, author of the Great Barrington Declaration, is the main target. I doubt that he will respond to the Jonathan Howard's criticism.
 
Speculative more than informative, and as noted, it might be an effect of many viruses that nobody ever looked for.

More work needed.
 
Yes, let us have some RCTs with people who volunteer to have their brains infected. :(
As long as it isn't worse than rabies, there's nothing to worry about.
(It is not as if we didn't already know that COVID-19 infections affect brains - and somehow it doesn't seem to have the effect of making people smarter.)

“These neurons are like Siamese twins, they are joined at the hip,” says Adonis Sfera, a psychiatrist associated with Patton State Hospital and Loma Linda University who was not involved with the study. “Can they function as neurons? Nobody knows that yet. But chances are they have lost some of that function.”

It remains to be seen whether these findings will hold up in the brains of animals infected with SARS-CoV-2, however, much less humans, says Olivier Schwartz, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute. He and others say no one has really looked for neuronal syncytia in COVID-19 patients who died. Still, he says, the work makes sense and is worth exploring further. He also says neuronal fusion may be more relevant to other viruses that infect more neurons than SARS-CoV-2 typically does, such as the rabies virus. The findings might even provide another reason rabies wreaks havoc on the brain, Schwartz says.
Could fused neurons explain COVID-19’s ‘brain fog’? (Science, June 7, 2023)


A more recent discovery at the other end of the (male) human body:

They found a statistically significant difference in semen volume (down 20% from 2.5 to 2 millilitres), sperm concentration (down 26.5% from 68 to 50 million per ml of ejaculate), sperm count (down 37.5% from 160 to 100 million per millilitre of semen), total motility i.e. being able to move and swim forwards (down 9.1% from 49% to 45%) and numbers of live sperm (down 5% from 80% to 76%).
Men experience a long-term drop in semen quality after COVID infection – even if the infection was mild (EurekaAlert!, June 26, 2023)


And no, the men weren't in their eighties and just about to croak anyway: "The median (average) age of the men was 31, and the amount of time that elapsed between the pre- and post-COVID samples was a median of 238 days."
 
Yes, let us have some RCTs with people who volunteer to have their brains infected.

I see you still panicking there.

Let's be realistic for a split second.

You've come in screeching about Arcturus and Kraken variants, yet deaths are at their lowest level since 12 March 2020.

Yes, some people get brain damage, some people get organ damage, but what the flying **** do you expect people to do? We know vaccinations are now more or less worthless, nobody wears masks or is going to again for covid, and schools aren't going to close.

Do you want to shut the world down for a month to stop a disease that is now killing fewer people than hepatitis?
 
The Cleveland Clinic study that showed higher Covid infections for vaccinated v unvaccinated is also seen in this study. More importantly, the study also shows that vaccination is more protective against severe disease/hospitalization than prior infection. The Cleveland study did not evaluate severe disease as their population was relatively young, working age folks.

Large, real-world study finds COVID-19 vaccination more effective than natural immunity in protecting against all causes of death, hospitalization and emergency department visits
https://www.regenstrief.org/article...ination-more-effective-than-natural-immunity/

How did they determine if anyone had it before vaccination?

I recall having what I considered 'Covid' early in the pandemic. The antibody place I scheduled a test with was shut down. Not 'state' approved. There were no tests for the Covid we could gt when we had it. I asked to have one (antibody) before the vaccine, but they said it 'didnt count' and I could not travel without getting a jab, so I did J&J.
Same with my school age daughter who had the illness the same time as I did but she was restricted much much longer from age 12-13 of no activities or sports.
So .....how do they determine it? Many had no symptoms at all and would never have been tested for antibodies before getting the vaccine so much later. A year or more later.

The audits for seroprevalence in certain localities showed the majority of kids had exposure before vaccination and the (known) exposure protection lasted longer than vaccination. But those could only be done early on.
Most of the data of those who did not go to doctors would not have been known (like myself and my daughter), which is most healthy persons. They did not check for it.

The only time my kid actually missed school (2 days)was the after effects of the Pfizer vaccine's second dose. She will never get another one of those. EVER.

There is no possible way they have a population wide study on people who got it when we did....in March of 2020 or how any vaccine was better for the population here. The testing just was NOT DONE here.

Any isolated population would not be relevant as to the various variants that moved through a few times. Data for one, is not like the others. The initial vaccine quickly became dated.
 
Last edited:
How did they determine if anyone had it before vaccination?
They didn't with the exception of those previously tested PCR positive.

I recall having what I considered 'Covid' early in the pandemic. The antibody place I scheduled a test with was shut down. Not 'state' approved. There were no tests for the Covid we could gt when we had it. I asked to have one (antibody) before the vaccine, but they said it 'didnt count' and I could not travel without getting a jab, so I did J&J.
Same with my school age daughter who had the illness the same time as I did but she was restricted much much longer from age 12-13 of no activities or sports.
So .....how do they determine it? Many had no symptoms at all and would never have been tested for antibodies before getting the vaccine so much later. A year or more later.
ditto


The audits for seroprevalence in certain localities showed the majority of kids had exposure before vaccination and the (known) exposure protection lasted longer than vaccination. But those could only be done early on.
Most of the data of those who did not go to doctors would not have been known (like myself and my daughter), which is most healthy persons. They did not check for it.
yep

The only time my kid actually missed school (2 days)was the after effects of the Pfizer vaccine's second dose. She will never get another one of those. EVER.

There is no possible way they have a population wide study on people who got it when we did....in March of 2020 or how any vaccine was better for the population here. The testing just was NOT DONE here.


Any isolated population would not be relevant as to the various variants that moved through a few times. Data for one, is not like the others. The initial vaccine quickly became dated.

The only half decent data was prior to July 2021 when only a minority of people had been infected. But even then that fraction wasn't and couldn't be accounted for as only general sero surveys were done.

Vaccine mandates made sense initially. Until Delta because multiple studies showed really good vax effectiveness prior to that. Delta changed everything. While vaxxes continued to be effective for severe disease they were not very good at all for preventing infection. The Provincetown breakout showed that. 3/4 of the PCR positives were vaxxed and their median time since the last dose was just under 3 months. Public policy for mandates should be focussed on protecting others and it no longer did.

And since Omicron things are far more cloudy. Most people vaxxed or not have had covid. And large percentages have been both vaxxed and infected. And at home positive rapid tests aren't recorded and those are the most common since Jan. 2022. On the good side severe disease is far less common now for everyone from some, unquantified combination of vax, prior infection, and lesser virulence.

The study I quoted's most interesting finding was that vaxxed had 37% lower all cause (not covid specific) than previously PCR positive but not vaxxed (almost all pre Omicron) hospitalization/mortality. But that was from pre Omicron infection. Likely different now but not knowable with all the uncounted home testing since Jan. 2022.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom