Coronavirus (COVID-19 Outbreak) (71 Viewers)

lgorTudor

Senior Member
Jan 15, 2015
32,949
On a serious note, I'm just tired listening to these conspiracy terrorists.

Well it's their right to not get the vaccine, but then at least don't cry about it when people start to dislike you for your choice.
Yea, 'disliking' is the big problem here :lol: Not that a healthy individual is banned from a normal life because he refuses to take an experimental drug.

Go back to being a bayern twitter feed spamming bot
 

BayernFan

Senior Member
Feb 17, 2016
6,835
Yea, 'disliking' is the big problem here :lol: Not that a healthy individual is banned from a normal life because he refuses to take an experimental drug.

Go back to being a bayern twitter feed spamming bot
Oh no, the right wing conspirator, fake ass German/Yugoslav or where he's from don't like it.

I do that if you go back to Albania.
 

ALC

Ohaulick
Oct 28, 2010
46,017
Oh no, the right wing conspirator, fake ass German/Yugoslav or where he's from don't like it.

I do that if you go back to Albania.
hey watch it, he’s not Albanian

- - - Updated - - -

Yea, 'disliking' is the big problem here :lol: Not that a healthy individual is banned from a normal life because he refuses to take an experimental drug.

Go back to being a bayern twitter feed spamming bot
Sounds like you feel …entitled.
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
83,483
There could be a comparison because all the Scandinavian countries have more similarities than the US and Bosnia for example. Relatively small populations, many of them are disperse throughout a big land mass. Perhaps only Denmark is a bit different with a relatively more densely populated and urbanized areas.

Norway, Finland and Denmark didn't go North Korea with their lockdowns and generally they didn't have the most restricted policy at all. When a new wave came they made some restrictions and had relatively small number of deaths, now most of their populations are vaccinated and when the line is drawn - Sweden is leading the mortality rates. In that sense one policy led to more deaths and another to less.
They definitely have more similarities. But again, this is a form of causal analysis because you cannot do a double-blind study. (Let alone the problematic ethics of doing so.)

So there’s lots of hand-waving over statistical significance, suggesting all the countries are equivalent except for their mandate laws.

Any data scientist looking at that math would just roll their eyes at how useless a comparison that is. But we do it anyway for play and for social media posturing.
 
OP
Bjerknes

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
111,603
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #12,847
    "A CDC study cites rates of about 12.6 cases per million doses of second-dose mRNA vaccine in people 12 to 39 years of age. The patients typically reported chest pain two to three days after a second dose and had elevated cardiac troponin levels. ECG was abnormal. "

    https://www.biospace.com/article/-e...mation-in-response-to-mrna-covid-19-vaccines/

    12.6/1,000,000 = 0.0000126*100% = 0.00126% risk

    Basically a nothing burger if you ask me.
     

    Buck Fuddy

    Lara Chedraoui fanboy
    May 22, 2009
    10,647
    It's not a right if it infringes on liberties, that's the whole point.
    You could make that point.

    But I just think it should be up to the communities to decide. If your community wants to people to be vaccinated in order to be able to lead a normal life, then more power to them. If that doesn't work for the antivaxx crowd, they can always move to communities where they don't need to be vaccinated.


    Yep, this post was inspired by one of your own:
    I just think it should be up to communities to decide. If texas which is traditionally conservative wants no abortion, then more power to them. If it doesn't work for the liberal transplant they can always go back to liberal states their liberal views helped ruin.
     

    Enron

    Tickle Me
    Moderator
    Oct 11, 2005
    75,252
    "A CDC study cites rates of about 12.6 cases per million doses of second-dose mRNA vaccine in people 12 to 39 years of age. The patients typically reported chest pain two to three days after a second dose and had elevated cardiac troponin levels. ECG was abnormal. "

    https://www.biospace.com/article/-e...mation-in-response-to-mrna-covid-19-vaccines/

    12.6/1,000,000 = 0.0000126*100% = 0.00126% risk

    Basically a nothing burger if you ask me.
    that’s way safer than birth control lol
     

    GordoDeCentral

    Diez
    Moderator
    Apr 14, 2005
    69,406
    You could make that point.

    But I just think it should be up to the communities to decide. If your community wants to people to be vaccinated in order to be able to lead a normal life, then more power to them. If that doesn't work for the antivaxx crowd, they can always move to communities where they don't need to be vaccinated.


    Yep, this post was inspired by one of your own:
    That's exactly it, leave govt out, thanks for supporting my point.
     

    Post Ironic

    Senior Member
    Feb 9, 2013
    41,923
    This is simply not true. Aspirin, Famotidin, Remdesevir are all drugs administered with little or no evidence. You are BS-ing for the sake of argument. This is not a political issue. This is an issue of life and death in a crisis.

    https://ivmmeta.com/

    This is an overwhelming positive feedback. The only reason there is not a "true trial" is because it costs millions to be done and no big organization wants to do it because you can't profit from a generic drug.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Evidence base used for other COVID-19 approvals
    Medication Studies Patients Improvement

    1. Molnupiravir (UK) ; 1 ; 775 ; 50%
    2. Budesonide (UK) ; 1 ; 1,779 ; 17%
    3. Remdesivir (USA EUA) ; 1 ; 1,063 ; 31%
    4. Casirivimab/i.. (USA EUA) ; 1 ; 799 ; 66%
    5. Ivermectin ; 65 ; 49,127 ; 66% [57‑73%]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So, Molnupiravir, Budesonide, Remdesevir are all OK to be used based on 1 study but Ivermectin is not because it's based on 65 studies and reminds you of Trump and HCQ.

    Molnupiravir 700 $ needs one study
    Remdesevir 4000$ needs one study
    Ivermectin 0.05 $ - 65 studies are not enough and not good enough.

    Ok, I got you. You are true follower of Science.
    Almost the entire positive effect in the ivermectin meta-analyses came from a couple shitty fraudulent studies. Once they were removed it hardly showed any benefit at all.

    I’m sorry? Where did I say those other drugs should be used? Because I don’t recall saying that or even suggesting they were useful. I’m not promoting them, not talking about them, etc.

    And please you came with all HCL early observational studies too. The low quality, shitty studies that had no control groups, no way to know who was getting it, preconditions, other therapies used, and it turned out to be junk once proper studies were done. A low cost, cheap therapeutic. So I’m not entirely sure why Ivermectin is any different. Just because you and others have jumped on the bandwagon and hyped it to the moon and back doesn’t mean we all must.

    You tried to bash the meta-analysis I showed above as basically bribed and sponsored by big pharma to discredit a cheap drug. But it was literally the very same people who had done the meta-analysis you all were crowing about as proving it works. They just removed the lowest quality and fraudulent studies from the meta-analysis. As study quality improved, ivermectin’s benefits disappeared.

    Anyways, there isn’t much point in discussing this further. We disagree. And that’s fine. I agree with you entirely on the other drug treatments, and I’d want to see much more evidence of their effectiveness before considering them useful too. But currently to me, ivermectin looks no different from HcL. As study quality increases, the drug stops looking effective.

    https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/95333

    And one of the latest studies to come out:

    https://www.techarp.com/science/i-tech-ivermectin-covid-19/?amp=1
     
    OP
    Bjerknes

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    111,603
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #12,858
    So, I was all set on getting the Passe Sanitaire from the French government for my trip in a few weeks. I applied way back in early October, allowing them 30 days to process my application. But now, the French government is no longer issuing passes in advance, so now you have to arrive in France and find a pharmacy that will issue you the pass. I emailed them in the hope they would grandfather me in, but seems like they won't do that for whatever reason. :vdp:

    According to some guidance, they are saying to allow 4 hours to get the pass at the airport. 4 fucking hours? No way in hell I'm doing that after a 7 hour flight. I'll try my luck at the 500 other pharmacies around Paris.

    Bonjour Monsieur,

    Malheureusement, la plateforme internet qui s’occupait de faire les passes sanitaires a été fermée. Vous devez demander la conversion des passes via la nouvelle procédure du Ministère de la Santé décrite sur ce lien.

    Il est impossible d’avoir les passes sanitaires par internet, il faut aller en pharmacie à votre arrivée en France. Les pharmacies peuvent maintenant délivrer les conversions de passes sanitaires. La liste des pharmacies est disponible sur le lien.
     

    kao_ray

    Senior Member
    Feb 28, 2014
    6,567
    Almost the entire positive effect in the ivermectin meta-analyses came from a couple shitty fraudulent studies. Once they were removed it hardly showed any benefit at all.

    I’m sorry? Where did I say those other drugs should be used? Because I don’t recall saying that or even suggesting they were useful. I’m not promoting them, not talking about them, etc.

    And please you came with all HCL early observational studies too. The low quality, shitty studies that had no control groups, no way to know who was getting it, preconditions, other therapies used, and it turned out to be junk once proper studies were done. A low cost, cheap therapeutic. So I’m not entirely sure why Ivermectin is any different. Just because you and others have jumped on the bandwagon and hyped it to the moon and back doesn’t mean we all must.

    You tried to bash the meta-analysis I showed above as basically bribed and sponsored by big pharma to discredit a cheap drug. But it was literally the very same people who had done the meta-analysis you all were crowing about as proving it works. They just removed the lowest quality and fraudulent studies from the meta-analysis. As study quality improved, ivermectin’s benefits disappeared.

    Anyways, there isn’t much point in discussing this further. We disagree. And that’s fine. I agree with you entirely on the other drug treatments, and I’d want to see much more evidence of their effectiveness before considering them useful too. But currently to me, ivermectin looks no different from HcL. As study quality increases, the drug stops looking effective.

    https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/95333

    And one of the latest studies to come out:

    https://www.techarp.com/science/i-tech-ivermectin-covid-19/?amp=1
    1st study - I can throw you studies that evaluate the evidence from the metadata the other way - as reasonably positive for example from Dr Tess Lawrie

    2nd study - Ivermectin is working as an antiviral. It should be used in the beginning to stop the replication of the virus. In the study they are giving ivermectin to patients already hospitalized, over 50 and with comorbidities. If they are hospitalized it means that the virus has probably stopped replicating and they need anti inflammatory drugs like corticosteroids and antivirals are pretty useless. The diarrhea probably shows that those patients had parasites which were killed and as a side effect they got the aqua poo poo.

    Let's agree to disagree until there is a rock solid evidence for either case because I will be convinced that it works until proven otherwise and you will believe it's useless until proven otherwise.

    Let's see what will happen. Cheers :beer:
     

    Enron

    Tickle Me
    Moderator
    Oct 11, 2005
    75,252
    So, I was all set on getting the Passe Sanitaire from the French government for my trip in a few weeks. I applied way back in early October, allowing them 30 days to process my application. But now, the French government is no longer issuing passes in advance, so now you have to arrive in France and find a pharmacy that will issue you the pass. I emailed them in the hope they would grandfather me in, but seems like they won't do that for whatever reason. :vdp:

    According to some guidance, they are saying to allow 4 hours to get the pass at the airport. 4 fucking hours? No way in hell I'm doing that after a 7 hour flight. I'll try my luck at the 500 other pharmacies around Paris.
    do you have to have the pass to get into France or just to travel within France?
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 60)