Coronavirus COVID-19

[AZGrizFan]

Granted it's only one county, but that sure doesn't look like the vax + booster is helping.

7-day moving average is 275. More fast and loose with facts.

[SeattleGriz]

Granted it's only one county, but that sure doesn't look like the vax + booster is helping.

7-day moving average is 275. More fast and loose with facts.

Not to mention there is no positive data that Paxlovid helps the vaccinated. Outright fabrication.

[GannonFan]

7-day moving average is 275. More fast and loose with facts.

Not to mention there is no positive data that Paxlovid helps the vaccinated. Outright fabrication.

I always thought the news on Paxlovid was that it was basically like getting the vaccine, but after being infected rather than before. So, it was like a last chance vaccine for the unvaccinated. And, even then, it's basically for the older strain of the virus that isn't the main one in circulation anymore (so like the vaccine itself, it's currently of limited value until they put out the one that targets Omicron variants). My doctor told me that the benefits of it to a fully vaccinated and boostered person (as I am) are about the same as the negatives you could get from it (side effects and potential for rebound infection). I took one dose of it and then stopped (had that weird metallic taste in the month and had some nausea - all went away when I stopped).

Our public health messaging hasn't gotten much better since all of this began. Way too much stuff has been said that's not always backed up by the data, and just opens up the gates further for people distrustful of government to begin with to latch on to something. We should've been far more transparent much earlier that the current vaccines and boosters are largely ineffective against the current, less virulent strain of COVID that we have now. But when politics matter more than the science then we get what we get.

[SeattleGriz]

Not to mention there is no positive data that Paxlovid helps the vaccinated. Outright fabrication.

I always thought the news on Paxlovid was that it was basically like getting the vaccine, but after being infected rather than before. So, it was like a last chance vaccine for the unvaccinated. And, even then, it's basically for the older strain of the virus that isn't the main one in circulation anymore (so like the vaccine itself, it's currently of limited value until they put out the one that targets Omicron variants). My doctor told me that the benefits of it to a fully vaccinated and boostered person (as I am) are about the same as the negatives you could get from it (side effects and potential for rebound infection). I took one dose of it and then stopped (had that weird metallic taste in the month and had some nausea - all went away when I stopped).

Our public health messaging hasn't gotten much better since all of this began. Way too much stuff has been said that's not always backed up by the data, and just opens up the gates further for people distrustful of government to begin with to latch on to something. We should've been far more transparent much earlier that the current vaccines and boosters are largely ineffective against the current, less virulent strain of COVID that we have now. But when politics matter more than the science then we get what we get.

I'm going to generalize here a little bit. Paxlovid is a Protease Inhibitor, meaning that it prevents something necessary from happening to a critical protein that Covid needs to replicate.

It's doing this by inhibiting a Protein enzyme from doing whatever it needs to do to that protein. Usually those enzymes are specifically targeted because they are critical.

My long winded point is that Paxlovid works via a different mechanism than antibodies and it's effectiveness shouldn't vary too much from variant to variant. In fact, if other viruses are dependent on the same enzyme, you should be able to use Paxlovid for those viruses as well, but I have no idea how many viruses are reliant on the same enzyme. Probably really low. Lol.

Best analogy I can give is Paxlovid is like a selective herbicide. It targets something specific to the weed and doesn't bother the grass because the grass doesn't need or have what is being targeted.

My main issue with Paxlovid is that the actual trials didn't show any positive benefit for the vaccinated, but doctors still prescribe it anyway. Doctors were threatened with loss of license if they prescribed Ivermectin because they couldn't show benefits, although now it has quite a few positive studies...if used correctly.

You are 100% correct, the medical and research community could have been much more open. I trust very few people with my health and it has served me very well over the years.

Late edit:. I'm not criticizing your doctor in any way, actually the opposite. They looked at the information given and made a choice. That's was all I wanted throughout Covid, was to let our medical practitioners use their experience and knowledge to make informed choices. Not be dictated a particular way.

[GannonFan]

I always thought the news on Paxlovid was that it was basically like getting the vaccine, but after being infected rather than before. So, it was like a last chance vaccine for the unvaccinated. And, even then, it's basically for the older strain of the virus that isn't the main one in circulation anymore (so like the vaccine itself, it's currently of limited value until they put out the one that targets Omicron variants). My doctor told me that the benefits of it to a fully vaccinated and boostered person (as I am) are about the same as the negatives you could get from it (side effects and potential for rebound infection). I took one dose of it and then stopped (had that weird metallic taste in the month and had some nausea - all went away when I stopped).

Our public health messaging hasn't gotten much better since all of this began. Way too much stuff has been said that's not always backed up by the data, and just opens up the gates further for people distrustful of government to begin with to latch on to something. We should've been far more transparent much earlier that the current vaccines and boosters are largely ineffective against the current, less virulent strain of COVID that we have now. But when politics matter more than the science then we get what we get.

I'm going to generalize here a little bit. Paxlovid is a Protease Inhibitor, meaning that it prevents something necessary from happening to a critical protein that Covid needs to replicate.

It's doing this by inhibiting a Protein enzyme from doing whatever it needs to do to that protein. Usually those enzymes are specifically targeted because they are critical.

My long winded point is that Paxlovid works via a different mechanism than antibodies and it's effectiveness shouldn't vary too much from variant to variant. In fact, if other viruses are dependent on the same enzyme, you should be able to use Paxlovid for those viruses as well, but I have no idea how many viruses are reliant on the same enzyme. Probably really low. Lol.

Best analogy I can give is Paxlovid is like a selective herbicide. It targets something specific to the weed and doesn't bother the grass because the grass doesn't need or have what is being targeted.

My main issue with Paxlovid is that the actual trials didn't show any positive benefit for the vaccinated, but doctors still prescribe it anyway. Doctors were threatened with loss of license if they prescribed Ivermectin because they couldn't show benefits, although now it has quite a few positive studies...if used correctly.

You are 100% correct, the medical and research community could have been much more open. I trust very few people with my health and it has served me very well over the years.

Late edit:. I'm not criticizing your doctor in any way, actually the opposite. They looked at the information given and made a choice. That's was all I wanted throughout Covid, was to let our medical practitioners use their experience and knowledge to make informed choices. Not be dictated a particular way.

I thought my doctor was pretty good about it. He was basically recommending not prescribing the Paxvolid, but he was okay prescribing it if I really wanted it. In the end, he was correct.

[SeattleGriz]

My favorite part of COVID was how if you pointed out the comorbidities most responsible for Covid killing you, you were labeled an asshole. People had months of time to fix those issues and did nothing.

My wife and I had been self medicating with wine for a couple of years to cope with our son's autism, but as soon as Covid came out, we both changed our diets and lost any extra weight. For me, that was 15lbs. For my wife, it was 30lbs. She also did it solely by changing her diet and only walking as exercise.

[UNI88]

My favorite part of COVID was how if you pointed out the comorbidities most responsible for Covid killing you, you were labeled an asshole. People had months of time to fix those issues and did nothing.

My wife and I had been self medicating with wine for a couple of years to cope with our son's autism, but as soon as Covid came out, we both changed our diets and lost any extra weight. For me, that was 15lbs. For my wife, it was 30lbs. She also did it solely by changing her diet and only walking as exercise.

To be fair, you are an asshole ...

[SeattleGriz]

My favorite part of COVID was how if you pointed out the comorbidities most responsible for Covid killing you, you were labeled an asshole. People had months of time to fix those issues and did nothing.

My wife and I had been self medicating with wine for a couple of years to cope with our son's autism, but as soon as Covid came out, we both changed our diets and lost any extra weight. For me, that was 15lbs. For my wife, it was 30lbs. She also did it solely by changing her diet and only walking as exercise.

To be fair, you are an asshole ...

Totally!

[BDKJMU]

To be fair, you are an asshole ...

Totally!

We are all assholes..

[UNI88]

Totally!

We are all assholes..

Truth!

[AZGrizFan]

We are all assholes..

Truth!

Speak for yourselves, assholes. I’m a goddamned saint.

[HI54UNI]

Totally!

We are all assholes..

[UNI88]

Truth!

Speak for yourselves, assholes. I’m the king of the goddamned assholes.

FYP

[JohnStOnge]

My main issue with Paxlovid is that the actual trials didn't show any positive benefit for the vaccinated, but doctors still prescribe it anyway.

My understanding is that the clinical trial that led to FDA emergency use authorization included only people who were not vaccinated and had not previously had COVID-19. In other words: Only people who had immune systems that had not been prepared by either vaccination or previous infection.

But why would one believe that the medication would be less effective for people who had been vaccinated or previously infected?

i can see saying that the reduction in risk might be less if you go with saying previous infection or vaccination reduces the risk to begin with. But what is the problem with approving it based on what happens with people who are immuninilogically naive?

[JohnStOnge]

Such a problem would have no impact on statistics on overall State by State vaccination rates or State by State overall COVID-19 death rates.

i doubt if it has much impact on relative risk of COVID-19 hospitalization either. But send me a link that you think makes the case that it does. i strongly suspect that you got the idea from a questionable source that is exaggerating the issue. But i can't be sure about that until you give me a link.

It would be a huge problem if those who died, were considered unvaccinated, which we have seen throughout this pandemic.

The below screenshot was taken from the official Alberta Covid website. They were listed as unvaccinated because they weren't two shots + 14 days out. Look at the death rate, so close to first vaccination. After this was brought to the attention of the public, they mysteriously stopped showing this chart.

Your data is unreliable and you still haven't answered the question of if you have any college level courses in either Virology or Immunology and Serology?

i did not see a question about whether i had a virology or immunology course. I did not.

Now, since I answered that question, you provide a link to something describing the problem of COVID-19 vaccinations being under-reported in association with hospitalizations. i strongly suspect that it's not a big issue. But i have to see what you're referencing in order to be sure of that. i have tried Googling around for information on it and haven't been able to see anything saying it's an issue.

The data I used have nothing to do with that issue if it IS a significant issue anyway. i just looked at the overall death rate for a State vs. the overall vaccination rate for a State. There is no attempt to match things up individually. So it does not matter whether a hospital counted somebody as vaccinated or not. And there is a HIGHLY significant association over the course of the pandemic such that States with higher vaccination rates tend to have lower death rates.

[JohnStOnge]

[ Doctors were threatened with loss of license if they prescribed Ivermectin because they couldn't show benefits, although now it has quite a few positive studies...if used correctly.

Are you seriously still doing the ivermectin thing?

[JohnStOnge]

Granted it's only one county, but that sure doesn't look like the vax + booster is helping.

i can't believe someone would tweet a table that contradicts them like that. That table shows that 39% of deaths are among people fully vaccinated and boosted. In what world is 39% the vast majority?

Aside from that, there is the issue of relative risk. i don't know about San Diego County, but right now the Louisiana Department of Health website says that people >=12 years old who are unvaccinated have been 10 times as likely to be a COVID-19 death since Omicron become dominant as people >=who are fully vaccinated and boosted have been. It also says that people 50 and older who are unvaccinated have been 14 times as likely to be a COVID-19 death since Omicron became dominant as people 50 and older who are fully vaccinated and double boosted have been.

i have no doubt that if you were able to talk to the San Diego County health officials they would thoroughly debunk what the guy is saying anyway. This is what''s been being done repeatedly. People who don't know how to properly interpret what they are looking at take snips of reports on web sites out of context to try to make points that are not really valid.

It's become a big problem because of this weird thing with the COVID pandemic where there is this critical mass of people who just want to be contrarian about everything the people who really know what they are talking about are trying to tell them.

The idea that death has been more likely among the fully vaccinated and boosted is just patently ridiculous. it really is.

[JohnStOnge]

Granted it's only one county, but that sure doesn't look like the vax + booster is helping.

Tell you what: Let's have this Justin Hart guy debate Ashish Jha on the issue. Any bets on who would win? Seriously.

[SeattleGriz]

Granted it's only one county, but that sure doesn't look like the vax + booster is helping.

i can't believe someone would tweet a table that contradicts them like that. That table shows that 39% of deaths are among people fully vaccinated and boosted. In what world is 39% the vast majority?

Aside from that, there is the issue of relative risk. i don't know about San Diego County, but right now the Louisiana Department of Health website says that people >=12 years old who are unvaccinated have been 10 times as likely to be a COVID-19 death since Omicron become dominant as people >=who are fully vaccinated and boosted have been. It also says that people 50 and older who are unvaccinated have been 14 times as likely to be a COVID-19 death since Omicron became dominant as people 50 and older who are fully vaccinated and double boosted have been.

i have no doubt that if you were able to talk to the San Diego County health officials they would thoroughly debunk what the guy is saying anyway. This is what''s been being done repeatedly. People who don't know how to properly interpret what they are looking at take snips of reports on web sites out of context to try to make points that are not really valid.

It's become a big problem because of this weird thing with the COVID pandemic where there is this critical mass of people who just want to be contrarian about everything the people who really know what they are talking about are trying to tell them.

The idea that death has been more likely among the fully vaccinated and boosted is just patently ridiculous. it really is.

39 + 27 = 66

The "people that know" told us the vaccine was 100% effective, it was a dead end, you wouldn't spread it, you wouldn't be hospitalized, you wouldn't die, it degrades immediately, etc.

It's pretty obvious who got suckered here and keeps defending the ever changing narrative.

[SeattleGriz]

[ Doctors were threatened with loss of license if they prescribed Ivermectin because they couldn't show benefits, although now it has quite a few positive studies...if used correctly.

Are you seriously still doing the ivermectin thing?

As usual, you're missing the point. My issue is HCQ and Ivermectin, which have positive studies, were at least something that could have been tried on patients due to low cost and toxicity. If they weren't helpful, no damage was done, but doctors were forbidden to prescribe it and actually threatened with loss of license.

This was during the period when the treatment was, "go home, take Advil and come back if you have trouble breathing", which they then proceeded to intubate and subsequently kill the patient. That's not the medicine I seek when I speak to my physician.

Do you know how nasty Remdesivir is on the body? It's brutal and very expensive.

[JohnStOnge]

i can't believe someone would tweet a table that contradicts them like that. That table shows that 39% of deaths are among people fully vaccinated and boosted. In what world is 39% the vast majority?

Aside from that, there is the issue of relative risk. i don't know about San Diego County, but right now the Louisiana Department of Health website says that people >=12 years old who are unvaccinated have been 10 times as likely to be a COVID-19 death since Omicron become dominant as people >=who are fully vaccinated and boosted have been. It also says that people 50 and older who are unvaccinated have been 14 times as likely to be a COVID-19 death since Omicron became dominant as people 50 and older who are fully vaccinated and double boosted have been.

i have no doubt that if you were able to talk to the San Diego County health officials they would thoroughly debunk what the guy is saying anyway. This is what''s been being done repeatedly. People who don't know how to properly interpret what they are looking at take snips of reports on web sites out of context to try to make points that are not really valid.

It's become a big problem because of this weird thing with the COVID pandemic where there is this critical mass of people who just want to be contrarian about everything the people who really know what they are talking about are trying to tell them.

The idea that death has been more likely among the fully vaccinated and boosted is just patently ridiculous. it really is.

39 + 27 = 66

The "people that know" told us the vaccine was 100% effective, it was a dead end, you wouldn't spread it, you wouldn't be hospitalized, you wouldn't die, it degrades immediately, etc.

It's pretty obvious who got suckered here and keeps defending the ever changing narrative.

He wrote "vast majority of people noted as Covid deaths are fully vaccinate and fully boosted." That's 39%.

The people that know never told us that the vaccines were 100% effective. Early on they were talking about somewhere around 93 or 94% efficacy. They always recognized the possibility that the vaccines might not be as effective if new variants arose. They were correct in saying, early on, that you would be far less likely to spread the disease if you were fully vaccinated. That changed some with the Delta variant, though I do think a person is less likely to end up transmitting the disease if they get vaccinated. They never said the risk of hospitalization was zero if you were vaccinated.

They said the risk of serious consequences is much lower if you are vaccinated. They are still saying that because it is truth.

The basic "narrative" in terms of what the recommendation is hasn't changed. The recommendation is still to get up to date on vaccination. And it is a good recommendation.

[JohnStOnge]

Are you seriously still doing the ivermectin thing?

As usual, you're missing the point. My issue is HCQ and Ivermectin, which have positive studies, were at least something that could have been tried on patients due to low cost and toxicity. If they weren't helpful, no damage was done, but doctors were forbidden to prescribe it and actually threatened with loss of license.

This was during the period when the treatment was, "go home, take Advil and come back if you have trouble breathing", which they then proceeded to intubate and subsequently kill the patient. That's not the medicine I seek when I speak to my physician.

Do you know how nasty Remdesivir is on the body? It's brutal and very expensive.

There were people who were refusing to do something that had been firmly established as working...vaccination...in favor of something that had not been shown to work. Having people out there pushing the hyrdroxychloriquine and ivermectin things did a lot of harm.

[JohnStOnge]

Are you seriously still doing the ivermectin thing?

As usual, you're missing the point. My issue is HCQ and Ivermectin, which have positive studies, were at least something that could have been tried on patients due to low cost and toxicity. If they weren't helpful, no damage was done, but doctors were forbidden to prescribe it and actually threatened with loss of license.

This was during the period when the treatment was, "go home, take Advil and come back if you have trouble breathing", which they then proceeded to intubate and subsequently kill the patient. That's not the medicine I seek when I speak to my physician.

Do you know how nasty Remdesivir is on the body? It's brutal and very expensive.

BTW can you give me a link to something on the thing you said about hospitals potentially not identifying patients that had been vaccinated so that they are counted as unvaccinated in the statistics? I have been trying to find something about that without success. i an very skeptical about the idea that there is an "undercount" of any practical significance of hospitalizations that are vaccinated. But i am willing to look at what you've got on that if you will provide it.

[JohnStOnge]

Granted it's only one county, but that sure doesn't look like the vax + booster is helping.

7-day moving average is 275. More fast and loose with facts.

I don't know when the guy was being videoed when he talked about the number of deaths per day. But as I type the Worldometers data indicate that there were 2,270 USA deaths during the past 7 days and 3,195 during the 7 day period before that. The daily averages for those two periods would be 324 and 456.

[SeattleGriz]

39 + 27 = 66

The "people that know" told us the vaccine was 100% effective, it was a dead end, you wouldn't spread it, you wouldn't be hospitalized, you wouldn't die, it degrades immediately, etc.

It's pretty obvious who got suckered here and keeps defending the ever changing narrative.

He wrote "vast majority of people noted as Covid deaths are fully vaccinate and fully boosted." That's 39%.

The people that know never told us that the vaccines were 100% effective. Early on they were talking about somewhere around 93 or 94% efficacy. They always recognized the possibility that the vaccines might not be as effective if new variants arose. They were correct in saying, early on, that you would be far less likely to spread the disease if you were fully vaccinated. That changed some with the Delta variant, though I do think a person is less likely to end up transmitting the disease if they get vaccinated. They never said the risk of hospitalization was zero if you were vaccinated.

They said the risk of serious consequences is much lower if you are vaccinated. They are still saying that because it is truth.

The basic "narrative" in terms of what the recommendation is hasn't changed. The recommendation is still to get up to date on vaccination. And it is a good recommendation.

Wrong. Look at the tweet AND the San Diego stats. He repeated the two categories. 66%. If we want to be fully accurate, they need to pull out those who never got a shot shot from those who only got one shot, but are listed as 'not fully vaccinated' as well.