Coronavirus Thread

[SpacedX]

17 minutes ago, shade said:

There's very strong evidence that high serum vitamin D levels can reduce risk of serious illness from covid and respiratory diseases down to an almost negligible level. 

Evidence suggests that low serum Vitamin-D level carries a higher risk of COVID-19 infection. The limited currently available data from studies indicate that sufficient Vitamin D level in serum is associated with a significantly decreased risk of COVID-19 infection. 

 

21 minutes ago, shade said:

Even something as simple as nasal irrigation and gargling with salt water or chlorohexidine when ill can help reduce viral replication.

It may have potential role in eliminating the virus in the throat.

 

 

[shade]

7 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Evidence suggests that low serum Vitamin-D level carries a higher risk of COVID-19 infection. The limited currently available data from studies indicate that sufficient Vitamin D level in serum is associated with a significantly decreased risk of COVID-19 infection. 

 

It may have potential role in eliminating the virus in the throat.

 

 

Apologies for the wording.  I can point you to a quite a few large studies though, I'll gather them together. But more importantly than that...

 

Don't you find it even a tiny bit strange that for a tablet (D3) that costs pennies, literally pennies, and has no side effects even at high doses, barely any public health authority strongly suggested that the whole population start taking vitamin D as soon as the pandemic started?

Edited 11 January 2022 by shade

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

Exactly. And there are millions of things people can do to improve quality of life on this planet. The more that happen side by side the better. Unfortunately, too many are solely focussed on themselves and it is difficult to compensate for that.

I make absolutely no apologies on it now, having seen the response to Covid and the response to climate change so far:

 

One day, in the field of natural disaster, humanity *will* have to choose between one world or no world. (Or a much lessened world, anyway.) I simply don't see any way around that - not with the measures needed to address climate change, to say nothing of other potential issues.

 

Sadly, I don't have much faith in humanity choosing the former path, if current evidence is indicative.

 

2 minutes ago, shade said:

Yeah I understand the sentiment, but it's interesting to see the narrative slowly shifting away from PANIC PANIC PANIC. There's no way you would have heard the head of the CDC openly talking about over 75% of covid deaths having AT LEAST 4 comorbidities, just a few months ago.

 

 

 

Perhaps because such information wasn't available and/or scientifically confirmed at that time? This point has been made before; in situations like this, the science of what we know often changes, and often changes quickly. That's a feature not a bug.

 

If, with respect, you're going to accuse a leading scientific organisation of being corrupt, kindly bring receipts.

[shade]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I make absolutely no apologies on it now, having seen the response to Covid and the response to climate change so far:

 

One day, in the field of natural disaster, humanity *will* have to choose between one world or no world. (Or a much lessened world, anyway.) I simply don't see any way around that - not with the measures needed to address climate change, to say nothing of other potential issues.

 

Sadly, I don't have much faith in humanity choosing the former path, if current evidence is indicative.

 

Perhaps because such information wasn't available and/or scientifically confirmed at that time? This point has been made before; in situations like this, the science of what we know often changes, and often changes quickly. That's a feature not a bug.

 

If, with respect, you're going to accuse a leading scientific organisation of being corrupt, kindly bring receipts.

Yes, you're absolutely right, I usually make a point of looking in to sources first hand to confirm for myself that they're accurate, to make sure I don't look like an idiot.

 

In this case, I've looked in to it more and it turns out she was specifically talking about vaccinated people. I have heard numbers quoted that are even higher than that for the total population, but I definitely withdraw my original point in the context of this video!

Edited 11 January 2022 by shade

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, shade said:

Yes, you're absolutely right, I usually make a point of looking in to sources first hand to confirm for myself that they're accurate, to make sure I don't look like an idiot.

 

In this case, I've looked in to it more and it turns out she was specifically talking about vaccinated people. I have heard numbers quoted that are even higher than that for the total population, but I definitely withdraw my original point in the context of this video!

Tip of the hat for showing integrity. Don't see that often on the Internet.

[SpacedX]

11 minutes ago, shade said:

Don't you find it even a tiny bit strange that for a tablet (D3) that costs pennies, literally pennies, and has no side effects even at high doses, barely any public health authority strongly suggested that the whole population start taking vitamin D as soon as the pandemic started?

No.

 

There simply wasn't the data to recommend use of vitamin D to prevent infection with a novel virus. While there is evidence that vitamin D may have positive effects on immune function, a specific antiviral effect remains unproven. The few available studies cannot prove that vitamin D protects people against infection. Further, a randomised controlled study of people with moderate to severe COVID-19 who received a high dose of vitamin D showed no benefit.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33595634/

 

That is not to say that there is an absence of encouraging research but in the absence of conclusive findings most of the advice relating to vitamin intake pertained to lockdown. 

 

And actually, high/uncontrolled doses of vitamin D can indeed cause side effects and in some cases, severe symptoms, such as stomach upsets, kidney injury, and pancreatitis.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26053339/

 

Healthcare advice/advocacy needs to be measured and guard against the possibility of excess or extremities. Particularly pertinent to the United States. 

[shade]

29 minutes ago, Line-X said:

No.

 

There simply wasn't the data to recommend use of vitamin D to prevent infection with a novel virus. While there is evidence that vitamin D may have positive effects on immune function, a specific antiviral effect remains unproven. The few available studies cannot prove that vitamin D protects people against infection. Further, a randomised controlled study of people with moderate to severe COVID-19 who received a high dose of vitamin D showed no benefit.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33595634/

 

That is not to say that there is an absence of encouraging research but in the absence of conclusive findings most of the advice relating to vitamin intake pertained to lockdown. 

 

And actually, high/uncontrolled doses of vitamin D can indeed cause side effects and in some cases, severe symptoms, such as stomach upsets, kidney injury, and pancreatitis.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26053339/

 

Healthcare advice/advocacy needs to be measured and guard against the possibility of excess or extremities. Particularly pertinent to the United States. 

There have been many studies, lots on respiratory viruses prior to covid, like this meta analysis in 2016

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i6583

 

Fair enough to not recommend it at the very start of the pandemic, but to STILL largely ignore it in the light of things like this?

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8541492/

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34684596/

 

Also interesting to note that Dr Fauci takes 6000UI a day, far far above the dosage recommended, so the concern about high doses is questionable. We have pathways to dispose of vitamin D, even though it's fat soluble, it's nowhere near as toxic as vitamin A is.

 

Why is Fauci taking doses that high but there is no official guidance from government for people to take it?

 

 

Taking 60,000 international units (IU) a day of vitamin D for several months has been shown to cause toxicity. This level is many times higher than the U.S. Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for most adults of 600UI of vitamin D a day. Fauci is taking 10X more than the RDA.

 

 

Edited 11 January 2022 by shade

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, shade said:

There have been many studies, lots on respiratory viruses prior to covid, like this meta analysis in 2016

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i6583

 

Fair enough to not recommend it at the very start of the pandemic, but to STILL largely ignore it in the light of things like this?

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8541492/

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34684596/

 

Also interesting to note that Dr Fauci takes 6000UI a day, far far above the dosage recommended, so the concern about high doses is questionable. We have pathways to dispose of vitamin D, even though it's fat soluble, it's nowhere near as toxic as vitamin A is.

 

Why is Fauci taking doses that high but there is no official guidance from government for people to take it?

 

 

Taking 60,000 international units (IU) a day of vitamin D for several months has been shown to cause toxicity. This level is many times higher than the U.S. Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for most adults of 600UI of vitamin D a day. Fauci is taking 10X more than the RDA.

 

 

I know there are studies, I have read many of them - and you specifically referred to the start of the pandemic. 

 

It isn't ignored - but as I said, there is no direct evidence for in support of Vitamin D in terms of its efficacy in offering protection against viral infection. There is however much existing information to be found regarding the value of vitamin intake as part of a balanced diet through both the NHS and PHE in addition to advice on supplements: https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/food-and-diet/do-i-need-vitamin-supplements/

 

Guidance concerning intake will vary from patient to patient and as I said, generic public advice and advocacy needs to be cautious and measured to guard against excess. Particularly in the era of consultation via Dr.Google. 

Edited 11 January 2022 by Line-X

[reporterpenguin]

2 hours ago, shade said:

Don't you find it even a tiny bit strange that for a tablet (D3) that costs pennies, literally pennies, and has no side effects even at high doses, barely any public health authority strongly suggested that the whole population start taking vitamin D as soon as the pandemic started?

I’m not sure it was advised that the whole population take it, but they definitely encouraged vulnerable people to take it reasonably early on.

So much so that the government sent me a 6 month supply for free in the post (I’m in the clinically extremely vulnerable group). 

[danny.]

3 hours ago, Line-X said:

No.

 

There simply wasn't the data to recommend use of vitamin D to prevent infection with a novel virus. While there is evidence that vitamin D may have positive effects on immune function, a specific antiviral effect remains unproven. The few available studies cannot prove that vitamin D protects people against infection. Further, a randomised controlled study of people with moderate to severe COVID-19 who received a high dose of vitamin D showed no benefit.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33595634/

 

That is not to say that there is an absence of encouraging research but in the absence of conclusive findings most of the advice relating to vitamin intake pertained to lockdown. 

 

And actually, high/uncontrolled doses of vitamin D can indeed cause side effects and in some cases, severe symptoms, such as stomach upsets, kidney injury, and pancreatitis.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26053339/

 

Healthcare advice/advocacy needs to be measured and guard against the possibility of excess or extremities. Particularly pertinent to the United States. 

Using the same logic we’d mandate N95 or surgical masks and not just cloth face coverings 

[SpacedX]

16 minutes ago, danny. said:

Using the same logic we’d mandate N95 or surgical masks and not just cloth face coverings 

This was discussed last week. And what logic? The guidelines surrounding approved well fitted facemasks are clear. Unfortunately it's enough of a challenge to enforce or mandate even the most rudimentary/makeshift face coverings.  

[Carl the Llama]

3 hours ago, shade said:

There have been many studies, lots on respiratory viruses prior to covid, like this meta analysis in 2016

 

https://www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.i6583

 

Fair enough to not recommend it at the very start of the pandemic, but to STILL largely ignore it in the light of things like this?

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8541492/

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34684596/

 

Also interesting to note that Dr Fauci takes 6000UI a day, far far above the dosage recommended, so the concern about high doses is questionable. We have pathways to dispose of vitamin D, even though it's fat soluble, it's nowhere near as toxic as vitamin A is.

 

Why is Fauci taking doses that high but there is no official guidance from government for people to take it?

 

 

Taking 60,000 international units (IU) a day of vitamin D for several months has been shown to cause toxicity. This level is many times higher than the U.S. Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for most adults of 600UI of vitamin D a day. Fauci is taking 10X more than the RDA.

 

 

Bearing in mind that a quick google reveals Fauci is on record recommending that those deficient in vitamin D take supplements to help them combat infection, what does his personal dosage have to do with our government's anti-Covid policymaking and what does it have to do with the mask debate?  Even if your immune system is top notch you're still susceptible to catching a novel virus and masks are still a good preventative measure.  You'll note that Fauci still wears his mask despite partaking of the secret vitamin cure.

[Farrington fox]

So professor Medley government chief modeller now concedes the omicron wave is not as bad as first thought. Well well, no surprise there then. Of course some of us who are able to apply a bit of common sense, knew that would be the case. 

[chapero82]

Well we’ve all got COVID in my household and I feel like rubbish 

[FoxesDeb]

50 minutes ago, Farrington fox said:

So professor Medley government chief modeller now concedes the omicron wave is not as bad as first thought. Well well, no surprise there then. Of course some of us who are able to apply a bit of common sense, knew that would be the case. 

You should speak to Mystic Meg and get yourself a job. I'm interested to know exactly when you 'knew'? 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Another daily drop in hospital admissions and a drop of over 40% week on week of cases. 

 

Fingers crossed we've seen the worst at about 40% of last year's peak hospital admissions. 

 

Plan B scrapped by the end of the month 

[st albans fox]

8 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Another daily drop in hospital admissions and a drop of over 40% week on week of cases. 

 

Fingers crossed we've seen the worst at about 40% of last year's peak hospital admissions. 

 

Plan B scrapped by the end of the month 

I’m not so sure if they will scrap plan B until March …….if they feel that they have omicron cases under control re hospitalisations, I wonder if they will want to take a chance of it increasing transmission during feb whilst people are still inside - the restrictions are not so draconian ?

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Farrington fox said:

So professor Medley government chief modeller now concedes the omicron wave is not as bad as first thought. Well well, no surprise there then. Of course some of us who are able to apply a bit of common sense, knew that would be the case. 

He needs to speak to the WHO spokesperson- they said today that half of europe could be infected by end March! 
 

We’ve got a cold running through our house …..

we assume it’s a cold ……it could be covid and our viral loads aren’t enough to register on LFT ……. omicron could be so weak in boosted and previously infected that it often shows neg on LFT ……we simply don’t know !   The point is there could be loads of omicron infections that aren’t registering - the modelling may be closer than we realise but the virus may be much weaker in a lot of instances too 

[Legend_in_blue]

T cells from common colds cross-protect against infection with SARS-CoV-2 | Imperial News | Imperial College London

 

Which leads to two questions:

 

1 - Why has this taken so long to be published if the study started way back in September 2020?  They've sat on this for some time knowing the outcomes and then drop it in now.  How convenient.

2 - "The silenced" mentioned this in March 2020 but were shunned.  Why?

 

 

 

 

[Paninistickers]

7 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Anti vax is no more a slur than calling someone a Brexiteer.  Both are accurately descriptive of that person's opinions on specific topics.

I disagree. Anti vax is alluding to a political/idealogical position. 

 

If the phrase didn't already exist, I'd say many people, vaxxed or unvaxxed, would call themselves 'pro choice'. 

 

I'm begrudgingly vaxxed.  My teenage kids are unvaxxed - but in no way would they be labelled as anti vaxxers

[st albans fox]

19 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

T cells from common colds cross-protect against infection with SARS-CoV-2 | Imperial News | Imperial College London

 

Which leads to two questions:

 

1 - Why has this taken so long to be published if the study started way back in September 2020?  They've sat on this for some time knowing the outcomes and then drop it in now.  How convenient.

2 - "The silenced" mentioned this in March 2020 but were shunned.  Why?

 

its been oft discussed on here how some people seem to be 'immune'.  its been oft discussed in society.  i don't believe this is 'news'.  its been assumed by scientists that it was likely the case.  what difference does it make??  

can you analyse someone's t cells to see what their reaction to covid will be??  even if you could, sounds a pretty expensive way of people finding out  that they may not contract covid - especially when so many have had the infection and will have developed t cell immunity in any case - how do people become re infected btw ??  i think its more complex. 

[Farrington fox]

1 hour ago, FoxesDeb said:

You should speak to Mystic Meg and get yourself a job. I'm interested to know exactly when you 'knew'? 

Mystic Meg ?  

[FoxesDeb]

4 minutes ago, Farrington fox said:

Mystic Meg ?  

Yes. 

[Farrington fox]

Wee Nippy Sturgeon is trying to outdo fellow commie Jacinda Ardern now. Scots will soon be required to have their booster added to their vaccine passports, which may then be extended to pubs. This madness is unlikely to ever end. 

[Farrington fox]

Just now, FoxesDeb said:

Yes. 

Who is it?