Coronavirus Thread

[kyleolly]

1 hour ago, Farrington fox said:

So why has Van Tam jumped ship?

Sir Van Tam!

[Farrington fox]

1 hour ago, shade said:

Got a new job hosting this... (joke)

 

That’s more Whitty’s style. 

[pazzerfox]

3 hours ago, Jattdogg said:

 

Canadian soccer star Alphonso Davies has heart muscle issue after bout with COVID-19

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6314813

 

Not sure if posted elsewhere.  

Aubamyang, Coulibaly and Lemina also with heart problems I read.  

[Bryn]

Hopefully nothing too worrying for them, fingers crossed it's "just" a bit of resolving myocarditis and there's no long-term implications for them.

[KrefelderFox666]

44 minutes ago, pazzerfox said:

Aubamyang, Coulibaly and Lemina also with heart problems I read.  

Don't know about the latter two but Davies and Aubameyang have very recently tested positive. So it might be a link to an infection (rather than the vaccine as so many were pointing out). Since Covid came about, a lot of athletes have struggled with long term effects. Let's hope it's short term.

[KrefelderFox666]

My wife tested positive today, the first time we have had a positive test in our household. So almost glad tomorrow's game fell through.

 

I will be doing daily LFT's for a few days now. My wife can test on Monday and Tuesday to try to end isolation (symptoms started Wednesday, negative yesterday, positive today).

[leicsmac]

https://thelogicofscience.com/2022/01/14/joe-rogan-and-the-problem-of-false-balance/

 

"We have this idea of “two sides” so deeply ingrained into us that we feel like we have to give credence to opposing views, even if one of them is utter nonsense, but that is an absurd and dangerous position to take. On many topics (particularly scientific topics), there aren’t two sides, and the fact that two people disagree doesn’t mean that there are two valid positions that both have to be treated as if they have merit."

 

"...if a new, high quality study is published showing that our current understanding of the shape of the earth, climate change, vaccines, etc. is wrong, then absolutely we should discuss it. At that point, there are actually two sides.

That is, however, completely different from someone making factually incorrect claims that lack data to back them up."

[Super_horns]

COVID passports to be scrapped ?

 

You do feel they are trying to wind down the restrictions and start to try and just live with the virus.

 

 

Edited 15 January 2022 by Super_horns

[SpacedX]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59970281

[st albans fox]

20 hours ago, pazzerfox said:

Aubamyang, Coulibaly and Lemina also with heart problems I read.  

Not sure what angle you came at on this but they are all infection related and not vaccine ….

[shade]

Published today, peer-reviewed, large PSM study from Brazil finds, "regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates."

 

 

https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching

 

[Bryn]

There's a staggering number of methodological flaws in that study. I'm not particularly anti-Ivermectin, if there's a safe cheap drug that prevents Covid that we could pump into countries which have less access to vaccines and stop them being breeding grounds for variants that would be great. And the evidence isn't exactly against Ivermectin, it's just all the studies are a bit shit, like this one. But that's a bad study.

 

Self selected participants, doubly unblinded, no surveilance of what the participants did during the study, self-reported outcomes, no discussion of adverse events, no follow-up beyond the data collection period, poor control of variables, little analysis of confounding factors, imprecise knowledge of what medications the participitants did before the study (did they already take Ivermectin or was it new, had they really had Covid or had they just had a cold, bear in mind this is quite early in the pandemic), a very narrow participant population (a single city in a single country, again with very little discussion of or control of the patient characteristics)

 

I've not quite said everything I want to say because I've decided to stop because a 15 second Google search shows me that two of the authors have a financial stake in a company which produces Ivermectin that they have not disclosed. Further, one of the authors is being investigated for ethics abuses in other trials related to Covid. I note they did not have ethics approval or even a study design in place before this study was undertaken.

There's a reason good science outcomes don't come from Facebook or even lay review of actual scientific papers.

Edited 15 January 2022 by Bryn

[WigstonWanderer]

20 minutes ago, Bryn said:

There's a staggering number of methodological flaws in that study. I'm not particularly anti-Ivermectin, if there's a safe cheap drug that prevents Covid that we could pump into countries which have less access to vaccines and stop them being breeding grounds for variants that would be great. And the evidence isn't exactly against Ivermectin, it's just all the studies are a bit shit, like this one. But that's a bad study.

 

Self selected participitants, doubly unblinded, no surveilance of what the participants did during the study, self-reported outcomes, no discussion of adverse events, no follow-up beyond the data collection period, poor control of variables, little analysis of confounding factors, imprecise knowledge of what medications the participitants did before the study (did they already take Ivermectin or was it new, had they really had Covid or had they just had a cold, bear in mind this is quite early in the pandemic), a very narrow participant population (a single city in a single country, again with very little discussion of or control of the patient characteristics)

 

I've not quite said everything I want to say because I've decided to stop because a 15 second Google search shows me that two of the authors have a financial stake in a company which produces Ivermectin that they have not disclosed. Further, one of the authors is being investigated for ethics abuses in other trials related to Covid. I note they did not have ethics approval or even a study design in place before this study was undertaken.

There's a reason good science outcomes don't come from Facebook or even lay review of actual scientific papers.

Thank you so much for this post. Just highlights how difficult, time consuming, and therefore expensive it is to do proper research and scientific studies. Just too easy to jump to conclusions based on simplistic headline stats.

 

FWIW, you have articulated exactly my sentiments on the Ivermectin issue. If it actually works and is a cheap alternative prophylaxis to expensive, over hyped pharmaceutical products, that would be great, but it isn’t an alternative to a vaccine, and still needs to be validated by proper controlled studies. 
 

The final arbiter in eliminating bias and conflict of interest in scientific studies is the peer review process. This takes time though and can lead to the sort of frustration we see from commentary outside of the process.

Edited 15 January 2022 by WigstonWanderer

[shade]

14 minutes ago, Bryn said:

There's a staggering number of methodological flaws in that study. I'm not particularly anti-Ivermectin, if there's a safe cheap drug that prevents Covid that we could pump into countries which have less access to vaccines and stop them being breeding grounds for variants that would be great. And the evidence isn't exactly against Ivermectin, it's just all the studies are a bit shit, like this one. But that's a bad study.

 

Self selected participants, doubly unblinded, no surveilance of what the participants did during the study, self-reported outcomes, no discussion of adverse events, no follow-up beyond the data collection period, poor control of variables, little analysis of confounding factors, imprecise knowledge of what medications the participitants did before the study (did they already take Ivermectin or was it new, had they really had Covid or had they just had a cold, bear in mind this is quite early in the pandemic), a very narrow participant population (a single city in a single country, again with very little discussion of or control of the patient characteristics)

 

I've not quite said everything I want to say because I've decided to stop because a 15 second Google search shows me that two of the authors have a financial stake in a company which produces Ivermectin that they have not disclosed. Further, one of the authors is being investigated for ethics abuses in other trials related to Covid. I note they did not have ethics approval or even a study design in place before this study was undertaken.

There's a reason good science outcomes don't come from Facebook or even lay review of actual scientific papers.

Valid criticisms. Whats your opinion on highly credentialed physician like Pierre Kory who's worked on covid ICUs since the start and published this paper on Ivermectin, using it? I just don't see what he has to gain by vehemently backing it, going so far as to speak to the senate about it. He was one of the first peopke who suggested steroids as a treatment for it when it was counter indicated. Basically his meta analsysis is of 18 shit studies, all with positive outcomes on a drug that's out of patent? It's a weird agenda to push?

 

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx

[st albans fox]

Story circulating that ten days till all rules and restrictions are removed ……..

 

whether that’s sensible from a scientific standpoint or whether that’s to save the PM’s skin is a question …..

[Stivo]

2 hours ago, shade said:

Valid criticisms. Whats your opinion on highly credentialed physician like Pierre Kory who's worked on covid ICUs since the start and published this paper on Ivermectin, using it? I just don't see what he has to gain by vehemently backing it, going so far as to speak to the senate about it. He was one of the first peopke who suggested steroids as a treatment for it when it was counter indicated. Basically his meta analsysis is of 18 shit studies, all with positive outcomes on a drug that's out of patent? It's a weird agenda to push?

 

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx

If you can catch covid again, then you could apply to  join a trial for it here.  https://www.principletrial.org
If you get accepted there is a 1 in 3 chance that they give it to you.  
 

No need to scour the internet, you can literally do your own research.

 

Edited 15 January 2022 by Stivo

[Bryn]

3 hours ago, shade said:

Valid criticisms. Whats your opinion on highly credentialed physician like Pierre Kory who's worked on covid ICUs since the start and published this paper on Ivermectin, using it? I just don't see what he has to gain by vehemently backing it, going so far as to speak to the senate about it. He was one of the first peopke who suggested steroids as a treatment for it when it was counter indicated. Basically his meta analsysis is of 18 shit studies, all with positive outcomes on a drug that's out of patent? It's a weird agenda to push?

 

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/06000/review_of_the_emerging_evidence_demonstrating_the.4.aspx

He’s another member of this Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance which has repeatedly put forward treatments that also have no evidence such as Vitamin C and Hydroxychloroquine. I have no idea what their agenda is. Fame, messiah complex, genuine desire to find a panacea? I don’t know. What I would say is I find it really quite difficult to trust American doctors at face value because it is simply far easier for a doctor to have pecuniary interests over there.

Edited 16 January 2022 by Bryn

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, Bryn said:

He’s another member of this Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance which has repeatedly put forward treatments that also have no evidence such as Vitamin C and Hydroxychloroquine. I have no idea what their agenda is. Fame, messiah complex, genuine desire to find a panacea? I don’t know. What I would say is I find it really quite difficult to trust American doctors at face value because it is simply far easier for a doctor to have pecuniary interests over there.

Any or all of the above perhaps.

 

Scientists are human and have ego just like anyone else. That's why the rigour of peer review and how the scientific community polices itself to produce valid fact is so important.

[Ric Flair]

10 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Story circulating that ten days till all rules and restrictions are removed ……..

 

whether that’s sensible from a scientific standpoint or whether that’s to save the PM’s skin is a question …..

The current restrictions are pretty few and far between, so you'd hope it wouldn't be something we'd regret. The decision to only implement the working from home and mask wearing in certain settings was heavily criticised but like lifting restrictions last June that got delayed to July, again was heavily criticised by Labour and other British nations and yet they certainly weren't a disaster. 

 

Our government are a disgrace but actually their antics may have led them to be less risk averse which is proving to be the right decision.

[Collymore]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

The current restrictions are pretty few and far between, so you'd hope it wouldn't be something we'd regret. The decision to only implement the working from home and mask wearing in certain settings was heavily criticised but like lifting restrictions last June that got delayed to July, again was heavily criticised by Labour and other British nations and yet they certainly weren't a disaster. 

 

Our government are a disgrace but actually their antics may have led them to be less risk averse which is proving to be the right decision.

I think we need to be careful what we wish for with this Boris witch hunt. 

 

I've always had the impression that Johnson and his gang were opposed to lockdowns but he would have been advised to 'follow the science rigorously ' after he messed up right at the start. He couldn't afford anymore slip ups. Politics is an absolute joke when it comes to this, what is seemingly said by politicians from the heart is basically just 'what do I say that is going to please the most amount of people based upon opionon data' Starmer is even worse than Johnson at this IMO. 

 

Johnson's briefings always felt like he completely distanced himself from what he was asking people to do, I bet if you had a pint with him he'd be telling you the whole things a joke and if he had his own way the whole economy would be open.

 

These true colors are going to manifest themselves close to home so it's no surprise they were partying like they were. Absolutely school boy stuff him not realising that it would eventually come back back and bite him though! 

 

So there's pros and cons to everything. Would I want to be under Australian rule or Johnson's rule right now? Johnson every day of the week. 

 

 

 

 

 

[weller54]

29 minutes ago, Collymore said:

I think we need to be careful what we wish for with this Boris witch hunt. 

 

I've always had the impression that Johnson and his gang were opposed to lockdowns but he would have been advised to 'follow the science rigorously ' after he messed up right at the start. He couldn't afford anymore slip ups. Politics is an absolute joke when it comes to this, what is seemingly said by politicians from the heart is basically just 'what do I say that is going to please the most amount of people based upon opionon data' Starmer is even worse than Johnson at this IMO. 

 

Johnson's briefings always felt like he completely distanced himself from what he was asking people to do, I bet if you had a pint with him he'd be telling you the whole things a joke and if he had his own way the whole economy would be open.

 

These true colors are going to manifest themselves close to home so it's no surprise they were partying like they were. Absolutely school boy stuff him not realising that it would eventually come back back and bite him though! 

 

So there's pros and cons to everything. Would I want to be under Australian rule or Johnson's rule right now? Johnson every day of the week. 

 

 

 

 

 

Ask the 150,000+ families who's rules they would have preferred 🤬

[Bryn]

From my personal perspective as an NHS worker it feels like we currently have the worst of both worlds. No meaningful measures to prevent spread but still have staff off every 5 minutes meaning every shift is hell and patient care is compromised.

 

Think we need to go one way or the other really. Either tighten the rules dramatically and break the chain or do away with all of it and accept that the virus is endemic. Think the halfway house probably just maximises harm across the board.

 

I’m not against further restrictions but I am also wary about NHS managers using Covid as a permanent excuse for issues that are chronic and needed to be addressed Covid or no. Ambulances queuing around the block unable to handover patients has been happening since I qualified in 2014 and I imagine before that too. That is one thing that should never ever happen.

Edited 16 January 2022 by Bryn

[Ric Flair]

2 hours ago, Collymore said:

I think we need to be careful what we wish for with this Boris witch hunt. 

 

I've always had the impression that Johnson and his gang were opposed to lockdowns but he would have been advised to 'follow the science rigorously ' after he messed up right at the start. He couldn't afford anymore slip ups. Politics is an absolute joke when it comes to this, what is seemingly said by politicians from the heart is basically just 'what do I say that is going to please the most amount of people based upon opionon data' Starmer is even worse than Johnson at this IMO. 

 

Johnson's briefings always felt like he completely distanced himself from what he was asking people to do, I bet if you had a pint with him he'd be telling you the whole things a joke and if he had his own way the whole economy would be open.

 

These true colors are going to manifest themselves close to home so it's no surprise they were partying like they were. Absolutely school boy stuff him not realising that it would eventually come back back and bite him though! 

 

So there's pros and cons to everything. Would I want to be under Australian rule or Johnson's rule right now? Johnson every day of the week. 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, it's a tricky one. They've been an absolute disgrace and haven't an ounce of credibility left but as we hopefully approach the end game, they haven't the audacity to be overly cautious any longer and it's proven to be the right decision in my opinion. 

 

I dread to think where we'd be with a Labour government, we'd not have been allowed to pretty much get on with things this winter. The Conservative party needs ripping up and rebuilding and that still needs to happen, just with a common sense approach of what this country might actually benefit from and understand.

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, Collymore said:

Johnson's briefings always felt like he completely distanced himself from what he was asking people to do, I bet if you had a pint with him he'd be telling you the whole things a joke and if he had his own way the whole economy would be open.

That's... not a good thing.

[Ric Flair]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

That's... not a good thing.

From a purely selfish point of view, it would have been for 95% + or more people.