Politics of Covid-19
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
jrt_ms1995
Well-Known Member
"There's much truth in parody." - Naughtius Maximus
New Stanford Studies on COVID-19 Infection Fatality Rates Should End Covidstan Forever
One of the strangest features of the pandemic is the personal and sometimes professional attacks on well-respected researchers and physicians who dissent from the narrative of our health agencies. For months, anyone who does this knows the cost, and they choose to proceed. Because of this trend, I tend to take what they say pretty seriously. For them to buck the system at this point appears to be motivated by their conscience.
Ioannidis authored two new studies on infection fatality rates (IFR) for COVID-19. One is published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization and calculates overall IFR. Using seroprevalence studies, which measure the portion of the population with antibodies to COVID-19, he estimated the number of infections worldwide. From that calculation, he estimated the overall IFR as of September of 2020:
For reference, the generally quoted IFR from influenza globally according to the WHO is 0.1%. So, Ioannidis’s finding implies COVID-19 is twice as deadly as the flu. That is why the second study is so important. In a preprint titled “Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in community-dwelling populations with emphasis on the elderly: An overview,” he calculates age-adjusted IFR rates.
These calculations do not take comorbidities into account. So, while the results may vary in different regions of the world based on the status of the healthcare system, socioeconomics, and overall health status, they should serve as a guide to consider the relative worth of interventions like vaccination, masks, social distancing, and lockdown. For example, the U.S. has an advanced healthcare system and is regarded as a wealthy nation, improving the IFR. However, we have higher than average rates for comorbidities, especially obesity, than other nations, which could elevate the IFR inside the range.
Age stratified infection fatality rates for COVID-19 Ioannidis and Axfors July 2021.
One of the strangest features of the pandemic is the personal and sometimes professional attacks on well-respected researchers and physicians who dissent from the narrative of our health agencies. For months, anyone who does this knows the cost, and they choose to proceed. Because of this trend, I tend to take what they say pretty seriously. For them to buck the system at this point appears to be motivated by their conscience.
Ioannidis authored two new studies on infection fatality rates (IFR) for COVID-19. One is published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization and calculates overall IFR. Using seroprevalence studies, which measure the portion of the population with antibodies to COVID-19, he estimated the number of infections worldwide. From that calculation, he estimated the overall IFR as of September of 2020:
For reference, the generally quoted IFR from influenza globally according to the WHO is 0.1%. So, Ioannidis’s finding implies COVID-19 is twice as deadly as the flu. That is why the second study is so important. In a preprint titled “Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in community-dwelling populations with emphasis on the elderly: An overview,” he calculates age-adjusted IFR rates.
These calculations do not take comorbidities into account. So, while the results may vary in different regions of the world based on the status of the healthcare system, socioeconomics, and overall health status, they should serve as a guide to consider the relative worth of interventions like vaccination, masks, social distancing, and lockdown. For example, the U.S. has an advanced healthcare system and is regarded as a wealthy nation, improving the IFR. However, we have higher than average rates for comorbidities, especially obesity, than other nations, which could elevate the IFR inside the range.
Age stratified infection fatality rates for COVID-19 Ioannidis and Axfors July 2021.
Why in the World Is the Government Disrupting the Distribution of Monoclonal Antibodies Now?
On Friday, someone who claimed to be an urgent care specialist tweeted that HHS had informed him that the government would now decide which facilities would receive doses of monoclonal antibodies. Jim Jackson wrote: “So now the government is getting involved in [read: restricting] monoclonal antibody distribution. Before, I could just order as much as we needed, and they shipped it next day air. Now a govt. commission will decide when, if, and how much I will be able to get for my pts [patients]. ‘Should you have any questions regarding this update in ordering and distribution procedures, please email the Federal COVID-19 Response Team.’ Wonderful.”
He added the alert from HHS that confirmed his assertion. Now, only facilities participating in the HHS Protect program can order the treatment, and the agency will review all orders. Suppose the current distribution map provided by HHS includes the HHS Protect facilities. In that case, the new order review process seems like a heavy administrative burden for the program. It may delay or limit treatment for at-risk patients.
Monoclonal antibodies are approved and recommended for outpatient use. HHS instructs patients who qualify to access them within ten days of symptom onset. Regeneron also has FDA approval to be used post-exposure and for prevention. All approved uses are time-dependent and not conducive to a burdensome order review process. The timing of the change in how health providers access them is curious.
If the supply is genuinely so constrained that the federal government needs to get involved in decisions about distribution, the question should be why. The use of monoclonal antibodies is restricted and only provided for specific at-risk groups. By managing and approving distribution, HHS insulates the manufacturers from actual market demand. Now, some at-risk vaccinated as well as unvaccinated patients require effective treatment, and it is constrained. If new variants emerge and become dominant, that trend may continue.
On Friday, someone who claimed to be an urgent care specialist tweeted that HHS had informed him that the government would now decide which facilities would receive doses of monoclonal antibodies. Jim Jackson wrote: “So now the government is getting involved in [read: restricting] monoclonal antibody distribution. Before, I could just order as much as we needed, and they shipped it next day air. Now a govt. commission will decide when, if, and how much I will be able to get for my pts [patients]. ‘Should you have any questions regarding this update in ordering and distribution procedures, please email the Federal COVID-19 Response Team.’ Wonderful.”
He added the alert from HHS that confirmed his assertion. Now, only facilities participating in the HHS Protect program can order the treatment, and the agency will review all orders. Suppose the current distribution map provided by HHS includes the HHS Protect facilities. In that case, the new order review process seems like a heavy administrative burden for the program. It may delay or limit treatment for at-risk patients.
Monoclonal antibodies are approved and recommended for outpatient use. HHS instructs patients who qualify to access them within ten days of symptom onset. Regeneron also has FDA approval to be used post-exposure and for prevention. All approved uses are time-dependent and not conducive to a burdensome order review process. The timing of the change in how health providers access them is curious.
If the supply is genuinely so constrained that the federal government needs to get involved in decisions about distribution, the question should be why. The use of monoclonal antibodies is restricted and only provided for specific at-risk groups. By managing and approving distribution, HHS insulates the manufacturers from actual market demand. Now, some at-risk vaccinated as well as unvaccinated patients require effective treatment, and it is constrained. If new variants emerge and become dominant, that trend may continue.
The Highly Effective Covid Treatment Joe Biden Won’t Tell You About
Since then, the treatment has been authorized for public use and has been widely praised by many doctors, patients, and public health officials — including some from the federal government. But word of the treatment and its availability (which you can view, here) is just not getting out fast enough.
What is monoclonal antibody treatment?
The antibody treatment is essentially an infusion of supplemental antibodies that help your body fight off COVID — and fast, according to medical experts. University of Alabama at Birmingham Professor Turner Overton explained it this way: Your “immune system takes two to three weeks to make good antibodies,” but “monoclonal antibodies are supplemental antibodies that can be administered early in the course of infection — the first 10 days after symptoms commence — to rapidly bind and kill the COVID virus.”
Medical experts suggest that the treatment should be given to COVID-positive patients during the first ten days of symptoms.
Health officials have emphasized that vaccination is still the best option for Americans in reducing a patient’s chances of hospitalization and death. “The monoclonal antibodies are not as durable as the vaccine,” Dr. Overton said. “The vaccine trains a healthy immune system to protect from a future infection, and the protection can last much longer.”
Since then, the treatment has been authorized for public use and has been widely praised by many doctors, patients, and public health officials — including some from the federal government. But word of the treatment and its availability (which you can view, here) is just not getting out fast enough.
What is monoclonal antibody treatment?
The antibody treatment is essentially an infusion of supplemental antibodies that help your body fight off COVID — and fast, according to medical experts. University of Alabama at Birmingham Professor Turner Overton explained it this way: Your “immune system takes two to three weeks to make good antibodies,” but “monoclonal antibodies are supplemental antibodies that can be administered early in the course of infection — the first 10 days after symptoms commence — to rapidly bind and kill the COVID virus.”
Medical experts suggest that the treatment should be given to COVID-positive patients during the first ten days of symptoms.
Health officials have emphasized that vaccination is still the best option for Americans in reducing a patient’s chances of hospitalization and death. “The monoclonal antibodies are not as durable as the vaccine,” Dr. Overton said. “The vaccine trains a healthy immune system to protect from a future infection, and the protection can last much longer.”
Immune System Criticized As Anti-Science
“Does a ‘complex network of cells, and proteins that defends the body against infection’ sound scientific to you? Didn’t think so,” said CDC spokesman Jonathan Growsky. “Science is doing what we say to do without question, not magically getting healthy while your body functions as designed. That's just superstitious nonsense”
Growsky continued, “How can we expect the human body to keep track of every microbe it’s ever killed, and know how to kill it again quickly if it ever returns? It is as nonsensical as it sounds.”
babylonbee.com
“Does a ‘complex network of cells, and proteins that defends the body against infection’ sound scientific to you? Didn’t think so,” said CDC spokesman Jonathan Growsky. “Science is doing what we say to do without question, not magically getting healthy while your body functions as designed. That's just superstitious nonsense”
Growsky continued, “How can we expect the human body to keep track of every microbe it’s ever killed, and know how to kill it again quickly if it ever returns? It is as nonsensical as it sounds.”
Immune System Criticized As Anti-Science
ATLANTA, GA—The CDC has issued new guidelines that specifically call out anyone relying on a functioning immune system as being anti-science. “Does a ‘complex network of cells, and proteins that defends the body against infection’ sound scientific to you? Didn’t think so,” said CDC spokesman...
babylonbee.com
Maybe there is a difference here? The photo from Politico is from the Sturgis motorcycle rally. That is much different than hundreds of thousands packing together on Saturday across the country, because…science, we think. It’s enough to leave us flustered.
See CNN’s Chris Cillizza join in condemning the Covid dangers of college football crowds — AND rave about the return of college football crowds
We Now Have Undeniable Evidence That Biden Is Making Political, Not Science-Based, Decisions on COVID
So why did the Biden administration tighten their mask guidance for schools? Was there some study that supported it? Some new data I wasn’t aware of?
Nope. It was pressure from a prominent teachers’ union. According to internal emails obtained via FOIA request by the watchdog group Americans for Public Trust, the Biden administration caved to the National Education Association (NEA). The Biden administration recommended universal masking when NEA threatened to publicly criticize them.
“The National Education Association sent a draft statement to White House officials that included harsh criticism of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s masking guidance, the emails show,” Fox News reports. “But the teachers union ultimately published a version with a much softer tone, and the CDC revised its guidance to indicate that everyone should be masked in schools, regardless of vaccination status.”
“This batch of emails came just weeks after we already exposed the teachers unions influenced the CDC on school openings,” Americans for Public Trust Executive Director Caitlin Sutherland told Fox News. “Lo and behold, less than two weeks later, they’re at it again, but this time in relation to mask guidance.”
So why did the Biden administration tighten their mask guidance for schools? Was there some study that supported it? Some new data I wasn’t aware of?
Nope. It was pressure from a prominent teachers’ union. According to internal emails obtained via FOIA request by the watchdog group Americans for Public Trust, the Biden administration caved to the National Education Association (NEA). The Biden administration recommended universal masking when NEA threatened to publicly criticize them.
“The National Education Association sent a draft statement to White House officials that included harsh criticism of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s masking guidance, the emails show,” Fox News reports. “But the teachers union ultimately published a version with a much softer tone, and the CDC revised its guidance to indicate that everyone should be masked in schools, regardless of vaccination status.”
“This batch of emails came just weeks after we already exposed the teachers unions influenced the CDC on school openings,” Americans for Public Trust Executive Director Caitlin Sutherland told Fox News. “Lo and behold, less than two weeks later, they’re at it again, but this time in relation to mask guidance.”
LightRoasted
If I may ...
If I may ...
Where was she in years past when those with the flu were hospitalized without a flu vaccine taking up resources?
Where was she in years past when those with the flu were hospitalized without a flu vaccine taking up resources?
In New Matrix Movie, Neo To Just Tell Humans To Stay Home, Stay Safe In Their Pods
"@#$% your freedoms!" he then shouts at some humans waking up from the Matrix. "Do you want grandma to die?!" He immediately alerts the machines in charge of making sure humanity is safe, and the humans are mercifully killed.
babylonbee.com
"@#$% your freedoms!" he then shouts at some humans waking up from the Matrix. "Do you want grandma to die?!" He immediately alerts the machines in charge of making sure humanity is safe, and the humans are mercifully killed.
In New Matrix Movie, Neo To Just Tell Humans To Stay Home, Stay Safe In Their Pods
BURBANK, CA—The Matrix was a groundbreaking science fiction film with a lot to say about dystopian governments, the dangers of technology, and the need to rebel against authoritarian systems.
babylonbee.com
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Doctors are pissing me off.
When you call your Doctor the first message is "If this is an emergency go to the ER.
If it was an emergency i would already be there.
Anything you need to see a Doctor for other then a regular appointment or physical you might belucky and get one for 3 or 4 days later, Maybe 2 weeks. In other words if you have a headache or your back hurts , but it isn't sufficient to go to the Emergency room in your opinion you have to suffer with it for days or go to urgent care or the ER. It seems all Primary Care Doctors want to deal with is the easy stuff and the easy money.
When you call your Doctor the first message is "If this is an emergency go to the ER.
If it was an emergency i would already be there.
Anything you need to see a Doctor for other then a regular appointment or physical you might belucky and get one for 3 or 4 days later, Maybe 2 weeks. In other words if you have a headache or your back hurts , but it isn't sufficient to go to the Emergency room in your opinion you have to suffer with it for days or go to urgent care or the ER. It seems all Primary Care Doctors want to deal with is the easy stuff and the easy money.