Coronavirus IV

Not about deaths, but hospitalizations... A couple weeks ago at the peak of cases, our hospital system (Edward/Elmhurst) sent out an email. They said between 70-80% of covid patients were unvaccinated, and median age in the 50's. The remaining vaccinated patients had milder symptoms overall, and median age in the 70's.

There is no doubt to me that the vaccine isn't working as well as originally promised/planned/hoped, however, it's better than not having it. Especially for older people.

tm wrote:Not about deaths, but hospitalizations... A couple weeks ago at the peak of cases, our hospital system (Edward/Elmhurst) sent out an email. They said between 70-80% of covid patients were unvaccinated, and median age in the 50's. The remaining vaccinated patients had milder symptoms overall, and median age in the 70's.

There is no doubt to me that the vaccine isn't working as well as originally promised/planned/hoped, however, it's better than not having it. Especially for older people.

You are correct here. I think people have been mislead by politicians and the media that the vaccine will save you. As many here have stated, it doesn't save you it just increases your chances but comments by those in power can be misleading to many.

tm wrote:Not about deaths, but hospitalizations... A couple weeks ago at the peak of cases, our hospital system (Edward/Elmhurst) sent out an email. They said between 70-80% of covid patients were unvaccinated, and median age in the 50's. The remaining vaccinated patients had milder symptoms overall, and median age in the 70's.

There is no doubt to me that the vaccine isn't working as well as originally promised/planned/hoped, however, it's better than not having it. Especially for older people.

Absolutely, elderly people are vaccinated in higher numbers because if they get Covid it’s much more likely to kill them than a younger person.

The lifting of COVID mitigations is coming. I expect in two weeks the officials will announce bits something they are looking into and by March most will be lifted.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/591823-gottlieb-us-should-be-aggressive-in-lifting-covid-measures-as-conditions

My sister with Covid had the same experience as your wife’s cousin did Dusty. Within two days after receiving the monoclonal antibody infusion she was feeling much better.

OSUBucks wrote:My sister with Covid had the same experience as your wife’s cousin did Dusty. Within two days after receiving the monoclonal antibody infusion she was feeling much better.

But the media and government will tell you it doesn't work. Total bullshit.

dusty7 wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:My sister with Covid had the same experience as your wife’s cousin did Dusty. Within two days after receiving the monoclonal antibody infusion she was feeling much better.

But the media and government will tell you it doesn't work.  Total bullshit.  

There has always been agreement that monoclonal antibodies were a very effective treatment until the Omicron variant came along…and then this happened:


“But Omicron, with its dozens of mutations, has changed the game. In study after study after study after study—dating back well over a month—researchers have lamented the variant’s ability to evade previous defenses. “A minor form of omicron is completely resistant to all antibodies in clinical use today,” one report from Columbia University and Hong Kong researchers found. “The authors note that omicron is now the most complete ‘escapee’ from neutralization that scientists have seen.”

(The studies found one exception among drugs already authorized by the FDA: sotrovimab, an antibody treatment produced by GlaxoSmithKline, retained some effectiveness against Omicron. The FDA is keeping that in circulation, and at least one antibody infusion center in Florida has already switched from Regeneron’s drug to sotrovimab this week.)”

You can call it bullshit or you might read the studies that the scientists are basing their opinions on. Or, maybe you already decided that anything the FDA says is bullshit. I thought you were more thoughtful than that.

Teetime wrote:

dusty7 wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:My sister with Covid had the same experience as your wife’s cousin did Dusty. Within two days after receiving the monoclonal antibody infusion she was feeling much better.

But the media and government will tell you it doesn't work.  Total bullshit.  

There has always been agreement that monoclonal antibodies were a very effective treatment until the Omicron variant came along…and then this happened:


“But Omicron, with its dozens of mutations, has changed the game. In study after study after study after study—dating back well over a month—researchers have lamented the variant’s ability to evade previous defenses. “A minor form of omicron is completely resistant to all antibodies in clinical use today,” one report from Columbia University and Hong Kong researchers found. “The authors note that omicron is now the most complete ‘escapee’ from neutralization that scientists have seen.”

(The studies found one exception among drugs already authorized by the FDA: sotrovimab, an antibody treatment produced by GlaxoSmithKline, retained some effectiveness against Omicron. The FDA is keeping that in circulation, and at least one antibody infusion center in Florida has already switched from Regeneron’s drug to sotrovimab this week.)”

You can call it bullshit or you might read the studies that the scientists are basing their opinions on. Or, maybe you already decided that anything the FDA says is bullshit. I thought you were more thoughtful than that.

Well, of 90% of cases the past few weeks has been determined to be Omicron, it is fairly safe to say that both of the examples of my wife's cousin and OSUs sister, they very well could have been Omicron and the anti-bodies worked. But has the media been as informative about the use of one antibody drug over the elimination of the use on Florida? Nope.

Go ahead and claim any study you want but many don't have any creditibilty anymore as many are not peered reviewed at the time of initial kipublishing or are funded by government and will publish results to support the platform. This was a small study, early in the Omicron phase and the results could very change as we learn more and larger studies are done.  

It is ok to question science but nowadays you can't out of fear of being cancelled or labeled. Remember when Drs. Said smoking wasn't bad for you?  Just because you are vaxed doesn't mean you can't be against mask mandates. Just because you aren't vaxed doesn't mean you are anti-vax. It is easy to label when the media consistently tells you to how to categorize people.

Government has a lot to lose once people no longer fear COVID.  They will lose control over the people and they will won't like that very much.

I checked several online sources and they all said the same as what Tee posted, which is monoclonal antibody treatment is not effective against Omicron variant. I did hear something the other day about a new Omicron sub variant but that was days after my sister had tested positive. Delta is pretty much gone now. My sister’s doctor obviously knew that the antibody treatment was effective. It sounds like a lot of professionals don’t know what the hell they’re talking about or they’re lying. I think it’s probably the latter. These are strange times we’re living in.

OSUBucks wrote:I checked several online sources and they all said the same as what Tee posted, which is monoclonal antibody treatment is not effective against Omicron variant. I did hear something the other day about a new Omicron sub variant but that was days after my sister had tested positive. Delta is pretty much gone now. My sister’s doctor obviously knew that the antibody treatment was effective. It sounds like a lot of professionals don’t know what the hell they’re talking about or they’re lying. I think it’s probably the latter. These are strange times we’re living in.

Yep, it's pretty bad when people have lost trust in both the government and it's health agencies. There have been so many studies that contradict each other and the media picks up on one stat or one result and runs with it. There is no acknowledgement of the limitations of the study which provide the reader a much better picture of what the results really mean. For example, any study involving masks, find one that says they work and there is another one saying they don't.

dusty7 wrote:Well, of 90% of cases the past few weeks has been determined to be Omicron, it is fairly safe to say that both of the examples of my wife's cousin and OSUs sister, they very well could have been Omicron and the anti-bodies worked. But has the media been as informative about the use of one antibody drug over the elimination of the use on Florida? Nope.  

Go ahead and claim any study you want but many don't have any creditibilty anymore as many are not peered reviewed at the time of initial kipublishing or are funded by government and will publish results to support the platform. This was a small study, early in the Omicron phase and the results could very change as we learn more and larger studies are done.  

It is ok to question science but nowadays you can't out of fear of being cancelled or labeled. Remember when Drs. Said smoking wasn't bad for you?  Just because you are vaxed doesn't mean you can't be against mask mandates. Just because you aren't vaxed doesn't mean you are anti-vax.  It is easy to label when the media consistently tells you to how to categorize people.

Government has a lot to lose once people no longer fear COVID.  They will lose control over the people and they will won't like that very much.

Here is one of the studies (there were several that reached the same conclusion). It looks to have been peer reviewed.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01678-y

Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Medicine thanks Julie Overbaugh, Barton Haynes and Sujan Shresta for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Editor recognition statement: João Monteiro was the primary editor on this article and managed its editorial process and peer review in collaboration with the rest of the editorial team.

As a person who follows the science, you should know that because your wife's cousin and OSU's sister got better after the MA treatment does not mean it worked. It really just means they got better. They might have gotten better with a Dr. Pepper and an antacid. It just might have been their time to get better.

I'm really glad that both got better.

It also doesn't mean it didn't work. My wife's cousin went from almost being admitted to ICU to perfectly fine in 2 days. From what science has told me about COVID, if you have a severe case it is not something you recover from quickly. Especially when you are overweight and a smoker, which he is.

Whatever he was given worked, maybe he has the Delta variant, who knows. I am happy they have Therapeutics that work and hopefully more will be developed and they will become more affordable as well.

dusty7 wrote:It also doesn't mean it didn't work.  My wife's cousin went from almost being admitted to ICU to perfectly fine in 2 days.  From what science has told me about COVID, if you have a severe case it is not something you recover from quickly. Especially when you are overweight and a smoker, which he is.  

Whatever he was given worked, maybe he has the Delta variant, who knows. I am happy they have Therapeutics that work and hopefully more will be developed and they will become more affordable as well.  

That’s my thinking too. I know of some folks who struggled with symptoms for weeks before they felt normal again. My sister went from feeling pretty bad to pretty good in two days. It was a remarkable recovery. I do appreciate Tee’s good words, I’m glad my sister is doing much better too.

I think we all know this now but lockdowns did nothing but ruin the economy.  

https://t.co/uT22fouTDe

Pfizer asking FDA to approve emergency use for their vaccine for children 6mo to 5.  This despite the fact that on studies it did not work.  

Results from research in late 2021.  "Pfizer announced the change after a preliminary analysis found 2- to 4-year-olds didn't have as strong an immune response as expected to the very low-dose shots the company is testing in the youngest children."

Either a money grab or just to make people feel better being around children.  It is also important to note that only about 25% of children are Vaccinated.  Most parents of young children are saying no to the vaccine yet many are vaxed themselves so can't call them anti-vax.

Europe is starting to end all COVID rules and looks like the US isn't far behind.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/02/dr-scott-gottlieb-says-its-time-to-consider-dumping-school-covid-mask-mandates.html

dusty7 wrote:Europe is starting to end all COVID rules and looks like the US isn't far behind.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/02/dr-scott-gottlieb-says-its-time-to-consider-dumping-school-covid-mask-mandates.html

It’s about time. Cases have been on steep decline for a while now. Let’s hope 2022 is the year we return to our normal lives. If new variants appear let’s hope they continue to be less dangerous.

dusty7 wrote:I think we all know this now but lockdowns did nothing but ruin the economy.  

https://t.co/uT22fouTDe

Pfizer asking FDA to approve emergency use for their vaccine for children 6mo to 5.  This despite the fact that on studies it did not work.  

Results from research in late 2021.  "Pfizer announced the change after a preliminary analysis found 2- to 4-year-olds didn't have as strong an immune response as expected to the very low-dose shots the company is testing in the youngest children."

Either a money grab or just to make people feel better being around children.  It is also important to note that only about 25% of children are Vaccinated.  Most parents of young children are saying no to the vaccine yet many are vaxed themselves so can't call them anti-vax.

concerning lockdowns - follow the money.
who benefited from lockdowns? small businesses? amazon? walmart? anybody in congress buy that stock right before lockdowns?

Right now the COVID numbers in Illinois are where they were the week before X-Mas.  Omicron is falling as fast as it rose.  If history repeats, we will start to see another rise in cases in 6-8 weeks, but will it be as high as the most recent surge?

More and more schools are holding meetings on going "mask optional" as many believe a JB's mask mandate for schools will be halted in the coming days.  Some schools are asking for guidance from the state on how to move from mandatory to optional.  In our area, a handful of districts are asking for "local control" with "guidance or benchmarks" set for by the states.  Basically, allow the school board to determine when masks should become mandatory (i.e. definition of significant spread etc.) and let decide what is best for their environment and the numbers at that time.  As Gotlieb stated, we need to increase the threshold of what we call significant spread.  Right now I think it is 10 cases among 10,000 people, which he says is way too low, the number should be increased.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-covid-schools-demand-exit-plans-local-control-20220203-siwtg2ocyvcb7dcabu4wvtr43e-story.html

How is this not an example of "misinformation?"

A Quote: “With the omicron variant, kids are either going to get the vaccine or they're likely to get a serious condition of omicron,” says Emanuel. “I am confused about parents’ attitude. Five and above, seems like it's a no brainer.”

https://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/dr-zeke-emanuel-vaccinating-children-5-and-above-seems-like-it-s-a-no-brainer-132282949889?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma

dusty7 wrote:Right now the COVID numbers in Illinois are where they were the week before X-Mas.  Omicron is falling as fast as it rose.  If history repeats, we will start to see another rise in cases in 6-8 weeks, but will it be as high as the most recent surge?

More and more schools are holding meetings on going "mask optional" as many believe a JB's mask mandate for schools will be halted in the coming days.  Some schools are asking for guidance from the state on how to move from mandatory to optional.  In our area, a handful of districts are asking for "local control" with "guidance or benchmarks" set for by the states.  Basically, allow the school board to determine when masks should become mandatory (i.e. definition of significant spread etc.) and let decide what is best for their environment and the numbers at that time.  As Gotlieb stated, we need to increase the threshold of what we call significant spread.  Right now I think it is 10 cases among 10,000 people, which he says is way too low, the number should be increased.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-covid-schools-demand-exit-plans-local-control-20220203-siwtg2ocyvcb7dcabu4wvtr43e-story.html

I read that a couple of times and I'm not sure I understand. The schools are asking the State for guidance as they move to optional masks (that sounds great) but "basically allow the school board to determine when masks should become mandatory (i.e. define significant spread etc.)" seems like something other than asking the State for guidance. Are you describing two different approaches that schools might take?

Who on a school board is qualified to set a "significant spread threshold"? Gotlieb is a really smart guy. Schools should really listen if he gives any re-masking guidance.

Teetime wrote:

dusty7 wrote:Right now the COVID numbers in Illinois are where they were the week before X-Mas.  Omicron is falling as fast as it rose.  If history repeats, we will start to see another rise in cases in 6-8 weeks, but will it be as high as the most recent surge?

More and more schools are holding meetings on going "mask optional" as many believe a JB's mask mandate for schools will be halted in the coming days.  Some schools are asking for guidance from the state on how to move from mandatory to optional.  In our area, a handful of districts are asking for "local control" with "guidance or benchmarks" set for by the states.  Basically, allow the school board to determine when masks should become mandatory (i.e. definition of significant spread etc.) and let decide what is best for their environment and the numbers at that time.  As Gotlieb stated, we need to increase the threshold of what we call significant spread.  Right now I think it is 10 cases among 10,000 people, which he says is way too low, the number should be increased.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-covid-schools-demand-exit-plans-local-control-20220203-siwtg2ocyvcb7dcabu4wvtr43e-story.html

I read that a couple of times and I'm not sure I understand. The schools are asking the State for guidance as they move to optional masks (that sounds great) but "basically allow the school board to determine when masks should become mandatory (i.e. define significant spread etc.)" seems like something other than asking the State for guidance. Are you describing two different approaches that schools might take?

Who on a school board is qualified to set a "significant spread threshold"? Gotlieb is a really smart guy. Schools should really listen if he gives any re-masking guidance.

Yes, the schools are asking the state to give them guidance on how to go to mask optional. I was merely suggesting possible paths towards allowing schools to govern themselves with additional guidance from the state. For example, if cases are over a certain threshold (determined by the state) then they should be using masks. Ultimately, the school boards/administration make the call based upon the spread within the school which is based on guidance from the state.

interesting observations
https://twitter.com/OzraeliAvi/status/1490170079107219457

Well, this research shows that Ivermectin is effective in stopping serious illness from COVID.

Wonder why in the US this is not effective?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358386329_Strictly_regular_use_of_ivermectin_as_prophylaxis_for_COVID-19_leads_to_a_90_reduction_in_COVID-19_mortality_rate_in_a_dose-response_manner_definitive_results_of_a_prospective_observational_study_of_a

dusty7 wrote:Well, this research shows that Ivermectin is effective in stopping serious illness from COVID.  

Wonder why in the US this is not effective?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358386329_Strictly_regular_use_of_ivermectin_as_prophylaxis_for_COVID-19_leads_to_a_90_reduction_in_COVID-19_mortality_rate_in_a_dose-response_manner_definitive_results_of_a_prospective_observational_study_of_a

Follow the money. (Big pharma)

tps wrote:

dusty7 wrote:Well, this research shows that Ivermectin is effective in stopping serious illness from COVID.  

Wonder why in the US this is not effective?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358386329_Strictly_regular_use_of_ivermectin_as_prophylaxis_for_COVID-19_leads_to_a_90_reduction_in_COVID-19_mortality_rate_in_a_dose-response_manner_definitive_results_of_a_prospective_observational_study_of_a

Follow the money. (Big pharma)

Which is heavily fueled by both parties.