Covid 19 Part XXXV-956,720 ROI (5,952 deaths) 452,946 NI (3,002 deaths) (08/01) Read OP

The article states;

”He said that the experience from the UK is that patients die while waiting on long waiting lists and he did not think there was any reason why the situation would be any different here.”

So there it is in black and white - but you will still have some defending to the hilt all stages of Covid interventions and restrictions, because some have been completely convinced that the alternative would have been much worse.

The teacher unions were largely silent this week with the kids going back. No mention of masks, hepa filters, opening windows etc. Reckon their attention was elsewhere with the pay talks.

So tomorrow is the beginning of Autumn, we're down to 250 in hospital with Covid & 14 in ICU. No breakdown of vacination status. Only concerning stat I can find is that 30-40 deaths per week are still being attributed to Covid.

I do know the argument is that people in this cohort are most likely average age of 84 & suffering with 3 other comorbidities but it is arresting all the same, this is what living with Covid really looks like.

That being said I'm wondering what the next strategy will be to rising numbers over the winter, how will the public react this time around to suggestions of mask wearing or even low level restrictions.

Looks like, after all, those conspiracy theorists were right all along once more, goddammit. Antiviral drugs are popping up in the NIH website for the treatment of c19, including ivermectin .Of course recommended only for clinical trials, you'll never know that the truth might come out.

In the meantime the italian panel admitted that using anti-inflammatory like ibuprofen reduce hospitalization by 90%

Quite a change of tune from the recommendation to avoid it at all costs

Regulations and restrictions can change on a weekly basis, so no one can predict what different countries might do in the future.

The NIH website actively recommends against the use of Ivermectin:

The Panel’s recommendation is primarily informed by recently published randomized controlled trials.17-20 The primary outcomes of these trials showed that the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19 had no clinical benefit.

or this reason, and because several medications now have demonstrated clinical benefit for the treatment of COVID-19, the Panel recommends against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19, except in a clinical trial.

To suggest that shows that conspiracy theorists were right all along is complete nonsense.

Ibuprofen is totally separate issue, and nothing you have linked in any way supports that claim either re: proving them right.

While I get the anti-vax sentiment has grown in popularity I do believe much of it is blinkered to the fact that 95%+ of our population is already double jabbed with the most effacious vaccines available & many of that cohort are also single if not double boosted.

The FT stats guy, John Burn Murdoch, broke it down wonderfully in a Twitter post. Why was Hong Kong so effected by Omnicron ? Why is China still going into Lockdown. All your answers lie here.

Our success in beating Covid 19 is simply down to mRNA vaccines.

It's human nature to feel bravado for conquering a once in a lifetime pandemic, it's even forgiveable to look back on restrictions & experimental vaccines with distain, I get it.

What you cannot do is dismiss the effectiveness of these vaccines, yes you may question side effects & how they were granted approval but you cannot question if they worked.

Nine tweets into his thread John, with patronising contempt, tells us: "But that would be to miss the fact that, all else being equal, older people are at far *far* higher risk of death from Covid than younger". I'm out ;-)

I don't have to.

The scientists have told us so.

These treatments

do not prevent infection

do not prevent development of Covid, hospitalisation or death as a result

do not prevent spreading the virus

What then do you think they are effective at?

It would appear you have a very different definition of an 'effective vaccine' than I.

They do prevent all of these things.

Comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated, there will be more cases in the unvaccinated and significantly higher risk of severe covid.

How about you tell us what your definition of 'prevent' and 'effective' are.

In Sweden, 15000 fewer cases in vaccinated versus unvaccinated over the course of study period in 2021.

In terms of severe covid, for those vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine... the vaccine was from 90% to 64% effective at prevention versus unvaccinated over the duration of the study.

That translates into prevented infections, prevented transmissions, prevented hospitalisations and prevented deaths.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00089-7/fulltext

So you've dropped your misrepresentations about Ivermectin then?

Are you aware of the side effects of NSAIDs?

Are you aware ibuprofen was examined in the early stages of the pandemic as a treatment?

Are you aware of the trials and studies and use of dexamethasone as a covid treatment?

Do you actually have a point or are you just deploying 20-20 hindsight?