Covid vaccination status for CF members

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Some people (especially wealthy retired white guys with no skin in the employment game (sorry, couldn't resist)) have a visceral reaction -- to hell with schoolchildren, to hell with people's jobs, just save every last life from COVID death you can without regard to cost. You can't make policy that way.

Mosta the old rich white guyz here are whining about not being able to travel or cruise. And grousing about masks and vaccination. If they're not in the overblown or hoax camps.

But one HAS TO TRY. And isn't it in some sense 'fair' that a society needs to shoulder the higher costs of a late response, for failing to act more quickly and decisively, and sooner? The price of lessons not learned? As well, affluent societies can afford to put a higher value on life (which extends to helping vaccinate and support less affluent countries. Hint-hint, governments).

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Mosta the old rich white guyz here are whining about not being able to travel or cruise. And grousing about masks and vaccination. If they're not in the overblown or hoax camps.

But one HAS TO TRY. And isn't it in some sense 'fair' that a society needs to shoulder the higher costs of a late response, for failing to act more quickly and decisively, and sooner? The price of lessons not learned? As well, affluent societies can afford to put a higher value on life (which extends to helping vaccinate and support less affluent countries. Hint-hint, governments).

Yes, of course affluent societies put higher value on life. That's one of the reasons to become an affluent society.

But if we're not as a society willing to spend more than $200 000 to save someone from a cancer death, then it would be stupid to spend $9 million to save someone from a COVID death. Resources are limited everywhere -- you get most life-saving for the limited quantum of resource by spending consistently. And not per life in gross but quality life year.

As to the "fairness" of "society" "shouldering" "higher costs" -- who? Who is "society" here? School children? Minimum wage restaurant workers? This is a serious problem with all of this. In theory the state could just tax the bejeezsus out of all of us and make all those people whole -- but it doesn't. Not one country, not even the Nordic countries, has made it up to those demographics hardest hit. No, we also have to "shoulder" "higher costs" in terms of deaths. We can't just foist it all on schoolchildren and the working poor. We screwed up, so people have died and will keep dying. Although it's awfully easy to say "screwed up" in hindsight.

Lastly, the idea that we should spend more on COVID than on cancer just because we failed to act sooner doesn't make any sense at all. Who are we punishing? And extracting what resources as punishment? From whom? We have met the enemy, and they are us. We are where we are, and good policy is to do what is rational and does the most good for a given quantum of resource, based on where we are now. Looking back brings nothing, and cannot inform where we go now.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

By this standard EVERYONE is a liar.

Oh at last - Well done Mike, glad you have come to the realisation that the world is Full of People that Lie ranging from time to time when needed or pretty much all the time. But I suppose now you are going to try and tell me how honest and trust worthy our politicians are?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I didn't say that. I don't have any big quarrel with the figures. Unlike some people () I think they're done mostly in good faith and in most developed countries pretty competently.

Ah... Ok then. My mistake (thankfully ).

Originally Posted by Dockhead

My point was different -- just that the numbers should be kept in proper context. They are NOT in any way comparable to deaths in battle (notwithstanding frequent, and I would say, illiterate comparisons) and should not really be used to gauge the magnitude of the crisis, at least now without a box of salt. For that purpose, I think excess mortality gives a more accurate impression. And neither this nor that is precise.

I thought we were discussing the question of how Covid-19 deaths are assigned. You're making a larger, and probably more significant point here -- one I agree with. Excess deaths does attempt to measure the totality of the impact of this pandemic. This measure includes the mortality of the disease, along with the negative and positive impacts brought about by our responses.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

. . .I thought we were discussing the question of how Covid-19 deaths are assigned. You're making a larger, and probably more significant point here -- one I agree with. Excess deaths does attempt to measure the totality of the impact of this pandemic. This measure includes the mortality of the disease, along with the negative and positive impacts brought about by our responses.

We are in agreement here.


As to how deaths are assigned, I did comment on this:

Originally Posted by Dockhead

. . . And I think that a looser definition of a COVID death, than Primary Cause of Death, was chosen consciously and for good reasons -- to measure the dynamics of the pandemic, which is the primary purpose of this, you want a broad measure.. .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

But if we're not as a society willing to spend more than $200 000 to save someone from a cancer death, then it would be stupid to spend $9 million to save someone from a COVID death. Resources are limited everywhere -- you get most life-saving for the limited quantum of resource by spending consistently. And not per life in gross but quality life year.

So, ok...how much have we (over)spent per life (or life-year) saved from COVID?


It's fine to claim that we must be guided by the economics... until we come to quantifying all the different actions and their outcomes. As above - what have we spent (and will spend), and how many lives did it save?... so it would have been even harder than that to "budget" beforehand, with only extreme, untested control measures to use.

(stated another way: the best economic outcome would have been to act early and hard against COVID. Why didn't we? The economic viewpoint was apparently AWOL at that crucial early time.)

And, when you're in the middle of something like COVID, there is no nice linear ratio between money spent and lives saved. There's no shifting two or three neat lines on a graph to pick an intersection point that strikes an acceptable balance. The intersection point was usually set by shouting: epidemiologists pleading for action vs the economy crying "don't touch my stuff". Or through inaction till the magnitude of illness and death made it politically and morally imperative to act.

I have no doubt that history will do an audit, and offer some opinions similar to yours about whether we have chosen optimally. But how, when we're in it, is it possible to accurately price out a planned lockdown or other measure, estimate the lives that could be saved/lost, crunch the numbers, and end up with the economically prudent choice? We simply can't, and so we must also be guided by other considerations, like ethics.

[Narfi]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

By this standard EVERYONE is a liar.

It was my understanding that this is a fact that all intelligent people know and understand.

Is it not?

[Montanan]

California Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) office announced on Thursday that all Californians aged 16 and up will now be eligible to receive a coronavirus vaccine.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Narfi

It was my understanding that this is a fact that all intelligent people know and understand.

Is it not?

And we train kids in it from an early age..

[Montanan]

India said on Friday monthly production capacity of its homegrown COVID-19 shot will be raised to nearly 100 million doses by September, as it tries to overcome a shortage amid a record surge in cases.

"The current production capacity of indigenously developed Covaxin vaccine will be doubled by May-June 2021 and then increased nearly 6-7 fold by July-August 2021," the Ministry of Science & Technology said in a statement, pegging current capacity at 10 million doses.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...?ocid=msedgntp

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Of course the reality is far more nuanced that this, but by your logic, one person lies and this automatically means ALL people of this group lie.

By this standard EVERYONE is a liar.

Nope, it means, they've squandered our trust. There is a difference.

If someone always scrupulously tells the truth, eventually, they gain your trust and if they tell you something, you presume that they are at least trying to be truthful to the best of their knowledge.

But it only takes a few lies and their word loses it's strength. I don't recall if it was you or someone else who said we should believe because it's what the "medical professionals" have told us...well, we have evidence (even outright admissions) they have lied and have done so repeatedly, so their word is no longer good enough.

They aren't presumed to be lying but they also aren't presumed to be telling the truth anymore.

It will take a long time for the medical community to regain that trust....presuming they stop doing stupid things to reinforce it.

[Hoodsail]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Glad you brought this up. Let's take a look at this highly publicized high dose ivermectin study which still showed positive results (they say non statistically relevant). Also I will point out that this was a high dose study so speaks volumes for ivermectin's safety. (1500 μg/kg of body weight over 5 days vs the .4 mg/kg recommended by FLCCC). If I did the math correctly, that is 3,750 times the recommended dose! Full text version of study:https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2777389 FLCCC protocol:https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-c...ol-ENGLISH.pdf
The study was riddled with numerous protocol deviations and rife with conflicts of interest. It was also only one of over 50 studies to date showing positive effects. Compare that to Remdesivir which, at thousands of dollars per treatment is nonetheless being promoted over Ivermectin! https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4057
Here are links to more detailed analyses of that ivermectin study: https://trialsitenews.com/did-the-lo...placebo-doses/
https://osf.io/u7ewz/

Thumbs up, good afternoon. regarding the ivermectin study in JAMA 2021 please be aware of the following regarding your points. Yes there was a protocol error during the study (9/29-10/15) when a labeling error was discovered and all pts received ivermectin - none got placebo. These pts were excluded from final efficacy analysis as noted in the journal article so results were not be affected. Primary study goal; days to resolution of Covid19 symptoms were 10 days for ivermectin arm vs 12 days for placebo, with a p value of 0.53. And yes statistical significance is important to help us determine cause and effect. Convention has it that a p < 0.05 is significant and minimizes the risk that results are due to chance. Also symptom resolution at day 21 was 82% ivermectin vs 79% placebo. The dose is greater than recommended as an anti-parasitic (150-200mcg/kg x 1), but treating different disease states so not uncommon in drug therapy. Also, even at that dose, adverse effects (most common headache) were mild, so agree with you there. You can not assume that authors are rife with bias because they have historically received $ or research support from the pharmaceutical industry. What you might assume is they are some of the best & brightest authorities in their field, who have gained that reputation thru years of study/research so now pharma is beating a path to their door realizing that if they are authors on their study it will carry weight & legitimacy & and yes, influence far beyond their practice area. Finally, have you read those articles you linked?! I dont have the time to sift thru all of them but many are small, not randomized or placebo controlled, or peer-reviewed. Be safe

[Montanan]

A real-world study of millions of Chileans who had received the Chinese-developed CoronaVac vaccine has found it 67% effective against symptoms and 80% against death from COVID-19. CoronaVac has been widely used across the world, though not in the United States or Europe.

The study covered 10.5 million people, including 2.5 million who had received both doses of the vaccine and 1.5 million who had received a single dose between Feb. 2 and April 1. It counted cases starting 14 days after application of the second dose of the vaccine, which in Chile was given 28 days after the first. The vaccine reduced hospitalizations by 85%, intensive care visits by 89% and deaths by 80%.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/med...?ocid=msedgntp

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Hoodsail

Thumbs up, good afternoon. regarding the ivermectin study in JAMA 2021 please be aware of the following regarding your points. Yes there was a protocol error during the study (9/29-10/15) when a labeling error was discovered and all pts received ivermectin - none got placebo. These pts were excluded from final efficacy analysis as noted in the journal article so results were not be affected. Primary study goal; days to resolution of Covid19 symptoms were 10 days for ivermectin arm vs 12 days for placebo, with a p value of 0.53. And yes statistical significance is important to help us determine cause and effect. Convention has it that a p < 0.05 is significant and minimizes the risk that results are due to chance. Also symptom resolution at day 21 was 82% ivermectin vs 79% placebo. The dose is greater than recommended as an anti-parasitic (150-200mcg/kg x 1), but treating different disease states so not uncommon in drug therapy. Also, even at that dose, adverse effects (most common headache) were mild, so agree with you there. You can not assume that authors are rife with bias because they have historically received $ or research support from the pharmaceutical industry. What you might assume is they are some of the best & brightest authorities in their field, who have gained that reputation thru years of study/research so now pharma is beating a path to their door realizing that if they are authors on their study it will carry weight & legitimacy & and yes, influence far beyond their practice area. Finally, have you read those articles you linked?! I dont have the time to sift thru all of them but many are small, not randomized or placebo controlled, or peer-reviewed. Be safe

Hoodsail, thanks for the response. Anyone else interested should also take a closer look.
It is the fact that this particular study is so widely quoted (as the reason not to treat with ivermectin), yet so riddled with flaws that is cause for concern. Without reading the study, one would think it had produced negative results. There are papers and letters critiquing this study, it's protocol, and execution better than I can:
https://osf.io/u7ewz/
https://medicalupdateonline.com/2021...omise-results/

Open Letter by U.S. Doctors: JAMA Ivermectin Study Is Fatally Flawed https://jamaletter.com/

One particularly valid point is the likelihood that many of the trial participants were already taking ivermectin due to it's widespread promotion and over the counter availability at the trial location during the same time period.https://translate.google.com/transla...vid-19/1905212
If it is true that the widespread adoption of ivermectin for early treatment and preventative could have curbed this pandemic early on then what are the implications to big pharma supported media, NGOs, western world supported governments, and the existence of so many (repurposed?) bio warfare laboratories (not to mention funding gain of function research on coronaviruses)? In some circles they are saying that these new gene therapy covid vaccines were not made for the virus but it was that THE VIRUS WAS MADE FOR THE VACCINES.
Of course that idea will be considered ludicrous by most on this (mostly rich retired white guy boating forum) but the point was just brought up that we are being lied to so I will leave it there.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Nope, it means, they've squandered our trust. There is a difference.

If someone always scrupulously tells the truth, eventually, they gain your trust and if they tell you something, you presume that they are at least trying to be truthful to the best of their knowledge.

So I'm curious, which profession or group of people pass your purity test?

I asked for actual evidence as to why we should doubt the assessment of medical professionals. You tell me because Fauci lied, we can't trust any of them. So by your standard, one lie from one member of a group taints the whole group.

This is both a sad, and demonstrably false perspective. And no, most people don't lie most of the time. There is ample human psychological and sociological research on this topic that shows this fact.

Oh right ... you folks don't trust scientists.