COVID Developments and News

[wbradley]

MuseChaser, I can say that at least my country disagrees with your view. Nobody in the health community is telling anyone the risk is low, don't feel pressured to get immunized. They are providing current data which is never static. For example, you cannot use data for 2020 to accurately assess 2021. I don't wish to belabour the issue and reasons, you are an intelligent guy you know already. , Most people including the government want you to be vaccinated so the overall goal can be achieved at least until more boosters are necessary. We will not drop our guard until a certain level of safety is reached according to experts.
Seeing as you were or are a teacher, did u work for the govt. or a private school? Why do I sense that you find any form of socialism repulsive? McCarthy era holdover? lol
Your nation pays f-all taxes compared to most countries (with some exceptions), pour tons into military, and tried for years and years to segregate health care based on income. Of course part of the tax savings pays for health insurance but still you net out more overall. But, any trace of "socialism" and the alarm start sounding. lol I probably wouldn't chat it up with you if you were at a 5 star resort when I was if I overheard your musings.

[cjd]

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

TheHowever, at what point is it appropriate for one to tell someone ELSE what to do, thereby limiting that other person's ability to live their life as THEY wish?

I feel this has been asked and answered before.
As soon as your decision is no longer isolated to yourself. Staying home with no interaction? No real problem. Going to the store, interacting with others, and otherwise acting as if no one is at risk? Your decision now effects others, and it is appropriate to ask you to follow certain procedures.


C

[Capt Spaulding]

@ WB All nations have national myths on which they rely to maintain the legitimacy of extant power structures. In the US one of the most powerful myths is the virtue of the rugged individualist. The hardy soul who, by the sweat of HIS brow, carves a place for himself from a hostile natural environment. Thus, he is solely entitled to all that he creates and is entitled to do exactly what he wishes (unless that involves reproductive decisions or sexual/gender indentation). Some small limits are accepted, but these are comparatively few.

Thus, when confronted with a situation in which a threat exists to the larger community our first reaction is to think of ourselves - what we want - what we are willing to sacrifice for the common good. The answer is often, not very much,

It is the same myth you see behind attempts to privatize public goods. Education, health care, highways (in some places), parks and other public spaces. The list can grow quite long. We have a strong aversion to giving up what we think of as OURS for the benefit of ALL.

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

The following quote was taken from a study posted on the NIH website here...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...1/#!po=90.6250

That was published over a year ago.

[weederr33]

Originally Posted by Ultramaroon

That was published over a year ago.

That's ok. Someone the other day at work (this same noob trainer I mentioned on another thread) used an example from 2001 to quote why vaccines are ineffective for COVID. Citing that some vaccines are imperfect and therefore do not do the job they're intended. And since the COVID vaccines were 'rushed' they are imperfect and basically ineffective.

[wbradley]

Ayn Rand was off her rocker, except in the world of fiction. Nothing wrong with being ambitious, but not at the cost of harming others.

Funny thing though, I love all kinds of jazz music and have at least the tip of the iceberg of an eclectic LP collection, so in reality MuseChaser and I might get along great except we won't get to jam together in Cuba.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by MuseChaser

The following quote was taken from a study posted on the NIH website here...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...1/#!po=90.6250

Here is part of the summary of the study....

"People <65 years old had 30- to 100-fold lower risk of COVID-19 death than those ≥65 years old in 11 European countries and Canada, 16- to 52-fold lower risk in US locations, and less than 10-fold in India and Mexico. The absolute risk of COVID-19 death as of June 17, 2020 for people <65 years old in high-income countries ranged from 10 (Germany) to 349 per million (New Jersey) and it was 5 per million in India and 96 per million in Mexico. The absolute risk of COVID-19 death for people ≥80 years old ranged from 0.6 (Florida) to 17.5 per thousand (Connecticut). The COVID-19 mortality rate in people <65 years old during the period of fatalities from the epidemic was equivalent to the mortality rate from driving between 4 and 82 miles per day for 13 countries and 5 states, and was higher (equivalent to the mortality rate from driving 106–483 miles per day) for 8 other states and the UK. People <65 years old without underlying predisposing conditions accounted for only 0.7–3.6% of all COVID-19 deaths in France, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Georgia, and New York City and 17.7% in Mexico."

Note in particular the comparison between the risks of dying from Covid and driving certain milleages per day. This study was meant to assess the risk of Covid to those in above and below 65 age groups with no underlying health problems. The study clearly shows that, to healthy people, Covid is simply not a significant risk to one's life or well-being.

The oft-used phrase, "Covid survivor," makes it sound as if that person is unusually lucky, when in reality surviving Covid is, for ALMOST all people, an un-noteworthy expected outcome. The "deadly Covid virus" can certainly be deadly, and to the elderly and those already burdened with difficult health situations, it is dangerous. No one disputes that, but Covid is not unusual in being dangerous to those people. The Covid virus is almost always NOT deadly to healthy individuals under 65....and usually not even noticeable.

Given previous exchanges with the few extremely vocal and frequent contributors to these threads, I've tried to simply just avoid these threads. The personal attacks, suppositions, and inaccurate protrayals of my statements present and past were uncalled for. However, I do understand WHY these folks feel so strongly; some work in hospital settings, where they see, on a constant dailly basis, the suffering and destruction Covid can wreak upon individuals. Surrounded by that suffering, one can't help but be affected and start to look at that microcosm as a larger reality, but it isn't. I understand the overwhelming feelings of compassion, sadness, and empathy... I share them. In a hospital or other health care facility, you are surround by those afflicted, and only those afflicted, and those serving the afflicted support each other as they do wonderful work and shoulder more risk than those of us who are not surrounded by sick people every day. Thank you.

If one feels the risks of contracting Covid are too great personally and wishes to protect themselves, one can do all of things recommended; get vaccinated, mask up, social distance, avoid gatherings of more than several people, stay home, etc... all of the things we all know about. However, at what point is it appropriate for one to tell someone ELSE what to do, thereby limiting that other person's ability to live their life as THEY wish?

On a much less severe scale, it's almost like the old arguments regarding vulgarity in public, or smoking in public areas. I hate both of those things, yet I don't have the right to require that others refrain from vulgarity so that I may go out in public. We did, at least in NYS, pretty much eradicate public smoking, and I admit I'm glad, but I don't agree with it. It makes no sense to me why virtually all people, communities, counties, states, and nations should be made to ALL suffer such economic, social, and emotional hardships, when we could simply protect those that need protecting. It's like reverse socialism..... instead of seeking income equity, we're seeking suffering equity. I recognize that is WAY overly simplistic and "socialism" isn't exactly the right word, but I'm hoping the gist of the comparison is clear.

In closing, please read the study I linked, especially if you are wrestling with constant fear of Covid. You may find at least a bit of solace there. Also, please note that I DO empathize with those of you who do not share my views of this; I understand personally although i won't go into how on a public internet forum. It is not my place to tell others how they should think and act. Whose place that IS is a personal search for each of us. If a human believes it is theirs, that human is sadly mistaken.

Like the news article I just posted, 4 out of 6 people who died in the church were under 35. It mentions a 24 year old dying who could have had underlining medical conditions, but the article says everyone who died seemed healthy before contracting the virus. I doubt the church would see just as many deaths in two weeks from driving related accidents. Maybe it would.

Consider this: Is your study comparing the other variants to the delta variant? Is it possible the delta variant could be deadlier to younger people than other variants? Is it possible for this virus to evolve more deadly?

The way viruses successfully spread is when they find new hosts. The variants that can't find new hosts just fade out, and the ones that do, proliferate.

During the Spanish Flu, that virus killed mostly 18-30 year olds, then 30-45 years olds, then 65+ and 45-65 year olds did the best. The seasonal flu kills mostly 80+ year olds. Like the Spanish Flu, there is nothing preventing COVID from evolving to be severe in younger people. It already has the capacity to kill young, healthy people. All it needs is enough hosts and enough time to evolve. The world is largely providing that opportunity, partially through shear numbers, partially from economics and logistics of vaccinating the world, and finally, because there are many who are resistant to vaccinations.

-------------------------

I'm for three options. One, society moves to limit unvaccinated people in social circles. Businesses require vaccines for anyone who works in a social environment. If someone works at a distance then they don't need vaccinations. Bars, movies, grocery stores, etc institute a policy of no shirt, no shoes, no vaccine, no service. Public spaces and gatherings require vaccines. If there isn't a large and swift public and private movement to self-regulate then the government should move to stage two. This is where they mandate the above. Hermits can live in their homes, unvaccinated. If compliance is a problem then I am for stage three: mandatory vaccinations. Go door to door or issue summons like jury duty.

Like taxes, a military draft or jury duty, citizens of societies agree to certain duties without exception. In the case of a foreign invasion, the government has within its power to institute a draft to protect the country and its citizens. Over six hundred thousand citizens have died in over a year with great efforts to limit the number of deaths, and yet, over six hundred thousand citizens have died. The unvaccinated represent a continued risk to potentially hundreds of thousands of Americans, if not millions, from this foreign invader--COVID. As hosts and as super spreaders, they have the capacity to allow this virus to evolve into something that could circumvent the vaccines or could be more deadly to younger and healthier populations.

"It makes no sense to me why virtually all people, communities, counties, states, and nations should be made to ALL suffer such economic, social, and emotional hardships, when we could simply protect those that need protecting..." by having everyone get a vaccine because everyone needs to be protected in order to protect everyone. Those of us who wear masks and are vaccinated are asking the same question of those who continue to cause hardship to society by not participating in the effort to combat this enemy. We are fighting a war, and some people are sitting on the bench. When we can't get into a hospital for six hours because they are impacted, we ask the same question. When we can't schedule a hip replacement because elective surgeries are cancelled, we ask the same question. When schools and businesses are closed, we ask the same question. ETC... We all want life to go back to normal. Unfortunately, when we are in the midst of war, having your head in the sand isn't going to end the war. We need all hands on deck. I don't understand how this is confusing to people. This virus is not just going to go away on its own. It is a fire that can get worse if we give it fuel, and that is what we are doing.

Just to comment on smoking. Second hand smoke leads to asthmas, COPD, heart disease and early death. Eradicating it from public spaces was a very good thing. You seem to recognize that, while holding to some libertarian philosophy that to limit someone's ability to do what they want is bad, which is confusing. It sounds like you might be a fundamentalist or absolutist to such a philosophy that you struggle with the obvious exceptions because they just feel wrong to you. Obviously, you would be against someone walking in a public space and spraying a can of paint in the air, misting everyone around them, or worse, someone shooting a gun in the air in public spaces. You recognize the obvious harm and infringement on the liberties of others in these examples, but smoking isn't so obvious, so it just feels off that it was outlawed, even if you understand and appreciate that it was, from a personal perspective. Similarly, mandating a vaccine seems off to you based on your concept of liberty, yet it is probably because you simply struggle to see the adverse ramifications not getting vaccinated has on the society from how it hurts the economy, from how hurts the lives of others, from how it causes deaths, etc. If you could see unquestionably that not getting vaccinated, taking that personal liberty, is at the high expense of other people's liberties then this wouldn't be such a challenge. It would be like spraying a can of paint in the air or shooting a gun willy nilly.

[Atmo]

July 15, 2021. FTA:

In this cohort study of US veterans hospitalized with COVID-19, remdesivir treatment was not associated with improved survival but was associated with longer hospital stays. Routine use of remdesivir may be associated with increased use of hospital beds while not being associated with improvements in survival.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...tm_term=071521

Intentionally overlooking, limiting, censoring or banning any suggestions of possibly helpful, inexpensive alternative off-label remedies is worth considering instead of waiting for the next Big Pharma/CDC directive.

[Lantanafrs2]

Remdesivir vs hydroxychloroquine was another political shitshow.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Atmo

July 15, 2021. FTA:

In this cohort study of US veterans hospitalized with COVID-19, remdesivir treatment was not associated with improved survival but was associated with longer hospital stays. Routine use of remdesivir may be associated with increased use of hospital beds while not being associated with improvements in survival.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...tm_term=071521

Intentionally overlooking, limiting, censoring or banning any suggestions of possibly helpful, inexpensive alternative off-label remedies is worth considering instead of waiting for the next Big Pharma/CDC directive.

I heard the vaccine is 99% effective at preventing deaths and avoiding hospital stays. It is also inexpensive, as it is currently free. It is only a prophylactic though, as it isn't effective for those currently infected, so everyone should get the vaccine, as soon as possible.

Again, the best prophylactic is the vaccine. Ivermectin and hydroxycholorquine and others do not stand up to evidence as good prophylactic medications or as treatments. What other treatments are on the table?

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-o...-19-drug-69049

COVID convalescent plasma (CCP) is effective if delivered early enough, so education is probably one of the best tools someone could have who is infected. People should monitor their heart rate, temperature, blood pressure and most importantly, their oxygen saturation. If their heart rate is consistently greater than 100 at rest, if their temperature is not controlled with Tylenol, if their blood pressure starts to drop, if their O2 sat is less than 92%, and if these signs are accompanied by symptoms of shortness of breath, chest pain, dizziness or altered level of consciousness then they need to seek medical care immediately. Most people wait past this point, or they go to the emergency room before this point when their vitals are fine. Supportive therapy like oxygen, Tylenol, biPAP, breathing treatments, pressers for hypotension, anti-arrhythmics for ectopic rhythms, prophylactic antibiotics, etc will be the typical ER treatments. At the ICU level, they might use CCP, perhaps some type of immunosuppressant if someone's immune system is destroying their own tissues, other supportive medications, prophylactic antibiotics, experimental antivirals, ECMO, etc.

It is worth mentioning that for most people who are considering these types of alternative or controversial treatments, they are also ones who are avoiding the vaccine. Their plan seems to be to treat themselves with unsupported medications, while avoiding the vaccine, which is well supported. I find this odd and logically inconsistent. Unfortunately, some people are not taking these "safe" medications under the supervision of a doctor or pharmacist. Medications can have nasty interactions and side effects. Some people need to be excluded from taking these medications, which is why a proper prescription and supervision are necessary. This is a perfect example of the problem, and what is worse, her parents are a nurse and PA and should have known the risks considering her pre-existing conditions:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...me/5389870002/

I think it is fine exploring treatments, but promoting them is a different thing, especially as alternatives to the vaccines that are so robust.

[reni]

Texas hospitals putting up tents to deal with covid overflow
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/09/u...rnd/index.html

99.5% of their covid deaths are unvaccinated
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07...inated-deaths/

[wbradley]

Remdesivir is a true anti-viral drug that is in short supply and might have nothing whatsoever to do with Covid19. But the other two aforementioned drugs, one for prophylaxis from malaria and the other for treating a case of the crabs lol have nothing to do with Covid19 for sure, as it has been established early in the pandemic so why bring them up? The real question is Clorox or Old Dutch?
You can prevent catching the virus or not and possibly struggle to prevent a cytokine storm. Pick your fight. Prevention or life and death.

[Atmo]

Just as COVID is a dynamic condition changing into different variants, so too are treatments. I don't see treatment as either/or, but which is most effective depending on the stage of illness. Keeping an open mind about treatments is becoming more important now that vaccines in many parts of the world aren't working as expected. It could lead to progress like:

COVID: 90% of patients treated with new Israeli drug discharged in 5 days

https://www.jpost.com/health-science...-5-days-675961

Maybe Phase III will show it to be a dud but it's short sighted to pull out the Ban Hammer for alternative treatments.

[Irace86.2.0]

That sounds promising. Cytokine storm progression is very exponential, so it can go from mild to full blown damage causing irreparable pulmonary fibrosis very quickly. In fact, this was the chief cause of death in patients with robust immune systems like the youth for the Spanish Flu, and why most deaths were in tge 18-30 category. There are documented accounts of people getting on buses and trains seemingly normal looking and within thirty to forty-five minutes falling over dead and gasping for air as if drowning with subsequently autopsies showing massive edema and tissue damage.

Cytokine storm is typically less common in geriatrics and late middle-aged adults, and effectively catching it typically requires interventions in a Goldilocks zone where someone is bad enough to be hospitalized, but hasn’t reached permanent damage yet. Nevertheless, this preliminary study looks to be promising, so it will be nice to see what comes of a double-blind placebo controlled study that is planned next.

We had a COVID positive unvaccinated girl who came into the ER who was 32 years old on 15 lpm non-rebreather sating in the mid 80’s, tachy and hypotensive. She went to the ICU after hours of treatments and biPAP with a heart rate in the 130’s, hypotensive around 80’s over 50’s with pressers, and only getting up to the low 90’s on biPAP. Most likely she had cytokine storm induced pulmonary fibrosis. I don’t know if she died. I don’t know how long she was symptomatic or how severe before she came in. I have to think this medication might make a difference, but in all likelihood it is too late.

Here is a caveat worth considering: the more congested the hospital system gets, the far less likely hospitals will keep mildly symptomatic patients. They will be too full to take these patients and will focus on admitting more serious patients based on vital signs. Then the following can happen with rapid progression (read below). Again unfortunately, a healthcare system that is impacted doesn’t have the bandwidth to admit mild or borderline cases, so collateral deaths can occur, especially if patients deteriorate rapidly and/or don’t seek care at the perfect Goldilocks moment. Developing a treatment like this is great, but only if the hospitals have the capacity to use it in a timely way.

Anecdotal cases:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news4sa...er-of-covid-19
https://www.beckershospitalreview.co...mily-says.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbs...-away-from-er/

Statistics on deaths and readmissions after discharge:
https://www.contagionlive.com/view/d...mitted-60-days
https://labblog.uofmhealth.org/round...id-19-patients