Question on Ivermectin
Covid vaccines are less popular than monoclonal antibodies in some places. Here's why.
Vaccines code as "liberal" to many on the far right while monoclonal antibodies treatment does not.
The cost is about a hundred times that of a vaccine, which puts a much greater financial burden on the federal government, which is footing the bill, and they’re far more difficult to administer. An infusion takes about 90 minutes when one factors in time for monitoring afterward, which means people requesting them take up sustained staff attention and significant space in already crowded and overburdened hospitals. And medical experts have cautioned that monoclonal antibodies can’t substitute for the vaccines because they’re not as durable and because they’re effective for only a certain window of time after symptoms appear.
RobertRoe said:
I heard on the news earlier this week that people are arguing and drinking strong antiseptics such as betadine as another bogus covid preventative. I think betadine is poisonous to drink.
It's really good mixed with tequila and lime. In fact, I suspect that tequila alone should vanquish Covid.
STANV said:
You are all nuts. There is only one remedy:
vitameatavegamin
it's so tasty too
God Bless Them. Drink up I say. If one is stupid enough to drink that, it's just one less idiot on the planet to deal with.
Drink away!!!!!!
sbenois said:
God Bless Them. Drink up I say. If one is stupid enough to drink that, it's just one less idiot on the planet to deal with.
Drink away!!!!!!
This condescending idiocy is really what is tearing this nation apart. You are a manifestation of the arrogance and the ignorance that literally may be the biggest problem in the world today.
Anyway, We know a few things at this point in the pandemic.
First, we know the vaccines are not very effective at preventing cases nor are they effective at preventing transmission. This has manifested itself in a number of ways. Israel, UK, etc have had higher peaks with the vast majority of their citizens vaccinated. This just does not happen if the vaccines are effective at preventing spread. In addition, you saw the change of tone from people like Anthony Fauci and Rachel Wallensky. It went from, once we get to a specific threshold we will never see peaks like we saw last year. That changed to mask up even if vaccinated.
Second, the virus spreads in regional waves. There does not seem to be very good correlation to mask mandates, school closures, vaccination, etc. The virus gonna virus.
Third, considering the above, we will never get to zero covid with these vaccines. Frankly, we are not likely to ever get to zero covid.
What does this mean? This means that getting a vaccine is a personal health decision. You may think that a person should get vaccinated for their own health, but there is no moral societal argument to be made. I will take this a step further and say that people should be free to choose how to treat themselves for this and other diseases. Again, you may not agree with some people's choices, but those are personal medical decisions. If someone chooses to take ivermectin, Hydrochloroquine, vitamin D, etc. That is their choice. All of this politicization of the treatments is causing more harm than good.
terp said:
sbenois said:
God Bless Them. Drink up I say. If one is stupid enough to drink that, it's just one less idiot on the planet to deal with.
Drink away!!!!!!
This condescending idiocy is really what is tearing this nation apart. You are a manifestation of the arrogance and the ignorance that literally may be the biggest problem in the world today.
Anyway, We know a few things at this point in the pandemic.
First, we know the vaccines are not very effective at preventing cases nor are they effective at preventing transmission. This has manifested itself in a number of ways. Israel, UK, etc have had higher peaks with the vast majority of their citizens vaccinated. This just does not happen if the vaccines are effective at preventing spread. In addition, you saw the change of tone from people like Anthony Fauci and Rachel Wallensky. It went from, once we get to a specific threshold we will never see peaks like we saw last year. That changed to mask up even if vaccinated.
Second, the virus spreads in regional waves. There does not seem to be very good correlation to mask mandates, school closures, vaccination, etc. The virus gonna virus.
Third, considering the above, we will never get to zero covid with these vaccines. Frankly, we are not likely to ever get to zero covid.
What does this mean? This means that getting a vaccine is a personal health decision. You may think that a person should get vaccinated for their own health, but there is no moral societal argument to be made. I will take this a step further and say that people should be free to choose how to treat themselves for this and other diseases. Again, you may not agree with some people's choices, but those are personal medical decisions. If someone chooses to take ivermectin, Hydrochloroquine, vitamin D, etc. That is their choice. All of this politicization of the treatments is causing more harm than good.
pretty much everything you say is wrong.
pretty much.
What's tearing us apart are people who are turning avoiding the vax into a political decision.
People who don't get vaccinated and then get covid are far more likely to be hospitalized. In some parts of the country, that's led to hospitals running out of capacity, which is forcing rationing of care and non-covid patients unable to get care. People have even died as a result. So I'm afraid that no, someone choosing to take ivermectin or hydroxychlorquine instead of getting vaccinated is not merely making a personal decision, they're making a decision that negatively impacts many other people as well.
drummerboy said:
pretty much everything you say is wrong.
pretty much.
What's tearing us apart are people who are turning avoiding the vax into a political decision.
Um, which part was right?
terp said:
sbenois said:
God Bless Them. Drink up I say. If one is stupid enough to drink that, it's just one less idiot on the planet to deal with.
Drink away!!!!!!
This condescending idiocy is really what is tearing this nation apart. You are a manifestation of the arrogance and the ignorance that literally may be the biggest problem in the world today.
Anyway, We know a few things at this point in the pandemic.
First, we know the vaccines are not very effective at preventing cases nor are they effective at preventing transmission. This has manifested itself in a number of ways. Israel, UK, etc have had higher peaks with the vast majority of their citizens vaccinated. This just does not happen if the vaccines are effective at preventing spread. In addition, you saw the change of tone from people like Anthony Fauci and Rachel Wallensky. It went from, once we get to a specific threshold we will never see peaks like we saw last year. That changed to mask up even if vaccinated.
Second, the virus spreads in regional waves. There does not seem to be very good correlation to mask mandates, school closures, vaccination, etc. The virus gonna virus.
Third, considering the above, we will never get to zero covid with these vaccines. Frankly, we are not likely to ever get to zero covid.
What does this mean? This means that getting a vaccine is a personal health decision. You may think that a person should get vaccinated for their own health, but there is no moral societal argument to be made. I will take this a step further and say that people should be free to choose how to treat themselves for this and other diseases. Again, you may not agree with some people's choices, but those are personal medical decisions. If someone chooses to take ivermectin, Hydrochloroquine, vitamin D, etc. That is their choice. All of this politicization of the treatments is causing more harm than good.
**** off.
terp said:
Israel, UK, etc have had higher peaks with the vast majority of their citizens vaccinated. This just does not happen if the vaccines are effective at preventing spread.
If we're looking only at total cases, Israel's peak in the vaccination era is higher than in the pre-vaccine era, but for the UK it's peak in the vaccine era is lower. So if we're being generous, your statement is only half true.
Another point you're glossing over is what kind of infection is spreading in the vaccine vs pre-vaccine era. In highly vaccinated regions, infections are far less serious. That's clear when looking at deaths (chart) and hospitalizations (chart). The difference in hospitalizations is dramatic in the UK, less so in Israel. The difference in deaths in dramatic in both countries.
The decrease in hospitalizations is especially important. As I noted in my previous post, that has implications not just for covid patients, but for non-covid patients as well (keeping hospitalizations down was the goal of the "bending the curve" mantra at the start of the pandemic, as you may recall).
terp said:
In addition, you saw the change of tone from people like Anthony Fauci and Rachel Wallensky. It went from, once we get to a specific threshold we will never see peaks like we saw last year. That changed to mask up even if vaccinated.
It would have been strange for people like Dr. Fauci not to revise their views faced with the arrival of a much more contagious variant, no? When conditions change, shouldn't people take that change into account? To insist otherwise would be a foolish consistency, would it not?
Steve said:
Um, which part was right?
The part that said arrogant ignorance is a problem.
Steve said:
drummerboy said:
pretty much everything you say is wrong.
pretty much.
What's tearing us apart are people who are turning avoiding the vax into a political decision.
Um, which part was right?
I was being generous.
terp - please provide the data that shows vaccinated people are dying at a similar rate than non-vaccinated people.
It's all libertarian views IMO - just weird at this point in time. Hospitals are overwhelmed and have approached peak capacity due to unvaccinated people. Do you not see this as an issue?
PVW said:
If we're looking only at total cases, Israel's peak in the vaccination era is higher than in the pre-vaccine era, but for the UK it's peak in the vaccine era is lower. So if we're being generous, your statement is only half true.
Another point you're glossing over is what kind of infection is spreading in the vaccine vs pre-vaccine era. In highly vaccinated regions, infections are far less serious. That's clear when looking at deaths (chart) and hospitalizations (chart). The difference in hospitalizations is dramatic in the UK, less so in Israel. The difference in deaths in dramatic in both countries.
The decrease in hospitalizations is especially important. As I noted in my previous post, that has implications not just for covid patients, but for non-covid patients as well (keeping hospitalizations down was the goal of the "bending the curve" mantra at the start of the pandemic, as you may recall).
another variable that isn't being considered is that countries and states with high vaccination rates also opened up almost all businesses, and relaxed mask and social distancing requirements. Here in NJ there are undoubtedly lots of unvaccinated people going about their business as if it was pre-pandemic. And yet our latest increase in cases is the same rate it was pre-Thanksgiving last year, when much stricter requirements were in place.
it flies in the face of our observed reality to say that vaccinations aren't slowing the spread of infection. And let's also recall that no public health officials have ever said the vaccines are 100% effective. The best case scenario for any of the vaccines was going to be 95%. In other words 5% of vaccinated people are not going to be immune from the virus.
I can't believe we're still having this argument.
Steve said:
drummerboy said:
pretty much everything you say is wrong.
pretty much.
What's tearing us apart are people who are turning avoiding the vax into a political decision.
Um, which part was right?
that people who take dumb quack remedies are also snowflakes who can't take it when people who make smart choices call their dumb choices dumb.
ml1 said:
another variable that isn't being considered is that countries and states with high vaccination rates also opened up almost all businesses, and relaxed mask and social distancing requirements. Here in NJ there are undoubtedly lots of unvaccinated people going about their business as if it was pre-pandemic. And yet our latest increase in cases is the same rate it was pre-Thanksgiving last year, when much stricter requirements were in place.
it flies in the face of our observed reality to say that vaccinations aren't slowing the spread of infection. And let's also recall that no public health officials have ever said the vaccines are 100% effective. The best case scenario for any of the vaccines was going to be 95%. In other words 5% of vaccinated people are not going to be immune from the virus.
I can't believe we're still having this argument.
One striking observation of the data is how in places with low vaccination rates, deaths still track case loads, but in places with high rates, that connection has been broken.
Looking at the NYT graphs, look at NJ, NY, or MA for instance -- the case count is the first graph, and you can see the delta-driven surge this summer. Beneath that, though, there's also graphs for hospitalizations and deaths, which show almost no such corresponding surge.
Compare to, say ID, AR, or MS, where the surge in cases has a corresponding surge in hospitalizations and deaths.
PVW said:
ml1 said:
another variable that isn't being considered is that countries and states with high vaccination rates also opened up almost all businesses, and relaxed mask and social distancing requirements. Here in NJ there are undoubtedly lots of unvaccinated people going about their business as if it was pre-pandemic. And yet our latest increase in cases is the same rate it was pre-Thanksgiving last year, when much stricter requirements were in place.
it flies in the face of our observed reality to say that vaccinations aren't slowing the spread of infection. And let's also recall that no public health officials have ever said the vaccines are 100% effective. The best case scenario for any of the vaccines was going to be 95%. In other words 5% of vaccinated people are not going to be immune from the virus.
I can't believe we're still having this argument.
One striking observation of the data is how in places with low vaccination rates, deaths still track case loads, but in places with high rates, that connection has been broken.
Looking at the NYT graphs, look at NJ, NY, or MA for instance -- the case count is the first graph, and you can see the delta-driven surge this summer. Beneath that, though, there's also graphs for hospitalizations and deaths, which show almost no such corresponding surge.
Compare to, say ID, AR, or MS, where the surge in cases has a corresponding surge in hospitalizations and deaths.
another variable is that vaccinated and unvaccinated people tend to live in clusters. Even within a state like NJ with a relatively high vaccination rate, there is considerable variation from county to county (from a low of 41% of all residents fully vaccinated in Cumberland to 68% in Morris). And generally, the infection rate by county tracks with the county's vaccination rate. The exceptions have been Cape May and Monmouth counties which have relatively high vaccination rate but are near the top of the list for infection rate in NJ. But those are counties that host a lot of tourists from all over the country during the summer, so vaccination rate among people who live in those counties during the summer may not track with the rate among year-round residents.
it's pretty crazy there are still people arguing that vaccinations aren't driving down the number of infections. And another straw man is to argue that we'll never get to zero infections. No one credible has ever said we would. Even diseases like measles that have been effectively eliminated still occasionally surface in outbreaks. But we've got enough people vaccinated that we live with the very small risk of measles. If we had the same vaccination rate for COVID that we have for measles, we'd almost assuredly be at a point in which the disease still appears occasionally, but we live with it as an acceptable risk. Which is why vaccination isn't simply a personal health choice.
I've tested positive for Lyme Disease before. If a new vaccine for Lyme Disease comes out, depending on cost, I'll probably take it as the treatment for it was pretty harsh. But that doesn't mean I won't still wear long pants in the woods or that I will suddenly go diving into a box of ticks.
ml1 said:
another variable is that vaccinated and unvaccinated people tend to live in clusters. Even within a state like NJ with a relatively high vaccination rate, there is considerable variation from county to county (from a low of 41% of all residents fully vaccinated in Cumberland to 68% in Morris). And generally, the infection rate by county tracks with the county's vaccination rate. The exceptions have been Cape May and Monmouth counties which have relatively high vaccination rate but are near the top of the list for infection rate in NJ. But those are counties that host a lot of tourists from all over the country during the summer, so vaccination rate among people who live in those counties during the summer may not track with the rate among year-round residents.
Yeah, I wish it were possible to get those graphs at a county level. For instance, Oregon shows a surge in hospitalizations and deaths, and their vaccination rate is 60%. From poking around on those graphs, that seems just below the vaccination rate you see the decoupling of case and death rates. But Oregon is a large state with a stark urban/rural and political divide; I'd be very curious to see graphs for Multnomah County (where Portland is) vs, say one of the eastern desert counties.
PVW said:
ml1 said:
another variable is that vaccinated and unvaccinated people tend to live in clusters. Even within a state like NJ with a relatively high vaccination rate, there is considerable variation from county to county (from a low of 41% of all residents fully vaccinated in Cumberland to 68% in Morris). And generally, the infection rate by county tracks with the county's vaccination rate. The exceptions have been Cape May and Monmouth counties which have relatively high vaccination rate but are near the top of the list for infection rate in NJ. But those are counties that host a lot of tourists from all over the country during the summer, so vaccination rate among people who live in those counties during the summer may not track with the rate among year-round residents.
Yeah, I wish it were possible to get those graphs at a county level. For instance, Oregon shows a surge in hospitalizations and deaths, and their vaccination rate is 60%. From poking around on those graphs, that seems just below the vaccination rate you see the decoupling of case and death rates. But Oregon is a large state with a stark urban/rural and political divide; I'd be very curious to see graphs for Multnomah County (where Portland is) vs, say one of the eastern desert counties.
county vaccination rates can be found here. for example, Oregon -- https://covidactnow.org/us/oregon-or/?s=23371255
and you're correct. Multnomah County has a 1+ vaccination rate of 76%. The lowest county in Oregon is Lake at 37%, and nine counties are below 50%
ml1 said:
county vaccination rates can be found here. for example, Oregon -- https://covidactnow.org/us/oregon-or/?s=23371255
and you're correct. Multnomah County has a 1+ vaccination rate of 76%. The lowest county in Oregon is Lake at 37%, and nine counties are below 50%
For hospitalization and death stats, do you happen to know if those are based on residence, or based on the location of the hospital or where the death occurred? IOW, if a given county doesn't have many health facilities and gets hit by a surge but residents of that county all go to the hospital one county over, do those hospitalizations and deaths show up in the county of residence, or in the county where the hospital was? If the latter, I imagine that can be misleading, especially in very rural areas.
PVW said:
For hospitalization and death stats, do you happen to know if those are based on residence, or based on the location of the hospital or where the death occurred? IOW, if a given county doesn't have many health facilities and gets hit by a surge but residents of that county all go to the hospital one county over, do those hospitalizations and deaths show up in the county of residence, or in the county where the hospital was? If the latter, I imagine that can be misleading, especially in very rural areas.
Answering my own question, I believe it's by residence. Reading news stories I'll see reports of a county resident dying at a hospital one state over, for instance.
I was curious because from the link you sent, it showed Baker County in eastern Oregon as having a 1+ vaccination rate of 79%, and a fully-vaccinated rate of 64%. I found this very surprising given its isolated, rural nature -- even more so as the same stats showed a high death rate per 100k. What would account for a county having both a higher vaccination rate than Portland AND a much higher death rate?
From the Baker City Herald:
"Baker County has the sixth-lowest vaccination rate among Oregon’s 36 counties, with 50.5% of residents 18 and older vaccinated as of Friday, Sept. 17."
That makes a lot more sense. And I think that might just be 1+ dose, not fully vaccinated, as if I actually go to the Oregon Health Authority's dashboard and look at Baker, the rate is even lower.
Which I guess just goes to show that when you look at the data and see something weird - say, for instance, that ivermectin does as good a job or better at preventing serious illness or death than vaccines -- it might be wrong.
PVW said:
Mapping America’s hospitalization and vaccination divide
(Washington Post)
as convincing as that should be, the anti-vaxxers will triumphantly point out the outliers, note that the correlation isn't a perfect -1.0, and tell us vaccines don't work. It's become clear that some people can't be convinced by any amount of information. They came to their conclusion first, and work backwards to find the exceptions to the rule that "prove" their predetermined conclusion.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Rentals
Advertisement
and people who do come down with a COVID infection are begging to be treated with monoclonal antibodies, which is itself an experimental treatment. And it costs something like 100x the price of a vaccination.
It's really insane what people are doing.