BBC: China pneumonia outbreak: COVID-19 Global Pandemic

[Sticksboi05]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

Is there a reason at this point in time that the CDC guidance for Covid should be more strict than the flu?

 

The idea that there is a 0 chance of transmission isn't followed for any disease that occurs with any regularity in this country.  Proving that there there is 0 chance of transmission is essentially impossible and creates an unobtainable goal.

 

I think the fact that COVID-19 is causing an ongoing global pandemic and national public health emergency. Obviously they aren't literally arguing for zero chance as that's impossible to guarantee, but a simple safety check with the tools available. I don't think that's unreasonable except of course if you're going to implement this, then antigen tests need to be plentiful for it to work.

Edited January 4, 2022 by Sticksboi05

[steve09ru]

So this post is more on treatment and options.  
 

I know of 5 people who have had covid in the last month and been to the hospital (my brother, stepmom and good friend- of the few, some multiple times).  Each of those 3 have been offered only a cough suppressant.  Not sure of 2 of the 5.

 

2 of the other 3 others had ivermectin treatments (1 after 1 hospital visit and the other after 3) and began feeling symptoms subside and getting better after that.  my brother is still in the middle of it and has an autoimmune disease so he awaiting the antibody therapy.

 

my question is, what are we doing to really help folks who end up hospitalized because of this because all I’ve heard is a cough suppressant with help alleviate symptoms but not rid them? Both Israel and India have had successful outcomes with ivermectin so why aren’t we trying more?

[Sticksboi05]

Were these folks low on oxygen levels? There's lots of people now going to ERs for COVID when they don't need to. (not saying this was the case just if all you are offered is a cough suppressant, it seems like doctors didn't buy that it was an actual emergency)

 

There is no evidence Ivermectin does anything for COVID-19, there have already been multiple studies done. The major basis is one study that showed some stopping of viral replication in a petri dish not even an animal model and it was at dosages that would be toxic in humans.

 

Most people hospitalized are there because of COVID pneumonia and thus need oxygen. Right now the best treatment option is GSK and Vir's antibody drug, which is the only one to be highly effective against Omicron. AstraZeneca's new Evusheld has neutralizing activity as well but I think it's aimed to be more of a preventative for people who are at high risk of vaccine side effects.

 

Soon, when supply is up we'll have more people on Paxlovid and prevent the need to ever go to the hospital but that will rely on good quick testing because it's only effective at the first onset of symptoms.

[steve09ru]

3 minutes ago, Sticksboi05 said:

Were these folks low on oxygen levels? There's lots of people now going to ERs for COVID when they don't need to. (not saying this was the case just if all you are offered is a cough suppressant, it seems like doctors didn't buy that it was an actual emergency)

 

There is no evidence Ivermectin does anything for COVID-19, there have already been multiple studies done. The major basis is one study that showed some stopping of viral replication in a petri dish not even an animal model and it was at dosages that would be toxic in humans.

 

Most people hospitalized are there because of COVID pneumonia and thus need oxygen. Right now the best treatment option is GSK and Vir's antibody drug, which is the only one to be highly effective against Omicron. AstraZeneca's new Evusheld has neutralizing activity as well but I think it's aimed to be more of a preventative for people who are at high risk of vaccine side effects.

 

Soon, when supply is up we'll have more people on Paxlovid and prevent the need to ever go to the hospital but that will rely on good quick testing because it's only effective at the first onset of symptoms.

for the three I have most info on:
 

Person one could barely walk and had passed out in the hospital lobby their third time in (not sure of oxygen levels) but was 2+ weeks in and already sent home twice

 

person 2 was labored breathing and high fever 

 

person 3 Autoimmune disease with breathing issues (they actually told my brother to head home and just buy an oxygen tracker for his finger with a cough suppressant)

 

what you mentioned hasn’t been offered so it’s kind of a what have we been doing  (and why have t we done more) and a what are we actually doing now.

 

also the ivermectin studies with Israel and India have been positive (some disregard it but others have seen success from it) plus 2 of the 3 above treated with ivermectin after a lengthy battle began to get better rather quickly (there have also been stories of a number of others with same results).

 

so outside of the new antibody drug (which takes weeks - my brother is on hold with an underlying g condition 2.5 weeks post positive) we can’t just be giving cough suppressants and oxygen right?

 

we’ve got to be able to treat the early stages before it gets to the oxygen point.  Can’t just say you’re fine u til you end oxygen- at that point it’s already too severe.  I guess that’s where my questioning comes on the why aren’t we trying more early on

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Sticksboi05 said:

 

I think the fact that COVID-19 is causing an ongoing global pandemic and national public health emergency. Obviously they aren't literally arguing for zero chance as that's impossible to guarantee, but a simple safety check with the tools available. I don't think that's unreasonable except of course if you're going to implement this, then antigen tests need to be plentiful for it to work.

 

But it isn't a simple safety check.  It isn't simple because we don't have the tests.  And it doesn't actually seem to create safety because there isn't anywhere that is controlling omicron with self-testing and quarantining.    So it isn't simple and it doesn't actually make things safe.

 

I'm also not sure why what is happening elsewhere (i.e. ongoing global pandemic) matters to what we do in terms of quarantining time.  Especially given the current situation.  It isn't like there is a clear thing we need to be preparing for that isn't here.  There isn't a clear next Omicron.  In terms of the US quarantine policy, is there a reason to take into account what is happening else where?

 

(If anything, requiring testing here reduces the amount of tests available for other countries that don't have as much actual health care infrastructure and didn't have the same access to the vaccines.  To me, that's an argument to minimize our reliance on tests.  Not the other way around.)

 

The majority of it being a national public health emergency part is hard. First, a lot of the public health emergency is because people aren't following CDC guidance (e.g. getting vaccinated). But part of being a national emergency is a shortage of workers, including the health care industry.  Having people quarantine for very little benefit doesn't really help the national public health emergency.  If anything, it contributes to it.

[steve09ru]

^and it’s been said for a while, we aren’t going to beat this without other countries having accessibility to vaccines and testing.  We can booster all we want but that’s not going to stop mutations entering (and no it’s not the unvaccinated in the US that is to blame as much as we want to point fingers internally).  Not saying it’s not hurting when you don’t follow guidelines but with appropriate measures regardless of vaccination status we can do a better job (ie. mask mandates across the board since we know it spreads whether you’re vaccinated or not).

 

Most importantly, we’ve got to do better in areas where low vaccination rates are (outside of the US) or we’ll just continue in the same footsteps we have been (see delta and omicron variants).

[PeterMP]

51 minutes ago, steve09ru said:

for the three I have most info on:
 

Person one could barely walk and had passed out in the hospital lobby their third time in (not sure of oxygen levels) but was 2+ weeks in and already sent home twice

 

person 2 was labored breathing and high fever 

 

person 3 Autoimmune disease with breathing issues (they actually told my brother to head home and just buy an oxygen tracker for his finger with a cough suppressant)

 

what you mentioned hasn’t been offered so it’s kind of a what have we been doing  (and why have t we done more) and a what are we actually doing now.

 

also the ivermectin studies with Israel and India have been positive (some disregard it but others have seen success from it) plus 2 of the 3 above treated with ivermectin after a lengthy battle began to get better rather quickly (there have also been stories of a number of others with same results).

 

so outside of the new antibody drug (which takes weeks - my brother is on hold with an underlying g condition 2.5 weeks post positive) we can’t just be giving cough suppressants and oxygen right?

 

we’ve got to be able to treat the early stages before it gets to the oxygen point.  Can’t just say you’re fine u til you end oxygen- at that point it’s already too severe.  I guess that’s where my questioning comes on the why aren’t we trying more early on

 

So first, the "Israel" study is one study.  And it is for people that aren't hospitalized and diagnosed early so even in that case wouldn't apply.  And people are dismissing it for a reason.  They said they were going to do one, then did something else.  If they actually did what they said they were going to do, the ivermectin result isn't significant.

 

Ivermectin is not part of the standard care for Covid in Israel.  

 

India stopped suggesting using ivermectin to treat Covid back in Sept. after failed studies there.  So neither country you are citing is actually actively using the drug as part of their standard care (though, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some studies in both countries and there might be people prescribing it willy nilly).

 

Next, most people do recover from Covid.  That people that have been battling and struggling for a while got better isn't shocking and that they started using a drug shortly before hand is most likely irrelevant.  

 

If you see a doctor, they should be able to try more early only, especially for people that are high risks to progress to severe diseases.  I believe these are the current treatment guidlines.

 

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/about-the-guidelines/whats-new/

 

(pdf to the full guidelines on the left side bar menu).

 

"The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) that allow 2 oral antiviral agents to be used as treatments for COVID-19 in nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who are at high risk of progressing to serious disease: ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid) and molnupiravir. This statement contains the Panel’s recommendations for treating these nonhospitalized patients using the currently available therapies. The Panel’s recommendations take into account the efficacies of these drugs and the high prevalence of the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variant of concern (VOC). When resources are limited, therapy should be prioritized for patients who are at the highest risk of progressing to severe COVID-19 (see the Panel’s statement on patient prioritization for outpatient therapies). The Panel’s current outpatient treatment recommendations are as follows (in order of preference): • Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir 300 mg plus ritonavir 100 mg) orally twice daily for 5 days • Sotrovimab 500 mg, administered as a single intravenous (IV) infusion • Remdesivir 200 mg IV on Day 1, followed by remdesivir 100 mg IV on Days 2 and 3 • Molnupiravir 800 mg orally twice daily for 5 days The statement includes additional considerations for using these treatments and a detailed discussion of the clinical data that support the recommendations."

 

(I added the bold.)

 

Depending on how sick your relatives are and how much oxygen they need, the guidelines include different options for hospitalized patients (see Figure 2).

 

For almost any disease if you search hard enough, you can find the standard guidelines of treatment.

Edited January 4, 2022 by PeterMP

[Sticksboi05]

54 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'm also not sure why what is happening elsewhere (i.e. ongoing global pandemic) matters to what we do in terms of quarantining time.  Especially given the current situation.  It isn't like there is a clear thing we need to be preparing for that isn't here.  There isn't a clear next Omicron.  In terms of the US quarantine policy, is there a reason to take into account what is happening else where?

 

 

Semantics because I said global? We are also a part of that. The CDC is going to be more stringent trying to curb COVID-19 transmission over the flu when a variant this contagious is spreading like wildfire. The flu is not risking complete overstress of hospital systems, if it was, you'd see similarly stringent rules.

 

We should be preparing for the inevitable arrival of future VOCs - the virus unfortunately is replicating at will globally and as long as it does VOCs will pop up and make their way here - hopefully they will go in the less severe direction. We already have Omicron sublineages detected in the U.S.

 

Even if the best our mitigations like antigen tests can do is delay eventual infections that gives people more time to get boosters, and more time to build up the supply of Paxlovid and Sotrimovab. There's benefit in that. When the guidance was announced lots of people in my friend groups said the concept of shortening isolation was nuts, and like you, I said actually there is no reason we should be making everyone sit out for 10 days.

 

58 minutes ago, steve09ru said:

plus 2 of the 3 above treated with ivermectin after a lengthy battle began to get better rather quickly (there have also been stories of a number of others with same results).

 

so outside of the new antibody drug (which takes weeks - my brother is on hold with an underlying g condition 2.5 weeks post positive) we can’t just be giving cough suppressants and oxygen right?

 

we’ve got to be able to treat the early stages before it gets to the oxygen point.  Can’t just say you’re fine u til you end oxygen- at that point it’s already too severe.  I guess that’s where my questioning comes on the why aren’t we trying more early on

 

Correlation not causation. It's likely they recovered on their own and happened to get Ivermectin in that timeframe.

 

Paxlovid will be the early treatment tool, it's just the supply needs to be boosted dramatically as it just recently was authorized.

Edited January 4, 2022 by Sticksboi05

[TradeTheBeal!]

Welp, I’m sold.  After all this time, it turns out that Ivermectin was the solution.

 

Heading to Southern States tomorrow to put the epidemic to bed for good!

[PeterMP]

21 minutes ago, Sticksboi05 said:

Even if the best our mitigations like antigen tests can do is delay eventual infections that gives people more time to get boosters, and more time to build up the supply of Paxlovid and Sotrimovab. There's benefit in that.

 

Come on.   Home antigen tests and self-quarantines aren't even close to "best" mitigation approach.

 

As I've continually stated, if you are talking about what Europe has done, they aren't even a good approach.  Which is why much of Europe is shutting things down again.

 

The argument isn't whether to eat a 5 course meal or to not eat at all.  People are criticizing the CDC because they want one more dab of peanut butter on the peanut butter sandwich when the peanut butter jar is empty.

 

If giving people time to get boosters and build up the anti-covid drugs is worth our best mitigation approaches, then we should do that.

 

But there aren't very many people that believe that.  Omicron appears to be relatively manageable if people would get vaccinated and their boosters.  And the issue with that happening hasn't been the amount of time.

 

That you're talking about at home antigen tests and self-quarantines as a best mitigation approaches is a joke.

Edited January 4, 2022 by PeterMP

[TradeTheBeal!]

*passes out for the third time in the hospital lobby*

[Sticksboi05]

26 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Come on.   Home antigen tests and self-quarantines aren't even close to "best" mitigation approach.

 

As I've continually stated, if you are talking about what Europe has done, they aren't even a good approach.  Which is why much of Europe is shutting things down again.

 

The argument isn't whether to eat a 5 course meal or to not eat at all.  People are criticizing the CDC because they want one more dab of peanut butter on the peanut butter sandwich when the peanut butter jar is empty.

 

If giving people time to get boosters and build up the anti-covid drugs is worth our best mitigation approaches, then we should do that.

 

But there aren't very many people that believe that.  Omicron appears to be relatively manageable if people would get vaccinated and their boosters.  And the issue with that happening hasn't been the amount of time.

 

That you're talking about at home antigen tests and self-quarantines as a best mitigation approaches is a joke.

 

There's been media coverage of people unable to find booster shots due to surging demand as recently as December - whether in NYC, the Bay Area, Oregon etc. I was not saying antigen tests are our best hope - vaccines are obviously No. 1 and the rest of the toolkit includes rapid tests, PCR tests, masks, and air filtration.

 

Anyway since you seem to be making it kinda personal I'm going to leave it at that.

Edited January 4, 2022 by Sticksboi05

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Why not give people ivermectin? Is there a huge reason to be against it other than… well.. political reasons?
 

Are there any serious side effects? I haven’t heard of any.  
 

There have been studies showing that mood can effect medical outcomes so if your believe something will work for you (even though it’s a placebo) sometimes it can have a positive effect. 
 

😬

[China]

2 hours ago, steve09ru said:

 

so outside of the new antibody drug (which takes weeks - my brother is on hold with an underlying g condition 2.5 weeks post positive) we can’t just be giving cough suppressants and oxygen right?

 

 

 

Both Pfizer and Merck have recently received approval for antiviral drugs to treat Covid:

 

FDA authorizes Pfizer’s Covid treatment pill, the first oral antiviral drug cleared during the pandemic

 

FDA clears second at-home Covid treatment, from Merck

 

However, both of these were approved within the last two weeks, so may not be readily available everywhere right now.  I assume availability will increase soon, as production ramps up to meet demand.

[Mr. Sinister]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Why not give people ivermectin? Is there a huge reason to be against it other than… well.. political reasons?
 

Are there any serious side effects? I haven’t heard of any.  
 

There have been studies showing that mood can effect medical outcomes so if your believe something will work for you (even though it’s a placebo) sometimes it can have a positive effect. 
 

😬

 

What in sam hell? 

Edited January 4, 2022 by Mr. Sinister

[PeterMP]

6 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Why not give people ivermectin? Is there a huge reason to be against it other than… well.. political reasons?
 

Are there any serious side effects? I haven’t heard of any.  
 

There have been studies showing that mood can effect medical outcomes so if your believe something will work for you (even though it’s a placebo) sometimes it can have a positive effect. 
 

😬

 

There can be (significant) negative side effects.

 

"I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow. I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism."

 

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

 

If you are just shooting for a placebo effect, why not give them a sugar bill and tell them it is ivermectin?  It would be just as ethical.

Edited January 4, 2022 by PeterMP

[Larry]

6 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Why not give people ivermectin? Is there a huge reason to be against it other than… well.. political reasons?

1). It doesn't produce any results at all. 
 

2). The sole reason it's even being mentioned (including by you) is ... well ... political reasons. And specifically, as part of an intentional agenda to tell people to do it instead of doing the things that do work. 

[PeterMP]

7 hours ago, Sticksboi05 said:

 

There's been media coverage of people unable to find booster shots due to surging demand as recently as December - whether in NYC, the Bay Area, Oregon etc. I was not saying antigen tests are our best hope - vaccines are obviously No. 1 and the rest of the toolkit includes rapid tests, PCR tests, masks, and air filtration.

 

Anyway since you seem to be making it kinda personal I'm going to leave it at that.

 

A few weeks ago there was a rush of people to get vaccinated because of travel and holiday gatherings.  That was mostly a short term artificial issue due to people that didn't get vaccinated before now wanting a vaccination.  Not that there hadn't been time (previously) for them to get vaccinated.

 

And even just looking at CVS in NYC, there are multiple locations with multiple times that I can get vaccinated today.

 

The problem isn't time.  The problem is hesitance, people not caring, and the rest not having the political will to do anything about it.

Edited January 4, 2022 by PeterMP

[Larry]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

The problem isn't time.  The problem is hesitance, people not caring, and the rest not having the political will to do anything about it.

Yeah, I saw a (fictional) discussion between an anti-vaxer and a doctor, I thought had a good part. 
 

Anti: I'm not anti-vaccine, I'm just anti-mandate. 
 

Doc:  So why aren't you vaccinated?  
 

Anti:  ????

 

Doc:  The vaccines have been out for a year. The mandates started a month ago. How come you didn't get vaccinated during those 11 months?  
 

Anti:  (moves on to the next excuse on the menu). 

[Sticksboi05]

30 minutes ago, Larry said:

Yeah, I saw a (fictional) discussion between an anti-vaxer and a doctor, I thought had a good part. 
 

Anti: I'm not anti-vaccine, I'm just anti-mandate. 
 

Doc:  So why aren't you vaccinated?  
 

Anti:  ????

 

Doc:  The vaccines have been out for a year. The mandates started a month ago. How come you didn't get vaccinated during those 11 months?  
 

Anti:  (moves on to the next excuse on the menu). 

 

I convinced one of my vaccine hesitant co-workers to get vaccinated before Christmas. She wasn't anti-vax completely, just worried about side effects and wasn't convinced with how many people have still caught COVID after being vaccinated. I think the fact that we met her where her concerns were and didn't go on an attack did the trick. Simply said look it's your decision, just make sure you're doing it based on the right information, not the Joe Rogan podcast.

 

I spent some time in Texas this year and met multiple people who were very COVID cautious to the point of saying they hadn't eaten out in over a year, but were not vaccinated. Of course in my head I was like uh this does not compute. But I do think we could get more people vaccinated by not doing the blame game thing the Biden administration was employing for a time late last year. (even if is it true, and I am tired of people without an autoimmune justification refusing to get vaccinated personally)

[gbear]

https://www.thecentersquare.com/indiana/indiana-life-insurance-ceo-says-deaths-are-up-40-among-people-ages-18-64/article_71473b12-6b1e-11ec-8641-5b2c06725e2c.html?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

People should be paying attention to this.  I fear this is the real COVID impact.  It is the deaths above normal.  Unless somebody thinks the 40% increase in deaths of people between 18-64 is due to something else, I think the true impact of COVID has been severely understated. 

 

Yes, those who have had their booster shots like I have are unlikely to die if we get it, especially if we get a milder strain of it like the one infecting huge swaths of us now.  I just think we are underestimating the societal impact the virus is still causing when our emergency rooms are full, our fire stations have too many people out sick to function, etc.

 

When we start seeing a huge increase in deaths of people between 18 and 64, we need to realize we are losing people are their peek productivity.  These are the people who have reached or are reaching their earning productivity.  We are losing our teachers, our managers, our leaders, etc.  We are not just losing the elderly like when COVID first seemed to just take out the elderly in nursing homes.  From a tax base perspective, we are losing our workers who pay into the system upon which we all depend.

 

There may be little personal risk right now for most of us, but that should not be confused with little societal risk. I realize the points above some what over sell the problem, but a 40% increase in deaths amongst a population in which we need growth is a big impact I see discussed rarely unless one works in insurance.

[Sticksboi05]

9 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Why not give people ivermectin? Is there a huge reason to be against it other than… well.. political reasons?
 

Are there any serious side effects? I haven’t heard of any.  
 

There have been studies showing that mood can effect medical outcomes so if your believe something will work for you (even though it’s a placebo) sometimes it can have a positive effect. 
 

😬

 

There is definitely a connection between mind and body, but if you have COVID pneumonia with an oxygen level at 91% you cannot positive thought yourself out of that.

 

Better idea, instead of wasting time with Ivermectin, we find ways to boost the supply and lower the cost of proven treatments like antibody drugs and Paxlovid.

[TradeTheBeal!]

I can’t.

 

 

[Mooka]

Mask mandates are done in my area. Kids in school don't have to wear masks as of Monday. 

 

The main ski resort has zero restrictions right now. The Tram holds 100 people bunched together... which is definitely sketchy. The Tram is actually empty for most of the day because people are scared of covid. (I'm still not riding that thing) 

 

All while covid is spiking in this area. I work for a company that serves a few businesses with basic tech/installation/IT, etc. Every store is struggling with a combination of the weather and people out with covid. The grocery stores are basically empty right now because there aren't enough people to stock the shelves. (and trucking issues) I actually went to the receiving dock of a store I didn't work for and helped receive a $50,000 order of dairy products because the only manager on duty was the one guy working the meat counter while the driver was about to bail. Crazy times. 

 

Kinda a disaster, but I think the mandates were lifted because of a high vaccine rate in this area? (Teton County, WY) However, we get people visiting from all over and plenty of folks commute here for work from Idaho and surrounding small towns in WY where no one cares about covid. 

[steve09ru]

24 minutes ago, Sticksboi05 said:

 

There is definitely a connection between mind and body, but if you have COVID pneumonia with an oxygen level at 91% you cannot positive thought yourself out of that.

 

Better idea, instead of wasting time with Ivermectin, we find ways to boost the supply and lower the cost of proven treatments like antibody drugs and Paxlovid.

Agreed and that’s why I brought up the discussion of what else we can be doing in the earlier stages of testing positive so it doesn’t get to the point of hospitalizations.  
 

hoping the pill that just got approved can be distributed quickly but there’s also been, from what I’ve seen at least, a lack of focus and discussion on the treatment options at onset to mitigate potential hospitalizations outside of just vaccinations.