China Coronavirus

[theskull1]

Of course we all know vitamin D has long been advocated as something that improves health and healthy lifespan... thats the point.

There was evidence really really early that lower vitamin D levels were correlating with bad covid outcomes. No government done anything explicitly with that signal. It was worth doing given the low risk and the low cost of delivery, yet it wasn't.

Yeah ivermectin story is still in flux as we all know ... lets see how that pans out shall we, but why when you had highly respected clinicians saying that they are seeing benefits from using it coupled along with the fact its safer than everyday over the counter medicines .... again, why was that not enough for at least one western public health authority to give it a go given the health care panic at the time? I think its thats a reasonable thought to think.

 

[From the Bunker]

Wondering how the Covid-19 vaccine works these days? Does it still depend on herd immunity. Will the unvaccinated be a problem for herd immunity?

[trueblue1234]

Of course we all know vitamin D has long been advocated as something that improves health and healthy lifespan... thats the point.

There was evidence really really early that lower vitamin D levels were correlating with bad covid outcomes. No government done anything explicitly with that signal. It was worth doing given the low risk and the low cost of delivery, yet it wasn't.

Yeah ivermectin story is still in flux as we all know ... lets see how that pans out shall we, but why when you had highly respected clinicians saying that they are seeing benefits from using it coupled along with the fact its safer than everyday over the counter medicines .... again, why was that not enough for at least one western public health authority to give it a go given the health care panic at the time? I think its thats a reasonable thought to think.

Ivermectin also have some very unsuccessful trials. So I would not have expected any government to take a stab in the dark on it. Even now it's far from conclusive.

[theskull1]

Come on trueblue ......a drug which has data going back 40 years showing it is extremely safe was not worth trying (just to see given the lack of risk) when people are dying in IC wards? In war setting which it was ... this is exactly what should have happened.

[Last Man]

Certainly a study in Israel that correlated low serum vit D status with poor outcomes but it can't say there's direct causation. It is more likely a proxy for obesity caused by sitting inside all day snacking on shite which funny enough lock downs took to a whole new level. Getting outside into the sun shine is the best way to get your Vit D status up, taking exogenously is a very poor replacement.

[trueblue1234]

Come on trueblue ......a drug which has data going back 40 years showing it is extremely safe was not worth trying (just to see given the lack of risk) when people are dying in IC wards? In war setting which it was ... this is exactly what should have happened.

Why would they when there was little evidence to say it was effective? We obviously differ in views but I see no reason why they would have started widespread delivery of ivermectin. You don't start prescribing a drug across the board without strong evidence of success. I don't understand how you don't get that.

[theskull1]

Didn't need 'strong' evidence in those early stages .... all it needed was the signal that it might work (given that the safety of the medication)

"Hey ..there are highly respected clinicians working in IC wards in another part of the world saying that they are seeing positive benefits from treating patients with ivermectin. The drug is safer to take than aspirin..there is well recorded data on its safety profile. Of course we can't say for sure if it will be of benefit at this stage, but given that its an extremely safe and cheap medication, what do you think about the idea of contacting a (or a few) regional health authorities to see if they'd be agreeable to start treating their patients (if the patients themselves agree) with the drug to see if we see a step change it their health outcomes relative to neighbouring areas? It would be great if we had an existing non patented drug to at least help treat this virus. Worth a try?" 

It was an easy argument to make

[RedHand88]

Come on trueblue ......a drug which has data going back 40 years showing it is extremely safe was not worth trying (just to see given the lack of risk) when people are dying in IC wards? In war setting which it was ... this is exactly what should have happened.

Why would they when there was little evidence to say it was effective? We obviously differ in views but I see no reason why they would have started widespread delivery of ivermectin. You don't start prescribing a drug across the board without strong evidence of success. I don't understand how you don't get that.

It cracks me up the way these people cried bloody murder about an "untested vaccine" yet wanted to give ivermectin to the whole population!

[trueblue1234]

Didn't need 'strong' evidence in those early stages .... all it needed was the signal that it might work (given that the safety of the medication)

"Hey ..there are highly respected clinicians working in IC wards in another part of the world saying that they are seeing positive benefits from treating patients with ivermectin. The drug is safer to take than aspirin..there is well recorded data on its safety profile. Of course we can't say for sure if it will be of benefit at this stage, but given that its an extremely safe and cheap medication, what do you think about the idea of contacting a (or a few) regional health authorities to see if they'd be agreeable to start treating their patients (if the patients themselves agree) with the drug to see if we see a step change it their health outcomes relative to neighbouring areas? It would be great if we had an existing non patented drug to at least help treat this virus. Worth a try?" 

It was an easy argument to make

I guess that shows the difference in people's perspective. For me, I'd have been gobsmacked if they had prescribed ivermectin on no concrete evidence.
On a side, after 2 years of ducking and dodging covid successfully I've just managed to pick it up. 

[trailer]

Come on trueblue ......a drug which has data going back 40 years showing it is extremely safe was not worth trying (just to see given the lack of risk) when people are dying in IC wards? In war setting which it was ... this is exactly what should have happened.

Why would they when there was little evidence to say it was effective? We obviously differ in views but I see no reason why they would have started widespread delivery of ivermectin. You don't start prescribing a drug across the board without strong evidence of success. I don't understand how you don't get that.

It cracks me up the way these people cried bloody murder about an "untested vaccine" yet wanted to give ivermectin to the whole population!

Utter gobshites

[grounded]

Certainly a study in Israel that correlated low serum vit D status with poor outcomes but it can't say there's direct causation. It is more likely a proxy for obesity caused by sitting inside all day snacking on shite which funny enough lock downs took to a whole new level. Getting outside into the sun shine is the best way to get your Vit D status up, taking exogenously is a very poor replacement.

Pretty decent article in relation to vitamin d deficiency and Covid 19 in Ireland.
     ' The design of vitamin D randomised controlled trials is notoriously problematic and these trials commonly fail for a number of behavioural and methodological reasons' .

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2022.835480/full

[Last Man]

Come on trueblue ......a drug which has data going back 40 years showing it is extremely safe was not worth trying (just to see given the lack of risk) when people are dying in IC wards? In war setting which it was ... this is exactly what should have happened.

Why would they when there was little evidence to say it was effective? We obviously differ in views but I see no reason why they would have started widespread delivery of ivermectin. You don't start prescribing a drug across the board without strong evidence of success. I don't understand how you don't get that.

It cracks me up the way these people cried bloody murder about an "untested vaccine" yet wanted to give ivermectin to the whole population!

Utter gobshites

Because there would have been little or no risk as the drug itself has been in use since the mid 80s and is known to be very safe, therefore worth a go. As opposed to new drugs costing billions and which the efficacy is not certain nor are all the side effects known. It should have been a matter of personal choice. If you are aged, frightened, obese(even a little), on the diabetic/metabolic spectrum you should probably take a punt on the new stuff and whatever else you can do to improve your lot for that matter.

[grounded]

Didn't need 'strong' evidence in those early stages .... all it needed was the signal that it might work (given that the safety of the medication)

"Hey ..there are highly respected clinicians working in IC wards in another part of the world saying that they are seeing positive benefits from treating patients with ivermectin. The drug is safer to take than aspirin..there is well recorded data on its safety profile. Of course we can't say for sure if it will be of benefit at this stage, but given that its an extremely safe and cheap medication, what do you think about the idea of contacting a (or a few) regional health authorities to see if they'd be agreeable to start treating their patients (if the patients themselves agree) with the drug to see if we see a step change it their health outcomes relative to neighbouring areas? It would be great if we had an existing non patented drug to at least help treat this virus. Worth a try?" 

It was an easy argument to make

I guess that shows the difference in people's perspective. For me, I'd have been gobsmacked if they had prescribed ivermectin on no concrete evidence.
On a side, after 2 years of ducking and dodging covid successfully I've just managed to pick it up. 
[/quote

Hope you make a speedy recovery. ]

[LeoMc]

Didn't need 'strong' evidence in those early stages .... all it needed was the signal that it might work (given that the safety of the medication)

"Hey ..there are highly respected clinicians working in IC wards in another part of the world saying that they are seeing positive benefits from treating patients with ivermectin. The drug is safer to take than aspirin..there is well recorded data on its safety profile. Of course we can't say for sure if it will be of benefit at this stage, but given that its an extremely safe and cheap medication, what do you think about the idea of contacting a (or a few) regional health authorities to see if they'd be agreeable to start treating their patients (if the patients themselves agree) with the drug to see if we see a step change it their health outcomes relative to neighbouring areas? It would be great if we had an existing non patented drug to at least help treat this virus. Worth a try?" 

It was an easy argument to make

That would have been a justification for a clinical trial if anyone thought it worth the cost and effort. A lot of commercial drugs were trialled by their manufacturers as there was Giveenment funding but he sides of the Atlantic for it.

[trueblue1234]

Come on trueblue ......a drug which has data going back 40 years showing it is extremely safe was not worth trying (just to see given the lack of risk) when people are dying in IC wards? In war setting which it was ... this is exactly what should have happened.

Why would they when there was little evidence to say it was effective? We obviously differ in views but I see no reason why they would have started widespread delivery of ivermectin. You don't start prescribing a drug across the board without strong evidence of success. I don't understand how you don't get that.

It cracks me up the way these people cried bloody murder about an "untested vaccine" yet wanted to give ivermectin to the whole population!

Utter gobshites

Because there would have been little or no risk as the drug itself has been in use since the mid 80s and is known to be very safe, therefore worth a go. As opposed to new drugs costing billions and which the efficacy is not certain nor are all the side effects known. It should have been a matter of personal choice. If you are aged, frightened, obese(even a little), on the diabetic/metabolic spectrum you should probably take a punt on the new stuff and whatever else you can do to improve your lot for that matter.

The efficacy of the vaccine was proven. Some don't want to accept that, but the facts are out there. Ivermercim had nothing like the same success rates in any trials to date.