130K have died since vaccination in the UK commenced? I doubt that.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter Tigers of Old
- Start date
130K have died since vaccination in the UK commenced? I doubt that.
Moderna has just been approved for use here. Studies suggest it is at least comparable in effectiveness to Pfizer, perhaps even an improvement. The government has ordered 25m doses including 15m of the next-gen vaccine that targets specific variants which will be here next year.
But as I said, cases no longer matter when you enter the end game. Overburden on hospitals is the key to opening up. If they don't get overwhelmed (which doesn't appear to be occurring in the UK) then that is the end game. They may not like the death figures but ultimately thats the key.
BTW I think the covid deaths in the UK have been overstated, they include Covid on your death certificate if you tested positive within 28 days regardless of how you died.
Excess deaths shows the more likely trend, and ultimately we have to accept that excess deaths are going to occur, we just need to know that we have done everything we can to protect those who want to be protected from Covid going forwards.
I've pulled the table together showing the UK. I suspect the level of excess deaths will continue to decline as their vaccination rates continue to increase. I downloaded the data from https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...nalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales
I know what you are getting at re the underlying excess death numbers and thats something that will be watched, but I think Covid has shown that it will result in excess deaths going forward. We either have to accept that but having done enough to protect the hospital system and enable "normal" lives to resume, or we will remain locked down for the rest of our lives.
Bear in mind the UK is only about 60% fully vaccinated. I would expect excess deaths to continue to decrease over time, as fully vaccinated rates rise towards 80%.
Here's the Colombian study conclusions, taken directly from https://rebelem.com/covid-19-update-ivermectin/
"Author Conclusion: “Among adults with mild COVID-19, a 5-day course of ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms. The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19, although larger trials may be needed to understand the effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes.”"
So in this particular study, no benefit was observed. From the author of the site:
"Bottom Line: This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial showed no benefit to the use of ivermectin compared to placebo in resolution of symptoms by 21 days. The methodology of this trial is certainly of better quality than previous trials, however there are some clear short comings with errors and potential for unblinding. Also, the relatively young and healthy study population included in this trial makes it difficult to extrapolate conclusions to older patient populations and/or patients with comorbid disease. We will just have to wait and see what future trials in different patient populations show."
COVID-19 Update: Ivermectin - REBEL EM - Emergency Medicine Blog
Clinical Question: Does Ivermectin demonstrate efficacy in prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19?
rebelem.com
So the study in essence was mostly methodologically sound but still with some short-comings. It found no observable benefit using ivermectin. However, the focus on young people means we can't extrapolate this to other older patients who might have covid and are treated with ivermectin.
In other words, a study that is interesting but inconclusive. I like this site as it looks at each study, makes an assessment of the methodology, and seems to make fair conclusions.
There is going to be have to be some sort of "state of the nation" address from whoever's in charge before the handbrake comes off. They need to produce some numbers so the public understands what we're heading for (which I think most are oblivious to - certainly the ones calling to "let it rip"). Anything else is unfair.
Ok, but that is not relevant - surely deaths since vaccination is more appropriate since we are talking about vaccination as a strategy.
I do agree to an extent. There are some that would have no idea of the let it rip strategy. Look at the UK, nearly 1800 excess deaths per week in the 10 month period from March to December 2020, thats the equivalent of about 800 odd PER WEEK that we would have encountered if we just let it rip (probably on the low side as the UK didn't just let it rip, they actually locked down, they just didn't do it very well). Look how everyone gets pissed off about the 800 that died in VIC in the 4 month lockdown we had last year, could you imagine if it was that weekly!
We might be talking an increase of (hypotheising here) of 100-200 excess deaths per week in Australia I would think at the top end, but no-one knows right now as only time will tell. As I mentioned, the vaccine rollout stuff up has allowed us to observe overseas whilst we still plod through the rollout, so we should get some more info on this in the UK over the next few months as 1 - they increase the numbers that are fully vaccinated, and 2 they move through the rest of the year.
I'll keep this spreadsheet and see if I can update each month going forward so we can see when vaccination levels rise the level of excess deaths should decline. This would help to understand where Australia stands once we get to 70%, 80% or above vaccination levels
Rumours circulating that there will be a statewide lockdown in NSW from Friday
But I doubt it does her re-election chances any good. Someone will probably be able to show a hard 2 week lockdown does less damage than a prolonged one? They may be in this for months, Ian4 has done some pretty good maths on it and you'd think it would be longer than ours the way they are going. I'm sure by the end of it they will have alienated the electorate.
Combine it with her obvious "corruption" and she's probably a lame duck.
I think it has been shown the deaths are skewed in Vic by the aged care facility deaths. And I imagine treatments have improved as more is learnt about the virus?
So when did Victoria actually come out of lockdown????
Been a rolling pile of *smile* ever since Dan the man first decided to save the world from cooties early last year immediately after the initial cruise ship *smile* up.
Only one state in this country that has actually made an attempt to try n live as normally as possible over the last 18 months. For whatever faults n *smile* ups they might have had, the old boiler in N.S.W. is the only one that's had a fair crack at working through the *smile*. Every other State Premier has hidden under the bed with the lights off n their panties in a massive bunch.
Thanks for responding Antman. A couple of points first and I hope I am not too ungracious. I appreciate the reply but I don't need the repeating of what was in the article I have read. I do understand though that you come from the position of the knowledge you have and it is unfair to criticise you for not having that additional knowledge I was seeking. The other point is that your position seems really fixed and you have already flagged that any arguments or facts which I present to you are right wing nutjobbery.Here's the Colombian study conclusions, taken directly from https://rebelem.com/covid-19-update-ivermectin/
"Author Conclusion: “Among adults with mild COVID-19, a 5-day course of ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms. The findings do not support the use of ivermectin for treatment of mild COVID-19, although larger trials may be needed to understand the effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes.”"
So in this particular study, no benefit was observed. From the author of the site:
"Bottom Line: This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial showed no benefit to the use of ivermectin compared to placebo in resolution of symptoms by 21 days. The methodology of this trial is certainly of better quality than previous trials, however there are some clear short comings with errors and potential for unblinding. Also, the relatively young and healthy study population included in this trial makes it difficult to extrapolate conclusions to older patient populations and/or patients with comorbid disease. We will just have to wait and see what future trials in different patient populations show."
COVID-19 Update: Ivermectin - REBEL EM - Emergency Medicine Blog
Clinical Question: Does Ivermectin demonstrate efficacy in prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19?
So the study in essence was mostly methodologically sound but still with some short-comings. It found no observable benefit using ivermectin. However, the focus on young people means we can't extrapolate this to other older patients who might have covid and are treated with ivermectin.
In other words, a study that is interesting but inconclusive. I like this site as it looks at each study, makes an assessment of the methodology, and seems to make fair conclusions.
First on safety and Merck's negative assessment. This is an interesting one and I came to the Ivermectin debate quite late. A friend of mine raised the potential of this medication and I was sceptical. One of the first things I reviewed was Merck's statement. I initially thought this was a strike for Ivermectin, When I started looking at how ivermectin works, historical material and the various trials and studies the first thing that became clear and incontrovertible was that is was an unusually safe drug. To provide context the covid vaccines which are considered very safe have 40,000 deaths associated with them after about 4 billion doses. The associated death figure with Ivermectin in about 4 billion doses is 16 and those 16 deaths were related to infections and complications with the dead parasite rather than the medication itself. There are some contra indications. Ivermectin gets into the parasites brain and nervous system and knocks them off. It can also cause similar damage to humans but it can't cross the blood brain barrier. In those with a compromised barrier such as those with meningitis or suffering a stroke (at the time) Ivermectin is contra indicated. Similarly children under 2 or 15 kgs may not have a fully developed barrier and as an abundance of caution pregnant and breast feeding mothers should probably not take it as it may be transferred to the child. There have been a number of studies which show that is exceedingly safe. I think there is one in which Chris Whittie the chief health officer of the UK (advising on the Covid response) is a co author of a study in 2015 or 16 where they concluded that doses 10 times the recommended dose were safe.
As with anything dosage is key. Water is toxic at the right (or wrong) dose. The prophylactic studies in Ivermectin mostly are based on the recommended dose for parasitic treatment. Different trials have used different doses in treatment of mild and more severe infections but I haven't seen any which go above 0.6 mg per kilogram. So long story short for a company who knows the drug, who developed and sold the drug and who knows the amazing safety record of the drug the assertion that Ivermectin may not be safe was not a good faith statement. So it was very strange to me. I didn't have to look too far to find a reason.
1 Ivermectin is out of patent and there is little or no money to make out of it.
2 Merck is one of a raft of companies who is developing Covid therapeautics after it dropped out developing a vaccine. It received around $300 million from Trump under Operation Warp Speed (for a failed attempt) and the Biden Administration has entered into a $1.2 Billion contract with Merck to buy an anti viral therapy drug called molnapiravur at around $700 per course when it obtains approval from the FDA . The proposed drug has already failed in a hospital setting and is subject to a whistle blower complaint. It is similar molecularly to Ivermectin (no surprise if Merck is making it)
I might add that I was fairly neutral on the World Health Organisation until they started questioning the safety profile of Ivermectin. At that point the antenna went up and I wondered why the WHO would make a blatantly false and bad faith statement. I think it is legitimate in relation to Ivermectin to question its efficacy, the structure and conduct of trials. But if you are the WHO and are raising safety concerns of Ivermectin you are not being truthful.
This response was longer than intended so I will take a break and address the Columbian Study at a later time.
Next to no vaccines for those early covid outbreaks in Victoria's aged care.
