The Delta varient was 4-10 times more infectious.

Without the vaccine, deaths would have been more than double.

Or... Did we learn how to better treat those with infections?

Kudos to you for reading that mumbo jumbo. It took me longer just to scroll to the end than it does to read a long winded post on this forum. Yikes! I appreciate you giving us the Reader's Digest version. Thank you.

Interesting point - probably. Wonder if the deaths per hospitalization decreased?

What do you think the hospitalization/death rate would have looked like with Delta in 2021 without the vaccine?

I haven't a clue. And neither does anyone else...

We were told over 90% of hospitalizations were unvaccinated. We know about 50% of the population was vaccinated. We can't know what would have happened but if there had been twice as many unvaccinated then it would not be unreasonable to assume there could have been twice as many hospitalized.

The ratio of deaths per reported infections was about 1.5% in January. In September the ratio was about 1.2%. There were several things that could have reduced the death rate including more effective treatments.

Thanks, I was trying to help the thought process of the poster who interpreted more deaths in 2021 as a vaccine failure.

Delta also gave a lot of people immunity the hard way.

Hopefully the new antivirals will be additional help to calm things down.

It would be great to know if treatment or vaccine is rendering positive results. Given the NIH's own paper showing the effectiveness of Ivermectin, how come we never hear about treatment.

If differing treatments produce various results, shouldn't we know which ones work and which ones do not produce the best outcomes.

Here is the paper from the NIH
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines

And the conclusions:

Conclusions:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

You don't have the big picture. Never let a crisis go to waste. This is a rare opportunity to expand the power of government to new heights and roll back our Constitutional rights. Thus pesky studies like this need to be ignored or suppressed.

Here is a bigger picture...feel for those that are vaccinated and those that are not. Looks like the graphs are showing rates much higher in the vaccinated....thought so.....


https://assets.publishing.service.go..._-_week_40.pdf

Click on the PLUS icon. The list of posters will be viewable there. I just counted up the amount of poster's usernames that were displayed. I have never seen more than four rows of names before so I was curious to see the actual count.

The plus icon won't appear unless there are "likes" for that post. I find that sometimes the plus icon does not appear after I have "liked" a post so I refresh the page.

The paper cited is NOT FROM THE NIH, but simply listed in their library The REAL conclusion is this, from the MEDICAL Journal of Infectious Disease, not some quack journal of "therapeutics":

The headline exaggerates, given that the study says only that fewer deaths might be possible. It is a review of trials done with ivermectin on COVID-19 patients.

Moreover, the study was done by researchers affiliated with a group that is campaigning for ivermectin to be approved for COVID-19 use. Despite their connection to the group, the authors declared in the study they had no conflict of interest.

The World Health Organization, in its COVID-19 treatment guidelines, says: "We recommend not to use ivermectin in patients with COVID-19 except in the context of a clinical trial," citing "very low certainty evidence" about the drug.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says ivermectin should not be used to prevent or treat COVID-19. Ivermectin, which is FDA-approved to treat conditions caused by parasitic worms and parasites such as lice, in large doses "is dangerous and can cause serious harm."

Here’s what we know about the study generating favorable headlines of the drug as a way to prevent or treat COVID-19.

Study reviewed trials
The peer-reviewed study in the American Journal of Therapeutics was published June 17 and led by Andrew Bryant, a research associate in gastroenterology at the Population Health Sciences Institute of Newcastle University.

The researchers said they analyzed results from studies and looked at mortality rates among people who were given ivermectin versus people who weren’t. The researchers concluded:

"Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."

They added: "Health professionals should strongly consider its use, in both treatment and" prevention.

Study’s underpinnings
Experts said the trials that the study relies on are not high quality.

Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said the study is a meta-analysis (an analysis of other analyses) "whose strength is dependent on the underlying studies that comprise it."

"In general, most of the ivermectin studies that purport to show a positive benefit are of low quality and have potential sources of bias," which is why the drug is not recommended by the National Institutes of Health or the Infectious Diseases Society of America, he said. "It is only with rigorously designed randomized control trials that any true benefit can be discovered."

Assuming the meta-analysis is correct, ivermectin "would seem to merit further study," said Stephen Morse, an epidemiology professor at Columbia University Medical Center.

Some drugs initially seem promising, but don’t hold up in more rigorous clinical testing, Morse said. For instance, some insisted that hydroxychloroquine was "a cure," but there hasn’t been strong supporting data for it, he said.

"That can be a real problem, and raise unrealistic expectations for a drug that might be very promising or useful, but not a homerun," Morse said.

Some of the studies analyzed in the ivermectin meta-analysis were not peer reviewed, said Dr. David Gorski, a professor of surgery and oncology at Wayne State University and chief of breast surgery at the Karmanos Cancer Institute, who has criticized the June study.

"Pooling data from a large number of small, low-quality clinical trials does not magically create one large, high-quality clinical trial," wrote Gorski, who is also managing editor of Science-Based Medicine, a website that evaluates medical claims.

He added: "The few existing higher quality clinical trials testing ivermectin against the disease uniformly have failed to find a positive result. It’s only the smaller, lower-quality trials that have been positive. This is a good indication that the drug probably doesn’t work."

Gorski also pointed out that the researchers, despite claiming to have no conflicts of interest, are affiliated with BIRD (British Ivermectin Recommendation Development) Group.

BIRD describes itself as "campaigning for the safe medicine ivermectin to be approved to prevent and cure COVID-19 around the world."

Tess Lawrie, who is one of the study’s co-authors and a BIRD leader, told PolitiFact in an email that her study "shows that large reductions in deaths from COVID are probable when ivermectin is used, especially when employed as early treatment."

Another meta-analysis, published June 28, arrived at an opposite conclusion.

That study was led by a University of Connecticut researcher and appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, a publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. It found that in comparison to standard of care or placebo, ivermectin "did not reduce all-cause mortality." The study concluded saying that the drug "is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients."

BIRD reacted by calling on the journal to take down the meta-analysis or issue a warning about its "incorrect information."

I would say the same about the above misguided , misinformed, biased post. Please stop this nonsense before some unwitting reader gets injured or worse.

GE.......how can you be this sharp so early in the morning?

Coffee:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

We have been lied to so much it is like dealing with my X, I don't know what to believe.