The delta variant of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 has been found to be far more infectious, while being less deadly than the original coronavirus. This is mainly attributed to the vaccine being around. So again, more people have died of Covid in 2021 even though a vaccine exists.

And +90% of those deaths were the unvacinated.

Where is the running "Thank Count" for individual posts?

My neighbors were fully vaccinated, they'd received their second shot just short of a week before they both started feeling ill. Both of them are "at risk" being over 80 years old, with one of them having some health issues and the other not having any. They both tested positive, and got the antibodies transfusion thingie, and started feeling better after several days.

But it was very scary, knowing that both of them could've been gone "just like that" even though they took precautions.

We love our neighbors. And we love our families. We also love ourselves. And so out of love for friends, family, neighbors, and selves, we are both fully vaccinated. I still wear a mask when I go into stores, or get take-out in restaurants.

I only wore a mask outside in open air when it was required of me as part of my job with Publix, last year.

And for almost all of 2020 there was no vaccine, so 100% of the folks that died were unvaccinated. Why are more dying in 2021 if a vaccine is available?

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.

?shifting recommendations based on new data and new studies, as well as new variants, or "lying". Knowing what I know, I'll go with the former.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeebean https://d32rzbb554tqz0.cloudfront.ne...s/viewpost.gif
GE.......how can you be this sharp so early in the morning?




Can you quote a STUDY that indicates that coffee really indeed gives you the ability to "be this sharp so early in the morning?" :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

In this particular case, I'm ignoring the scientific method and relying on an anecdotal case study of ONE!!!!:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Very interesting - thanks for the post. Maybe the UK is approaching herd Immunity?

"Based on antibody testing of blood donors, 98.0% of the adult population now have antibodies to COVID-19 from either infection or vaccination compared to 19.0% that have antibodies from infection alone. Over 96% of adults aged 17 or older have antibodies from either infection or vaccination"

:1rotfl:

From the Disney + special on Fauci

Attachment 91122

All my friends have larger than lifesize paintings of themselves hanging in their home office. It's a sure sign of a humble public servant. :shocked::shocked::shocked:

Sometimes it is hard to find the right mirror to fit a room. Reminds me a bit of the triple-self Rockwell as that painting shows we can have an unrealistic opinion of our worth/appearance to others.

No big deal but the other day I was watching an interview with Fauci in his study/den(?) and in the background on the book shelf was a couple of candles with his picture on the sides. Hey, who am I do judge? I just have a set of Russian nesting dolls with the likeness of past premiers.

No comment necessary

Attachment 91139

That's because it isn't worth commenting on:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

I seem to recall that the Person Who Shall Not Be Named used his charities funds to buy a portrait of himself. Wonder which room it's hanging in now...
If overblown egos are cause for criticism, just look around TV where just about every public building/place is named after one of the Morses.

And the streets are named after their families and friends.

Interesting, since I just looked at the list of 100 recreation centers and only a few are named after Morse family members. Also, didn't notice any of the 50+ golf courses had a Morse name. Street names are a different story

Obviously the audience has never had an intimate dinner with Tony :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

There are also the Sharon Morse Performing Arts Center and the Sharon Morse Medical Center.

And let's not forget the larger-than-life-sized statue of Harold Schwartz standing in the fountain-pool at Spanish Springs Town Square.

Point being, it's not any more or less narcissistic to have a big honkin portrait of yourself somewhere in your house, than it is to have a statue made in your honor or a building named after you. For all anyone knows, Fauci was given this portrait as a gift from some well-known artist, and it's valuable, and thematic (since it's a portrait of him), so he has it displayed prominently in the room.

My grandparents had busts made of themselves by a local artist and they were displayed in the foyer of their home, across from the front doors. They weren't narcissistic either - to them it was them, supporting the arts. They were also donors at the local performance theatre, and had little plaques with their names on a pair of box seats. My parents did the same.

Obviously:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

I have a curiosity question - are the rec centers considered public places? I have not been to one lately, but seem to recall being asked for my Village's ID card before being allowed in. I know exceptions are made for voting, but for day to day access are they really public places?

Residents and their guests only, ID is checked at the front desk. IDs are theoretically checked at the pools, but some non-residents sneak in. Much harder to sneak inside the rec center

Stop, you are making me dizzy.

PS A statue in a square or a a building named after you are not the same as a big honkin portrait of yourself in your home office.

Supporting the arts? :bigbow: That's world class spin.