COVID-19/corona virus mega thread/prepping thread

[MechAg94]

This is Omicron from when I was younger.

[MillCreek]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/30/health/molnupiravir-pill-covid-fda-advisers/index.html

First oral med for COVID is recommended for approval by the FDA.  Additional data is showing that it is not as effective as originally hoped.  FDA approval is nonetheless expected.

[Bogie]

Holy crap. I'd rather die of the covids than turn into this. Props to Walmart for banning him from their store.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1464437031917002757

We get those - It's called the Covid Dance... If they are not 200% happy with your "precautions" they dance and flit everywhere to avoid the covids...
 
"Why aren't you wearing a mask?"
 
"Why aren't you wearing two masks?"
 
"Where are your gloves?"
 
"Do  you have a free mask for me?"
 
"Where is the hand sanitizer?"

[Bogie]

I don't spend much time looking at national covid stats, but I've been following the stats in St Louis County, MO, where I live. The numbers for this fall are so far very far short of this time last year. Our highest recorded number of new cases in one day was 1,174, on 19 November, last year. On 19 November this year, there were 240 new cases recorded. The same day last year, there were 16 Covid deaths recorded, versus 1 this year. (Our record number of deaths in one day was 25, which was a few weeks after 19 November last year.)

Granted, you could say I’m cherry-picking, but I’m really just giving an example illustrative of the trend. My source:

https://stlouiscountymo.gov/st-louis-county-departments/public-health/covid-19/covid-19-data-reports/
 

Here is St. Louis City, which is separate from the County... Generally lower average income, etc...
 
They have been working pretty hard to keep folks freaking out.
 
IMHO, the number of "cases" doesn't matter, especially how they've been pushing testing, especially since (a) some folks still think it means safety to get tested, and (b) some folks get repeated tests before they are allowed to go back to work.
 
What matters is the fatality rate.
 
The OVERALL population fatality rate for STL City is currently under 99.8%, including nursing home, long-term-care, skilled nursing facilities, and hospice patients.
 
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/covid-19/data/index.cfm

[sumpnz]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/30/health/molnupiravir-pill-covid-fda-advisers/index.html

First oral med for COVID is recommended for approval by the FDA.  Additional data is showing that it is not as effective as originally hoped.  FDA approval is nonetheless expected.

Why not trial ivermectin, HCQ, etc?  They’re cheap, and safety at certain doses is known from decades of use for other purposes, so only question is efficacy.  If they don’t work it’ll put to bed a lot conspiracy theories, at least among those that pay attention to such studies.  Instead all we get is that such treatments are “unproven” and, oh! here’s a new and massively expensive drug that is actually unknown as to long term safety.

Not saying they shouldn’t develop those new drugs.  In fact, I heartily support that development.  But it makes it look like a naked money and power grab the way they’re going.  Probably because that is what they’re doing.

[zxcvbob]

Not saying they shouldn’t develop those new drugs.  In fact, I heartily support that development.  But it makes it look like a naked money and power grab the way they’re going.  Probably because that is what they’re doing.

I read that as a naked monkey and power grab.  Thought, "there's a colorful phrase I've never heard before"     I should probably select a larger font...

[dogmush]

Why not trial ivermectin, HCQ, etc?  They’re cheap, and safety at certain doses is known from decades of use for other purposes, so only question is efficacy.  If they don’t work it’ll put to bed a lot conspiracy theories, at least among those that pay attention to such studies.  Instead all we get is that such treatments are “unproven” and, oh! here’s a new and massively expensive drug that is actually unknown as to long term safety.

Not saying they shouldn’t develop those new drugs.  In fact, I heartily support that development.  But it makes it look like a naked money and power grab the way they’re going.  Probably because that is what they’re doing.

Like these?

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30464-8/fulltext

The UK PRICIPLE Study doesn't have their Ivermectin results back yet, but they are running the study:
https://www.principletrial.org/

This is the pre-publication study that started the Ivermectin Buzz, but as you can see it was withdrawn:
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-100956/v3

[MechAg94]

Why not trial ivermectin, HCQ, etc?  They’re cheap, and safety at certain doses is known from decades of use for other purposes, so only question is efficacy.  If they don’t work it’ll put to bed a lot conspiracy theories, at least among those that pay attention to such studies.  Instead all we get is that such treatments are “unproven” and, oh! here’s a new and massively expensive drug that is actually unknown as to long term safety.

Not saying they shouldn’t develop those new drugs.  In fact, I heartily support that development.  But it makes it look like a naked money and power grab the way they’re going.  Probably because that is what they’re doing.

And it shouldn't matter if they are highly effective or not.  They probably won't be as effective as some people think.  If they can be used safely, what is the problem?

[cordex]

Also: https://ivmmeta.com/

That said, the interesting thing to me is the presumption in reporting.  For ivermectin the presumption seems to be that it is both ineffective and dangerous which must be disproven by new testing.  For new drugs the presumption is that they are effective and safe, until disproven by testing.

Regardless of whether or not ivermectin is effective in the treatment of COVID, it does have an excellent safety record.

[RocketMan]

IMO, the efficacy of various drugs used off-label for Covid is based on political science as much as medical science.  I think most of the few studies performed are done to elicit a desired outcome.

[Bogie]

I noticed that quite a few studies seemed to be testing the Bad Bad Drugs as antivirals in later-stage patients, rather than as prophylactics regarding the symptoms in earlier-stage patients...
 
They want them to be what they are not. And they are not antivirals.
 
And that is all political - the objective is to discredit ANYTHING that Trump said/did, even if coached to say so by the swamp creatures in the CDC...

[dogmush]

Is it possible that the insistence in some corners that Ivermectin helps COVID despite (at best) conflicting, low quality results be the political science in this particular case?  There have been lots of  [not great] trials done over the last year or so, some done as an anti-viral, some done as prophylactic, some vs placebo, some vs standard of care, and many other permutations.  There's no real evidence it helps.

I agree that it has a pretty solid safety history, and if you and your Dr. want to include it as a "kitchen sink" drug regimen, that should be between you and your Dr., but I see no vast suppression conspiracy among the medical folks that actually research these things.  As always, the media tends to hew more to a narrative.

[Bogie]

Given that the bug isn't all that fatal outside people who are already hanging out in Death's Waiting Room, except for some nontypical responses, that could account for some of the positive test stuff...

[dogmush]

Given that the bug isn't all that fatal outside people who are already hanging out in Death's Waiting Room, except for some nontypical responses, that could account for some of the positive test stuff...

So you agree it the drug probably doesn't do anything useful for COVID-19?

[Bogie]

Thing is, we don't know that... Too much noise, too many folks looking for preconceived results.
 
Generally touted by the same people who insist that Trump told people to inject bleach or lysol...

[MillCreek]

Once a drug has been approved by the FDA for any indication, a physician is able to prescribe it for 'off-label' use in accordance with their clinical judgment.  The majority of physicians only prescribe off-label meds if there is generally recognized medical consensus as to the safety and efficacy of the medication for a particular use.  That medical consensus usually comes from the literature and recommendations from professional groups.  This approach has been followed for many decades in the US and is not particularly new or novel pertinent to COVID. 

Although many here would disagree, at this time there is no such consensus for the use of ivermectin and HCQ for COVID in the United States.  Very few physicians are therefore writing prescriptions for it.  Many physicians who do have faced disciplinary action on the grounds that they are outside the standard of care. One of the reasons for the ongoing studies is to see if such a consensus pro or con can be reached.  The consensus or regulatory findings of other countries can be interesting, but do not establish the standard of care in the United States, although they can contribute to reaching the consensus in the United States.

The suggestions that Dr. Welby at the corner clinic is in the pay of Big Pharma or the CDC to suppress ivermectin, HCQ or injectable bleach are simply tinfoil. It is very true that one year's fringe therapy may very well become the future standard of care, but equally true that one year's standard of care becomes the future fringe therapy based on further research.  See Thalidomide for an example.

[Bogie]

And Thalidomide is still pursued in oncology...
 
Celecoxib showed efficacy in colorectal oncology.
 
The thing today is that the "science is settled," and seeing if something might work will get your career canceled...

[Jim147]

Anyone read about the new pill they just gave the ok to? I don't have the link handy I read about early this morning. Expensive and doesn't work very well but that's ok.

[RoadKingLarry]

Once a drug has been approved by the FDA for any indication, a physician is able to prescribe it for 'off-label' use in accordance with their clinical judgment.  The majority of physicians only prescribe off-label meds if there is generally recognized medical consensus as to the safety and efficacy of the medication for a particular use.  That medical consensus usually comes from the literature and recommendations from professional groups.  This approach has been followed for many decades in the US and is not particularly new or novel pertinent to COVID. 

Although many here would disagree, at this time there is no such consensus for the use of ivermectin and HCQ for COVID in the United States.  Very few physicians are therefore writing prescriptions for it.  Many physicians who do have faced disciplinary action on the grounds that they are outside the standard of care. One of the reasons for the ongoing studies is to see if such a consensus pro or con can be reached.  The consensus or regulatory findings of other countries can be interesting, but do not establish the standard of care in the United States, although they can contribute to reaching the consensus in the United States.

The suggestions that Dr. Welby at the corner clinic is in the pay of Big Pharma or the CDC to suppress ivermectin, HCQ or injectable bleach are simply tinfoil. It is very true that one year's fringe therapy may very well become the future standard of care, but equally true that one year's standard of care becomes the future fringe therapy based on further research.  See Thalidomide for an example.

This statement is very telling - Many physicians who do have faced disciplinary action on the grounds that they are outside the standard of care.. Medical professionals don't have to be directly, one on one influenced by Big Pharma or the CDC to be influenced by them.

Can anyone tell me why there is no basic standard home "treatment" for a covid diagnosis other than "Go home and try not to die, but if you get worse and start to die come back so you can die in the hospital" ? 
Any suggestion of a treatment is met with howls of derision from the usual suspects denying the treatment is a cure and calling for anyone that dare suggest a treatment be figuratively (at best) burned at the stake of political expediency.

[dogmush]

Can anyone tell me why there is no basic standard home "treatment" for a covid diagnosis other than "Go home and try not to die, but if you get worse and start to die come back so you can die in the hospital" ? 
Any suggestion of a treatment is met with howls of derision from the usual suspects denying the treatment is a cure and calling for anyone that dare suggest a treatment be figuratively (at best) burned at the stake of political expediency.

I feel like we have had this discussion *several* times, but once again, there is such a standard.

Behold: https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/management/clinical-management/nonhospitalized-adults--therapeutic-management/

Symptom Management
Symptomatic treatment includes using over-the-counter antipyretics, analgesics, or antitussives for fever, headache, myalgias, and cough. Patients with dyspnea may benefit from resting in the prone position rather than the supine position.1 Health care providers should consider educating patients about breathing exercises, as severe breathlessness may cause anxiety.2 Patients should be advised to drink fluids regularly to avoid dehydration. Rest is recommended as needed during the acute phase of COVID-19, and ambulation and other forms of activity should be increased according to the patient’s tolerance. Patients should be educated about the variability in time to symptom resolution and complete recovery.

...

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibodies
Two combination anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody (mAb) products (bamlanivimab plus etesevimab and casirivimab plus imdevimab) and a single mAb (sotrovimab) have been shown to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death in the outpatient setting in those with mild to moderate COVID-19 symptoms and certain risk factors for disease progression. As a result, these products have received Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of COVID-19 in these individuals, as well as in those with other risk factors for progression that have been identified in population-based studies. There are no comparative data to determine whether there are differences in clinical efficacy or safety between these products.

The Panel recommends using one of the following anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs to treat outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who are at high risk of clinical progression, as defined by the EUA criteria (treatments are listed in alphabetical order, and they may change based on circulating variants):

Bamlanivimab plus etesevimab; or
Casirivimab plus imdevimab; or
Sotrovimab

If blood O2 starts to drop there are more recommendations and drugs/treatment for patients requiring supplemental oxygen.  As I mentioned before, at least here in Tampa, if you show up at the hospital with Symptomatic COVID, they slap a bluetooth O2 meter on your wrist, sync it to your phone and show you how to check it before they send you home.

[Bogie]

Around here, someone gets a positive test, they basically get sent home and told to come back in if they get worse.
 
And that's about it.

[MillCreek]

Around here, someone gets a positive test, they basically get sent home and told to come back in if they get worse.
 
And that's about it.

^^^Hospitals are dangerous places, and if they can't do anything for you, it is best to stay out of them.

[Jim147]

^^^Hospitals are dangerous places, and if they can't do anything for you, it is best to stay out of them.

There is a reason I haven't been to the oncologist since right before this crap started.

[Bogie]

The one person who I know who died with it was over 70, very frail, with two kinds of cancer and MS, and they think she caught it while in for chemo.
 
Nosocomial.

99.8% overall survival of the greek letter disease... Can't call it the Chinese Flu anymore, right?

[cordex]

Is it possible that the insistence in some corners that Ivermectin helps COVID despite (at best) conflicting, low quality results be the political science in this particular case?

I think it is almost certain that politics have played a significant role in evaluating ivermectin in both directions.  I do agree that some people have reacted viscerally against the obvious and repeated lies being told about ivermectin and its proponents by more strongly tying themselves to its efficacy.  I certainly wouldn't want to be the one who had to try and defend scientific purity and righteousness when it comes any evaluation of COVID treatments or policies.

I agree that it has a pretty solid safety history, and if you and your Dr. want to include it as a "kitchen sink" drug regimen, that should be between you and your Dr.,

You are not a horse.  You are not a cow.  Seriously, dogmush.  Stop it.

but I see no vast suppression conspiracy among the medical folks that actually research these things.  As always, the media tends to hew more to a narrative.

You phrased your statement very carefully, and I agree that there is not likely to be a "vast suppression conspiracy among the medical folks that actually research these things."

That said, there has without a doubt been a widespread, effective, and seemingly coordinated campaign against ivermectin - not focused on its lack of efficacy, but it's safety and appropriateness as a medication for humans at all.  I have had reasonable, intelligent people who learned about ivermectin primarily from traditional sources tell me that they were shocked when they finally found out that ivermectin was not just a veterinary medicine, but regularly prescribed to people.  Certainly this is being executed by the media (news and otherwise), but even the FDA has gotten in on that game.

So while I agree that the researchers themselves aren't likely the source of the single-minded media narrative branding it as strictly horse dewormer, mocking people who use it, etc., I'm also not convinced that they (or their potential test subjects) are completely immune to being impacted by the cultural campaign of disinformation and lies.

This campaign may not be so much intended to be anti-ivermectin but in service of the monotheistic worship of the COVID vaccine as the One True Way and the fear that if people believe there are other possible treatments they won't jump on the COVID vaccine bandwagon.

Again, I'm not convinced that ivermectin is the best answer, or even a good answer to COVID, but I am acutely aware that the campaign against it was not in any way based on science.