I know a bloke who gives Ivermectin to his farm dogs. So far no Coronavirus infections in the dogs, or his family, OR any of his neighbours or their dogs either...
Maybe there really is something to it?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
What forum are you on? Make a point clearly and then shut up? Certainly not on this one, and who do you think is listening? No one here is really expecting to get their Covid understanding from this topic.
You don't make points when you just post a URL. You are in effect just posting a quote from someone else about something. It's just like providing a quote from someone notable and then expecting it to justify something without any substantiation.
I do agree that less talk and more listening is generally a good thing in person, but again, as long as the person doing the talking actually provides information that's useful.
You keep making parallel but unrelated points. Sure, nobody is listening of getting their COVID understanding here, but the links that I'm posting -- that you're complaining about -- are for clarity or confirmation of points already made, or are a logical next step in a conversation.
Then we're back to posting something, being asked what your source is, then just having to post the URL anyway. There are bad-faith actors who use that tactic to constantly discredit what you're saying, assuming incorrectly that **** is just being made up. Why not skip that whole thing?
I just provide the information, unfiltered by biased opinion and without unnecessary verbiage 
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Cool, looks like 'with Ivermectin' is better and reducing effects by a third or so?
I would have expected to see much better than this, and a comment describing that the subject group was stronger after discharge than before 
That was one study. The next one I skimmed the "results" section of (also double-blind) stated no statistical significance in results. I'll wait for the meta analysis.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
well, to be fair, some of them are sheep.
Then you must have evidence of that. Show your peer-viewed multi-centric double-blind sources please
Select to expand quotefinsup said..
I know a bloke who gives Ivermectin to his farm dogs. So far no Coronavirus infections in the dogs, or his family, OR any of his neighbours or their dogs either...
Maybe there really is something to it?
Ivermectin or a version of it is in a few flea and mite treatments for dogs, so its nothing new.
I believe its accepted that 80% of infected populations fall between non-symptomatic and mild symptoms. People should be able to self determine if they are in the 80% club. No one should be expected to medicate themselves for what is likely to be little more than a head cold. The vaccine is no pathway to herd immunity since it doesnt stop infection or transmition, therefore your only taking it to lower your own severity....if you want it.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..FormulaNova said..
well, to be fair, some of them are sheep.
Then you must have evidence of that. Show your peer-viewed multi-centric double-blind sources please
Oh, you want a link?
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..
That was one study. The next one I skimmed the "results" section of (also double-blind) stated no statistical significance in results. I'll wait for the meta analysis.
Have you read the response to the study you posted
Real does highlight the flaws in the study.
Like how small the group was (69)
ect.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..FormulaNova said..
What forum are you on? Make a point clearly and then shut up? Certainly not on this one, and who do you think is listening? No one here is really expecting to get their Covid understanding from this topic.
You don't make points when you just post a URL. You are in effect just posting a quote from someone else about something. It's just like providing a quote from someone notable and then expecting it to justify something without any substantiation.
I do agree that less talk and more listening is generally a good thing in person, but again, as long as the person doing the talking actually provides information that's useful.
You keep making parallel but unrelated points. Sure, nobody is listening of getting their COVID understanding here, but the links that I'm posting -- that you're complaining about -- are for clarity or confirmation of points already made, or are a logical next step in a conversation.
Then we're back to posting something, being asked what your source is, then just having to post the URL anyway. There are bad-faith actors who use that tactic to constantly discredit what you're saying, assuming incorrectly that **** is just being made up. Why not skip that whole thing?
I just provide the information, unfiltered by biased opinion and without unnecessary verbiage
I am not complaining about your links at all. I am complaining that a link by itself means nothing, at least for the purpose of discussion. I have no problem if you say 'Covid is caused by eating barnacles and washing daily in engine oil' and posting a link to show this. If you just post the link only I wouldn't be sure if you believed it or were making fun of it.
Maybe a meme. Have you thought about just posting stuff in memes? Its even easier as you can just post other people's stuff and no one can argue against it because you have said nothing, just posted a meme. Oh sorry... wrong forum user
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Kamikuza said..FormulaNova said..
What forum are you on? Make a point clearly and then shut up? Certainly not on this one, and who do you think is listening? No one here is really expecting to get their Covid understanding from this topic.
You don't make points when you just post a URL. You are in effect just posting a quote from someone else about something. It's just like providing a quote from someone notable and then expecting it to justify something without any substantiation.
I do agree that less talk and more listening is generally a good thing in person, but again, as long as the person doing the talking actually provides information that's useful.
You keep making parallel but unrelated points. Sure, nobody is listening of getting their COVID understanding here, but the links that I'm posting -- that you're complaining about -- are for clarity or confirmation of points already made, or are a logical next step in a conversation.
Then we're back to posting something, being asked what your source is, then just having to post the URL anyway. There are bad-faith actors who use that tactic to constantly discredit what you're saying, assuming incorrectly that **** is just being made up. Why not skip that whole thing?
I just provide the information, unfiltered by biased opinion and without unnecessary verbiage
I am not complaining about your links at all. I am complaining that a link by itself means nothing, at least for the purpose of discussion. I have no problem if you say 'Covid is caused by eating barnacles and washing daily in engine oil' and posting a link to show this. If you just post the link only I wouldn't be sure if you believed it or were making fun of it.
Maybe a meme. Have you thought about just posting stuff in memes? Its even easier as you can just post other people's stuff and no one can argue against it because you have said nothing, just posted a meme. Oh sorry... wrong forum user
Translation:
I don't want to have to read something for myself and apply critical thinking. I'd rather have someone make a comment I can attack.
Select to expand quoteKamikuza said..
I just provide the information, unfiltered by biased opinion and without unnecessary verbiage
Unless you provide a link to every web page on the entire internet, you have filtered.
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..Kamikuza said..
I just provide the information, unfiltered by biased opinion and without unnecessary verbiage
Unless you provide a link to every web page on the entire internet, you have filtered.
Lol so true
NSW
There are 362 COVID-19 cases in hospital with 58 people in intensive care, 24 of whom require ventilation.
Of the 58 cases in intensive care, five were in their 20s, seven in their 30s, four in their 40s, 17 in their 50s, seven in their 60s, 15 in the 70s and three in their 80s.
Fifty-four of those in the ICU were not vaccinated, three had received their first dose of AstraZeneca and one had received their first dose of Pfizer vaccine.
If an employee catches Covid in the workplace they are entitled to worker's compensation. Should their infection be serious and they are required to be hospitalised/ventilated, should the employer be liable even if the employee chose not to be vaccinated and possibly reduce their risk of serious complications?
Select to expand quotesailpilot said..
I believe its accepted that 80% of infected populations fall between non-symptomatic and mild symptoms. People should be able to self determine if they are in the 80% club. No one should be expected to medicate themselves for what is likely to be little more than a head cold. The vaccine is no pathway to herd immunity since it doesnt stop infection or transmition, therefore your only taking it to lower your own severity....if you want it.
It's people that spread this utter false bull**** that will see us in this damn pandemic for years to come. Thanks very much : (
The vaccine is highly effective at preventing transmission. The data is undeniably clear in large population samples, like Florida.
I mean, the numbers are just so wildly in favour of vaccination I don't understand how anyone can double down/dig deeper/bury their head in the sand any more. It's akin to you arguing that you saw a wave go out, so the tide is not coming in. You're a fool.
The US is going through a second wave; a "pandemic for the unvaccinated".
abcnews.go.com/Health/statistics-show-risks-vaccinated-covid-19/story?id=78845627
It's just common sense. It's elementary.
Select to expand quoteIanR said..japie said..IanR said..japie
The point is is that the protocols are effective and that the fact has been established for a fair while now.
What exactly are the protocols for taking an equine form of ivermectin
What are the protocols for taking human grade ivermectin as a prophylactic.
Can you use ivermectin made for ruminants
Your fixation on ruminants is decidedly unhealthy.
You should visit a therapist.
Ask a CT'ist hard question and the response is abuse
I really thought you would have a dosage protocol for Ivermectin.
The FLCCC do have a guide to dosage for when someone has the virus on their website. But nothing for use as a prophylactic
Kami mentioned something about one study where people took 12mg for three or four days. How long does that give them protection form the virus before they have to take enough coarse
A horse is not ruminant, it has a different digestive system to a cow or a sheep
Ivermectin can be purchased as a sheep drench or as injection for cows.
I thought that maybe some of you Wellness Brothers like snoidberg might start using other freely avalible sources of ivermectin
It amazes me the Wellness type that take vitamins and health supplements that won't get the vaccine but would rather use Veterinary grade medication and think they are in control of there health
That's all the woke have. Nazi nazi nazi and conspiracy theorist.
There are literally thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of mainstream doctors, lawyers, politicians and health professionals who realise the truth and who have spoken out about it.
Labelling them all as conspiracy theorists is puerile.
And it's not a valid argument.
You should visit a therapist.
And do yourself a favour and read over your replies before you post them. That way there's a better chance they will be coherent.
Select to expand quotekiterboy said..
I don't want to have to read something for myself and apply critical thinking. I'd rather have someone make a comment I can attack.
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..
NSW
There are 362 COVID-19 cases in hospital with 58 people in intensive care, 24 of whom require ventilation.
Of the 58 cases in intensive care, five were in their 20s, seven in their 30s, four in their 40s, 17 in their 50s, seven in their 60s, 15 in the 70s and three in their 80s.
Fifty-four of those in the ICU were not vaccinated, three had received their first dose of AstraZeneca and one had received their first dose of Pfizer vaccine.
I feel a bit sorry for people in NSW at the moment. They are faced with a lockdown that just keeps going and their access to vaccinations is pretty ordinary.
They seem to be faced with a choice of going with Astrazenica and the risks it has, or trying to book an appointment for Pfizer on the woeful websites that NSW Health has. Its terrible. No simple system where you can just register and say 'I want a vaccination anywhere near me ASAP', but instead you have to try and find yourself two appointments at the one vaccination centre that align within date ranges to suit the recommended second dose.
Who designed this piece of crap system? Clearly no one thought this through well enough.
I am not sure what is worse, the federal government that didn't order enough vaccines to cover the population should one not be viable, or the people that have built the booking system and made it incredibly difficult and inefficient.
I would find it incredibly insulting if I wanted to get vaccinated and these systems made it almost impossible to do so. What is the use of having people that want to get vaccinated and no easy way for them to do it.
Its no wonder that they have opened up AZ to walk-in clinics as their booking approach is inexcusable for something that is meant to facilitate vaccination.
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..sailpilot said..
I believe its accepted that 80% of infected populations fall between non-symptomatic and mild symptoms. People should be able to self determine if they are in the 80% club. No one should be expected to medicate themselves for what is likely to be little more than a head cold. The vaccine is no pathway to herd immunity since it doesnt stop infection or transmition, therefore your only taking it to lower your own severity....if you want it.
It's people that spread this utter false bull**** that will see us in this damn pandemic for years to come. Thanks very much : (
The vaccine is highly effective at preventing transmission. The data is undeniably clear in large population samples, like Florida.
I mean, the numbers are just so wildly in favour of vaccination I don't understand how anyone can double down/dig deeper/bury their head in the sand any more. It's akin to you arguing that you saw a wave go out, so the tide is not coming in. You're a fool.
The US is going through a second wave; a "pandemic for the unvaccinated".
abcnews.go.com/Health/statistics-show-risks-vaccinated-covid-19/story?id=78845627
It's just common sense. It's elementary.
I don't know where you are getting your information from because I am seeing an awful lot of this
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..
The US is going through a second wave; a "pandemic for the unvaccinated".
abcnews.go.com/Health/statistics-show-risks-vaccinated-covid-19/story?id=78845627
This is where the data starts to mean something. From that link above:
"A stark case in point: During June, every person who died of COVID-19 in Maryland was unvaccinated, according to a spokesperson for the governor's office. There were 130 people who died of COVID-19 in Maryland in June, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
MORE: As COVID-19 surges again, what experts say about the millions of unvaccinated
New COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations were also predominantly among unvaccinated people, the state said, at 95% and 93% respectively.
Other states have reported similar findings while urging people to get vaccinated as the more transmissible delta variant is driving up COVID-19 cases."
If everyone that died of Covid19 was unvaccinated, in a population where a large proportion are vaccinated (close to 60% I think in this case), it tells us clearly the benefit of vaccination. If vaccination rates were low it would not be meaningful, but with a 60% rate of vaccination you would expect a similar proportion of deaths if the vaccine did nothing or even higher.
Pretty hard to argue logically with this one.
An interview with Dr Kobi Haviv at Herzog Hospital Jerusalem.
95% of the severe patients are vaccinated.
It's recorded on YouTube though so it may be invalid
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..sailpilot said..
I believe its accepted that 80% of infected populations fall between non-symptomatic and mild symptoms. People should be able to self determine if they are in the 80% club. No one should be expected to medicate themselves for what is likely to be little more than a head cold. The vaccine is no pathway to herd immunity since it doesnt stop infection or transmition, therefore your only taking it to lower your own severity....if you want it.
It's people that spread this utter false bull**** that will see us in this damn pandemic for years to come. Thanks very much : (
The vaccine is highly effective at preventing transmission. The data is undeniably clear in large population samples, like Florida.
I mean, the numbers are just so wildly in favour of vaccination I don't understand how anyone can double down/dig deeper/bury their head in the sand any more. It's akin to you arguing that you saw a wave go out, so the tide is not coming in. You're a fool.
The US is going through a second wave; a "pandemic for the unvaccinated".
abcnews.go.com/Health/statistics-show-risks-vaccinated-covid-19/story?id=78845627
It's just common sense. It's elementary.
Natural selection is the process through which species adapt to their environments.
It is the engine that drives evolution.
EP - you are interfering with this !
www.news-medical.net/news/20210809/New-compound-inspired-by-tapeworm-drugs-shows-two-pronged-effectiveness-against-COVID-19.aspx
Importantly, because it acts inside cells rather than on viral spikes, questions about whether it would work in new variants like Delta and Lambda aren't a concern, he adds."This mechanism is not dependent on the virus spike protein, so these new variants coming up aren't going to relegate us to finding new molecules as is the case with vaccines or antibodies," Janda says.
Select to expand quotejapie said..
An interview with Dr Kobi Haviv at Herzog Hospital Jerusalem.
95% of the severe patients are vaccinated.
It's recorded on YouTube though so it may be invalid
This is where the data becomes more complicated. If you have high proportion of your population vaccinated, you would expect to see a high proportion of patients to be vaccinated, clearly to the ultimate where a 100% vaccinated means all your patients are vaccinated. Israel is one of those countries where they are pushing for a very high level of vaccination.
How do you separate the data to figure out if the vaccine is helping or hindering?
Select to expand quoteevlPanda said..sailpilot said..
I believe its accepted that 80% of infected populations fall between non-symptomatic and mild symptoms. People should be able to self determine if they are in the 80% club. No one should be expected to medicate themselves for what is likely to be little more than a head cold. The vaccine is no pathway to herd immunity since it doesnt stop infection or transmition, therefore your only taking it to lower your own severity....if you want it.
It's people that spread this utter false bull**** that will see us in this damn pandemic for years to come. Thanks very much : (
The vaccine is highly effective at preventing transmission. The data is undeniably clear in large population samples, like Florida.
I mean, the numbers are just so wildly in favour of vaccination I don't understand how anyone can double down/dig deeper/bury their head in the sand any more. It's akin to you arguing that you saw a wave go out, so the tide is not coming in. You're a fool.
The US is going through a second wave; a "pandemic for the unvaccinated".
abcnews.go.com/Health/statistics-show-risks-vaccinated-covid-19/story?id=78845627
It's just common sense. It's elementary.
Hmmm, false Bull###, well Evl Im very happy to respect you to have your opinion thats fine. You may wish to take up your assertions over transmissibility with the vaccine manufacturers because they dont agree with you.
Regardless the 80% rule is firmly established.
ATB
Select to expand quoteairsail said..
If an employee catches Covid in the workplace they are entitled to worker's compensation. Should their infection be serious and they are required to be hospitalised/ventilated, should the employer be liable even if the employee chose not to be vaccinated and possibly reduce their risk of serious complications?
I've been thinking about this since i'm sitting in isolation at home watching Gladys "she'll be right, oh wait it isn't" giving daily reports on the NSW rona town sh!t show.
im certainly not a lawyer, but i can't see how it would fly at court for someone that caught the rona randomly at work. Its a situation that is completely outside of the employers control. Its already been established that you can be infectious and show no symptoms. Lets take rona town for example. How would you prove that you caught it at work? Sure maybe someone rocked up unknowingly carrying rona. But you could've just as easily caught it off some random at the shop on you're way to work with the way things are over there. Its an infectious disease, not a teetering pallet ready to drop on someones head. The chances of having a case are even less likely if they've made a conscious decision to not get vaccinated.
but to play devil's advocate, what if someone went and got the AZ shot because the employer mandated vaccination by such and such a date and that was all that was available, then developed a blood clot? Again, the chances are minimal of developing a clot. And im playing armchair lawyer, but that sounds like a much more solid case for them, or their grieving family.
Select to expand quoteSubsonic said..airsail said..
If an employee catches Covid in the workplace they are entitled to worker's compensation. Should their infection be serious and they are required to be hospitalised/ventilated, should the employer be liable even if the employee chose not to be vaccinated and possibly reduce their risk of serious complications?
I've been thinking about this since i'm sitting in isolation at home watching Gladys "she'll be right, oh wait it isn't" giving daily reports on the NSW rona town sh!t show.
im certainly not a lawyer, but i can't see how it would fly at court for someone that caught the rona randomly at work. Its a situation that is completely outside of the employers control. Its already been established that you can be infectious and show no symptoms. Lets take rona town for example. How would you prove that you caught it at work? Sure maybe someone rocked up unknowingly carrying rona. But you could've just as easily caught it off some random at the shop on you're way to work with the way things are over there. Its an infectious disease, not a teetering pallet ready to drop on someones head. The chances of having a case are even less likely if they've made a conscious decision to not get vaccinated.
but to play devil's advocate, what if someone went and got the AZ shot because the employer mandated vaccination by such and such a date and that was all that was available, then developed a blood clot? Again, the chances are minimal of developing a clot. And im playing armchair lawyer, but that sounds like a much more solid case for them, or their grieving family.
Employees will always try and claim it was caught in the workplace if they can, will be hard if not impossible to prove otherwise. And injury or illness when travelling to and from work is a workcover claim. I can see a big us and them situation between vaxed and unvaxed.
The employers have a duty of care to protect all of their employees, the bloody PPE we currently need to wear at work is bordering on silly. I just wonder how they will protect an unvaxed against a vaxed who we know can carry with no symptoms.
As for AZ, with Moderna now onboard possible blood clots won't be an issue.
