Investor20

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(21)00160-0/fulltext April 09, 2021 Inhaled budesonide in the treatment of early COVID-19 (STOIC): a phase 2, open-label, randomised controlled trial "....indicating a relative risk reduction of 91% for budesonide." Interpretation Early administration of inhaled budesonide reduced the likelihood of needing urgent medical care and reduced time to recovery after early COVID-19. Note: Please consult a physician for any treatment. Any medication has contraindications. Only for discussion.

This article had selective citations. I have written before about Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin. But let us look at Convalescent plasma. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2033700 Early High-Titer Plasma Therapy to Prevent Severe Covid-19 in Older Adults Conclusions Early administration of high-titer convalescent plasma against SARS-CoV-2 to mildly ill infected older adults reduced the progression of Covid-19. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2031304 A Randomized Trial of Convalescent Plasma in Covid-19 Severe Pneumonia Conclusions No significant differences were observed in clinical status or overall mortality between patients treated with convalescent plasma and those who received placebo. ......... So medicines work better when patient is treated early...hardly a noble laureate level finding.

One area that has shown potential for reduced transmission is Ivermectin. If you look at the meta-analysis of four RCTs with Ivermectin in below link (Page 14), they have Moderate certainty evidence suggests that ivermectin prophylaxis among health care workers and COVID-19 contacts probably reduces the risk of COVID-19 infection by about 88% (4 studies, 851 participants; RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.18; 4.3% vs 34.5% contracted COVID-19). https://b3d2650e-e929-4448-a527-4eeb59304c7f.filesusr.com/ugd/593c4f_1b1399cb64514dc4bdcbef0cd15f7878.pdf 88% reduction is more than 50% given by AstraZeneca. However, the push back is these are not well done studies and are not large studies. Ofcourse no one does large studies as Ivermectin is so cheap, it is practically free. There is also one more study not included in the above meta-analysis: AIIMS find ivermectin prophylaxis reduces infection in Covid-19 patients https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/aiims-study-covid-19/ A study by All India Institutes of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)-Bhubaneswar in the Indian state of Odisha found that two doses of potential drug ivermectin prophylaxis resulted in a 73% reduction in Covid-19 infection. Note: Only for discussion. Not a suggestion to take any medication. Please follow your physicians advise.

The real question is can vaccines take us to herd immunity. There are doubts about that. Please read below article: Five reasons why COVID herd immunity is probably impossible https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2 The key to herd immunity is that, even if a person becomes infected, there are too few susceptible hosts around to maintain transmission — those who have been vaccinated or have already had the infection cannot contract and spread the virus. The COVID-19 vaccines developed by Moderna and Pfizer–BioNTech, for example, are extremely effective at preventing symptomatic disease, but it is still unclear whether they protect people from becoming infected, or from spreading the virus to others. That poses a problem for herd immunity. “Herd immunity is only relevant if we have a transmission-blocking vaccine. If we don’t, then the only way to get herd immunity in the population is to give everyone the vaccine,” says Shweta Bansal, a mathematical biologist at Georgetown University in Washington DC Even though the discussion is about Pfizer and Moderna which they are starting studies of infection and transmission, AstraZeneca released some data about infection. In below study they showed... "The data showed that PCR positive readings were reduced by 67% (CI: 49%, 78%) after a single dose, and 50% (CI: 38% to 59%) after the two dose regimen, supporting a substantial impact on transmission of the virus." https://covid19.astrazeneca.com/latest-news/primary-analysis-trial-data.html It could be as low as 38%, which considering mutations and reduction in mitigation such as distancing could cancel out. I am being fair, waiting for full data to make a judgement.

But they are not claiming that with this vaccine - atleast not yet. Read the Fauci comments given in the link. They are claiming even if someone gets infected after vaccination, they will get less symptoms. But that person could still transmit to others. Whether they get less infected and less transmission after vaccination is still being studied. Making unproven claims will make people question genuine claims.

If you get vaccinated, it helps you is the claim for vaccine. But even Fauci is not saying it helps others. It is far easier to convince people to take a vaccine because its good for them rather than make up that it reduces transmission to others which is still being studied and raises suspicions about other claims of vaccine.

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210326/covid-vaccine-spread-study March 26, 2021 "Fauci: Study Will Tell if COVID Vaccine Stops Spread" “We hope that within the next 5 or so months, we’ll be able answer the very important question about whether vaccinated people get infected asymptomatically,” he said, “and if they do, do they transmit the infection to others.” Why do they ask fully vaccinated people to wear masks. Socially distance. My friend in NY westchester county who is fully vaccinated was asked for a one week quarantine and PCR test to have some tests done at a hospital. Now, clarifying this information, why do you think it matters to you whether others are vaccinated as long as you are vaccinated?

Explain to me how you taking vaccine helps others? Is it not easier always to convince people it is in their interest - in this case to take the vaccine than these statements? Would it be not more polite to just say, I got vaccine...I am protected.

NY Vaccine passport. How to use it: "......you may be asked to show a photo ID that shows your name and birth date to verify that the Pass belongs to you. " So you would need a photo ID to buy groceries! Excelsior Pass: What You Need to Know | COVID-19 Vaccine (ny.gov)

The discussion seems to be like everyone has same access to same vaccine. For Astra Zeneca shot: https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2021/03/30/canada-Canada-suspends-use-AstraZeneca-coronavirus-vaccine/6901617075289/ Canada suspends use of AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine for people under 55 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56580728 Covid: Germany limits use of AstraZeneca Covid jab for under-60s https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/19/world/france-resumes-use-of-astrazenecas-vaccine-for-those-over-55-and-the-prime-minister-gets-the-shot.html France resumes use of AstraZeneca’s vaccine for those over 55, and the prime minister gets the shot. In the main coronavirus thread, we had a discussion about not studying Vitamin D, Ivermectin, HCQ+Zinc, Budenoside, Colchicine, etc which have at least small studies to support.  Particularly studying VItamin D in large randomized clinical trials. The pushback was now there are vaccines, there is no need for all these studies.  I strongly disagree.  Like in a war, one would depend on all the modes (marines, military, airforce), one needs to have multipronged approach against Covid too, especially when above are supplements or medicines that are cheap and widely available.

Some have questioned the need for vaccination for already infected and recovered.  Below Dr. Kulldorf is one of them https://twitter.com/MartinKulldorff/status/1376292359718248452 Look at re-infection rates: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/study-covid-19-reinfection_l_60533d0dc5b6f93a1d04a8d4 Overall, they found that a very small percentage of the population — 0.65% — experienced reinfection. Look at side effects https://www.kfyrtv.com/2021/03/15/health-experts-say-those-previously-infected-with-covid-19-may-have-worse-side-effects-from-the-vaccine/ Health experts say those previously infected with COVID-19 may have worse side effects from the vaccine If you check the exclusion criteria of the vaccine trials: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 Key exclusion criteria included a medical history of Covid-19, .....

Some have questioned the need for vaccination for already infected and recovered. Below Dr. Kulldorf is one of them Look at re-infection rates: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/study-covid-19-reinfection_l_60533d0dc5b6f93a1d04a8d4 Overall, they found that a very small percentage of the population — 0.65% — experienced reinfection. Look at side effects https://www.kfyrtv.com/2021/03/15/health-experts-say-those-previously-infected-with-covid-19-may-have-worse-side-effects-from-the-vaccine/ Health experts say those previously infected with COVID-19 may have worse side effects from the vaccine If you check the exclusion criteria of the vaccine trials: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577 Key exclusion criteria included a medical history of Covid-19, .....

I dont think you read the full article. The article says "hospitalizations increasing by just 37% for adults 80 or older, of which 44% of the population are fully vaccinated in the state." It increased less for older people, but it still increased.

You're absolutely correct! Go down to the "Provisional Death Counts For Covid" on the link you selected. Go through deaths for each age group...you'll see spikes in all categories, especially younger ages, into December (15-24). And then you see the massive drop in deaths as people began to get vaccinated from January. I'm glad you selected that link, since it's about as clear as I can get about the matter! One can act smart without taking the vaccine, but your own data shows that taking the vaccine has a much more dramatic effect than just "acting smarter". Cheers! That makes zero sense. The CDC link was interesting - younger age groups had their peak deaths the weeks of January 9 to 23. That usually means they were infected in the second half of December or the beginning of January. At that time only 0.1-1% of the U.S. population had been vaccinated, practically all of them care providers or risk groups (https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/). So you are saying that vaccinating this tiny fraction of people, somehow was miraculously the cause for a fall-of-a-cliff type drop in contagion and subsequent death rate of younger cohorts? Not to mention that the vaccines only protect the vaccinated from severe outcomes, but not from getting infected and potentially spreading the virus - or so we are told. No, vaccination dropped death rates for all categories...you can see the stats for yourself from January to present day. As the number of vaccinated people increased, the transmission rates dropped...the number of pneumonia cases dropped...the number of deaths dropped. Is it any wonder the number of influenza cases was so low in North America this year? That is due to social distancing, lockdowns, masks, increased disinfection...and you also see a decrease in Covid cases as inoculations occur. This is common sense and would be expected. Do vaccines carry risk...yes...but at extremely low levels as we've seen globally as inoculation results are studied more and more. Cheers! Alternative explanation: Peak transmission was Christmas and New Years, peak death rate 2-3 weeks later. With a finite population you can only have exponential growth for so long, and then you have a decline. Good example is South Dakota. No lockdowns, business closures etc., thus the curve was moved forward in time, and slightly higher (in terms of death per million). It peaked at the end of November, and dropped steeply the whole month of December with no vaccines yet. I'm not against vaccines at all, the start of vaccines probably steepened the drop in death rates, and, more importantly, will hopefully keep the curve down forever. I'm on the fence if people under 24 or 35 should be vaccinated. There maybe be an argument that children's organisms should get the chance to develop natural immunity, which I think may be broader than just immunity against a specific spike protein of a mutating virus, but I'm not a doctor. They are not falling everywhere vaccine is given. For example, for Mchigan cases and hospitalizations increasing https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/michigan-reports-highest-daily-covid-19-count-this-year-as-younger-adult-hospitalizations-spike-sharply/ar-BB1eVE8i the highest single-day total for new cases since Dec. 15, 2020.

I think you can equally use this argument against gun control. Guns have been around for even longer than a year. And in 2015, about 13,286 died as a result of being shot, so certainly not more than 13,286 people died of being shot in the head. And there are about 330M people in the USA. Therefore, if you're shot in the head, you have less than a 0.004% chance of dying. There's basically almost no chance of dying if you're shot in the head. Thanks! I need that! Cheers! The way I understood the comment is following way: 10 million per year die of cancer deaths every year 2.6 million died of Covid since its start. Yet the policies are such that we reduced cancer screenings by order of 80% "During California’s stay-at-home order, cervical cancer screening rates among approximately 1.5 million women in the Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) network decreased approximately 80% compared with baseline. " https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7004a1.htm According to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya at Stanford, we will be paying this price for decades to come, not just cancer screenings but diabetes, hypertension, reduced vaccination of children, etc. https://www.newsweek.com/jay-bhattacharya-stanford-doctor-says-reversing-covid-lockdown-damage-will-take-generation-1575522 Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford Doctor, Says Reversing COVID Lockdown Damage Will 'Take a Generation' About 607K people die of cancer every year in the U.S. out of the total population...not sure if your number is U.S. or global. 560K+ have died already from Covid with 30M+ cases to date in the U.S. Theoretically, with a generous conservative estimate that a third of the U.S. has already been exposed and recovered...you would still have over 1.6M deaths from Covid based on the total population of the U.S...conservatively estimated. Cheers! I am not sure how you went from 560K to 1.6M in an year for Covid. My numbers were global. And Dr. Bhattacharya is not talking about only Cancer. He is talking about reduced vaccination of children, Diabetes care, Blood pressure care, delayed care for heart patents, stroke patients. Overall for a policy of lockdowns very questionable if they worked to begin with as Florida had with more older people same or less Covid deaths than California. https://www.bcbs.com/the-health-of-america/infographics/missing-vaccinations-during-covid-19-puts-our-children-and-communities-at-risk 40% of parents say their children missed vaccination due to Covid. 9 Million missed vaccinations. New CDC Study Says 25% Of Young People Have Considered Suicide During Pandemic https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/08/20/new-cdc-study-young-people-suicide-coronavirus-pandemic/ Overall there is no doubt that lockdowns created more harm than they solved. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/mar/10/jay-bhattacharya-stanford-doctor-lockdowns-single-/ Stanford University doctor: Lockdowns 'single worst public health mistake' in last 100 years