It may be "free" in the sense that the recipient doesn't directly pay for it, but because the government pays for it means it is absolutely NOT free. In fact, due to the inefficiencies of government, the GROSS cost of the vaccine is likely 2x-3x more than it would be if it were paid for privately. Add to that only 50% of our population (or less) pay taxes and the ones paying for it are actually paying even more in comparison. Just NO. Back in July it was anywhere from 80%-90% of ICU cases (worst I remember seeing was about 94%). Have you seen reporting recently of how many cases (split between vaccinated and unvaccinated) recover without hospital intervention? My intent in this discussion is not to convince / coerce / discourage any course of action, only to keep the some facts in context.
Numbers are just not bad for the unvaccinated, they are worse than terrible. From a report by the North Carolina Dept of Health and Human Services. There were 187 deaths among unvaccinated persons younger than 65, compared with eight deaths among vaccinated persons younger than 65 during the four-week time period. There were 215 deaths among unvaccinated persons older than 65, compared with 67 deaths among vaccinated persons older than 65. [The previous version of this release stated the number of deaths over a one-week period, which showed there were 29 deaths among unvaccinated persons younger than 65, compared with one death among vaccinated persons younger than 65, and 30 deaths among unvaccinated persons older than 65, compared with seven deaths among vaccinated persons older than 65. This has been corrected to show the number of deaths in the full four-week period used for death rate comparisons, based on case data reported through Aug. 22.] As Adult ICU Patients Hit Record Highs for the Pandemic, New Report Shows Unvaccinated People Are More Than 15 Times More Likely to Die From COVID-19 Compared to Vaccinated People | NCDHHS
I could be wrong...but I have read that lots of folks are taking the veterinary form (cutting the dose) because it's available without a prescription. That would make my statement correct and not misinformation. Also it is very rarely used in humans but frequently in animals. I never saw a prescription for it when working in a pharmacy...but my buddy who owns horses goes through it like crazy.
The only report I saw was from Rolling Stone (?) which quoted a doctor of a hospital, that they were treating so many overdoses of the veterinary form that they weren't able to treat other conditions. THIS REPORT WAS FAKE NEWS. The hospital from the article directly reversed the report, stating they had not treated a single case of humans doing so. I haven't seen any other independently-sourced report verifying this is a problem.
From Web MD and the FDA; FDA: Stop Using Ivermectin Veterinary Drug to Treat COVID "The agency has received multiple reports of people who have been hospitalized after "self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses," the agency said in a consumer update."
So we're both trying to keep the facts appropriate and in context, and here we are throwing articles back and forth to each other....how Tribal.
One of my friends here recommended that we purchase some Ivermectin in case we come down with Covid. I have 10 pills I got from an online pharmacy. They're for human consumption. Oh, the friend that recommended Ivermectin is a physician.
In order to provide something resembling context, I pulled data from the NC dashboard. As far as I can tell, their study used data from 7/30-8/26. Their confirmed case data doesn't provide granularity to determine which were vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, but using the study you provided: I used confirmed case data of 7/23-8/19 for these quick calculations (1 week lag). total confirmed cases: 108,332 "unvaccinated" (4.4/5.4): 88,270 "vaccinated" (1.0/5.4): 20,061 "unvaccinated" fatality rate ((187+215)/88,270): 0.46% "vaccinated" fatality rate ((8+67)/20,061): 0.37% Potential errors in this simple calculation: 1) unvaccinated vs. vaccinated confirmed cases. Without better data, this assumption is the best I can do. However, studies have indicated the at a 50/50 population, a majority of the cases will unvaccinated. 2) asymptomatic cases. Without better data, the case data will be biased toward those that are symptomatic. In all likelihood, there is a very large portion of cases that are never detected. This likely skews the calculation towards a higher incident rate of severity, making things look worse than they are. 3) hospitalization and long COVID. Nothing here is able to provide the context for either of these measures, but I've seen no data to suggest the relative impact is significantly different. 4) case lag. Is one week sufficient to account for testing positive and relating it to fatality data? Two weeks is likely a better measure. However, the ratio of the populations likely wouldn't change. However, resolution of severe cases is not complete, and the ratio of the populations could change somewhat. This calculation is fraught with potential errors and omissions. I merely wanted to point out with something quick and dirty that without context, things aren't as clearcut as many studies seem to indicate.
I heard the medicine my wife puts on her horse's feet does wonders against Covid... so I've been making a milkshake with it every morning! Never felt better... other than a strange urge to stamp a lot... Who are these people that think it's OK to do that stuff?????
I see the latest craze in crazy people Covid treatment is Betadine, gargling and even swallowing it. Holy Cow are people desperate and stupid. Just get the vaccine, it's much safer and actually works.
Here's the kind of biased (yeah...from both sides) reporting we have to put up with. Article from Epic Times about a report from the National File. (Both sites are far right and National File gets a Tin Foil Hat rating from Media Bias info site) Anyhow the headline and initial paragraph implies that this hospital has folks trying to inflate COVID numbers as a scare tactic to induce people to get vaccinated. If you dig down...yes that may be the motive of the discussion (convince folks to get vaccinated) but it seems that this one doc is just saying "Hey...we've got 50 active COVID cases in isolation and 50 patients moved out of isolation but still hospitalized for COVID complications...shouldn't we be reporting 100 patients hospitalized for COVID rather than just 50?" Now I don't have the definitive answer to that...it's a legitimate question that could be viewed either way. What I object to is this "See what the cheaters are doing to inflate the numbers" stuff. It's all in the wording...note that the article says "scare people" while my verbiage was "convince folks." Leaked Zoom Video Reveals Hospital Officials Discussing COVID-19 Scare Tactics
Does the vaccine reduce transmission? Still being studied. From the New England Journal of Medicine; https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMc2106757 "We provide empirical evidence suggesting that vaccination may reduce transmission by showing that vaccination of health care workers is associated with a decrease in documented cases of Covid-19 among members of their households. This finding is reassuring for health care workers and their families."
Just anecdotal.... a fellow trooper and friend of my son just survived two weeks of covid. This guy is in impeccable physical condition, 43 years old. Probably in the top 2% of the population in fitness. He came down with symptoms and within 48 hours was in the hospital an on a ventilator. Came off it after 5 days and was discharged after two weeks. Still recovering. He told my son that while he was laying in bed all he could think was why didn't I take the vaccination. You hear that story a lot from survivors.
Getting closer to a vaccine for the 5–11-year-old group. Pfizer says its lower dose vaccine is safe and effective for this age group and is submitting data to the FDA. FDA is expected to move quickly on the review of the data and an EUA is expected to follow. Good news for parents of children. I'm sure of course that a significant number of parents will decline the vaccine, but still it's great that it will be available for parents who want their children to be protected.
Mandates are not surprisingly causing some to lose their jobs. Now in the case below a company with 35K employees put 375 on suspension for noncompliance with company policy regarding the vaccine. They have 5 days to get their jab or they will be fired. That isn't a big deal to the company as I'm guessing a company with 35K employees probably has 1% turnover every month for various reasons, so to them 375 people are likely easily replaced. I'm sure that those who refuse will feel that their freedoms have been violated and be pretty angry. CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Novant Health announced Tuesday that approximately 375 employees are suspended for violating the company's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Novant said suspended employees will have five days to comply with the vaccination policy or be terminated. Novant announced that 98.6% of its team, made up of more than 35,000 employees are compliant with the mandate. This means those workers have received the single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine, the first dose of the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine, or if given, a medical or religious exemption. 375 Novant Health workers suspended without pay for violating COVID-19 vaccine requirement
Nature sort of dunked on Ivermectin, in this article. Doubt if it has any impact on those who get their medical information off of Facebook. Relying on low-quality or questionable studies in the current global climate presents severe and immediate harms. The enormous impact of COVID-19 and the consequent urgent need to demonstrate the clinical efficacy of new therapeutic options provides fertile ground for even poorly evidenced claims of efficacy to be amplified, both in the scientific literature and on social media. This context can lead to the rapid translation of almost any apparently favorable conclusion from a relatively weak trial or set of trials into widespread clinical practice and public policy. The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable - Nature Medicine