What a day.
Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!
- Thread starter bullybeef
- Start date
- Status
Tipp blue
If I agreed with you, we’d both be wrong.
I got a message today from the HSE saying that I am a close contact from last Tuesday , I know who the contact was and she told me that she had a positive antigen on Wednesday, she didn't get the PCR until Friday and results today.. I'm now supposed to restrict for 5 days and take antigen tests which I have been doing since Wednesday, I'm still negative.. if I have to restrict for 5 days from the text then I won't be back to work until Friday which will be 10 days since contact. I'm thinking about ringing the help line tomorrow to see if I have it right or indeed need to keep restricting movments.
Is it not fair to say it has been more prominent in a more condensed amount of time? The season's only been going 6 months.
FIFA will be going across the globe. I think that study make sense for a 4-year period.
But the rest you actually name all happened over the space of 20 years mate.
So definitely ruling anything out at this stage would be silly I think.
Yeah his view on Ivermectin is a bit off but tbf he usually corrects himself when he gets things wrong, which is more than a lot do.This John Campbell chap isn’t bad but also been very wrong as well:
John Campbell (YouTuber) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Ivermectin has been used successfully as a treatment though. It's obviously not a sure fire answer but I don't think a classification of any link to it as 'misinformation' is healthy because it's just another drug that is potentially on the table to treat COVID.
And look at the page you linked even.
In November 2021, Campbell made false claims about the use of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment.[3] A few weeks later, another widely-viewed video of his was used by anti-vaccination activists to support the misinformation that COVID vaccines cause widespread heart attacks, which he had not said.[4]
Him putting a video out there that others then use and lie about isn't on him is it.
The coverage of Ivermectin in some media outlets has been as irresponsible as saying it is definitely the solution. It isn't just a horse de-wormer ffs and saying that is really dangerous and shames people. Which is mad. But it's a media problem. CNN were dreadful for it and rightly called out.
Last edited:
I think I remember discussing the Japan-Ivermectin vid at the time on here, and reckoned it was a bit much after some chats with more informed on here.
But as for the other vid, that's really not on Campbell. And this shows how comments like 'flagged for misinformation' are wrong. Because it could basically boil down to someone in a position of power not agreeing with something and then saying it must be censored. And that's why @GrandOldTeam is perfectly right to not start banning posts or anything like that.
See from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Campbell_(YouTuber)
In November 2021, Campbell quoted from a non-peer-reviewed journal abstract by Steven Gundry saying that mRNA vaccines might cause heart problems. Campbell said he was not sure about the claim or its quality, but did not mention the expression of concern that had been published for the abstract, saying instead that it could be "incredibly significant". The video was viewed over 2 million times within a few weeks and was used by anti-vaccination activists as support for the misinformation that COVID-19 vaccination will cause a wave of heart attacks. According to a FactCheck review, Campbell had in his video drawn attention to the poor quality of the research on which these claims were based, pointing to typos in the abstract, poor methodology, and a lack of clear data.[4]
But as for the other vid, that's really not on Campbell. And this shows how comments like 'flagged for misinformation' are wrong. Because it could basically boil down to someone in a position of power not agreeing with something and then saying it must be censored. And that's why @GrandOldTeam is perfectly right to not start banning posts or anything like that.
See from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Campbell_(YouTuber)
In November 2021, Campbell quoted from a non-peer-reviewed journal abstract by Steven Gundry saying that mRNA vaccines might cause heart problems. Campbell said he was not sure about the claim or its quality, but did not mention the expression of concern that had been published for the abstract, saying instead that it could be "incredibly significant". The video was viewed over 2 million times within a few weeks and was used by anti-vaccination activists as support for the misinformation that COVID-19 vaccination will cause a wave of heart attacks. According to a FactCheck review, Campbell had in his video drawn attention to the poor quality of the research on which these claims were based, pointing to typos in the abstract, poor methodology, and a lack of clear data.[4]
The conversations around Ivermectin and other potential treatments are so weird to me. Anti-vax folk with concerns about unknown long term effects, or the vaccines only having FDA emergency approval, are simultaneously advocating for treatments which likewise only have emergency approval (I.e. monoclonal antibodies), and similar unknown long term effects. Lots in the media didn’t help this, by referring to Ivermectin as horse medicine, which is stupid, but I kinda get why they did, as people were buying the animal version and ingesting that dosage, which is obviously dangerous. But it adds to the media coverup narrative that some want to push, so was probably counter productive.
I’m pro-vaccine, but I’m also ‘pro-any effective treatment which has been through the appropriately scaled peer reviewed clinical trials’. My understanding is that Ivermectin as a covid treatment hasn’t been through that process yet (although I think Oxford are currently doing a clinical trial), so the jury is still out, but I’ve got no dog in that fight whatsoever in terms of the outcome.
We saw this with Hydroxicloroquine, with many (including Trump) touting it as a miracle drug, with no proper clinical evidence. When the studies were done, it was found to be pretty much useless against covid. Hey ho, let’s study another one, and hope for better results.
Yeah I'm the same mate. Just basically nothing should be ruled out.
I think they are now doing a big clinical trial of Ivermectin in the US too but the issue is how can you ensure a fair trial if there's been MSM stating it's a horse drug? It's not gonna help is it.
I can't believe that was an approach. I don't think it's a conspiracy, I just think it's strange. We're in uncharted territory still so stuff has to be tried and tested out and shouldn't be ruled out. Just like just relying on vaccinations is the wrong approach.
summerisle
The rain, it raineth every day
Mmm. It’s difficult, cos I do get why there was a bit of a hit job on Ivermectin, cos it was being promoted without proper peer reviewed evidence, and this was discouraging vaccine uptake. But you’re right, if the studies do show a high efficacy, it‘s a tough sell after the coverage it’s had.
Agree with the final sentence too, but think we’ve moved past vaccines being the only game in town now, with approval of anti virals starting to happen now, as well the other treatments and studies we’ve mentioned. I’ve said this before somewhere, but there was definately a political choice to prioritise vaccination (preventative) development over anti virals (curative) options, so they threw the money at the vaccines. I think this was logical in the first instance, but we now need to get to a place with more options on the table, and that seems to be the direction of travel.
EDIT: fixed a couple of typos.
Last edited:
There have been lots of ivermectin trials with the results listed here.
Table: Ivermectin Clinical Data | COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines
Review clinical data on the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.
www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov
Ghost Rider
Player Valuation: £8m
Part of the issue though when it has came to prioritising vaccines is the way in which they never seem to factor into thinking when it comes to the restrictions etc. Even now , as laid back as it's become in hindsight in terms of 'rules' , whether people are vaccinated or not is neither here nor there. After all , a new variant in 5-6 months and it's back to vaccinations for everyone and potentially restrictions again based on that.
If the treatment had been the focus then could it have saved more lives? How many people died that maybe wouldn't have if it could have been treated during the illness?
It makes you wonder if the global approach was wrong, although I have no idea if a medicine can be developed as fast as a vaccine can in all fairness.
That been modelled on chicos wool map?
It’s a fair question, and honestly I have no idea how to answer it, there’s just too many variables at play and I don’t know enough. I suspect the concern was that if we’d have gone down that route of treatment, you would end up with huge hospitalisation numbers, and overrun heath services, I’m also not sure whether we need to redevelop anti virals every time the virus mutates.
yep I think that's fair Legs. Like I said I don't really back it or understand it enough to say it's a miracle drug or whatever. Just that I'd hate to think any potential solution/treatment is being scoffed at and missed.There have been lots of ivermectin trials with the results listed here.
Each trial will have its limitations and constraints that need to be taken as a whole and some trials are still ongoing so perhaps they might come out with better results but I honestly it really doesn’t look effective on the data so far presented.Table: Ivermectin Clinical Data | COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines
Review clinical data on the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov
- Status