The coronabrexit thread. I mean, coronavirus thread

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, GboroRam said:

"EMA advises against use of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outside randomised clinical trial“

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-advises-against-use-ivermectin-prevention-treatment-covid-19-outside-randomised-clinical-trials

Basically the very high concentration required has other side effects on the lungs. 

Has or could have?

 

[maxjam]

9 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Has it? I don't that is proven at all.

Indeed that is what the trial is for if you read the BBC article.

Ivermectin has been included in home kits in countries such as Mexico, Brazil, India - along with other readily available drugs with some success;

https://trialsitenews.com/mexico-city-wide-innovative-population-level-study-administers-ivermectin-based-home-kits-with-drastic-reduction-in-hospitalizations/

I guess the Oxford study will give us a better idea of its overall effectiveness.

[RoyMac5]

Just now, maxjam said:

Ivermectin has been included in home kits in countries such as Mexico, Brazil, India - along with other readily available drugs with some success;

https://trialsitenews.com/mexico-city-wide-innovative-population-level-study-administers-ivermectin-based-home-kits-with-drastic-reduction-in-hospitalizations/

I guess the Oxford study will give us a better idea of its overall effectiveness.

Not proven. As the BBC article pointed out it has not been proven that the drug is what is (if it is) making a difference.

[ketteringram]

32 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I suggested a while ago that people might delete the T&T app. Hey presto, no contact tracing, hey presto no new cases. Deleting the app in itself is not a huge problem (it was reported that some firms insist upon that) if the same people are regularly self-testing and taking the appropriate action. 

Yes, I can see that, and how it leads to lower figures. I don't understand how at the same time, cases per 100,000 seem to be climbing fast. 

Area that borders where I work is now at close to 1,000. It was 800 last week, and less than 600 the week before.

Where I live is 486, and it was about 250 ten days ago.

[maxjam]

3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Not proven. As the BBC article pointed out it has not been proven that the drug is what is (if it is) making a difference.

When have I said it is proven?  I think you're arguing with yourself ? 

I said that its had some success in other parts of the world - which the link I provided shows, and that it is now undergoing proper testing in the UK.

[G STAR RAM]

5 minutes ago, maxjam said:

When have I said it is proven?  I think you're arguing with yourself ? 

I said that its had some success in other parts of the world - which the link I provided shows, and that it is now undergoing proper testing in the UK.

Weird that some people are happy to push vaccines with no long term data available but seem really against another potential life saving drug because its unproven...

[Andrew3000]

Test Lawrie, WHO analyst who did the recent meta-analysis said she has NEVER seen such a large body of evidence for a drug be ignored. She is mystified by the calls for more trials.

[maxjam]

9 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Weird that some people are happy to push vaccines with no long term data available but seem really against another potential life saving drug because its unproven...

Censorship and Politics are killing us all slowly atm - and I'm not just talking about Covid ? 

When Doctors and Scientists get kicked off social media for daring to have conversations about alternative treatments, or seeing some drugs labelled 'right wing' you know the world truly has gone mad. 

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/561153-matt-taibbi-reporting-on-potential-covid-19-treatments-like-ivermectin-shouldnt

[RoyMac5]

18 minutes ago, maxjam said:

When have I said it is proven?  I think you're arguing with yourself ? 

I said that its had some success in other parts of the world - which the link I provided shows, and that it is now undergoing proper testing in the UK.

Does the link PROVE it is down to the drug? If so it is proven if not then the 'success' is anecdotal ? 

You don't get it. 

[Andrew3000]

12 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Weird that some people are happy to push vaccines with no long term data available but seem really against another potential life saving drug because its unproven...

Exactly. It is this weird double standard that is troubling me and needs explaining. It is our governments that I am criticising because we are being strongly pressurised in this direction.

[Mucker1884]

25 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

48 hours surely.

Yes, you're right

[maxjam]

1 minute ago, RoyMac5 said:

Does the link PROVE it is down to the drug? If so it is proven if not then the 'success' is anecdotal ? 

You don't get it. 

Eh? You're arguing over semantics now.

I never said it was proven, I said it had some success.  How much success, I don't know and I don't claim to know.  Whether it was down to Ivermectin, some of the other drugs supplied in the home kits or some combination of them, I don't know.

No doubt the UK study will be able to answer some of those questions.  I'm not quite sure of the point of this argument anymore, so I'll leave it here ? 

Personally, I hope Ivermectin or some other readily available, proven drug is found to help in the battle vs covid as it will give those hesitant to take the vaccines alternative medicines.  Win-win for everyone.

[therealhantsram]

New research published in the Lancet, shows a long term cognitive decline across all patients that contract Covid. (Not just those who report long Covid symptoms).

 

 

[RoyMac5]

15 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Eh? You're arguing over semantics now.

I never said it was proven, I said it had some success.

No it is not semantics! Again you don't get it. How can you say it has had some 'success' if you cannot prove that 'success' was down to the drug and not to other things.

That is the whole point of trials. After the trial then we should know whether the drug has a positive effect or not. 

The point is why should a drugs company be able to sell a drug with the claim it is successful in treating covid when it is not proven?

At the moment it is Snake oil.

[Gone]

1 hour ago, Mucker1884 said:

Has "The next few weeks..." become the covid version of DCFC's "Next season..."?  

Haha the new 48hrs and he’ll sign 

[Andrew3000]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

No it is not semantics! Again you don't get it. How can you say it has had some 'success' if you cannot prove that 'success' was down to the drug and not to other things.

That is the whole point of trials. After the trial then we should know whether the drug has a positive effect or not. 

The point is why should a drugs company be able to sell a drug with the claim it is successful in treating covid when it is not proven?

At the moment it is Snake oil.

Far from snake oil. There is lots of evidence.

[GboroRam]

6 minutes ago, Andrew3000 said:

Far from snake oil. There is lots of evidence.

It needs to be peer reviewed evidence, otherwise it's just anecdotal. 

[RoyMac5]

6 minutes ago, Andrew3000 said:

Far from snake oil. There is lots of evidence.

None of it proven, that is the point.

There was lots of evidence of 'spirits' using a séance...

[Norman]

What the duck is wrong with some of you? 

Someone presents a non-peer reviewed medicine, and questions why there is such a body of people trying to stop even having the research done - and people are more interested in semantics. 

[GboroRam]

5 minutes ago, Norman said:

What the duck is wrong with some of you? 

Someone presents a non-peer reviewed medicine, and questions why there is such a body of people trying to stop even having the research done - and people are more interested in semantics. 

That person has said that there's evidence it works. Not that it needs more research done. 

The link I found argued that the side effects outweigh the benefits.