Coronavirus outbreak

[Warhippy]

9 hours ago, DS4quality said:

How does only the daily mail know about this?

The same way only Trump knew about the GY-Na virus being a lab creation of course

 

They're making it up a lil bit

[RUPERTKBD]

For the past couple of years many of us have been pushing back at the "Covid naysayers"....those who may promote the benefits of unproven (or proven ineffective) remedies like Hydroxychloroquine, or Ivermectin....those who claim masks don't work....and worst of all, IMHO, those who point to "mistakes" made by heathcare officials and undermine public confidence in the system.

 

This article is focused on Paxlovid, which is an effective treatment for Covid symptoms, but the overall tenor of the article is a response to the Monday morning quarterbacks who love to point out what they "got wrong". (even though in many instances, these people have their "facts" wrong)

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/17/opinions/paxlovid-medical-interactions-covid-sepkowitz

 

Quote

 

America’s resident naysayers, active throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, seem to think doctors have missed the boat again. Just when we arrived at a quieter moment in the pandemic (or perhaps not as winter nears), a review paper in a medical journal says Paxlovid, the antiviral shown to prevent severe outcomes in people 65 and older, has potentially dangerous interactions with other medications.

The authors, a leading group of specialists, have inspired a series of articles in the lay press warning of problems created by taking Paxlovid at the same time as a long list of medications for heart conditions or blood clots.

But issues with Paxlovid are anything but new. Indeed, the authors reference one of the many articles available since December (when the drug received emergency use authorization) that detail these very same interactions. (The guidelines on interactions came from Pfizer, the US Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other experts.)

In these documents, medications are grouped into well-defined categories: drugs with no relevant Paxlovid interactions, drugs that cannot be given with Paxlovid because of interactions, and drugs that can be adjusted and monitored closely but still given with Paxlovid. I have frequently emailed these facts to people considering whether to initiate treatment with Paxlovid and find them among the most useful pieces of information produced during the pandemic.

The reason for concern is quite real: Those who benefit from Paxlovid the most — older adults — are the very same people who frequently take heart and blood-thinning medications. When I took Paxlovid in April, I knew to stop a cardiac medication that prevents me from veering into atrial fibrillation, a common heart rhythm disturbance. But once off the rhythm-calming drug, I promptly fell back into the unpleasant and potentially dangerous abnormal rhythm — just another example of the never-any-free-lunch M.O. that clouds all medical advances. On resumption of my cardiac medication post-Paxlovid (as recommended), my heart rhythm returned to its regular beat.

What is alarming, at least to me, is the tone of some news articles that suggest the problem is new and has somehow been overlooked until now — rather than as a “Review Topic of the Week,” as the medical journal categorizes it. In medical journal parlance, a “review” denotes a roundup of existing work synthesized into a readable whole. It’s certainly not anything new or edgy.

Yet the implication seems to be that somehow the experts have exposed the unwitting world to another of their mistakes — more boneheaded, uncaring care. That view appears to describe far too much of the critiques of the pandemic response. Conventional wisdom seems to be that the CDC blew it, that maybe all those boosters were an overreaction and that children were needlessly harmed by lifesaving lockdowns.

My assessment of the pandemic is that we were blindsided by an unprecedented catastrophe, which was met with an imperfect, politically poisoned, but ultimately effective set of interventions that saved millions of lives. It remains uncertain whether we will maintain some control of the pandemic.

This is not simple quibbling. Rather the endless “should have done this, not that” opinions may have a long-term and damaging effect as the Covid-19 pandemic begins to harden into history. Right now, some seem to insist that public health officials are dimwitted bozos. Such a view, if it is carved into the history of the Covid-19 experience, will become problematic when the next pandemic presents itself and sends the future experts to examine the lessons of the great Covid-19 pandemic of 2020 to 2022.

This rush to the history books is what many current experts did in the early days of Covid-19, seeking to learn the lessons, if any, from the 1918 flu pandemic. They found that contemporaneous articles as well as the more recent historical reviews told more or less the same story: clear demonstrations that the then-current tools, including only masks and other nonpharmaceutical interventions, were effective when adopted but also that such steps were unpopular and therefore used only halfheartedly, compromising their effectiveness.

We have seen such reactions throughout the Covid-19 pandemic as guidelines changed in response to new facts or harsh public criticism, making the CDC and others look like clueless sticks in the mud.

Then as now, people hated rules, rule makers and those who would try to impose simple, commonsense measures designed to minimize devastation. In 1918 and once again during the Covid-19 pandemic, the urgencies of creature conveniences for harried lives and hurried people were too strong to reason with. Effective medications such as Paxlovid can make management much easier but can never address the core issue.

So, to those who may be reading this in the 22nd century, hoping to find a way to convince your comrades to behave in a socially responsible direction as Covid-63 rips through your temperate resin bunkers and stilted ocean homes, we say this: Yes, there is well-demonstrated evidence on what to do — but learning about it is not likely to help.

Rather, our collective message relies on one of the few effective and non-reviled public health messages to date: Only you can prevent the next pandemic.

 

Kent Sepkowitz is a physician and infectious disease expert at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. The views expressed in this commentary are his own.

[JM_]

24 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

For the past couple of years many of us have been pushing back at the "Covid naysayers"....those who may promote the benefits of unproven (or proven ineffective) remedies like Hydroxychloroquine, or Ivermectin....those who claim masks don't work....and worst of all, IMHO, those who point to "mistakes" made by heathcare officials and undermine public confidence in the system.

 

This article is focused on Paxlovid, which is an effective treatment for Covid symptoms, but the overall tenor of the article is a response to the Monday morning quarterbacks who love to point out what they "got wrong". (even though in many instances, these people have their "facts" wrong)

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/17/opinions/paxlovid-medical-interactions-covid-sepkowitz

 

Kent Sepkowitz is a physician and infectious disease expert at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. The views expressed in this commentary are his own.

"I did my own research" 

 

^ this is emblematic of the main problem. A bunch of people attempting to claim their ideas on a health crisis is one the same level, or worse, better, than experts in a range of medial areas. 

 

A Facebook group isn't an expert panel. Watching YouTube guy isn't research. Getting upset at having to wait in line for a shot does not make you an epidemiologist.

 

This is our first social media pandemic and it shows. All of the moronic things that social media could generate happened.

 

But despite all of that, we saw an amazing effort to get effective vaccines produced by people who actually know what they are doing.

 

What I'd be just fine with next time is not even trying to get these morons to do the right thing. Pour all efforts into getting a vaccine for those that want it, and let the morons croak. 

 

[RUPERTKBD]

1 hour ago, JM_ said:

"I did my own research" 

 

^ this is emblematic of the main problem. A bunch of people attempting to claim their ideas on a health crisis is one the same level, or worse, better, than experts in a range of medial areas. 

 

A Facebook group isn't an expert panel. Watching YouTube guy isn't research. Getting upset at having to wait in line for a shot does not make you an epidemiologist.

 

This is our first social media pandemic and it shows. All of the moronic things that social media could generate happened.

 

But despite all of that, we saw an amazing effort to get effective vaccines produced by people who actually know what they are doing.

 

What I'd be just fine with next time is not even trying to get these morons to do the right thing. Pour all efforts into getting a vaccine for those that want it, and let the morons croak.

What gets lost in the shuffle sometimes, is that this isn't only about Covid. When these armchair experts "question" healthcare guidelines, they undermine confidence in the system all around....not just as it pertains to Covid.

 

With all the anti-vax sentiment that has arisen because of Covid-19, how long before dangerous illnesses long considered eradicated, make a comeback? Are we about to see a new generation of children who regularly contract viruses like Measles, Mumps and Rubella? Even worse, what about Smallpox and Polio?

 

This is the problem with the "my body, my choice" crowd. In the end, it isn't just your body....it's everyone's.

[JM_]

11 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

What gets lost in the shuffle sometimes, is that this isn't only about Covid. When these armchair experts "question" healthcare guidelines, they undermine confidence in the system all around....not just as it pertains to Covid.

 

With all the anti-vax sentiment that has arisen because of Covid-19, how long before dangerous illnesses long considered eradicated, make a comeback? Are we about to see a new generation of children who regularly contract viruses like Measles, Mumps and Rubella? Even worse, what about Smallpox and Polio?

 

This is the problem with the "my body, my choice" crowd. In the end, it isn't just your body....it's everyone's.

I think we're entering a phase where people who want to be proactive and obtain proper health care will do it. The others won't, and I don't want to waste resources on them anymore. 

 

Lets give the 'my choice' folks their choice and focus our attention on keeping folks safe that want to be safe. E.g., lets make sure we have internal capacity for N99's for anyone that wants one. That should take care of most respiratory illnesses when out in public.

 

We may need to reorganize health services with specific locations for dealing with things like covid for people that choose not to be vaccinated. They simply can't have access to the regular hospital. They can go fill a tent somewhere. 

 

[UnkNuk]

8 hours ago, Warhippy said:

The same way only Trump knew about the GY-Na virus being a lab creation of course

 

They're making it up a lil bit

Yep.

 

 

More info at:

 

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/boston-university-pushes-back-on-claims-of-new-deadly-covid-strain/2865815/

[DS4quality]

9 hours ago, JM_ said:

I think we're entering a phase where people who want to be proactive and obtain proper health care will do it. The others won't, and I don't want to waste resources on them anymore. 

 

Lets give the 'my choice' folks their choice and focus our attention on keeping folks safe that want to be safe. E.g., lets make sure we have internal capacity for N99's for anyone that wants one. That should take care of most respiratory illnesses when out in public.

 

We may need to reorganize health services with specific locations for dealing with things like covid for people that choose not to be vaccinated. They simply can't have access to the regular hospital. They can go fill a tent somewhere. 

 

If you don't believe in science you shouldn't be allowed to enter a hospital for anything period. Broken leg...pray for healing. Cancer...pray

Swollen body parts...cow dung

[KristoffWixenschon]

10 hours ago, JM_ said:

I think we're entering a phase where people who want to be proactive and obtain proper health care will do it. The others won't, and I don't want to waste resources on them anymore. 

 

Lets give the 'my choice' folks their choice and focus our attention on keeping folks safe that want to be safe. E.g., lets make sure we have internal capacity for N99's for anyone that wants one. That should take care of most respiratory illnesses when out in public.

 

We may need to reorganize health services with specific locations for dealing with things like covid for people that choose not to be vaccinated. They simply can't have access to the regular hospital. They can go fill a tent somewhere. 

 

That's a dangerous precedent. You could make the same argument for tobacco users, the obese, the homeless, people who drink soda... anybody who costs the healthcare system a disproportionate amount.. where do you draw the line on someones lifestyle choices and how it impacts healthcare spending?

[Ghostsof1915]

On 10/14/2022 at 1:12 PM, JM_ said:

polarization is fun isn't it? 

 

This will send AB healthcare workers running for other provinces, so maybe this is great for BC. 

 

And Alberta is the province advertising on TV and Radio trying to get people to move there because it's so great....

[Ghostsof1915]

10 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

What gets lost in the shuffle sometimes, is that this isn't only about Covid. When these armchair experts "question" healthcare guidelines, they undermine confidence in the system all around....not just as it pertains to Covid.

 

With all the anti-vax sentiment that has arisen because of Covid-19, how long before dangerous illnesses long considered eradicated, make a comeback? Are we about to see a new generation of children who regularly contract viruses like Measles, Mumps and Rubella? Even worse, what about Smallpox and Polio?

 

This is the problem with the "my body, my choice" crowd. In the end, it isn't just your body....it's everyone's.

Yet they want to outlaw abortion.

[KristoffWixenschon]

10 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

What gets lost in the shuffle sometimes, is that this isn't only about Covid. When these armchair experts "question" healthcare guidelines, they undermine confidence in the system all around....not just as it pertains to Covid.

 

With all the anti-vax sentiment that has arisen because of Covid-19, how long before dangerous illnesses long considered eradicated, make a comeback? Are we about to see a new generation of children who regularly contract viruses like Measles, Mumps and Rubella? Even worse, what about Smallpox and Polio?

 

This is the problem with the "my body, my choice" crowd. In the end, it isn't just your body....it's everyone's.

I bet we see much fewer people vaccinating their children with the common vaccination schedule. That's a real problem.

 

But I think that's partially a response to people retaliating against the vaccine mandate. I feel like this will be an unintended consequence of a vaccine mandate, which is illogical, but...

[JM_]

10 hours ago, DS4quality said:

If you don't believe in science you shouldn't be allowed to enter a hospital for anything period. Broken leg...pray for healing. Cancer...pray

Swollen body parts...cow dung

hey whatever you and/or your social media feed says, rite? 

[JM_]

9 hours ago, KristoffWixenschon said:

I bet we see much fewer people vaccinating their children with the common vaccination schedule. That's a real problem.

 

But I think that's partially a response to people retaliating against the vaccine mandate. I feel like this will be an unintended consequence of a vaccine mandate, which is illogical, but...

it is illogical, and also unnecessary. But there it is. 

 

I'm just at the point where I want to not have any of our effort going to trying to convince them of anything. Go do your thing. In the meantime, the 90% will work around them and get things done faster since we won't be wasting time on dumb decisions. 

[Mossberg]

1 hour ago, JM_ said:

it is illogical, and also unnecessary. But there it is. 

 

I'm just at the point where I want to not have any of our effort going to trying to convince them of anything. Go do your thing. In the meantime, the 90% will work around them and get things done faster since we won't be wasting time on dumb decisions. 

Except only about 50 % of people have gotten a 3rd shot. It just shows you what people really think about it if you're not threatening they're lively hoods with it

[RUPERTKBD]

10 hours ago, KristoffWixenschon said:

I bet we see much fewer people vaccinating their children with the common vaccination schedule. That's a real problem.

 

But I think that's partially a response to people retaliating against the vaccine mandate. I feel like this will be an unintended consequence of a vaccine mandate, which is illogical, but...

Possibly, but I'd also be willing to bet that a large percentage of people who refused the Covid vaccine, immunized their kids with the MMR without batting an eye.

 

There's a difference between hardcore anti-vaxxers, who believe that any vaccine causes Autism, or something else just as bad and just as dumb....and people who refused the vaccine because they were "forced" to take it....

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, Mossberg said:

Except only about 50 % of people have gotten a 3rd shot. It just shows you what people really think about it if you're not threatening they're lively hoods with it

See there you go. Lets not threaten anyone. Go do what you want to.

[RUPERTKBD]

5 minutes ago, Mossberg said:

Except only about 50 % of people have gotten a 3rd shot. It just shows you what people really think about it if you're not threatening they're lively hoods with it

It shows me those people aren't really "thinking" at all....

 

If you were willing to take 2 shots, without any lasting ill effects, (which happened in the vast majority of cases) why would you hesitate to get a booster (or two)?

[Gurn]

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccination-coverage/#a3

 

 

[Mossberg]

1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

It shows me those people aren't really "thinking" at all....

 

If you were willing to take 2 shots, without any lasting ill effects, (which happened in the vast majority of cases) why would you hesitate to get a booster (or two)?

Maybe cause they aren't forced to to  keep a roof over they're heads or keep they're kids fed. Maybe they realized this vaccine is not as good as was told to them. Pfizer now admitted they never tested if it stopped transmission but that didn't stop the government from telling you it did and mandating it. They said if you got vaccinated you wouldn't get COVID. That was BS

[DS4quality]

9 minutes ago, Mossberg said:

Maybe cause they aren't forced to to  keep a roof over they're heads or keep they're kids fed. Maybe they realized this vaccine is not as good as was told to them. Pfizer now admitted they never tested if it stopped transmission but that didn't stop the government from telling you it did and mandating it. They said if you got vaccinated you wouldn't get COVID. That was BS

They never once said it prevented transmission, but the odds were lower if both were vaccinated.  They never said it would prevent you from getting sick because right off the bat they said no vaccine is 100% effective. It was about preventing serious illness and overcrowding our hospitals, which were getting slammed. 

Next time you need a doctor just pray