COVID-19 - Thread

[Riggs80]

So nobody is mentioning empty supermarkets....

yeh Last night or night before my local was a bit bare , haven’t been today … but I have seen some footage of trucks looking like they are protesting somewhere

 

[The DoggFather]

yeh Last night or night before my local was a bit bare , haven’t been today … but I have seen some footage of trucks looking like they are protesting somewhere

Seen footage of Penrith Woolies empty and Blacktown supermarkets are stripped bare too.

 

[Riggs80]

I’m going in an hour to my local - I will find out if widespread

 

[The DoggFather]

I’m going in an hour to my local - I will find out if widespread

What LGA are you from bro?

 

[Riggs80]

What LGA are you from bro?

Inner west

 

[Hacky McAxe]

so this is your only evidence? 99% of people get better from covid on their own so it is very easy to come to this conclusion especially if you have a small enough sample, for example this is based on 14 studies of 1678 people, just over 100 people per study

in a study of 100 people with covid, if 100 people without ivermectin dont die and 100 people with ivermectin dont die then of course there is going to be no evidence that ivermectin works and it has no effect compared to placebo, thats why up and down this report they say they don't know if it helps or not

i prefer the real world study, for example when india used ivermectin and crushed the delta variant inside one month without a vaccine, we arent talking about a study of 100 people lol, this is a billion people

Yep. It's a small sample size and still the largest sample size we have. And unfortunately the real world study does not work because you have no control, no placebo, you can't even confirm how many people used Ivermectin. You're literally just guessing what people used. For all you know it could have been drinking soft drink that cured Covid-19.

This is why research is important.

And the real key point here. Experts who spent their whole lives learning about this stuff all said that there is no evidence that Ivermectin helps.

Think about that for a minute. All the experts are saying it doesn't work based on the data and you're saying that you know more than them.

 

[Rodzilla]

btw in the page that the grim reaper posted it still shows that ivermectin was better for you if you required hospitalisation

in patients with moderate to severe symptoms it was:
9.6% people dying with a placebo or standard care, 5.8% using ivermectin
8.5% got into worse condition needing ventilation and 4.7% using ivermectin
2.9% had viral clearance after 7 days, 5.3% with ivermectin

in patients with mild covid symptoms
0.5% died, 0.2% with ivermectin
0.2% needed ventilation, 0.5% with ivermectin
2.8% got viral clearance after 7 days, 8.3% with ivermectin

so people are correct to want to take this stuff ffs, joe rogan is now testing negative, he must be part of the 8.3% (that figure would be higher in people who don't need any official treatment and are excluded from this report)

but once again the real power in ivermectin is apparently how they used it in households of covid cases and saw that it reduces the transmission

 

[Hacky McAxe]

so we have all the countries that used ivermectin apparently having great success against covid, studies that show it basically prevents you getting it or transmit it, clearly it has great potential, but hacky mcaxe the decider of the kennel has decided the 100 person studies are enough evidence to put the kibosh on it

another thing is the media attack on people wanting to use it, this is a 100% safe drug and called a miracle drug, essential drug listed by WHO but now its being called the drug for horses, dangerous and not to be used, ill even go as far as put it out there that the guy who apparently OD'ed in sydney is a completely fake story, like i said that headline is suspicious as fuck, "man overdoses on ivermectin and the other online cures"

put it in the category of the guy who punched the horse in the face

You should submit your research on Ivermectin. You'll probably win a noble peace prize or something.

 

[Rodzilla]

Yep. It's a small sample size and still the largest sample size we have. And unfortunately the real world study does not work because you have no control, no placebo, you can't even confirm how many people used Ivermectin. You're literally just guessing what people used. For all you know it could have been drinking soft drink that cured Covid-19.

This is why research is important.

And the real key point here. Experts who spent their whole lives learning about this stuff all said that there is no evidence that Ivermectin helps.

Think about that for a minute. All the experts are saying it doesn't work based on the data and you're saying that you know more than them.

you need to stop pretending that the experts are experts, all the experts said Y2K was going to happen, all the experts said Iraq was building arsenal of WMD's, all the experts said Bill Cosby is a great family man and a role model for black men and all the experts said the Roosters arent cheating the salary cap

 

[Rodzilla]

if i had 200 billion dollars and wanted to prove something, i personally guarantee that i could produce my own army of experts

 

[Rodzilla]

so less people died with ivermectin, less people needed ventilation using ivermectin (or more people using ivermectin but they saved their lives so im guessing they won't mind that), more people got better faster using ivermectin, but because the study is only 1600 people they concluded that there is not enough evidence to say that ivermectin helps

im now certain it does help especially in the prevention

 

[Hacky McAxe]

btw in the page that the grim reaper posted it still shows that ivermectin was better for you if you required hospitalisation

in patients with moderate to severe symptoms it was:
9.6% people dying with a placebo or standard care, 5.8% using ivermectin
8.5% got into worse condition needing ventilation and 4.7% using ivermectin
2.9% had viral clearance after 7 days, 5.3% with ivermectin

in patients with mild covid symptoms
0.5% died, 0.2% with ivermectin
0.2% needed ventilation, 0.5% with ivermectin
2.8% got viral clearance after 7 days, 8.3% with ivermectin

so people are correct to want to take this stuff ffs, joe rogan is now testing negative, he must be part of the 8.3% (that figure would be higher in people who don't need any official treatment and are excluded from this report)

but once again the real power in ivermectin is apparently how they used it in households of covid cases and saw that it reduces the transmission

Check again.

Other than cherry picking the data, you picked the wrong data. You're quoting the assumed risk, not the relative risk. And you also ignored the researcher comments that state on that, "We are uncertain whether ivermectin reduces or increases all‐cause mortality up to 28 days"

This is why you should leave it up to the experts. When we look at the data we're going to mess up because we're not experts. The experts are less likely to screw up.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

so less people died with ivermectin, less people needed ventilation using ivermectin (or more people using ivermectin but they saved their lives so im guessing they won't mind that), more people got better faster using ivermectin, but because the study is only 1600 people they concluded that there is not enough evidence to say that ivermectin helps

im now certain it does help especially in the prevention

Again. Stop pretending you know what you're talking about. It only makes you look like a fool.

Leave it to the experts. The people who are actually researching this stuff.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

And stop flooding this thread with conspiracies and false information.

 

[Riggs80]

Seen footage of Penrith Woolies empty and Blacktown supermarkets are stripped bare too.

mine one fully stocked right now, unless this has something to do with the LGAs of concern

 

[Rodzilla]

Check again.

Other than cherry picking the data, you picked the wrong data. You're quoting the assumed risk, not the relative risk. And you also ignored the researcher comments that state on that, "We are uncertain whether ivermectin reduces or increases all‐cause mortality up to 28 days"

This is why you should leave it up to the experts. When we look at the data we're going to mess up because we're not experts. The experts are less likely to screw up.

ok please take me through the numbers and educate me

 

[Rodzilla]

i still don't understand what i did wrong lol, what is the assumed risk and relative risk? isnt the relative risk derived from the data i mentioned, so what is the difference ffs

like instead of saying 9.6% and 5.8% i should have said you have 40% less chance of dying or however much on ivermectin if you have serious symptoms?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

ok please take me through the numbers and educate me

Take the anticipated absolute effects. This is not the actual results, this is the predicted results based on Ivermectin helping when you compare the affected against other groups (control, non-treated, etc)

In this case, 9.6% absolute risk with Placebo, or 5.8% for with Ivermectin. In an ideal world of it all worked, that would be the results.

Now we take the relative risk, which is the risk and balance that against the absolute risk for a more likely absolute risk. Then we take the likelihood that the results can be trusted (in this case, very low) and come an absolute conclusion based on the extrapolated and calculated data. The result is the conclusions provided at the end of each row in the table.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Look. The primary (and main weight) here is the confidence in results. And it's all very low confidence. This is why you can't cherry pick data and read it out of context.

This is why they provide a plain English summary stating:

"We found no evidence to support the use of ivermectin for treating or preventing COVID‐19 infection, but the evidence base is limited.

Evaluation of ivermectin is continuing in 31 ongoing studies, and we will update this review with their results when they become available"

 

[DinkumDog]

So nobody is mentioning empty supermarkets....

You reckon that’s truckie related?
Both Coles and Woolies have publicly said they are down on staff due to isolation requirements of staff in various circumstances and they expect to catch up in a day or two. I can’t call it either way because my local is being renovated and it’s kinda normal right now for certain stocks to be depleted while they put new shelves and fridges etc in. Or you reckon truckies aren’t delivering and it’s a PR spin thing?