I thought it might be but didn't know the global average was that low. I was lulled into a false sense of security by national compliancy and availability of vaccines here. Still a lot of work to do so.
The science (and the scientists) can't give a clear cut answer on this one. JCVI work on a "clinical need" basis - meaning that they attempt to calculate how much medical benefit the individual gets from the jab.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
We're giving 12-17 year olds the Pfizer shots here based on the US approval/use of it for them. Started a couple weeks ago. Nothing adverse yet.
It's not surprising that the global average is so low. Most countries are nowhere near 50%.
It's interesting that they're seemingly one of two steps in the process from a pandemic perspective then. They do what they do well which is individual clinical need and make a decision based on that passing it to the CMO's. I'm guessing the CMO's will take the wider social factors into account, but makes the first step of two a role with only part of the story.
That doesn't sound nice at all. Hopefully, if it is an allergy flare-up, it'll settle down again soon. Let us know how you get on.
I really don't like the approach. It's one thing suggesting that indoor hospitality or big events may require mandatory vaccination or recent supervised test. I can see the argument for it in the health and social care areas as well. I think it gets less defensible as the compulsion level expands (especially without testing as an alternative)
It is such a disingenuous take on Ivermectin.
You kinda know something is up when all news outlets report the same story with exactly the same wording and angle. Nothing to see here..
No medicine has no side effects. Ivermectin has plenty. Also. “Critical award winning”. WTF?
How about the fact the both the FDA and the EMA have strongly advised against using it to treat Covid-19?
Some medicines are used in both humans and animal. My question is if there are more lax standards in producing animal medicines or is the advice not to use them based on different dosage sizes? When my dog was dying of cancer he was prescribed co-codamol for pain relief but under a different name. Apparently it was exactly the same as human co-codamol at about 5 times the price. Couldn't help but wonder if I should have just bought some human stuff.
I see you've never been infected with a parasitic infection. Ask those who have? Also, the guy literally won a Nobel prize for discovering Ivermectin
Like I said, idiots. Also we now have people like Alex Jones taking it live on tv.. what a way to undermine the actual use/benefit of this medicine
To be fair the team that discovered Avermectin - the original compound from which Ivermectin has been derived - won the Nobel in 2015 for its use as an anti-helminth drug. How it got co-opted into being effective against a virus is beyond me - these are fundamentally two completely unrelated immune responses.
I did not know that.
Believe that the only study showing that was in pre-print and had to be retracted due to plagiarism and data fabrication:
I can't begin to imagine what kind of mindset one would have to be in to think that this is a better option as compared to the vaccine.
This.
There is no actual science backing its usage up and anecdotal evidence is literally worse than useless. Put just about any molecule at high enough quantities on a dish of cells and you can inhibit the growth of just about anything - when you are literal orders of magnitude above what has been already established to be safe dosages, the only possible application might be as a chemotherapy.
Actually there is, I’ve posted it in this thread (actually it was on the sars thread)
Well go ahead and link it then and I can tell you exactly why it is horseshit - can't be bothered searching for it
Sorry I posted it in the sars thread
That is an absolute joke of a study and is completely meaningless mate. First of all, they didn't do this in a double-blinded fashion - if you want to show an impact, you have to do so vs. placebo. Furthermore, they didn't age, gender, or role-match their participants and are comparing cohorts of completely different sizes AND did nothing to control for prior COVID infection. The impact factor of the journal it's been published in is 1.15 - this is pretty much Facebook-tier nonsense.
I mean, it's not really when people are going to animal shops and buying a product labelled 'horse dewormer' and taking it.
thanks.
You certainly need common standards for international travel and that might well come fairly soon I'd guess. And they should be as simple as possible. No exemption for positive + 1 dose - you are vaxxed or not. No requirement for boosters until we know when/if they are needed even if a third dose to better deal with Delta becomes common. If we then find they are needed we can adjust requirements later.
Like I said - the medicine is for humans primarily. Over 2 billion people have used it for the last 15 years and there have been no serious reported side effects.
Source on the 2 billion figure? That seems ludicrously high - you think ~29% of the world's population has used ivermectin?
Ah yes, let's equate the very obvious right-wing grifter to those who do actual science. Christ on a bike
You don't mind that Rolling Stone, Huff Post and others just lied to you? Who cares who posted the info? I only added it because it explained what happened.
It spans over 30-40 years I think since it was discovered so not outrageous to see the 2/3 billion figure.
2 to 3 billion people have not received horse de-wormer tablets.
Yes, your ignorance is funny when you're stupid enough not to take 40 years into account.
People don't receive animal medication. Only idiots opt for that. That has been the discussion in case you haven't followed it. Ivermectin in itself is a very safe, incredibly useful drug.
Um so you're basing this statement of fact on a single article written by a bank in Barcelona?
Ah I see, you're also basing it on a meta-analysis of absolute bullshit as I debunked previously. This paper is a fecking joke - it doesn't vet any of the studies it's looking at and it's literally cliff's notes of nonsense data.
