tl;dr: Vaccination status correlates with a 13x reduction of infection risk and a 20x reduction of death risk.
Now, to be clear that's a confounded number. The vaccinated are also likely to be taking other mitigation strategies seriously. So the vaccine itself will be somewhat less effective than this.
Nonetheless, this is pretty damning for the horse paste set. In decades to come we'll wonder and think and study how this all went so horrifically wrong.
> In decades to come we'll wonder and think and study how this all went so horrifically wrong.
Hopefully we will investigate why almost all (rare) deaths after vaccination can be attributed to only 5% of lot numbers, a statistical anomaly with no easy explanation since this power-law curve appears in the data for both mRNA (Pfizer, Moderna) and non-mRNA (J&J) shots. Could the reason be variance in manufacturing or distribution?
Official VAERS data. Anyone can download the data and perform the analysis after importing into a SQL database.
Since someone is inevitably going to criticize VAERS as a data source: it would be trivial for CDC to release a comparable non-VAERS analysis from Vaccine Safety Datalink, their non-public surveillance dataset. While VAERS is flawed due to self-reporting, there are legal penalties for submitting false information, no legal penalties for failing to submit an adverse event report, and bureaucratic and time overhead for each submitted case. So there are also arguments that VAERS is missing data.
VAERS data is raw, is not a controlled study (it's literally just a collection of voluntary reports), has minimal data quality control, and includes all cause deaths. It's what you use to find crumbs worth study, not what you use to drive conspiracy theories on the internet.
Basically, if you aren't an epidemiologist don't touch that stuff, it isn't for you. That's the equivalent of announcing you can land a plane because you played MSFS in the 90's.
You are claiming through these slides that the vaccine causes thrombosis / cardiac arrest events that are underreported.
But what about the COVID-19 itself ?
As far as I know, the spike protein is toxic in both cases, but the natural way seems worse because you add it up to other symptoms.
A proper comparison would require controlled studies which opens up the can of worms related to early treatment, which has been debated ad-naseum, but is perhaps now more politically palatable since Pfizer is shipping an early-treatment drug. We've known since May 2020 that the consequences of Covid infection depend dramatically on the timing of treatment relative to the progression of infection.
Yes, it's very convenient for those who wish to criticize VAERS that random people can enter random garbage. But even a few minutes spent scrolling through VAERS will show a large number of credible entries.
At any rate, everyone agrees that VAERS can provide a necessary-but-not-sufficient signal, which is why the CDC VSD exists (large database of adverse events from HMOs and other sources). Hence, any trend (good or bad) from VAERS can be confirmed or repudiated by CDC VSD, https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/...
I don't understand. If there are very few cases of deaths, say 50, then they'll affect at most 50 lot numbers, so a small percentage of them, presumably. What is the anomaly? (And btw the birthday paradox shows that the probability that one of the lots has more than one death is not negligible either.) So, a careful analysis is needed.
Note also that people that input spurious VAERS entries might invent most of the entry, but not know the format of a lot number, and thus copy one from some other entry.
U.S. deaths reported in VAERS are about 8,000 as of Nov 5th dataset.
Given the importance of this topic, 8,000 isn't a large number for a "manual recount" audit that would cross-reference with hospital and death records, to eliminate any fake data which may be present. We can then add the records from CDC Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), which is a separate, non-public database entered by medical professionals only.
This doesn't give enough credit to a lot of people who are simply wary about what goes into their body.
The vaccines aren't risk-free; the damage of covid looks plainly to be orders of magnitude worse, but papering over any potential risk of vaccines is doing everything a disservice.
Getting people inoculated is important, but the chilling effects of this kind of short-circuiting is worrisome.
Lots of people are pro-mask, pro-mask-mandate, and still wary about the vaccine.
That's mixing up data sets. The "unvaccinated" of today (dominated by those who have refused the vaccine) aren't the same population of last April (people without access to a vaccine they want), to which you belonged.
The latter were wearing their masks and being cautious. The former clearly aren't. While they're both "unvaccinated" they don't have the same behavior here.
I have see this argument a lot (from people who are against vaccination) that vaccinated are less responsible. My personal experience shows the opposite.
> The vaccinated are also likely to be taking other mitigation strategies seriously.
It may not be the case in Texas, but I’d imagine the vaccinated are at equal or even greater risk than the unvaccinated because they are able to do more (attending events, school, etc).
It's also confounded by urban vs rural. All else being equal, I'd expect rural people are less likely to get it because they interact with fewer people. So...confounded, very. Which direction? No clue.
Fair to assume those confounding factors. I’m trying to think of things that might confound in the opposite direction. I believe vaccinated people skew older and therefore higher risk of reduce vaccine efficacy, infection, and severe illness. Anything else?
We can't assume that there are no biases, but we can certainly use it to quantify the difference. ETA: And, if someone now wants to argue that the vaccine does not work, they will have to come up with a plausible 20x confounder. Which in itself would be quite an achievement.
> In decades to come we'll wonder and think and study how this all went so horrifically wrong.
lol, it might take decades to massage public consciousness for a desired outcome in the state's interest, but it certainly doesn't take that long to get a handle on the actual issues: institutions used up all their credibility on transparently obvious misinformation. It started with the WHO, an organization already hurting in that regard (Mugabe the goodwill ambassador... hard to top that kind of contempt), misrepresenting their Wuhan fact finding efforts. Then you had US politicians calling early efforts xenophobic and encouraging people to gather in chinatown to stick it to the racists, followed by the CDC saying masks weren't effective, before they were, and then weren't - and then double-masking. All while the stats were clearly going screwy, people suddenly stopped dying of anything but covid - the long running influenza tracking efforts were halted (or announced, but then reversed?)... oh, and obviously George Floyd tested positive. Mentions of "herd immunity" were scrubbed from the CDC's site, and the word "vaccine" redefined. So that is what went wrong: you can't expect appeals to authority to work when the authorities have seemingly gone out of their way to present themselves as liars who are trying to manipulate you by any means available to them.
Both: "Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected."
Before: "Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose."
After: "Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose."
CDC definition I just quoted: "Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected."
A FOIA request turned up the email exchange that motivated the redefinition. Clearly motivated by a desire to control outcome, which is odd - given the constant demand for deference over critical thought:
https://www.scribd.com/document/536749738/CDC-Emails
> ...unfortunate communication missteps.
That is one hell of a euphemism for being caught out in a lie. Fauci admitted to Congress that he intentionally lied to the public about the effectiveness of masks in order to manage people's behavior. Of course he tried to make his admission as confusing and unquotable as possible, which might be why you aren't aware of it: "...there was a paucity of equipment..."
I get the whole excuse about employing deceit in the furtherance of some greater good... but the problem with that kind of policy is that it can only possibly be used once - and after that you are left no other tools, because you can't be trusted. Do I think that was the motivation for most of this? Sure, why not... but I also know that it is a very convenient way to dodge responsibility for expanding federal power beyond what many imagined even possible while also funneling a huge amount of money. There is a reason why the mega-wealthy are coming out of this economic catastrophe with so much more than they had going in.
So... and I mean this genuinely: nothing in that word salad refutes the fact that the vaccinated are 20x less likely to die from covid.
There are always things for you to be upset about. But facts are facts. My "side" (led, perhaps, by misinformation pushed to us by various Institutions acting in The States Interest) was right, yours (seeing clearly) was... wrong.
So maybe it's time to maybe revisit some of your other priors?
So... and I mean this genuinely: that isn't the point I was addressing, but I suppose if you understood it to be "word salad" then reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.
Maybe its time for you to reconsider the wisdom of framing this as some kind of game with sides? Or maybe just tone down the mind reading, because you don't do it very well.
I framed it as a game with sides because it clearly is: you jumped into a discussion about a seemingly undeniable truth (vaccines work) with a bunch of evidence about... other stuff that clearly is aimed at the people who believe that truth, designed to (I guess) justify the disbelieve of the obvious truth, or undermine faith in it, or... something.
It's clear to me that you're on the "side" of "don't take the vaccine". Are you not? Are you vaccinated? If so, why argue against the data in the linked article?
> Nonetheless, this is pretty damning for the horse paste set.
Look I agree that vaccines confer a reduction in risk, but you really shouldn't be referring to ivermectin as “horse paste”. That is clearly pejorative misinformation, and is equivalent to calling all antibiotics “cow pills” just because there happen to be antibiotics administered to livestock.
No, sorry. People were literally taking horse paste formulations of a drug that did not work. That's not perjorative, it's descriptive. It sounds perjorative simply because it's outrageously stupid. But it's correct.
Being embarrassed when someone calls you an idiot isn't being persecuted if you're actually being an idiot. If you don't want me to laugh at you for taking horse paste then don't take it.
A couple comments: first, you know full well that your comment is aimed at everyone who considered use of ivermectin, not just “horse paste formulations” - rebranding ivermectin that way was part of the misinformation pushed by CNN and a significant portion of the political left as the COVID culture wars heated up, and it remains wrong still. Ivermectin is correctly described as a Nobel prize winning drug, not “horse paste”. Second, a big reason some people resorted to those particular formulations is because politically biased pharmacy workers were refusing to fill prescriptions people legitimately got from their doctor, which again was a result of the COVID culture war pushed by people calling ivermectin “horse paste”. Third, tone down your aggression. Not only is it inappropriate for this place, but it just weakens your argument further.
It's properly described as a Nobel winning treatment for parasites like worms.
Saying drug is a bit vague, and you lose the same plot as calling it horse paste. It's not some cure all, appointed by the nobels as good for all your ailments
Agree it isn’t some cure all. However at the same time, I think it is valid for people to speculate and experiment and see if it can work. Dismissing it entirely removes room for experimentation and I don’t think it is the place of media or pharmacists to trivialize it at the start. Just as people were looking at it as a panacea with certainty, I think people on the other side of the debate became almost religious with their single track vaccine worship, particularly when it came to them mandating it. Somewhere in the middle is balance and civil discourse.
Ivermectin. Does. Not. Work. To. Treat. Or. Prevent. Covid.
Vaccines do.
Those who refuse to treat with that reality are exactly the "horse paste set" I was referring to. And again, it will be decades before this mania you people have engaged in is understood.
I didn’t disagree with your first sentence. But calling it “horse paste” remains wrong. Referring to this as “mania” or referring to me as “you people” just makes you look unhinged and antagonistic, which is exactly what the actual mania in response to ivermectin was like.
Are you saying that the drug is not available in a veterinary paste formulation? Because it is. Are you saying people[1]
were not finding and taking the veterinary form of this drug? No, because they were.
So... horse paste. People were taking horse paste for covid. And that's "right", not "wrong". It's just a fact.
I submit that what you're really upset about isn't the truth of this matter but my refusal to engage in your face-saving spin.
But I won't. Because people were taking horse paste for covid. And that's insane. And it's equally insane to defend them for it.
[1] Unable to get doctors to prescribe or pharmacies to supply a drug that everyone rational can see has no business being prescribed for a viral infection, especially one with a working vaccine.
Perpetuating flamewar will get you banned here. Internet snark tropes make it worse. No more of this, please—no matter how right you are or feel you are.
The pejorative appears to be directed at the “set” of individuals who advise, or use, the drug in its equine formulation as opposed to the drug itself. This off label use has been documented https://www.avma.org/javma-news/2021-10-01/people-ingesting-... and it’s the individuals that deserve derision as opposed to the inanimate pharma compounds.
CNN/MSNBC have misinformed you about Ivermectin. Do you think the inventors would get a Nobel Prize if it was just for horses? Advil is also used for horses but we don't misinform people and call it pain killer for horses.
The new Pfizer drug, with 89% efficacy, is a protease inhibitor targeting 3CLPro. Ivermectin seems to also work as a protease inhibitor targeting 3CLPro. Repurposing a drug that we know is safe means it came be deployed very rapidly. New and unknown drugs can take years before all side effects are known.
It sounds a lot like you're saying "this scientist used to say things I agree with, but now he says things I disagree with, so you should ignore him now."
So many people make appeals to ‘science’ as if it’s some big monolith hanging in the sky. This is the first article I’ve come across that isn’t just a qualitative piece of propaganda designed to scare me. I appreciate actual statistics and ‘science’ that I can investigate. I’m a trained scientist and I’m struggling to find proper analyses that I can read with regards to this vaccine. Every time I hear a politician tell me “you have to be vaccinated because you have to be vaccinated” it just pisses me off so much. I try to be rational, and I can’t make a decision just because I’m scared. Give me the science and statistics please leaders!
> CNN/MSNBC have misinformed you about Ivermectin.
Are you saying people were not taking veterinary formulations of this drug (for which there is zero evidence of efficacy) without a prescription or any kind of supervision beyond what they read on Facebook? Because that's the takeaway I got.
Again, at some point we're all going to have a big reckoning as to why this kind of discourse you're engaging in became so prevalent.
It's not like we don't have an idea how to manage or understand infectious diseases. The linked article is about an extraordinarily effective control mechanism. Yet... horse paste. (And people on HN trying to defend horse paste as anything other than sheer idiocy by citing research they don't understand and that isn't even correct.)
You set off a hellish flamewar with that swipe, and then you perpetuated it worse (by far) than any other commenter in this thread). That's egregiously against the site guidelines. You unfortunately have a long history of doing this and we've had to ask you multiple times, going back years, to stop. Seriously not cool.
We ban accounts that do this. If you don't want to be banned, please don't do anything like this again—not just your root comment here, but your many other aggressive comments in this thread. In fact it seems like every single one of the 10 comments you posted to this thread has badly broken the site guidelines. That sort of spree is beyond bannable offense. I don't want to ban you, so please restrain yourself from doing this in the future.
No matter how right you are or feel you are, no matter how wrong other people are or you feel they are, it is not ok to destroy the ecosystem like this. I'm sure you wouldn't set fires in a dry forest or in a public building, so please don't set them here. And please don't pour fuel or throw additional flammables in there either.
p.s. Lest anyone misunderstand this as somehow cryptically taking the other side of the argument—I'm not. I'm simply concerned with preventing users from burning this place down. It doesn't matter what color the flames are.
You've editted that comment a number of times trying to explain why you flagged my top comment. Maybe... the initial comment wasn't actually all that bad? "Horse paste" really isn't a "swipe". It is a term used in exasperation for sure, but it is indeed a correct term for the drug preparation and how it was used by the community eating it.
I'll take the hit on the responses, though. It's very hard to leave things like that alone, but I'll try.
The initial comment was definitely that bad. Horse paste was obviously a swipe (what the HN guidelines refer to as calling names), and an inflammatory provocation. This has been a classic flamewar topic for some time now. The flamewar was entirely predictable.
I compulsively edit everything I write - sorry if that was confusing. And thanks for the kind reply—I appreciate it, and believe me I know how hard it is.
> people are considered fully vaccinated: 2 weeks after their second dose in a 2-dose series, such as the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine, such as Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen vaccine
Until 14 days after the final dose, in addition to the risk of Covid infection or injury, there is risk of non-Covid infection or injury, due to the immune system working overtime to learn from the vaccine. During that period, it is prudent to avoid physical exertion or exposure to people in crowded environments. Some countries already issue such warnings to every person who receives a shot/booster.
In the US, that was the case for most of 2021. Around Q3 2021, some reports started including numbers for "partly vaccinated".
If there isn't a separate line item for cases prior to 14-days-after-final-shot, then those are usually rolled into "not vaccinated" or "unvaccinated".
Some countries have always had separate reporting for partly-vaccinated.
> Can you clarify why people should avoid physical exertion in the 14 day window?
Some countries issued a warning about myocarditis. This was later narrowed to young people. Some countries later banned Moderna entirely for young people. There was also a concern about transient blood clots or micro-clots (also possible with Covid itself), which can impact blood circulation.
> is there currently any evidence that your immune system is generally less effective during that time?
In addition to anecdotal reports from doctors, here are 2 short papers.
> Our case report describes two adults developing herpes zoster after vaccination with tozinameran (the Pfizer- BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine). A possible cause for this reaction is a transient lymphocytopenia that occurs after the vaccination — similar to that in COVID-19 disease
> we report, besides generation of neutralizing antibodies, consistent alterations in hemoglobin A1c, serum sodium and potassium levels, coagulation profiles, and renal functions in healthy volunteers after vaccination with an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Similar changes had also been reported in COVID-19 patients, suggesting that vaccination mimicked an infection
As with all adverse events which may or may not be related to vaccines, we need more funding to investigate reports, identify common factors in those who were affected, then construct studies, testing and surveillance to differentiate cause from coincidence.
I'm not sure the infection rates are reliable: vaccinated folks are much more likely to be asymptomatic or experience mild symptoms, so are much less likely to be tested to confirm infection vs. unvaccinated ones.
Because vaccinated don't need to be tested. At least in my country. So beside of segregation people on two groups, there is one important question. Does our govement want more people dead because of this nonsense?
Because vaccinated people mostly don't believe they're immune. We believe we have a strong protection against infection and a stronger protection against death, but that doesn't mean immunity.
My wife and I have been fully vaccinated since May, but we've had several tests since then (so far all negative) when we learned about contact with infected people or were experiencing suspicious symptoms.
Are you serious dude relax. It’s ridiculous for someone to say “we” like every vaccinated person acts exactly the same across the whole country, much less the world.
I believe most people willing to tell just anyone their beliefs are likely dishonest, and most the honest people are less forthcoming with their beliefs, in part just to avoid potentially having to lie.
Everyone is different and will have a different lifestyle/environment. It’s completely normal for someone to not have taken a test over the last 6 months.
Don't have non-vaccinated people less risk of dying as a baseline ? (because if they are against vaccine, probably they statistically have less comorbidities, otherwise they'd take the vaccine).
If this is the case, then it would mean the vaccine is even more effective than it seems.
There's at least a baseline of tests from activities which require a negative test report. For example, traveling to canada requires a negative covid test before crossing the border, so I'd expect vaccinated people to get tests at at least that baseline.
I do agree this data would be more compelling and reliable if we did covid tests of a random sample of the population and compiled infection data from that, entirely removing any self-selection bias.
The relevant data is on Table 4, page 15. Eg: For the 30-39 age group, Covid death rate amongst the unvaccinated was 0.7 per 100,000, and it was 0.1 per 100,000 for the double vaccinated. For the over 80 age group, it was 117 per 100,000 for the unvaccinated, and 47 per 100,000 for the vaccinated.
If anything, it's more effective for young people...
Interesting. Apparently Texas has some incredibly unhealthy people, as the unvaccinated death rate there is significantly higher than the unvaccinated death rate in the UK.
91 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 155 ms ] threadNow, to be clear that's a confounded number. The vaccinated are also likely to be taking other mitigation strategies seriously. So the vaccine itself will be somewhat less effective than this.
Nonetheless, this is pretty damning for the horse paste set. In decades to come we'll wonder and think and study how this all went so horrifically wrong.
Hopefully we will investigate why almost all (rare) deaths after vaccination can be attributed to only 5% of lot numbers, a statistical anomaly with no easy explanation since this power-law curve appears in the data for both mRNA (Pfizer, Moderna) and non-mRNA (J&J) shots. Could the reason be variance in manufacturing or distribution?
Since someone is inevitably going to criticize VAERS as a data source: it would be trivial for CDC to release a comparable non-VAERS analysis from Vaccine Safety Datalink, their non-public surveillance dataset. While VAERS is flawed due to self-reporting, there are legal penalties for submitting false information, no legal penalties for failing to submit an adverse event report, and bureaucratic and time overhead for each submitted case. So there are also arguments that VAERS is missing data.
It's never enforced.
Basically, if you aren't an epidemiologist don't touch that stuff, it isn't for you. That's the equivalent of announcing you can land a plane because you played MSFS in the 90's.
But what about the COVID-19 itself ? As far as I know, the spike protein is toxic in both cases, but the natural way seems worse because you add it up to other symptoms.
According to VAERS, alien abduction may occur with certain type of vaccines.
At any rate, everyone agrees that VAERS can provide a necessary-but-not-sufficient signal, which is why the CDC VSD exists (large database of adverse events from HMOs and other sources). Hence, any trend (good or bad) from VAERS can be confirmed or repudiated by CDC VSD, https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/...
https://rumble.com/vokrf7-sen.-johnson-expert-panel-on-feder...
Note also that people that input spurious VAERS entries might invent most of the entry, but not know the format of a lot number, and thus copy one from some other entry.
Given the importance of this topic, 8,000 isn't a large number for a "manual recount" audit that would cross-reference with hospital and death records, to eliminate any fake data which may be present. We can then add the records from CDC Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), which is a separate, non-public database entered by medical professionals only.
It could also be true that vaccinated people are willing to take greater risks now that they knowingly have a level of protection.
The vaccines aren't risk-free; the damage of covid looks plainly to be orders of magnitude worse, but papering over any potential risk of vaccines is doing everything a disservice.
Getting people inoculated is important, but the chilling effects of this kind of short-circuiting is worrisome.
Lots of people are pro-mask, pro-mask-mandate, and still wary about the vaccine.
The latter were wearing their masks and being cautious. The former clearly aren't. While they're both "unvaccinated" they don't have the same behavior here.
It may not be the case in Texas, but I’d imagine the vaccinated are at equal or even greater risk than the unvaccinated because they are able to do more (attending events, school, etc).
It's also confounded by urban vs rural. All else being equal, I'd expect rural people are less likely to get it because they interact with fewer people. So...confounded, very. Which direction? No clue.
lol, it might take decades to massage public consciousness for a desired outcome in the state's interest, but it certainly doesn't take that long to get a handle on the actual issues: institutions used up all their credibility on transparently obvious misinformation. It started with the WHO, an organization already hurting in that regard (Mugabe the goodwill ambassador... hard to top that kind of contempt), misrepresenting their Wuhan fact finding efforts. Then you had US politicians calling early efforts xenophobic and encouraging people to gather in chinatown to stick it to the racists, followed by the CDC saying masks weren't effective, before they were, and then weren't - and then double-masking. All while the stats were clearly going screwy, people suddenly stopped dying of anything but covid - the long running influenza tracking efforts were halted (or announced, but then reversed?)... oh, and obviously George Floyd tested positive. Mentions of "herd immunity" were scrubbed from the CDC's site, and the word "vaccine" redefined. So that is what went wrong: you can't expect appeals to authority to work when the authorities have seemingly gone out of their way to present themselves as liars who are trying to manipulate you by any means available to them.
Before: "Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose."
After: "Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose."
http://web.archive.org/web/20210826113846/https://www.cdc.go...
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
But what is immunity, other than an immune response to the disease?
> ...unfortunate communication missteps.
That is one hell of a euphemism for being caught out in a lie. Fauci admitted to Congress that he intentionally lied to the public about the effectiveness of masks in order to manage people's behavior. Of course he tried to make his admission as confusing and unquotable as possible, which might be why you aren't aware of it: "...there was a paucity of equipment..."
I get the whole excuse about employing deceit in the furtherance of some greater good... but the problem with that kind of policy is that it can only possibly be used once - and after that you are left no other tools, because you can't be trusted. Do I think that was the motivation for most of this? Sure, why not... but I also know that it is a very convenient way to dodge responsibility for expanding federal power beyond what many imagined even possible while also funneling a huge amount of money. There is a reason why the mega-wealthy are coming out of this economic catastrophe with so much more than they had going in.
There are always things for you to be upset about. But facts are facts. My "side" (led, perhaps, by misinformation pushed to us by various Institutions acting in The States Interest) was right, yours (seeing clearly) was... wrong.
So maybe it's time to maybe revisit some of your other priors?
Maybe its time for you to reconsider the wisdom of framing this as some kind of game with sides? Or maybe just tone down the mind reading, because you don't do it very well.
It's clear to me that you're on the "side" of "don't take the vaccine". Are you not? Are you vaccinated? If so, why argue against the data in the linked article?
Look I agree that vaccines confer a reduction in risk, but you really shouldn't be referring to ivermectin as “horse paste”. That is clearly pejorative misinformation, and is equivalent to calling all antibiotics “cow pills” just because there happen to be antibiotics administered to livestock.
Being embarrassed when someone calls you an idiot isn't being persecuted if you're actually being an idiot. If you don't want me to laugh at you for taking horse paste then don't take it.
Saying drug is a bit vague, and you lose the same plot as calling it horse paste. It's not some cure all, appointed by the nobels as good for all your ailments
This wasn't a scientific study! People were eating horse paste. There were literally multiple overdose events reported.
You think it's... "valid" to go to your local farm supply store and chug down random drugs because someone on Facebook told you to?
Vaccines do.
Those who refuse to treat with that reality are exactly the "horse paste set" I was referring to. And again, it will be decades before this mania you people have engaged in is understood.
So... horse paste. People were taking horse paste for covid. And that's "right", not "wrong". It's just a fact. I submit that what you're really upset about isn't the truth of this matter but my refusal to engage in your face-saving spin.
But I won't. Because people were taking horse paste for covid. And that's insane. And it's equally insane to defend them for it.
[1] Unable to get doctors to prescribe or pharmacies to supply a drug that everyone rational can see has no business being prescribed for a viral infection, especially one with a working vaccine.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The new Pfizer drug, with 89% efficacy, is a protease inhibitor targeting 3CLPro. Ivermectin seems to also work as a protease inhibitor targeting 3CLPro. Repurposing a drug that we know is safe means it came be deployed very rapidly. New and unknown drugs can take years before all side effects are known.
If anyone is interested in hearing an informed opinion on Ivermectin check out Dr. John Campbell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufy2AweXRkc
Are you saying people were not taking veterinary formulations of this drug (for which there is zero evidence of efficacy) without a prescription or any kind of supervision beyond what they read on Facebook? Because that's the takeaway I got.
Again, at some point we're all going to have a big reckoning as to why this kind of discourse you're engaging in became so prevalent.
It's not like we don't have an idea how to manage or understand infectious diseases. The linked article is about an extraordinarily effective control mechanism. Yet... horse paste. (And people on HN trying to defend horse paste as anything other than sheer idiocy by citing research they don't understand and that isn't even correct.)
Ivermectin taken more frequently than approved for has side effects including your intestinal lining falling off and looking like worms in your poo.
We ban accounts that do this. If you don't want to be banned, please don't do anything like this again—not just your root comment here, but your many other aggressive comments in this thread. In fact it seems like every single one of the 10 comments you posted to this thread has badly broken the site guidelines. That sort of spree is beyond bannable offense. I don't want to ban you, so please restrain yourself from doing this in the future.
No matter how right you are or feel you are, no matter how wrong other people are or you feel they are, it is not ok to destroy the ecosystem like this. I'm sure you wouldn't set fires in a dry forest or in a public building, so please don't set them here. And please don't pour fuel or throw additional flammables in there either.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
p.s. Lest anyone misunderstand this as somehow cryptically taking the other side of the argument—I'm not. I'm simply concerned with preventing users from burning this place down. It doesn't matter what color the flames are.
I'll take the hit on the responses, though. It's very hard to leave things like that alone, but I'll try.
I compulsively edit everything I write - sorry if that was confusing. And thanks for the kind reply—I appreciate it, and believe me I know how hard it is.
> people are considered fully vaccinated: 2 weeks after their second dose in a 2-dose series, such as the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine, such as Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen vaccine
Until 14 days after the final dose, in addition to the risk of Covid infection or injury, there is risk of non-Covid infection or injury, due to the immune system working overtime to learn from the vaccine. During that period, it is prudent to avoid physical exertion or exposure to people in crowded environments. Some countries already issue such warnings to every person who receives a shot/booster.
If there isn't a separate line item for cases prior to 14-days-after-final-shot, then those are usually rolled into "not vaccinated" or "unvaccinated".
Some countries have always had separate reporting for partly-vaccinated.
Also, is there currently any evidence that your immune system is generally less effective during that time?
Some countries issued a warning about myocarditis. This was later narrowed to young people. Some countries later banned Moderna entirely for young people. There was also a concern about transient blood clots or micro-clots (also possible with Covid itself), which can impact blood circulation.
> is there currently any evidence that your immune system is generally less effective during that time?
In addition to anecdotal reports from doctors, here are 2 short papers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8379763/pdf/mai...
> Our case report describes two adults developing herpes zoster after vaccination with tozinameran (the Pfizer- BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine). A possible cause for this reaction is a transient lymphocytopenia that occurs after the vaccination — similar to that in COVID-19 disease
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8546144/pd...
> we report, besides generation of neutralizing antibodies, consistent alterations in hemoglobin A1c, serum sodium and potassium levels, coagulation profiles, and renal functions in healthy volunteers after vaccination with an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Similar changes had also been reported in COVID-19 patients, suggesting that vaccination mimicked an infection
As with all adverse events which may or may not be related to vaccines, we need more funding to investigate reports, identify common factors in those who were affected, then construct studies, testing and surveillance to differentiate cause from coincidence.
My wife and I have been fully vaccinated since May, but we've had several tests since then (so far all negative) when we learned about contact with infected people or were experiencing suspicious symptoms.
I'm vaccinated but had no idea I had such representation on HN, I believe you should speak for yourself sir.
That's been the weirdest part of this whole business for me... learning just how many people simply don't care if they're wrong.
I do agree this data would be more compelling and reliable if we did covid tests of a random sample of the population and compiled infection data from that, entirely removing any self-selection bias.
Here's some better data, from the UK:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
The relevant data is on Table 4, page 15. Eg: For the 30-39 age group, Covid death rate amongst the unvaccinated was 0.7 per 100,000, and it was 0.1 per 100,000 for the double vaccinated. For the over 80 age group, it was 117 per 100,000 for the unvaccinated, and 47 per 100,000 for the vaccinated.
If anything, it's more effective for young people...
* https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/Cases-and-D...