General Corona virus updates

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,644
10/10 not watching a 20 minute YouTube video. Who do you think you are @Toelocku ?

Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,908
56,378
Are they still doing the thing up there where you’ll have to wait 4 months for round 2?
As of this minute, no. They made the announcement last week that they're moving things up due to increased supply. Hopefully the supply gets here, time will tell.
 

TheFifthScallop

Who am I kidding? I’m a whore.
Amateur Fighter
Nov 15, 2015
5,812
7,303

Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.
Isn’t ivermectin what you take when you have scabies? And isn’t it also for farm animals?
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,644
Isn’t ivermectin what you take when you have scabies? And isn’t it also for farm animals?
it's used for lice/scabies/etc in humans. It's actually a pretty fascinating story of discovery, and how Merck (the manufacturer) hates it because it never makes them any money.

lots of medication is the same for humans and other animals.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,908
56,378

Conclusions:
Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.
So would it have to be taken in perpetuity, or would taking it once provide protection?

I also wonder why Merck isn't on top of this given they don't have a vaccine on offer.
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,644
So would it have to be taken in perpetuity, or would taking it once provide protection?

I also wonder why Merck isn't on top of this given they don't have a vaccine on offer.
i think you'd only start taking it if you were exposed. small wonder that our contact tracing system is so bad, almost intentionally bad.

but read the story on the discovery of IVM...but it's public domain medication.
 
M

member 3289

Guest
Employers forcing their employees to get vaccinated is a brilliant way to get us to that 70% benchmark.
 

Shinkicker

For what it's worth
Jan 30, 2016
10,445
13,912
So would it have to be taken in perpetuity, or would taking it once provide protection?

I also wonder why Merck isn't on top of this given they don't have a vaccine on offer.
Merck doesn't have the patent on it anymore so can't really make money from it.

Also, the FDA was only able to approve the vaccine emergently if there was no other previously FDA approved drug to treat the illness.

Also, Merck just got a chunk of government money to start making the vaccine for Johnson & Johnson.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,908
56,378
Merck doesn't have the patent on it anymore so can't really make money from it.

Also, the FDA was only able to approve the vaccine emergently if there was no other previously FDA approved drug to treat the illness.

Also, Merck just got a chunk of government money to start making the vaccine for Johnson & Johnson.
There's something ironic about the vaccines with the safety concerns are also the publicly funded ones. I can only imagine the outrage if the "greedy, capitalist" vaccines were the ones killing people.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,908
56,378
Is someone who doesn't get the vaccine a sociopath?

Cuz that's what I'm hearing. Lol
No, not at all.

The stated public health position right now (although it seems to change hourly) is that those who are vaccinated are both protected and don't spread. So if someone chooses not to get vaccinated, who exactly are they "protecting" by forcing vaccination on them?
 

mysticmac

First 1025
Oct 18, 2015
16,275
18,704
No, not at all.

The stated public health position right now (although it seems to change hourly) is that those who are vaccinated are both protected and don't spread. So if someone chooses not to get vaccinated, who exactly are they "protecting" by forcing vaccination on them?
SJWs. Don't try to bring science into this. Being vaccinated while wearing two masks everywhere you go and ridiculing those who don't makes people feel warm fuzzies. That's all the reason needed.
 

Shinkicker

For what it's worth
Jan 30, 2016
10,445
13,912
No, not at all.

The stated public health position right now (although it seems to change hourly) is that those who are vaccinated are both protected and don't spread. So if someone chooses not to get vaccinated, who exactly are they "protecting" by forcing vaccination on them?
I'm more hungover that I thought. It took me a minute to work that post out.

Protecting them from themselves? Like seatbelt laws. And helmet laws. Etc.
 

Filthy

Iowa Wrestling Champion
Jun 28, 2016
27,507
29,644
No, not at all.

The stated public health position right now (although it seems to change hourly) is that those who are vaccinated are both protected and don't spread. So if someone chooses not to get vaccinated, who exactly are they "protecting" by forcing vaccination on them?
people who can't get the vaccine, and people who aren't immunized against a variant (which could be everybody)
 

Shinkicker

For what it's worth
Jan 30, 2016
10,445
13,912
SJWs. Don't try to bring science into this. Being vaccinated while wearing two masks everywhere you go and ridiculing those who don't makes people feel warm fuzzies. That's all the reason needed.
I'm vaccinated and sometimes wear two masks. :oops:
 

Shinkicker

For what it's worth
Jan 30, 2016
10,445
13,912
I use to, but have upgraded to one of these because you can never be too safe.
Serious question for you or anyone else that wants to answer.

If I know I'm exposed to COVID everyday that I work, is it ethically okay for me to go into a public place without a mask on?
 

mysticmac

First 1025
Oct 18, 2015
16,275
18,704
Serious question for you or anyone else that wants to answer.

If I know I'm exposed to COVID everyday that I work, is it ethically okay for me to go into a public place without a mask on?
Are you vaccinated, and how often are you tested? Do you know whether or not you have it?