Austria first country to make Covid vaccine mandatory

[Alexander1970]

Ivermectin (in Austria called "Pferdewurmmittel/Medikament") is "recommended" by a few People/Doctors BUT
not as "Holy Grail" against Covid 19.
...also only in Combination with Vitamin D and very Important the wrong Dosage makes it very dangerous for People who "do not know what they do"...

 

[appleburger]

They aren't epidemiologists, they're just doctors treating patients. I'm more inclined to trust them than some institution just like I'm more inclined to believe a soldier on the ground than some politician. I'm sure you could probably find something about the Ivermectin use in India as I've seen that mentioned around here before. Personally, I thought it looked promising at first but then didn't see any compelling studies and the most favourable one was inconclusive at best. But again, who am I to argue with the doctor actually saving lives and saying it adds something of value to the protocol. My money is on the mabs and prednisolone being the main heroes.

The link @AlexMCS posted actually has quite a few that reference India, specifically. And the deeper I dig, the more I see recent studies showing that it's helping patients quite a bit. I wonder why it's created so much discourse (I didn't listen to the Joe Rogan episode and am not 100% on the claims thrown around involving this drug)

 

[AlexMCS]

No, you're totally right - I was only finding a quick and dirty summary quickly explaining what reflected what I had heard. Once I finished doing some reading through your link I edited my post.

The latest article (peer review, released today, in pre-print) has a huge amount of info on it, and the one table that makes it glaringly obvious that people are not using it correctly, for some reason:

By the way, I've used Vitamin D (50k UI), Budesonide and Prednisolone as well when I was sick.

Those (Budesonide and especially Prednisolone) needed to be delayed to the early-mid stage due to increasing the odds of opportunistic infections, according to my physician, while some other doctors were prescribing their usage as soon as the patient got his RT-PCR test as positive, which I got 1 week after my initial symptoms (lower back pain -> throat inflammation -> gastric chaos - which was the actual worst part of CoViD for me, worse than breathing issues).

 

[appleburger]

Ivermectin (in Austria called "Pferdewurmmittel/Medikament") is "recommended" by a few People/Doctors BUT
not as "Holy Grail" against Covid 19.
...also only in Combination with Vitamin D and very Important the wrong Dosage makes it very dangerous for People who "do not know what they do"...

Well, that makes perfect sense. Anyone claiming there's a Holy Grail against Covid is obviously climbing a big mountain of bs considering... you know... how it's going. Seems obvious.

But the studies showing that it's effective in treating COVID is pretty interesting. That's a big deal. The articles we're mentioning do specify that larger sample sizes are needed, obviously, and that vaccinations + masks are still much more important since they focus on prevention, but even still - if this drug is effective at treating the illness then I'd think that's a pretty big deal.

 

[appleburger]

The latest article (peer review, released today, in pre-print) has a huge amount of info on it, and the one table that makes it glaringly obvious that people are not using it correctly, for some reason:

View attachment 290033

By the way, I've used Budesonide and Prednisolone as well when I was sick.

Those needed to be delayed to the early-mid stage due to increasing the odds of opportunistic infections, according to my physician, while some other doctors were prescribing their usage as soon as the patient got his RT-PCR test as positive, which I got 1 week after my initial symptoms (lower back pain -> throat inflammation -> gastric chaos - which was the actual worst part of CoViD for me, worse than breathing issues).

Well, my friend - you're a rare breed. Reading and properly interpreting a scientific article is sadly out of a lot of folks' wheelhouse. This is good stuff. I wonder if more info will spill out into the general public soon on this. I've only heard about all the hubbub surrounding Joe Rogan and the guest that brought this drug up.

 

[Dakitten]

They aren't epidemiologists, they're just doctors treating patients. I'm more inclined to trust them than some institution just like I'm more inclined to believe a soldier on the ground than some politician. I'm sure you could probably find something about the Ivermectin use in India as I've seen that mentioned around here before. Personally, I thought it looked promising at first but then didn't see any compelling studies and the most favourable one was inconclusive at best. But again, who am I to argue with the doctor actually saving lives and saying it adds something of value to the protocol. My money is on the mabs and prednisolone being the main heroes.

I was a soldier on the ground AND a nurse~ And, in my experience, doctors are almost always in agreement with the scientific community at large and nobody takes https://c19ivermectin.com/ seriously due to their history of posting the most dubious of studies on their website. If you take a look at actual peer-reviewed studies, ivermectin in DOCTOR REGULATED SITUATIONS can be used to treat some symptoms, but it is not a cure or a substitute for many of the new targeted treatments being released. I know @AlexMCS believes that they're a smart guy scientist, but they're just another in a long line of right wing grifters with easily debunked information and demagoguery.

Always look for peer-reviewed studies, folks. Any rando can submit a paper, and any doctor can leverage their experience for a quick boost of street cred, but peer review means any other doctor can recreate the study circumstances and shoot it to hell in a heartbeat if something doesn't hold true~

I'm sure that, being Vox, some folks will auto-disregard the site, but for additional reading for the curious~

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22663127/ivermectin-covid-treatments-vaccines-evidence

 

[appleburger]

I was a soldier on the ground AND a nurse~ And, in my experience, doctors are almost always in agreement with the scientific community at large and nobody takes https://c19ivermectin.com/ seriously due to their history of posting the most dubious of studies on their website. If you take a look at actual peer-reviewed studies, ivermectin in DOCTOR REGULATED SITUATIONS can be used to treat some symptoms, but it is not a cure or a substitute for many of the new targeted treatments being released. I know @AlexMCS believes that they're a smart guy scientist, but they're just another in a long line of right wing grifters with easily debunked information and demagoguery.

Always look for peer-reviewed studies, folks. Any rando can submit a paper, and any doctor can leverage their experience for a quick boost of street cred, but peer review means any other doctor can recreate the study circumstances and shoot it to hell in a heartbeat if something doesn't hold true~

Are there sources debunking these studies on https://c19ivermectin.com/ ? Even though the sample size is still really small and could be attributed to chance with these numbers, at a glance I thought this was a decent sign that it was helping with symptoms. The studies I looked through were still mostly concluding that prevention is wayyyy more effective, and that this was only helping with symptoms in those who were already in critical condition.

 

[subcon959]

I was a soldier on the ground AND a nurse~ And, in my experience, doctors are almost always in agreement with the scientific community at large and nobody takes https://c19ivermectin.com/ seriously due to their history of posting the most dubious of studies on their website. If you take a look at actual peer-reviewed studies, ivermectin in DOCTOR REGULATED SITUATIONS can be used to treat some symptoms, but it is not a cure or a substitute for many of the new targeted treatments being released. I know @AlexMCS believes that they're a smart guy scientist, but they're just another in a long line of right wing grifters with easily debunked information and demagoguery.

Always look for peer-reviewed studies, folks. Any rando can submit a paper, and any doctor can leverage their experience for a quick boost of street cred, but peer review means any other doctor can recreate the study circumstances and shoot it to hell in a heartbeat if something doesn't hold true~

Did you mean to quote me? Cause I pretty much said I didn't find the Ivermectin studies to be compelling.

 

[AlexMCS]

Contrary to what Dakitten implies, I have 2 ongoing master's degree in statistics + math modeling and comp. Sci., so yes, I'm an actual scientist, and yes, correctly interpreting articles is a PITA if you don't know a thing about random variables.

I'm not even right-wing either. So there goes another error to add to your list.

You can check how valid an article is by screening the publisher's reputation. They teach this on the first semester of any good Master's course, as well as not to publish on any rando site/magazine.

@appleburger - using it for prevention is not a good idea, even if the studies support it, due to possible liver damage.

 

[appleburger]

Contrary to what Dakitten implies, I have 2 ongoing master's degree in statistics + math modeling and comp. Sci., so yes, I'm an actual scientist, and yes, correctly interpreting articles is a PITA if you don't know a thing about random variables.

I'm not even right-wing either. So there goes another error to add to your list.

You can check how valid an article is by screening the publisher's reputation. They teach this on the first semester of any good Master's course, as well as not to publish on any rando site/magazine.

@appleburger - using it for prevention is not a good idea, even if the studies support it, due to possible liver damage.

Yeah, everyone seems to be on board with this not being a prevention medication. I'm wondering why there's discourse on the treatment side of things. And, with the previous drama, were there people saying it should be used for prevention, or something? I'm new to this side of the conversation. I haven't looked into this drug much until today.

And that makes sense. I'm also a Comp Sci and started my masters earlier this year, so I've had to suffer through research, as well. It's good for ya.

 

[Foxi4]

Gotcha - I don't think that's a popular opinion - that anyone thinks COVID eradication is likely. History has shown that these diseases tend to stick around, and the goal is typically to reduce the spread until it's not longer a pandemic and we can manage it.

So, I made some assumptions about your post, myself. Sorry about that. You're not among the pack of folks on here who are trying to argue from random crap they've pulled out of their ass, and I appreciate that.

In my experience it’s an extremely popular opinion because the population is grossly uninformed in regards to how vaccines work and what they actually do. The average Joe or Jane think they’re magical force fields and that vaccinating everybody will solve the problem - it won’t, reducing Polio down to the level we see now took a global effort and a decade of consistent vaccinations. The expectation that “we’ll open up when people stop catching COVID” is stupid - people won’t stop catching COVID for years to come. That’s just the reality, and we’ll all have to accept it at some point rather than live in a constant state of fear.

 

[subcon959]

In my experience it’s an extremely popular opinion because the population is grossly uninformed in regards to how vaccines work and what they actually do. The average Joe or Jane think they’re magical force fields and that vaccinating everybody will solve the problem - it won’t, reducing Polio down to the level we see now took a global effort and a decade of consistent vaccinations. The expectation that “we’ll open up when people stop catching COVID” is stupid - people won’t stop catching COVID for years to come. That’s just the reality, and we’ll all have to accept it at some point rather than live in a constant state of fear.

A lot of people are very scared so it's only natural to want to cling to some sort of perceived saviour.

 

[appleburger]

@AlexMCS this site also sums up a large quantity of studies: https://journals.lww.com/americanth...mectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx

And surmised that Ivermectin is effective is helping us survive COVID - so treatment for those who have it. I know that's somebody else digging through and summarizing for me, but I've only got so much time at the moment to look into this lol.

But as it stands... looks to me like Ivermectin studies are gathering evidence that it works, and I'm not seeing much that's directly debunking these as I click around. But if somebody has any sources that do, I'd be happy to check 'em out.

 

[subcon959]

But as it stands... looks to me like Ivermectin studies are gathering evidence that it works, and I'm not seeing much that's directly debunking these as I click around. But if somebody has any sources that do, I'd be happy to check 'em out.

From what I gathered, the whole horse de-wormer thing is why most people have a negative view of Ivermectin. If you try to dig into it too much you get labelled conspiratorial but it's a fact that it was propagated by news media who just happened to be sponsored by Pfizer. I should add that back then certain people were touting it as preventative so it may have been seen as a threat to the vaccine.

 

[AlexMCS]

I was a soldier on the ground AND a nurse~ And, in my experience, doctors are almost always in agreement with the scientific community at large and nobody takes https://c19ivermectin.com/ seriously due to their history of posting the most dubious of studies on their website. If you take a look at actual peer-reviewed studies, ivermectin in DOCTOR REGULATED SITUATIONS can be used to treat some symptoms, but it is not a cure or a substitute for many of the new targeted treatments being released. I know @AlexMCS believes that they're a smart guy scientist, but they're just another in a long line of right wing grifters with easily debunked information and demagoguery.

Always look for peer-reviewed studies, folks. Any rando can submit a paper, and any doctor can leverage their experience for a quick boost of street cred, but peer review means any other doctor can recreate the study circumstances and shoot it to hell in a heartbeat if something doesn't hold true~

I'm sure that, being Vox, some folks will auto-disregard the site, but for additional reading for the curious~

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22663127/ivermectin-covid-treatments-vaccines-evidence

This article, though subtly, is also very biased in tone against Ivermectin, so it can't be taken that seriously.
It does reinforce what we all actual scientists (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00874-8) have been saying in the last few years though: over-reliance on p-value < 5% as the only indicator of a hypothesis non-rejection is a terrible idea.

It is evidenced in the Vox article by this excerpt, I've bolded the warning words there: "Careful, large, well-conducted studies tend to find modest benefits or no statistically significant benefits for Covid-19 patients who took ivermectin".

Even while disagreeing, the article has to concede that benefits exist. If we ever get the dosage and administration method/timing right, Ivermectin might be a good tool to help mitigate CoViD-19.

As I've also said before in this topic, science is a closed logical loop. Sound, but not complete. Even more so for experiments such as these, where the samples themselves react wildly different every time (each person reacts to CoViD-19 differently. Some people feel absolutely nothing - my wife. Some almost die - me. We need to correctly identify and stratify these groups first). You need intuition and common sense to help your studies.

It's a great tool to grasp trends, not to assert truth. If you're a scientist, you know it.

A LOT of research is necessary to know if some unmeasurable variable tends to some value, especially when everyone assumes unknown variables as gaussian.

As an ending note, there is not going to be a miracle drug against CoViD-19. And even drugs released today with very high efficiency might be useless to a new mutation a couple months down the road, that's the nature of the virus.

And that's why, as of right now, I don't want to be vaccinated without knowing what the long term effects of the vaccine actually are. That's what my risk/reward ratio, as someone who has already almost died from CoViD-19, based on multiple studies, intuition and personal feeling lead me to choose.

And that's why I'm against vaccine mandates, but OK with restrictions - I barely leave home anyway.

 

[appleburger]

This article, though subtly, is also very biased in tone against Ivermectin, so it can't be taken that seriously.
It does reinforce what we all actual scientists (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00874-8) have been saying in the last few years though: over-reliance on p-value < 5% as the only indicator of a hypothesis non-rejection is a terrible idea.

It is evidenced in the Vox article by this excerpt, I've bolded the warning words there: "Careful, large, well-conducted studies tend to find modest benefits or no statistically significant benefits for Covid-19 patients who took ivermectin".

Even while disagreeing, the article has to concede that benefits exist. If we ever get the dosage and administration method/timing right, Ivermectin might be a good tool to help mitigate CoViD-19.

As I've also said before in this topic, science is a closed logical loop. Sound, but not complete. Even more so for experiments such as these, where the samples themselves react wildly different every time (each person reacts to CoViD-19 differently. Some people feel absolutely nothing - my wife. Some almost die - me. We need to correctly identify and stratify these groups first). You need intuition and common sense to help your studies.

It's a great tool to grasp trends, not to assert truth. If you're a scientist, you know it.

A LOT of research is necessary to know if some unmeasurable variable tends to some value, especially when everyone assumes unknown variables as gaussian.

As an ending note, there is not going to be a miracle drug against CoViD-19. And even drugs released today with very high efficiency might be useless to a new mutation a couple months down the road, that's the nature of the virus.

And that's why, as of right now, I don't want to be vaccinated without knowing what the long term effects of the vaccine actually are. That's what my risk/reward ratio, as someone who has already almost died from CoViD-19, based on multiple studies, intuition and personal feeling lead me to choose.

And that's why I'm against vaccine mandates, but OK with restrictions - I barely leave home anyway.

I still think your odds with COVID are far worse than vaccine effects. You and I both know long term vaccine effects with the current vaccines are highly unlikely, due just to how the vaccines work. The mechanism is pretty well understood at this point. If it were a live vaccine or something, I could see being wary, but I just don't see the odds being in your favor without it.

But, if you wanna stay home to prevent catching it again, that's your prerogative.

EDIT: To add on to your point with studies - yes, studies are very useful for gathering data. Showing demonstrably that something is true, works, is effective, etc. takes a lot of work, and unfortunately - time. Science is great at weeding out bias, that's kind of the whole point, but the level of intuition you attach to it has to be dialed in, as well. The focus should always be gathering data and then letting the community decide how to use that data. When you get enough opinions weighed on data, you get closer to the truth, statistically (I don't remember the name of the phenomena, maybe @AlexMCS does and I'm too lazy to look it up ).

So, we're working with the best we've got. Masks and vaccines are the best bet. But, there's clearly still a lot for us all to learn when it comes to effectively battling this virus, especially for those that are in the hospital that have already caught it.

 

[subcon959]

I still think your odds with COVID are far worse than vaccine effects. You and I both know long term vaccine effects with the current vaccines are highly unlikely, due just to how the vaccines work. The mechanism is pretty well understood at this point. If it were a live vaccine or something, I could see being wary, but I just don't see the odds being in your favor without it.

It might be possible to have the opposite situation, where the vaccine derived spike protein levels are much higher than those from the live virus, therefore it may have been less severe for the individual to get a natural infection than be vaccinated. Speculation on my part, but it seems like it could be plausible to me. My only concern with the vaccines has always been undisclosed side-effects (wouldn't be the first time - I speak from personal experience) and unknown long term effects.

 

[AlexMCS]

I still think your odds with COVID are far worse than vaccine effects. You and I both know long term vaccine effects with the current vaccines are highly unlikely, due just to how the vaccines work. The mechanism is pretty well understood at this point. If it were a live vaccine or something, I could see being wary, but I just don't see the odds being in your favor without it.

But, if you wanna stay home to prevent catching it again, that's your prerogative.

I'd definitely take the vaccine if I had to leave home more than once a week to visit my family, or for an occasional emergency trip to the University Datacenter. (Happened a grand total of 6 times this year). I wouldn't want to endanger those around me.

And for such occasions, I use one of my 21 N95 masks and alcohol for my hands, and take all the necessary precautions which by themselves already ensure over a very high protection against the virus itself.

I wouldn't even have gotten CoViD-19 if not for the dentist...

That's my point, and the point of the topic: Mandates.
I don't mind restrictions, they make sense. Mandates is where I draw the line.

 

[appleburger]

It might be possible to have the opposite situation, where the vaccine derived spike protein levels are much higher than those from the live virus, therefore it may have been less severe for the individual to get a natural infection than be vaccinated. Speculation on my part, but it seems like it could be plausible to me. My only concern with the vaccines has always been undisclosed side-effects (wouldn't be the first time - I speak from personal experience) and unknown long term effects.

That's going to certainly be covered in the trials when creating these vaccines. I don't think spiked protein levels are going to "whoopsie" their way into these with the whole world watching.

The adverse reactions to vaccines are almost always because of how certain individuals react to vaccines. I've known people that get severe reactions to most vaccines. They do exist, but they all found out when they were kids, since we already have to get vaccines for school. And even then, these reactions are almost never deadly. You're far, far, far more likely to be murdered by your cat, or accidentally strangle yourself in your bedsheets once you get into those numbers.

I wouldn't call those side effects nondisclosed. And if they were not disclosed... you wouldn't be aware of them. Everything worthwhile is documented when you visit the doctor. It's not in anyone's interest to keep it hidden. The medical field is a community of people trying to understand everything as best as possible. And my friend's sister (who gets severe vaccine reactions) has had it all documented in her visits. She just has an immune system that's a bit unique and attacks foreign bodies more aggressively than most. To the point that she's been hospitalized from them. Any time I've visited a doctor and ask for documentation, I get it, and it's pretty robust stuff. They're happy to hand it out. Everything that happened is on there.

Unkown long term effects could be applied to literally anything that hasn't been around long enough. There's no reason to assume there are any to begin with. You could say the same thing about any medication that's come out in the past 80 years, and long term side effects from vaccines, medications, etc. are rare - much more rare than your odds of dying from COVID. Like, not even close. It's a dice roll, but an easy one imo.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

Sometimes I wonder, like when people love to hear themselves talk, they like to see the long ass posts they typed and revel in their supposed righteousness? Like, it's okay to debate, but damn, some of these posts are filled with BS or just people who refuse to either face facts or the other side's views?