Is it your belief that big pharma released Covid deliberately just to profit off that sweet vaccination funding money?
Absolutely not. Obviously I'm not an idiot. Good businessmen often take advantage of situations that play into their company's hand, no? Would you not agree with that? Would you not agree with the fact that lobbyists are real and the higher the value of a corporation, the more likely they yield a larger influence in certain communities?
So you'd rather pay money to take a treatment intended to treat roundworm infections for Covid over a vaccination that's free?
Spoiler That's a lot of side effects to deal with by periodically consuming this medication as a preventative compared to a free vaccine. It seems like you need to consume this medication every meal as a preventative for however long Covid continues to persist in community spread. And the longer people continue to refuse to get vaccinated the longer you'll need to consume this medication as a preventative while dealing with the above adverse side effects. Contrast with simply getting two jabs in the arm and never having to worry about ingesting an oral contraceptive after every meal like your life depends on it. I know which choice I'd make and have already made months ago when it was finally released to my age and health demographic.
Never said that either. That's twice now. Your response has nothing to do with what I've said. I'm saying that there are other alternatives that are worth exploring that many credible people believe could put an end to this thing. Things that would get some of the vaccine hesitant on board and also cost less to the taxpayers in general.
“At least 233 staff members at two major San Francisco hospitals, most of them fully vaccinated, tested positive for the coronavirus this month, and most, according to a hospital official, involved the highly contagious Delta variant.” https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/31/us/covid-san-francisco-hospital-delta.html Sorry, current vaccine is not the way to go. In the battle of against such virus, saving lives (virus hosts) while letting virus spread freely will definitely fail. Ineffective vaccine will only make the virus stronger. Laugh Trump all you want about the absurdity of injecting disinfectant , he got the basic idea right: Killing the virus directly is the only way to win in this battle. Craps like freedom, democracy, economy, partisanship should have way less propriety here.
Why is consuming an oral contraceptive intended to treat round worms more acceptable for antivaxxers opposed to vaccinations that have been through clinical trials and which tens of millions of citizens have already taken and ended up fine? I understand fear of long term side effects to vaccination to a degree but we also know the side effects from catching Covid unvaccinated. It could mean death or needing an oxygen tank and long term rehab to maintain a debilitating quality of life while paying far more in healthcare costs long term compared to a free vaccination. Economically speaking, it makes more sense for people to get vaccinated. Forget the health benefits. It's significantly cheaper to get vaccinated.
On the flip side, are they just as common as the vaccine side effects? I'm sure we'll find more. We know of at least one major one. Not to mention the fact that if we don't get a booster soon, there's a high likelihood that we could be a net zero from the vaccine. Also, ivermectin has been studied as a preventative and a treatment, so you wouldn't need to take it constantly. If a large group was on board, you'd do mass dosing. Otherwise, you treat with it. I'm just playing devil's advocate here, and wondering why we've honed in on the vaccine as the only method when 2/5s of the population is afraid of it...
233 staff members out of how many? Wish the article could have specified that as well. Not sure what is the alternative you're suggesting. How would not vaccinating be a more successful strategy?
I get your point, and as I said, I'm playing devil's advocate... We don't know how long the vaccine is good for. There's a good chance those that had the first wave of shots are starting to lose immunity, if they ever fully had it. I still don't think covid will be as serve for those people, but it wasn't very severe for a large number of people. Why then should we refuse to look at other promising drugs and studies in the meantime? Seems counterintuitive. Also, Viagra was a blood pressure pill until it wasn't. Medicine is littered with those types of examples...
You're right, it was written in Feb'21 before heart inflammation was well known. Heart inflammation, if it happens, occurs within days of vaccination. This supports the statement that side effect tends to happen within 2 months of vaccination. It's not because of long-term studies. I remember the CDC approval process needs 6M of clinical trials data (so not years of data). However, they take time to go through their process for approval, which includes inspecting manufacturing facilities. This process only starts once there is an application for approval. Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna submitted their application in May and June this year respectively. So, it has only been 2M and 1M respectively for the FDA to start the process of approval. They have 6 months to make a decision, but since it's already under EUA and they are pulling resources from elsewhere to complete the process, the expectation is approval before that. Vaccine Testing and Approval Process | CDC I think while the long-term effects cannot be known until years later, there is high confidence that there won't be any. But of course, nothing is 100% for sure. On the other hand, I doubt we are missing any short-term effects with already 4.11 billion of doses of covid vaccine administered. Covid World Vaccination Tracker - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Alternatives like Ivermectin are being explored, though. They may be found to have some therapeutic value, but results of those investigations don't support that they are any where close to as effective as vaccines. Remember when "many credible people" were touting hydroxycloroquine? What happened there?
Ivermectin has much more promising anecdotal evidence than hydroxycholorquine ever did. There are some studies that show that it is nearly as effective as the vaccine. Closer to the Johnson and Johnson though. Small studies, of course, but that's why they have to be researched further, just like the vaccines are being. There was a very promising study out of Argentina, I believe, on medical workers. One among many. All small, though, as I said.
My understanding is that vaccinate people are not getting it at the same rate as unvaccinated. Most new infections are unvaccinated but there are still cases of “breakthrough” infections but so far not as high as unvaccinated. From what I’ve been seeing the vaccines aren’t as effective against the Delta variant but still about 60% which is very good in general for vaccines. More important the vaccines seem to be preventing serious symptoms in most cases. It’s a given that the virus will mutate and certainly possible the vaccines efficacy will plummet but that is why research is still ongoing.
The vast majority of hospitalizations have been from people unvaccinated. That shows that vaccination is proving effective because if it wasn't, vaccinated people would be hospitalized at an equal rate compared to unvaccinated people. I do agree that loss of immunity is a concern. I always kind of assumed an annual booster shot comparable to the annual flu vaccine would be necessary going forward. As long as it remains free and widely available for distribution like the vaccines available to the public are now, I'll continue to get a booster shot. Once again it's free and significantly lowers my risk factor in getting hospitalized and incurring a larger healthcare bill. If you're really concerned with the economy, it makes the most sense for everyone to get vaccinated that isn't immunocompromised. And if everyone got vaccinated the immunocompromised would be safer despite being unable to get vaccinated themselves for justifiable reasons.
I have no opinion about the effectiveness of Ivermectin as this is the first I’m hearing about it but vaccine hesitancy appears to be more of a political and cultural issue. If the government were to start pushing some other treatment I believe there would still be as much resistance. Consider that wearing masks has been around for thousands of years with very few side effects and no long term effects yet there is a lot of resistance.
I agree with you, but we've crossed the bridge to where not everyone will be vaccinated. Wouldn't it make sense to explore whether an existing medicine was effective in preventing or at least more effective in treating this thing for those that won't be vaccinated? Also helping to reduce health care costs? That's a big part of my point here.
I think there are many groups of people that are vaccine hesitant, from what I know. Labeling them all as one thing is misguided, imo. But there are definitely some that can't think for themselves (many, in fact, including vaccinated people), and are doing this for political reasons. Also, the ivermectin thing is interesting. There are some countries that give out a healthcare kit to everyone for covid. Many include it in their kit. Others have it for free at pharmacies if you feel you have symptoms, you just go ask for it. I believe certain states in India are doing both of these things. I think Guatemala also did something similar. Some states in India have had great success with covid after the initial disaster, btw.
