All things CoronaVirus

[tech37]

Your path would have led hundreds of thousands of Americans to choose not take the vaccines.....because Biden would keep touting the availability of the less effective therapeutics like you wanted.

The simple math behind those choices would mean more dead.

Maybe the question is really....how many deaths of unvaccinated, with covid, that also received therapeutics?

I have not seen that stat.

Probably most hospital deaths would be a good guess. The April 2020 to April 2021 deaths were probably all unvaccinated. Maybe 350,000 deaths up to that point. Not sure if you had stopped using your excel spreadsheet to chart it by then? My guess is 375,000 unvaccinated folks received a last ditch effort in which doctors threw the kitchen sink at it, still didn’t make it. Your number might be 10,000.

https://fox2now.com/news/national/what- ... in-us/amp/

We'll have those numbers at some point.

My money is on: nearly all of these patients received what tech would call "therapeutics" before dying.
Geez a fan, you're still all hung up on Ivermectin. IVM is not what I've been talking about. What I 'm saying is that Paxlovid should have been available sooner. IMO, there was such emphasis placed on vaccination that the new therapeutics were put on the slow track. That strategy may have made some sense early on until vaccination numbers plateaued. Now mandates will be the only mechanism to change that. If Paxlovid had been readily available sooner for early treatment, sick people would have survived. No brainer...

Ramp up production and get it out there asap. Even when it does become available, as Bart reminds us, not everyone will qualify. That needs to change IMO.

Which, again, tells you why they are focused on getting people vaccinated above all else.
And a failed strategy considering how many unvaccinated exist (I don't think that will change any time soon). So if ending the pandemic is truly the idea, why not throw every available tool at it, and that includes the new therapeutics, unfortunately late to the game.

Spoiler alert: the vaccines work, and the therapeutics don't work anywhere close to as well as the vaccines. And many of the therapeutics do nothing at all by the time the sick arrive at the hospital.
Argh. Yes, vaccines work but so will therapeutics (Paxlovid a fan) in a different capacity. A balanced approach utilizing both doesn't make sense? We can continue to beat ourselves up over who is and who isn't vaccinated or we can add a tool most everyone will take (just like aspirin for a headache) should they come down with Covid. It should be that available/automatic IMO, then we'll beat this thing.

Perhaps in time new Covid vaccines will be developed that don't carry the same stigma for many that the current ones seem to and more people will voluntarily get vaccinated.

[Bart]

Your path would have led hundreds of thousands of Americans to choose not take the vaccines.....because Biden would keep touting the availability of the less effective therapeutics like you wanted.

The simple math behind those choices would mean more dead.

Maybe the question is really....how many deaths of unvaccinated, with covid, that also received therapeutics?

I have not seen that stat.

Probably most hospital deaths would be a good guess. The April 2020 to April 2021 deaths were probably all unvaccinated. Maybe 350,000 deaths up to that point. Not sure if you had stopped using your excel spreadsheet to chart it by then? My guess is 375,000 unvaccinated folks received a last ditch effort in which doctors threw the kitchen sink at it, still didn’t make it. Your number might be 10,000.

https://fox2now.com/news/national/what- ... in-us/amp/

We'll have those numbers at some point.

My money is on: nearly all of these patients received what tech would call "therapeutics" before dying.
Geez a fan, you're still all hung up on Ivermectin. IVM is not what I've been talking about. What I 'm saying is that Paxlovid should have been available sooner. IMO, there was such emphasis placed on vaccination that the new therapeutics were put on the slow track. That strategy may have made some sense early on until vaccination numbers plateaued. Now mandates will be the only mechanism to change that. If Paxlovid had been readily available sooner for early treatment, sick people would have survived. No brainer...

Ramp up production and get it out there asap. Even when it does become available, as Bart reminds us, not everyone will qualify. That needs to change IMO.

Which, again, tells you why they are focused on getting people vaccinated above all else.
And a failed strategy considering how many unvaccinated exist (I don't think that will change any time soon). So if ending the pandemic is truly the idea, why not throw every available tool at it, and that includes the new therapeutics, unfortunately late to the game.

Spoiler alert: the vaccines work, and the therapeutics don't work anywhere close to as well as the vaccines. And many of the therapeutics do nothing at all by the time the sick arrive at the hospital.
Argh. Yes, vaccines work but so will therapeutics (Paxlovid a fan) in a different capacity. A balanced approach utilizing both doesn't make sense? We can continue to beat ourselves up over who is and who isn't vaccinated or we can add a tool most everyone will take (just like aspirin for a headache) should they come down with Covid. It should be that available/automatic IMO, then we'll beat this thing.

Perhaps in time new Covid vaccines will be developed that don't carry the same stigma for many that the current ones seem to and more people will voluntarily get vaccinated.

What evidence is there that the drug was slow played?

[tech37]

Your path would have led hundreds of thousands of Americans to choose not take the vaccines.....because Biden would keep touting the availability of the less effective therapeutics like you wanted.

The simple math behind those choices would mean more dead.

Maybe the question is really....how many deaths of unvaccinated, with covid, that also received therapeutics?

I have not seen that stat.

Probably most hospital deaths would be a good guess. The April 2020 to April 2021 deaths were probably all unvaccinated. Maybe 350,000 deaths up to that point. Not sure if you had stopped using your excel spreadsheet to chart it by then? My guess is 375,000 unvaccinated folks received a last ditch effort in which doctors threw the kitchen sink at it, still didn’t make it. Your number might be 10,000.

https://fox2now.com/news/national/what- ... in-us/amp/

We'll have those numbers at some point.

My money is on: nearly all of these patients received what tech would call "therapeutics" before dying.
Geez a fan, you're still all hung up on Ivermectin. IVM is not what I've been talking about. What I 'm saying is that Paxlovid should have been available sooner. IMO, there was such emphasis placed on vaccination that the new therapeutics were put on the slow track. That strategy may have made some sense early on until vaccination numbers plateaued. Now mandates will be the only mechanism to change that. If Paxlovid had been readily available sooner for early treatment, sick people would have survived. No brainer...

Ramp up production and get it out there asap. Even when it does become available, as Bart reminds us, not everyone will qualify. That needs to change IMO.

Which, again, tells you why they are focused on getting people vaccinated above all else.
And a failed strategy considering how many unvaccinated exist (I don't think that will change any time soon). So if ending the pandemic is truly the idea, why not throw every available tool at it, and that includes the new therapeutics, unfortunately late to the game.

Spoiler alert: the vaccines work, and the therapeutics don't work anywhere close to as well as the vaccines. And many of the therapeutics do nothing at all by the time the sick arrive at the hospital.
Argh. Yes, vaccines work but so will therapeutics (Paxlovid a fan) in a different capacity. A balanced approach utilizing both doesn't make sense? We can continue to beat ourselves up over who is and who isn't vaccinated or we can add a tool most everyone will take (just like aspirin for a headache) should they come down with Covid. It should be that available/automatic IMO, then we'll beat this thing.

Perhaps in time new Covid vaccines will be developed that don't carry the same stigma for many that the current ones seem to and more people will voluntarily get vaccinated.

What evidence is there that the drug was slow played?

None to my knowledge Bart. My opinion on a politics thread on a lacrosse board.

[seacoaster]

https://www.lx.com/coronavirus/which-st ... ted/46750/

America’s highest 2021 COVID death rates, according to Johns Hopkins through 12/21:

1. Oklahoma (248 per 100,000)
2. Alabama (230)
3. West Virginia (216)
4. Arizona (208)
5. Kentucky (205)

America’s lowest 2021 COVID death rates, according to Johns Hopkins through 12/21:

1. Vermont (50 per 100,000)
2. Hawaii (54)
3. Puerto Rico (54)
4. Utah (75)
5. New Hampshire (81)

[youthathletics]

Your path would have led hundreds of thousands of Americans to choose not take the vaccines.....because Biden would keep touting the availability of the less effective therapeutics like you wanted.

The simple math behind those choices would mean more dead.

Maybe the question is really....how many deaths of unvaccinated, with covid, that also received therapeutics?

I have not seen that stat.

Probably most hospital deaths would be a good guess. The April 2020 to April 2021 deaths were probably all unvaccinated. Maybe 350,000 deaths up to that point. Not sure if you had stopped using your excel spreadsheet to chart it by then? My guess is 375,000 unvaccinated folks received a last ditch effort in which doctors threw the kitchen sink at it, still didn’t make it. Your number might be 10,000.

https://fox2now.com/news/national/what- ... in-us/amp/

We'll have those numbers at some point.

My money is on: nearly all of these patients received what tech would call "therapeutics" before dying.
Geez a fan, you're still all hung up on Ivermectin. IVM is not what I've been talking about. What I 'm saying is that Paxlovid should have been available sooner. IMO, there was such emphasis placed on vaccination that the new therapeutics were put on the slow track. That strategy may have made some sense early on until vaccination numbers plateaued. Now mandates will be the only mechanism to change that. If Paxlovid had been readily available sooner for early treatment, sick people would have survived. No brainer...

Ramp up production and get it out there asap. Even when it does become available, as Bart reminds us, not everyone will qualify. That needs to change IMO.

Which, again, tells you why they are focused on getting people vaccinated above all else.
And a failed strategy considering how many unvaccinated exist (I don't think that will change any time soon). So if ending the pandemic is truly the idea, why not throw every available tool at it, and that includes the new therapeutics, unfortunately late to the game.

Spoiler alert: the vaccines work, and the therapeutics don't work anywhere close to as well as the vaccines. And many of the therapeutics do nothing at all by the time the sick arrive at the hospital.
Argh. Yes, vaccines work but so will therapeutics (Paxlovid a fan) in a different capacity. A balanced approach utilizing both doesn't make sense? We can continue to beat ourselves up over who is and who isn't vaccinated or we can add a tool most everyone will take (just like aspirin for a headache) should they come down with Covid. It should be that available/automatic IMO, then we'll beat this thing.

Perhaps in time new Covid vaccines will be developed that don't carry the same stigma for many that the current ones seem to and more people will voluntarily get vaccinated.

What evidence is there that the drug was slow played?

It currently is, by our Feds.....strangely!. Oddly, there is still delta out there as far as we know. Just weird.

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2021/12/24/mon ... ts-paused/

[Typical Lax Dad]

Your path would have led hundreds of thousands of Americans to choose not take the vaccines.....because Biden would keep touting the availability of the less effective therapeutics like you wanted.

The simple math behind those choices would mean more dead.

Maybe the question is really....how many deaths of unvaccinated, with covid, that also received therapeutics?

I have not seen that stat.

Probably most hospital deaths would be a good guess. The April 2020 to April 2021 deaths were probably all unvaccinated. Maybe 350,000 deaths up to that point. Not sure if you had stopped using your excel spreadsheet to chart it by then? My guess is 375,000 unvaccinated folks received a last ditch effort in which doctors threw the kitchen sink at it, still didn’t make it. Your number might be 10,000.

https://fox2now.com/news/national/what- ... in-us/amp/

We'll have those numbers at some point.

My money is on: nearly all of these patients received what tech would call "therapeutics" before dying.
Geez a fan, you're still all hung up on Ivermectin. IVM is not what I've been talking about. What I 'm saying is that Paxlovid should have been available sooner. IMO, there was such emphasis placed on vaccination that the new therapeutics were put on the slow track. That strategy may have made some sense early on until vaccination numbers plateaued. Now mandates will be the only mechanism to change that. If Paxlovid had been readily available sooner for early treatment, sick people would have survived. No brainer...

Ramp up production and get it out there asap. Even when it does become available, as Bart reminds us, not everyone will qualify. That needs to change IMO.

Which, again, tells you why they are focused on getting people vaccinated above all else.
And a failed strategy considering how many unvaccinated exist (I don't think that will change any time soon). So if ending the pandemic is truly the idea, why not throw every available tool at it, and that includes the new therapeutics, unfortunately late to the game.

Spoiler alert: the vaccines work, and the therapeutics don't work anywhere close to as well as the vaccines. And many of the therapeutics do nothing at all by the time the sick arrive at the hospital.
Argh. Yes, vaccines work but so will therapeutics (Paxlovid a fan) in a different capacity. A balanced approach utilizing both doesn't make sense? We can continue to beat ourselves up over who is and who isn't vaccinated or we can add a tool most everyone will take (just like aspirin for a headache) should they come down with Covid. It should be that available/automatic IMO, then we'll beat this thing.

Perhaps in time new Covid vaccines will be developed that don't carry the same stigma for many that the current ones seem to and more people will voluntarily get vaccinated.

What evidence is there that the drug was slow played?

It currently is, by our Feds.....strangely!. Oddly, there is still delta out there as far as we know. Just weird.

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2021/12/24/mon ... ts-paused/

Government has decided to kill citizens.

[Bart]

Your path would have led hundreds of thousands of Americans to choose not take the vaccines.....because Biden would keep touting the availability of the less effective therapeutics like you wanted.

The simple math behind those choices would mean more dead.

Maybe the question is really....how many deaths of unvaccinated, with covid, that also received therapeutics?

I have not seen that stat.

Probably most hospital deaths would be a good guess. The April 2020 to April 2021 deaths were probably all unvaccinated. Maybe 350,000 deaths up to that point. Not sure if you had stopped using your excel spreadsheet to chart it by then? My guess is 375,000 unvaccinated folks received a last ditch effort in which doctors threw the kitchen sink at it, still didn’t make it. Your number might be 10,000.

https://fox2now.com/news/national/what- ... in-us/amp/

We'll have those numbers at some point.

My money is on: nearly all of these patients received what tech would call "therapeutics" before dying.
Geez a fan, you're still all hung up on Ivermectin. IVM is not what I've been talking about. What I 'm saying is that Paxlovid should have been available sooner. IMO, there was such emphasis placed on vaccination that the new therapeutics were put on the slow track. That strategy may have made some sense early on until vaccination numbers plateaued. Now mandates will be the only mechanism to change that. If Paxlovid had been readily available sooner for early treatment, sick people would have survived. No brainer...

Ramp up production and get it out there asap. Even when it does become available, as Bart reminds us, not everyone will qualify. That needs to change IMO.

Which, again, tells you why they are focused on getting people vaccinated above all else.
And a failed strategy considering how many unvaccinated exist (I don't think that will change any time soon). So if ending the pandemic is truly the idea, why not throw every available tool at it, and that includes the new therapeutics, unfortunately late to the game.

Spoiler alert: the vaccines work, and the therapeutics don't work anywhere close to as well as the vaccines. And many of the therapeutics do nothing at all by the time the sick arrive at the hospital.
Argh. Yes, vaccines work but so will therapeutics (Paxlovid a fan) in a different capacity. A balanced approach utilizing both doesn't make sense? We can continue to beat ourselves up over who is and who isn't vaccinated or we can add a tool most everyone will take (just like aspirin for a headache) should they come down with Covid. It should be that available/automatic IMO, then we'll beat this thing.

Perhaps in time new Covid vaccines will be developed that don't carry the same stigma for many that the current ones seem to and more people will voluntarily get vaccinated.

What evidence is there that the drug was slow played?

It currently is, by our Feds.....strangely!. Oddly, there is still delta out there as far as we know. Just weird.

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2021/12/24/mon ... ts-paused/

From your article.....currently the estimated omicron case estimate is 90%.

"Dr. Nikhil Bhayani, an infectious disease specialist for Texas Health Resources said Friday, “The monoclonal antibodies that were pulled off from use makes perfect sense, because studies have shown that they have very little benefit against the Omicron variant.”

The state said those who provide the Regeneron and Bamete treatments should consider pausing their use unless there is laboratory evidence showing that those who test positive don’t have the Omicron variant.

The state said recent studies also show the risk of side effects from the two treatments may outweigh the benefits."

Now the city manager of Ellis disagrees so there is that.

But the original discussion centered around therapeutic generation, not the distribution of therapeutics.

[Bart]

Now if you want to contemplate something curious, contemplate the shortening of isolation recommendations. Now I think there is evidence, from what I have read, that the virus in certain individuals clears in 5 days. But in others it does not. From my understanding, and I could be wrong...i have been many times before, there is no need to a negative test prior to ending isolation? This seems very odd to me. At least have individuals confirm with lateral flow antigen tests. I just do not see the "science" in this.

The notion from Fauci that we just do not want to keep people "out" of work is the worst thing to say. He indicates something about asymptomatic transmition and the epi's that I read regularly are apoplectic about this statement. It goes against everything said previously by the public health community that you can transmit the virus asymptomatically. This is absolutely horrible messaging to me but hey.....I have been wrong before.

Also, how is this going to square with the other mitigation measures like mask wearing?

[Kismet]

Your path would have led hundreds of thousands of Americans to choose not take the vaccines.....because Biden would keep touting the availability of the less effective therapeutics like you wanted.

The simple math behind those choices would mean more dead.

Maybe the question is really....how many deaths of unvaccinated, with covid, that also received therapeutics?

I have not seen that stat.

Probably most hospital deaths would be a good guess. The April 2020 to April 2021 deaths were probably all unvaccinated. Maybe 350,000 deaths up to that point. Not sure if you had stopped using your excel spreadsheet to chart it by then? My guess is 375,000 unvaccinated folks received a last ditch effort in which doctors threw the kitchen sink at it, still didn’t make it. Your number might be 10,000.

https://fox2now.com/news/national/what- ... in-us/amp/

We'll have those numbers at some point.

My money is on: nearly all of these patients received what tech would call "therapeutics" before dying.
Geez a fan, you're still all hung up on Ivermectin. IVM is not what I've been talking about. What I 'm saying is that Paxlovid should have been available sooner. IMO, there was such emphasis placed on vaccination that the new therapeutics were put on the slow track. That strategy may have made some sense early on until vaccination numbers plateaued. Now mandates will be the only mechanism to change that. If Paxlovid had been readily available sooner for early treatment, sick people would have survived. No brainer...

Ramp up production and get it out there asap. Even when it does become available, as Bart reminds us, not everyone will qualify. That needs to change IMO.

Which, again, tells you why they are focused on getting people vaccinated above all else.
And a failed strategy considering how many unvaccinated exist (I don't think that will change any time soon). So if ending the pandemic is truly the idea, why not throw every available tool at it, and that includes the new therapeutics, unfortunately late to the game.

Spoiler alert: the vaccines work, and the therapeutics don't work anywhere close to as well as the vaccines. And many of the therapeutics do nothing at all by the time the sick arrive at the hospital.
Argh. Yes, vaccines work but so will therapeutics (Paxlovid a fan) in a different capacity. A balanced approach utilizing both doesn't make sense? We can continue to beat ourselves up over who is and who isn't vaccinated or we can add a tool most everyone will take (just like aspirin for a headache) should they come down with Covid. It should be that available/automatic IMO, then we'll beat this thing.

Perhaps in time new Covid vaccines will be developed that don't carry the same stigma for many that the current ones seem to and more people will voluntarily get vaccinated.

What evidence is there that the drug was slow played?

None to my knowledge Bart. My opinion on a politics thread on a lacrosse board.

Would it also be your opinion that there is some "stigma" attached to just the vaccines and not to any of the therapeutics? Hard to believe IMHO.

Why do think think people who would oppose taking vaccines (which can prevent infection, at least, before Omicron) as opposed to getting sick and then taking a pill to feel better? Seems rather weird to me and no proof or suggestion of proof to your statement.

The pills, like the vaccines, are only EUA approved and, in addition, there is a timing issue when they need to be taken in the course of infection.

[youthathletics]

Biden - There is no federal solution. This gets solved at a state level.

Meanwhile.....there is that "federal" mandate that Biden implemented months ago as a "federal" solution. And, as discussed yesterday, they halted all those 500 mm tests that we the states people are now scrambling to find, followed by putting therapeutics on hold, as noted in the last post. Almost, makes you think they know exactly what they are trying to do.

[tech37]

Your path would have led hundreds of thousands of Americans to choose not take the vaccines.....because Biden would keep touting the availability of the less effective therapeutics like you wanted.

The simple math behind those choices would mean more dead.

Maybe the question is really....how many deaths of unvaccinated, with covid, that also received therapeutics?

I have not seen that stat.

Probably most hospital deaths would be a good guess. The April 2020 to April 2021 deaths were probably all unvaccinated. Maybe 350,000 deaths up to that point. Not sure if you had stopped using your excel spreadsheet to chart it by then? My guess is 375,000 unvaccinated folks received a last ditch effort in which doctors threw the kitchen sink at it, still didn’t make it. Your number might be 10,000.

https://fox2now.com/news/national/what- ... in-us/amp/

We'll have those numbers at some point.

My money is on: nearly all of these patients received what tech would call "therapeutics" before dying.
Geez a fan, you're still all hung up on Ivermectin. IVM is not what I've been talking about. What I 'm saying is that Paxlovid should have been available sooner. IMO, there was such emphasis placed on vaccination that the new therapeutics were put on the slow track. That strategy may have made some sense early on until vaccination numbers plateaued. Now mandates will be the only mechanism to change that. If Paxlovid had been readily available sooner for early treatment, sick people would have survived. No brainer...

Ramp up production and get it out there asap. Even when it does become available, as Bart reminds us, not everyone will qualify. That needs to change IMO.

Which, again, tells you why they are focused on getting people vaccinated above all else.
And a failed strategy considering how many unvaccinated exist (I don't think that will change any time soon). So if ending the pandemic is truly the idea, why not throw every available tool at it, and that includes the new therapeutics, unfortunately late to the game.

Spoiler alert: the vaccines work, and the therapeutics don't work anywhere close to as well as the vaccines. And many of the therapeutics do nothing at all by the time the sick arrive at the hospital.
Argh. Yes, vaccines work but so will therapeutics (Paxlovid a fan) in a different capacity. A balanced approach utilizing both doesn't make sense? We can continue to beat ourselves up over who is and who isn't vaccinated or we can add a tool most everyone will take (just like aspirin for a headache) should they come down with Covid. It should be that available/automatic IMO, then we'll beat this thing.

Perhaps in time new Covid vaccines will be developed that don't carry the same stigma for many that the current ones seem to and more people will voluntarily get vaccinated.

What evidence is there that the drug was slow played?

None to my knowledge Bart. My opinion on a politics thread on a lacrosse board.

Would it also be your opinion that there is some "stigma" attached to just the vaccines and not to any of the therapeutics? Hard to believe IMHO.

Why do think think people who would oppose taking vaccines (which can prevent infection, at least, before Omicron) as opposed to getting sick and then taking a pill to feel better? Seems rather weird to me and no proof or suggestion of proof to your statement.
Not weird at all. I posted a while back when asked the same question... it's human nature that when you're sick with Covid, feeling awful and scared, you're in no position to refuse a few pills. Most people will take them rather than wind up in hospital.

The pills, like the vaccines, are only EUA approved and, in addition, there is a timing issue when they need to be taken in the course of infection.
And why I mentioned "early treatment."

[youthathletics]

Now if you want to contemplate something curious, contemplate the shortening of isolation recommendations. Now I think there is evidence, from what I have read, that the virus in certain individuals clears in 5 days. But in others it does not. From my understanding, and I could be wrong...i have been many times before, there is no need to a negative test prior to ending isolation? This seems very odd to me. At least have individuals confirm with lateral flow antigen tests. I just do not see the "science" in this.

The notion from Fauci that we just do not want to keep people "out" of work is the worst thing to say. He indicates something about asymptomatic transmition and the epi's that I read regularly are apoplectic about this statement. It goes against everything said previously by the public health community that you can transmit the virus asymptomatically. This is absolutely horrible messaging to me but hey.....I have been wrong before.

Also, how is this going to square with the other mitigation measures like mask wearing?

No doubt bart. As afan noted very early on, 'everyone' was scrambling the jets in 1st qtr 2020, so chaos was expected", Now, here we are entering year 3, and as you noted, we still are left navigating with a moving due north. At this point, it simply seems the feds are washing their hands of this, burnout, and the realization that all their complaining and finger-pointing at the last administration has now punched them in the gut.

I suppose the bottom line is that you can not beat mother nature, the feds are damned near useless in problem solving, and the private sector is the heartbeat of our survival.

[seacoaster]

Biden - There is no federal solution. This gets solved at a state level.

Meanwhile.....there is that "federal" mandate that Biden implemented months ago as a "federal" solution. And, as discussed yesterday, they halted all those 500 mm tests that we the states people are now scrambling to find, followed by putting therapeutics on hold, as noted in the last post. Almost, makes you think they know exactly what they are trying to do.

I understand it is important for you to "find" and believe that "Biden is Bad." I picture you and Kramer with special hats, and maybe a password, known to Jared Schmeck. But you do seem to not have a really good idea of how stuff gets done in this country. Biden is the federal CEO, literally. He can use tools to compel people within executive regulatory power to do things. He cannot, without support in Congress and in the several States, compel citizens to do things. So his statement about the pandemic being defeated at the state level is a statement of political and legal fact. That's all.

Yes, they miscalculated and missed the goal on the tests, and we are paying for it. At least they are pretty transparent about it and not doing the Kushner "economy will be rockin'" BS. Meanwhile, his administration has overseen the vaccination of tens of millions of Americans; passed a stimulus bill to keep the country moving forward; passed the largest infrastructure bill in several generations; overseen a remarkable increase in jobs, wages and GDP; and placed forty judges, mostly women, on the federal bench. In the process, he hasn't mocked anyone with disabilities, or demonized everyone who disagrees with him, or given aid and comfort and sunlight to white supremacists, or required his Cabinet to give off the cuff, on the record panegyrics to his overall greatness.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Now if you want to contemplate something curious, contemplate the shortening of isolation recommendations. Now I think there is evidence, from what I have read, that the virus in certain individuals clears in 5 days. But in others it does not. From my understanding, and I could be wrong...i have been many times before, there is no need to a negative test prior to ending isolation? This seems very odd to me. At least have individuals confirm with lateral flow antigen tests. I just do not see the "science" in this.

The notion from Fauci that we just do not want to keep people "out" of work is the worst thing to say. He indicates something about asymptomatic transmition and the epi's that I read regularly are apoplectic about this statement. It goes against everything said previously by the public health community that you can transmit the virus asymptomatically. This is absolutely horrible messaging to me but hey.....I have been wrong before.

Also, how is this going to square with the other mitigation measures like mask wearing?

Unless there is some data that suggest a person is less infectious after a shorter period, this doesn’t seem rational to me. This confirms my belief that we don’t have the stomach for the hard medicine. At every step, I have believed we have let up too soon. This dates back to Summer 2020. I would lean towards being more conservative in the fight against COVID but keeping the economy going is evidently more important.

[RedFromMI]

So how do we deal with Omicron - a Twitter thread from yesterday:

(Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH)

As Omicron cases explode we need a strategy for isolating folks who test positive. We need to think about the purpose of isolation clearly. Because if we don't get it right, it'll both be hugely disruptive and won't keep us safe.

So let's discuss what we need to do.

First principles: Why ask people to isolate at all? Well, that’s obvious - we don’t want them spreading. So what we care about is CONTAGIOUSNESS. We want folks to isolate when they're contagious.

So when are people contagious? Well, it varies. A lot!

OK, so what to do? How long folks are contagious depends on two things:
1. When they test positive (i.e. early in the phase of infection vs. late)
2. Their immune system's ability to clear the virus

Take the average person who tests PCR+ today. How long will they be contagious? The average person who tests PCR+ today? Some will be contagious for 2 days. Others for 5 or (rarely) 10 days.

But here’s the kicker: Some for zero days – because they tested + after no longer being contagious!

Confusing.

But thankfully, we have tools to figure this out. So let’s look at what we know. Here’s a graphic from @FT by @jburnmurdoch that's adapted from @michaelmina_lab piece in @NEJM. Simply speaking, there are three periods of time you can be PCR+ (I label as A, B, and C). Its an excellent graphic and critical to this whole story

There is very short pre-contagious period where folks are PCR + but rapid antigen negative labeled A.

There is the contagious period: PCR + and Antigen + labeled B.

There is post contagious period: PCR +, Antigen neg, which can last many, many days labeled C.

The graph shows “infectious” period of about 5 days, but it can be longer. That’s why CDC defaults to 10 days to be safe.

But here's the thing - 10 day isolation uses the mental model that either people test + in Phase A/early Phase B or have symptoms beginning of phase B. But many people have little or no symptoms (especially vaccinated folks) and many folks get tested late in phase B or even in phase C.

Which is why studies show that many PCR+ have high CT values (low viral load). These are people testing positive but no longer contagious!

So what to do? We need a simple, workable solution that works across scenarios - works for everyone, not just in healthcare. So here's why 5 days of isolation and negative antigen test is reasonable, even cautious.

Antigen tests ("lateral flow") are contagiousness tests (graph):

So for average person if you isolate for 5 days, you are likely no longer contagious. But for rare person who might still be? That’s where antigen “contagiousness” test comes in. Negative antigen on top of 5 day isolation? Pretty good evidence you are no longer contagious.

But, what about false negative antigen test (i.e. person still contagious)? That's pretty rare.

But if you want to be extra careful (for nursing home workers), you could require 2 negative antigen tests. At that point, I’m not sure why you’d continue isolating someone.

Two more things:
1. If you test + on rapid antigen, you are contagious (vaccinated or not). And isolating for 5 days and repeating antigen test makes sense.
2. Data from Delta suggests vaccinated folks have shorter contagiousness period - expect same with Omicron.

Therefore, if you want to be even more cautious limit 5 days isolation and a neg antigen test to only vaccinated folks.

NYC strategy: 5 days isolation and then high quality masking for another 5 days. That’s reasonable. I’d love a negative antigen test on top if possible.

Bottom line? Isolating COVID + people all about stopping transmission. Different people contagious for different periods of time. 10 days isolation for everyone is unnecessary.

Luckily, we don’t have to guess. We have antigen tests (I know, not enough…but they're coming). 5 days and 1-2 neg antigen tests should be enough to end isolation. Not just for healthcare workers, but for moms and dads getting back to kids. Hourly workers who don’t get paid when home. Really for anyone who doesn’t want to be isolating when they don’t need to be

[Typical Lax Dad]

So how do we deal with Omicron - a Twitter thread from yesterday:

(Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH)

As Omicron cases explode we need a strategy for isolating folks who test positive. We need to think about the purpose of isolation clearly. Because if we don't get it right, it'll both be hugely disruptive and won't keep us safe.

So let's discuss what we need to do.

First principles: Why ask people to isolate at all? Well, that’s obvious - we don’t want them spreading. So what we care about is CONTAGIOUSNESS. We want folks to isolate when they're contagious.

So when are people contagious? Well, it varies. A lot!

OK, so what to do? How long folks are contagious depends on two things:
1. When they test positive (i.e. early in the phase of infection vs. late)
2. Their immune system's ability to clear the virus

Take the average person who tests PCR+ today. How long will they be contagious? The average person who tests PCR+ today? Some will be contagious for 2 days. Others for 5 or (rarely) 10 days.

But here’s the kicker: Some for zero days – because they tested + after no longer being contagious!

Confusing.

But thankfully, we have tools to figure this out. So let’s look at what we know. Here’s a graphic from @FT by @jburnmurdoch that's adapted from @michaelmina_lab piece in @NEJM. Simply speaking, there are three periods of time you can be PCR+ (I label as A, B, and C). Its an excellent graphic and critical to this whole story

There is very short pre-contagious period where folks are PCR + but rapid antigen negative labeled A.

There is the contagious period: PCR + and Antigen + labeled B.

There is post contagious period: PCR +, Antigen neg, which can last many, many days labeled C.

The graph shows “infectious” period of about 5 days, but it can be longer. That’s why CDC defaults to 10 days to be safe.

But here's the thing - 10 day isolation uses the mental model that either people test + in Phase A/early Phase B or have symptoms beginning of phase B. But many people have little or no symptoms (especially vaccinated folks) and many folks get tested late in phase B or even in phase C.

Which is why studies show that many PCR+ have high CT values (low viral load). These are people testing positive but no longer contagious!

So what to do? We need a simple, workable solution that works across scenarios - works for everyone, not just in healthcare. So here's why 5 days of isolation and negative antigen test is reasonable, even cautious.

Antigen tests ("lateral flow") are contagiousness tests (graph):

So for average person if you isolate for 5 days, you are likely no longer contagious. But for rare person who might still be? That’s where antigen “contagiousness” test comes in. Negative antigen on top of 5 day isolation? Pretty good evidence you are no longer contagious.

But, what about false negative antigen test (i.e. person still contagious)? That's pretty rare.

But if you want to be extra careful (for nursing home workers), you could require 2 negative antigen tests. At that point, I’m not sure why you’d continue isolating someone.

Two more things:
1. If you test + on rapid antigen, you are contagious (vaccinated or not). And isolating for 5 days and repeating antigen test makes sense.
2. Data from Delta suggests vaccinated folks have shorter contagiousness period - expect same with Omicron.

Therefore, if you want to be even more cautious limit 5 days isolation and a neg antigen test to only vaccinated folks.

NYC strategy: 5 days isolation and then high quality masking for another 5 days. That’s reasonable. I’d love a negative antigen test on top if possible.

Bottom line? Isolating COVID + people all about stopping transmission. Different people contagious for different periods of time. 10 days isolation for everyone is unnecessary.

Luckily, we don’t have to guess. We have antigen tests (I know, not enough…but they're coming). 5 days and 1-2 neg antigen tests should be enough to end isolation. Not just for healthcare workers, but for moms and dads getting back to kids. Hourly workers who don’t get paid when home. Really for anyone who doesn’t want to be isolating when they don’t need to be

Thanks. I know the NBA is relying on Antigen tests. Another week and we may see that we caught a break with this variant. Could you imagine if Delta had this same level of spread? We have been lucky.

[youthathletics]

Biden - There is no federal solution. This gets solved at a state level.

Meanwhile.....there is that "federal" mandate that Biden implemented months ago as a "federal" solution. And, as discussed yesterday, they halted all those 500 mm tests that we the states people are now scrambling to find, followed by putting therapeutics on hold, as noted in the last post. Almost, makes you think they know exactly what they are trying to do.

I understand it is important for you to "find" and believe that "Biden is Bad." I picture you and Kramer with special hats, and maybe a password, known to Jared Schmeck. But you do seem to not have a really good idea of how stuff gets done in this country. Biden is the federal CEO, literally. He can use tools to compel people within executive regulatory power to do things. He cannot, without support in Congress and in the several States, compel citizens to do things. So his statement about the pandemic being defeated at the state level is a statement of political and legal fact. That's all.

First.....it has nothing to with Biden bad, it has everything to do with ' he left STFU you are no better on this subject than all your bitchin and moaning in 2020'. Both epic fails.....and no kidding, we get screwed by an unknowm that rocked our world. IT IS NOT PARTISAN!

Biden - There is no federal solution. This gets solved at a state level.

Meanwhile.....there is that "federal" mandate that Biden implemented months ago as a "federal" solution. And, as discussed yesterday, they halted all those 500 mm tests that we the states people are now scrambling to find, followed by putting therapeutics on hold, as noted in the last post. Almost, makes you think they know exactly what they are trying to do.

Yes, they miscalculated and missed the goal on the tests, and we are paying for it. At least they are pretty transparent about it and not doing the Kushner "economy will be rockin'" BS. Meanwhile, his administration has overseen the vaccination of tens of millions of Americans; passed a stimulus bill to keep the country moving forward; passed the largest infrastructure bill in several generations; overseen a remarkable increase in jobs, wages and GDP; and placed forty judges, mostly women, on the federal bench. In the process, he hasn't mocked anyone with disabilities, or demonized everyone who disagrees with him, or given aid and comfort and sunlight to white supremacists, or required his Cabinet to give off the cuff, on the record panegyrics to his overall greatness.

All fine and dandy.....we are all happy about our progress on non cv-19 fronts, well except he has more deaths in 2021 than in 2020 (added that just to give you some meat on the bone )

I'll ask, where were you when the economy and record historic unemployment was in play. No one is arguing with you that Trump was a loud mouth or toxic ....let it go my friend. It is nice to see you finally acknowledge that Biden too, has screwed up. And that, was the premise of my posting in this thread.

[Bart]

So how do we deal with Omicron - a Twitter thread from yesterday:

(Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH)

As Omicron cases explode we need a strategy for isolating folks who test positive. We need to think about the purpose of isolation clearly. Because if we don't get it right, it'll both be hugely disruptive and won't keep us safe.

So let's discuss what we need to do.

First principles: Why ask people to isolate at all? Well, that’s obvious - we don’t want them spreading. So what we care about is CONTAGIOUSNESS. We want folks to isolate when they're contagious.

So when are people contagious? Well, it varies. A lot!

OK, so what to do? How long folks are contagious depends on two things:
1. When they test positive (i.e. early in the phase of infection vs. late)
2. Their immune system's ability to clear the virus

Take the average person who tests PCR+ today. How long will they be contagious? The average person who tests PCR+ today? Some will be contagious for 2 days. Others for 5 or (rarely) 10 days.

But here’s the kicker: Some for zero days – because they tested + after no longer being contagious!

Confusing.

But thankfully, we have tools to figure this out. So let’s look at what we know. Here’s a graphic from @FT by @jburnmurdoch that's adapted from @michaelmina_lab piece in @NEJM. Simply speaking, there are three periods of time you can be PCR+ (I label as A, B, and C). Its an excellent graphic and critical to this whole story

There is very short pre-contagious period where folks are PCR + but rapid antigen negative labeled A.

There is the contagious period: PCR + and Antigen + labeled B.

There is post contagious period: PCR +, Antigen neg, which can last many, many days labeled C.

The graph shows “infectious” period of about 5 days, but it can be longer. That’s why CDC defaults to 10 days to be safe.

But here's the thing - 10 day isolation uses the mental model that either people test + in Phase A/early Phase B or have symptoms beginning of phase B. But many people have little or no symptoms (especially vaccinated folks) and many folks get tested late in phase B or even in phase C.

Which is why studies show that many PCR+ have high CT values (low viral load). These are people testing positive but no longer contagious!

So what to do? We need a simple, workable solution that works across scenarios - works for everyone, not just in healthcare. So here's why 5 days of isolation and negative antigen test is reasonable, even cautious.

Antigen tests ("lateral flow") are contagiousness tests (graph):

So for average person if you isolate for 5 days, you are likely no longer contagious. But for rare person who might still be? That’s where antigen “contagiousness” test comes in. Negative antigen on top of 5 day isolation? Pretty good evidence you are no longer contagious.

But, what about false negative antigen test (i.e. person still contagious)? That's pretty rare.

But if you want to be extra careful (for nursing home workers), you could require 2 negative antigen tests. At that point, I’m not sure why you’d continue isolating someone.

Two more things:
1. If you test + on rapid antigen, you are contagious (vaccinated or not). And isolating for 5 days and repeating antigen test makes sense.
2. Data from Delta suggests vaccinated folks have shorter contagiousness period - expect same with Omicron.

Therefore, if you want to be even more cautious limit 5 days isolation and a neg antigen test to only vaccinated folks.

NYC strategy: 5 days isolation and then high quality masking for another 5 days. That’s reasonable. I’d love a negative antigen test on top if possible.

Bottom line? Isolating COVID + people all about stopping transmission. Different people contagious for different periods of time. 10 days isolation for everyone is unnecessary.

Luckily, we don’t have to guess. We have antigen tests (I know, not enough…but they're coming). 5 days and 1-2 neg antigen tests should be enough to end isolation. Not just for healthcare workers, but for moms and dads getting back to kids. Hourly workers who don’t get paid when home. Really for anyone who doesn’t want to be isolating when they don’t need to be

Thread suggests adding antigen tests to the guidelines. Makes perfect sense. Current CDC guidelines do not. Makes no sense.

I'll also add that the bit about getting people back to work (Fauci) chafes me as well. I know one health care worker who feels this is a slap in the face to allow (or force) them back to work and potentially put patients at risk.

[Brooklyn]

covid right wing 'victimhood' -


https://www.salon.com/2021/12/27/the-co ... g-so-fast/

Some of you will be familiar with DARVO, an acronym for deny, attack and reverse victim and offender. DARVO describes the behavior of psychological abusers when they are being held accountable for their behavior. Donald Trump and his supporters clearly exhibit DARVO habits. Rather than accept blame for anything they do, they turn around and accuse those blaming them of creating the problem. Victimized Bully Syndrome (VBS), as I'm describing it, though, is slightly different from DARVO. With DARVO the abusive behavior comes first and DARVO only emerges if the attacker is asked to take responsibility. But with VBS the cries of being victims come first and are used to justify the underlying bullying behaviors. The bully under VBS is always already acting in self-defense.

Take this example: In a recent interview with Fox News, Dr. Mehmet Oz, candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania suggested that Americans had been victimized by President Biden's "one-size-fits-all" COVID-19 "rules that limit our freedom." According to Oz, U.S. citizens "want government to get out of their way to stop scaring them into submission."

If we set aside the sheer stupidity of a doctor suggesting that we need "as many different approaches as possible" to the pandemic, the critical takeaway is Oz's claim that Biden's policy is designed to victimize the public by scaring them, taking away their freedoms, and destroying their dignity. According to this logic, refusing to wear a mask, get vaccinated, or support public health policy is a valid defense, rather than bullying behavior that puts everyone in peril.

And lest there be any doubt, the right isn't just refusing to be vaccinated and to follow public health guidelines; in the face of the pandemic they have chosen to respond with aggressive bullying: engaging in violent confrontations over masking policies, attacking teachers, threatening school board members, violently trolling scientists who speak to the media about COVID, and more. In fact, the violent far-right has exploded in the United States along with COVID-19.




small wonder why the covid continues to spread and so many more needlessly die

[Typical Lax Dad]

Biden - There is no federal solution. This gets solved at a state level.

Meanwhile.....there is that "federal" mandate that Biden implemented months ago as a "federal" solution. And, as discussed yesterday, they halted all those 500 mm tests that we the states people are now scrambling to find, followed by putting therapeutics on hold, as noted in the last post. Almost, makes you think they know exactly what they are trying to do.

I understand it is important for you to "find" and believe that "Biden is Bad." I picture you and Kramer with special hats, and maybe a password, known to Jared Schmeck. But you do seem to not have a really good idea of how stuff gets done in this country. Biden is the federal CEO, literally. He can use tools to compel people within executive regulatory power to do things. He cannot, without support in Congress and in the several States, compel citizens to do things. So his statement about the pandemic being defeated at the state level is a statement of political and legal fact. That's all.

First.....it has nothing to with Biden bad, it has everything to do with ' he left STFU you are no better on this subject than all your bitchin and moaning in 2020'. Both epic fails.....and no kidding, we get screwed by an unknowm that rocked our world. IT IS NOT PARTISAN!

Biden - There is no federal solution. This gets solved at a state level.

Meanwhile.....there is that "federal" mandate that Biden implemented months ago as a "federal" solution. And, as discussed yesterday, they halted all those 500 mm tests that we the states people are now scrambling to find, followed by putting therapeutics on hold, as noted in the last post. Almost, makes you think they know exactly what they are trying to do.

Yes, they miscalculated and missed the goal on the tests, and we are paying for it. At least they are pretty transparent about it and not doing the Kushner "economy will be rockin'" BS. Meanwhile, his administration has overseen the vaccination of tens of millions of Americans; passed a stimulus bill to keep the country moving forward; passed the largest infrastructure bill in several generations; overseen a remarkable increase in jobs, wages and GDP; and placed forty judges, mostly women, on the federal bench. In the process, he hasn't mocked anyone with disabilities, or demonized everyone who disagrees with him, or given aid and comfort and sunlight to white supremacists, or required his Cabinet to give off the cuff, on the record panegyrics to his overall greatness.

All fine and dandy.....we are all happy about our progress on non cv-19 fronts, well except he has more deaths in 2021 than in 2020 (added that just to give you some meat on the bone )

I'll ask, where were you when the economy and record historic unemployment was in play. No one is arguing with you that Trump was a loud mouth or toxic ....let it go my friend. It is nice to see you finally acknowledge that Biden too, has screwed up. And that, was the premise of my posting in this thread.

I don’t recall you pointing out any of Trump’s epic fails. Hypocrite.