Sweden avoiding lockdown

Lumen

patnor1011 wrote: »

Seems that it does help.
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx

For the study, published on June 17 in the American Journal of Therapeutics, a group of scientists reviewed the clinical trial use of ivermectin, which has antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, in 24 randomized controlled trials involving just over 3,400 participants. The researchers sought to assess the efficacy of ivermectin in reducing infection or mortality in people with COVID-19 or at high risk of getting it.

Using multiple methods of sequential analysis, the researchers concluded with a moderate level of confidence that the drug reduced the risk of death in COVID-19 patients by an average of 62 percent, at a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.19-0.79, in a sample of 2438 patients.

Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the risk of death was found to be 2.3 percent among those treated with the drug, compared to 7.8 percent for those who were not, according to the review.

“Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease,” the authors wrote.

One more peer reviewed study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

It's a bit tricky to thread together your points over time and various threads but I think you've stated or suggested that:

1. Lockdowns are useless or harmful.
2. Vaccines are dangerous.
3. Ivermectin is a useful prophylactic against Covid infection.
4. Ivermectin is a useful treatment for Covid disease.

Taken together, you therefore seem to believe that instead of employing behavioural change and vaccines, we should instead rely on the prophylactic and treatment effects of ivermectin.

Is that correct?

astrofool

patnor1011 wrote: »

Seems that it does help.
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx

For the study, published on June 17 in the American Journal of Therapeutics, a group of scientists reviewed the clinical trial use of ivermectin, which has antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, in 24 randomized controlled trials involving just over 3,400 participants. The researchers sought to assess the efficacy of ivermectin in reducing infection or mortality in people with COVID-19 or at high risk of getting it.

Using multiple methods of sequential analysis, the researchers concluded with a moderate level of confidence that the drug reduced the risk of death in COVID-19 patients by an average of 62 percent, at a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.19-0.79, in a sample of 2438 patients.

Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the risk of death was found to be 2.3 percent among those treated with the drug, compared to 7.8 percent for those who were not, according to the review.

“Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease,” the authors wrote.

One more peer reviewed study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

As I said, there is as much studies for as against:
https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/ivermectin-why-potential-covid-treatment-isnt-recommended-use

However, these things are true:

• the lab tests of Invermectin required much higher dosing than would usually be administered as part of a course of Invermectin
• That dosing level hasn't gone through safety tests
• The study you linked to had ~3500 people in the trial
• Vaccines had ~30,000 people per vaccine trial
• Vaccine have been administered to hundreds of millions of people and proven safe
• The cost of vaccines is very low compared to other treatments (especially AZ which is sold at cost)
• Vaccines have a much higher effective rate than any of the studies on Invermectin

Which begs the question, why are you still pushing Invermectin (and why are you pushing these info dumps on random threads instead of the Invermectin thread?)

PhoenixParker

You haven't read any of the studies on ivermectin have you?

The dosing levels used in most of the prophylactic studies are the approved doses nor the "what we needed in a petri dish" doses.

Nobody is pushing ivermectin instead of a vaccine. There are still billions who are months and years away from a vaccine dose.

astrofool

PhoenixParker wrote: »

You haven't read any of the studies on ivermectin have you?

The dosing levels used in most of the prophylactic studies are the approved doses nor the "what we needed in a petri dish" doses.

Nobody is pushing ivermectin instead of a vaccine. There are still billions who are months and years away from a vaccine dose.

Yes, and, as I said, for every study with a positive result, there's another with a negative result, and, as I said, the trials involve much fewer people than the vaccine trials yet get jumped on as a vaccine alternative.

There are medicines (some cheap and readily available) which are proven to work, these are being used in the fight against COVID.

PhoenixParker

For prophylactic use there are no studies showing ivermectin doesn't work.
There are multiple studies showing it works in the region of 80% =/- 10%.
Studies across multiple continents.

The studies which are uncertain about ivermectin working are all when it was given at later points in the disease.

patnor1011

Lumen wrote: »

It's a bit tricky to thread together your points over time and various threads but I think you've stated or suggested that:

1. Lockdowns are useless or harmful.
2. Vaccines are dangerous.
3. Ivermectin is a useful prophylactic against Covid infection.
4. Ivermectin is a useful treatment for Covid disease.

Taken together, you therefore seem to believe that instead of employing behavioural change and vaccines, we should instead rely on the prophylactic and treatment effects of ivermectin.

Is that correct?

You must be living in very stagnated world if you try to piece stuff together over time - mainly when everything is changing rapidly.
You may come to the same conclusion about various figures and organizations who advised different stuff changing advice as new facts become known.
If you go by your own logic then you must think WHO is crazy as they advised for masks against and then for them again. Same go for lockdowns and various proposed treatments.
Millions of dead people laying on the streets did not materialize despite of various models and prophecies.

I do not understand why people are hell bent on employing some almost religious beliefs and refuse to change their point of view even when new facts come to light almost daily.
Your 4 points is just an lazy attempt to take stuff out of context while twisting it a little so it look completely different to what was said actually.

patnor1011

astrofool wrote: »

As I said, there is as much studies for as against:
https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/ivermectin-why-potential-covid-treatment-isnt-recommended-use

However, these things are true:

• the lab tests of Invermectin required much higher dosing than would usually be administered as part of a course of Invermectin
• That dosing level hasn't gone through safety tests
• The study you linked to had ~3500 people in the trial
• Vaccines had ~30,000 people per vaccine trial
• Vaccine have been administered to hundreds of millions of people and proven safe
• The cost of vaccines is very low compared to other treatments (especially AZ which is sold at cost)
• Vaccines have a much higher effective rate than any of the studies on Invermectin

Which begs the question, why are you still pushing Invermectin (and why are you pushing these info dumps on random threads instead of the Invermectin thread?)

Pushing? I thought anything that works will be welcome. Especially when cost and distribution come at a fraction of other methods.
I guess you missed that even WHO is becoming increasingly concerned that (first gen) vaccines are becoming less effective for new strains particularly the one which originated from India.
Since vaccine will not guarantee you will not get infected by this virus, we simply need to have more tools at our disposal to help treat infected people.
Also, you seems to disregard quite a lot of people from the most vulnerable category who cant take vaccine due to allergies to some of its components.
Or people who are for some reason simply afraid to take vaccine. People are afraid of million of things like spiders, heights, dark, dentists, injections, vaccines? These people need to have something at hand which make it easier to fight this virus when they get infected.

humberklog

patnor1011 wrote: »

Pushing? I thought anything that works will be welcome. Especially when cost and distribution come at a fraction of other methods.
I guess you missed that even WHO is becoming increasingly concerned that (first gen) vaccines are becoming less effective for new strains particularly the one which originated from India.
Since vaccine will not guarantee you will not get infected by this virus, we simply need to have more tools at our disposal to help treat infected people.
Also, you seems to disregard quite a lot of people from the most vulnerable category who cant take vaccine due to allergies to some of its components.
Or people who are for some reason simply afraid to take vaccine. People are afraid of million of things like spiders, heights, dark, dentists, injections, vaccines? These people need to have something at hand which make it easier to fight this virus when they get infected.

What's that (and other recent posters) got to do with in the context of Sweden?

charlie14

patnor1011 wrote: »

Pushing? I thought anything that works will be welcome. Especially when cost and distribution come at a fraction of other methods.
I guess you missed that even WHO is becoming increasingly concerned that (first gen) vaccines are becoming less effective for new strains particularly the one which originated from India.
Since vaccine will not guarantee you will not get infected by this virus, we simply need to have more tools at our disposal to help treat infected people.
Also, you seems to disregard quite a lot of people from the most vulnerable category who cant take vaccine due to allergies to some of its components.
Or people who are for some reason simply afraid to take vaccine. People are afraid of million of things like spiders, heights, dark, dentists, injections, vaccines? These people need to have something at hand which make it easier to fight this virus when they get infected.

Merck statement on Ivermectin Feb.4 2021.

"Company scientists continue to carefully examine the findings of all available and emerging studies of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19 foe efficacy and safety. It is important to note that to date, our analysis has identified :


- No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against Covid-19 from pre-clinical studies;
- No meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with Covid-19 disease, and;
- A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies.

We do not believe that the data available support the safety and efficacy of ivermectin beyond the doses and populations indicated in the regulatory agency-approved prescribing information"


Says all that needs to be said on your rubbish as regards ivermectin, where in a time that there is massive revenue to be made from drugs relating to the prevention and treatment of Covid-19, Merch has no faith in it for either use.
But then seeing as you obviously know better than the manufacturer, perhaps you would be better off sharing your wisdom that contradicts their own analysis rather than clogging up a thread on Sweden with your nonsense.





-

DylanJM

Can the mods please get this thread back on topic? There's already a thread for ivermectin discussion.

charlie14

DylanJM wrote: »

Can the mods please get this thread back on topic? There's already a thread for ivermectin discussion.

Agreed, but seeing as this ivermectin nonsense was brought up by a particular poster who was allowed to run with it, I personally believe that such misinformed and potentially dangerous post should not go unchallenged.

99nsr125

charlie14 wrote: »

Agreed, but seeing as this ivermectin nonsense was brought up by a particular poster who was allowed to run with it, I personally believe that such misinformed and potentially dangerous post should not go unchallenged.

You can't just post that, there are actual studies that support the use of Ivermectin.

It's most effective use appears to be akin to how an anti-malarial drug is also administered. Vast continents would be familiar with that dosing regime just because the West has only come around to the almost 100% effectivness of pre-exposure for hiv should serve as a prime example that a different approach may actually be superior

FaganJr

99nsr125 wrote: »

You can't just post that, there are actual studies that support the use of Ivermectin.

It's most effective use appears to be akin to how an anti-malarial drug is also administered. Vast continents would be familiar with that dosing regime just because the West has only come around to the almost 100% effectivness of pre-exposure for hiv should serve as a prime example that a different approach may actually be superior

Is this the stuff that Joe Rogan is peddling these days?

francogarbanzo

FaganJr wrote: »

Is this the stuff that Joe Rogan is peddling these days?

"Follow the science! Unless particular people I don't like support it, then dismiss it immediately."

FaganJr

francogarbanzo wrote: »

"Follow the science! Unless particular people I don't like support it, then dismiss it immediately."

I would agree and I did watch his Podcast where he had Doctors on who were championing this but have been banned completely from YouTube because of it.
So which "Science" are you to believe?

greyday

FaganJr wrote: »

I would agree and I did watch his Podcast where he had Doctors on who were championing this but have been banned completely from YouTube because of it.
So which "Science" are you to believe?

The manufacturers usually have the best data and will usually put a positive spin on their products if possible, its very telling that they are staying very far away from saying anything positive about possible advantages of taking it pre covid or while suffering from covid.

francogarbanzo

OK so again, no science whatsoever, and only appeals to big pharma and big tech.

charlie14

99nsr125 wrote: »

You can't just post that, there are actual studies that support the use of Ivermectin.

It's most effective use appears to be akin to how an anti-malarial drug is also administered. Vast continents would be familiar with that dosing regime just because the West has only come around to the almost 100% effectivness of pre-exposure for hiv should serve as a prime example that a different approach may actually be superior

Have you actually read my post of how Merck who manufacture ivermectin from their statement view these so called studies ?

"No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against Covid-19, no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with Covid-19 and a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies "

Like this other poster you are on here pushing a dangerous nonsense that has no connection with this thread and making claims that the producers of this drug completely disagree with.

greyday

francogarbanzo wrote: »

OK so again, no science whatsoever, and only appeals to big pharma and big tech.

Yep. no science backs up any claim that ivermectin has efficacy which would be accepted by regulators for Covid.

charlie14

francogarbanzo wrote: »

OK so again, no science whatsoever, and only appeals to big pharma and big tech.

If there was any basis what-so-ever to these claims, then safe to say "big pharma" would be all over it pushing it. For ivermectin the opposite is true with Merck`s statement of Feb. this year basically calling these claims bulls**t

DylanJM

Here's a probably futile effort to get this thread back on topic.

Sweden moving to their next stage of reopening on July 1st.

https://www.thelocal.se/20210628/sweden-to-go-ahead-with-next-stage-of-re-opening-plan/

Pretty stark contrast given the recent events regarding reopening here in Ireland over the last 24hrs.

jaykay74

Its funny when this thread started I think Sweden was an outlier in terms of its handling of the pandemic. Is the conservative approach in Ireland the new outlier in European terms ? Just glad I live in Stockholm!

Blut2

jaykay74 wrote: »

Its funny when this thread started I think Sweden was an outlier in terms of its handling of the pandemic. Is the conservative approach in Ireland the new outlier in European terms ? Just glad I live in Stockholm!

On July 1st Ireland will be the only country in Europe with no indoor dining open. Across the continent people are eating and drinking indoors, going to sports games in stadiums, living normal lives. Ireland is absolutely a complete outlier now.

charlie14

Interesting few posts on outliers.
We were being told on this thead not to judge Sweden until the results of them being an outlier could be fully accessed.
Now Ireland is being judge for being an outlier, not on Covid deaths per population of 45% less than Sweden and 100% less infected, but on reopening.
Funny old thread this.

ceadaoin.

charlie14 wrote: »

Interesting few posts on outliers.
We were being told on this thead not to judge Sweden until the results of them being an outlier could be fully accessed.
Now Ireland is being judge for being an outlier, not on Covid deaths per population of 45% less than Sweden and 100% less infected, but on reopening.
Funny old thread this.

It's pretty clear that Sweden has taken the right approach to balance living life with covid and pretty much the rest of Europe and the US is following suit at this stage. It's completely unrealistic, at well over a year into this, to continue trying to force society to live their lives with avoiding covid as the central goal. That some are still banging this drum is truly shocking and for many its simply a pig headed refusal to concede they got it wrong.

Do you think covid is just going to disappear once a magical threshold of vaccinations is reached? Or if people keep wearing masks or eat outdoors for a bit longer Even? Even then people will still catch covid and some will still die. Time to deal with it like any other seasonal illness. Even Singapore, one of the most restricted countries throughout this whole thing, are moving to this model.

charlie14

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It's pretty clear that Sweden has taken the right approach to balance living life with covid and pretty much the rest of Europe and the US is following suit at this stage. It's completely unrealistic, at well over a year into this, to continue trying to force society to live their lives with avoiding covid as the central goal. That some are still banging this drum is truly shocking and for many its simply a pig headed refusal to concede they
got it wrong.

Do you think covid is just going to disappear once a magical threshold of vaccinations is reached? Or if people keep wearing masks or eat outdoors for a bit longer Even?

I do not see it as being anyway clear that Sweden`s approach has worked, or that anyone else even seriously contemplated following their approach.
Their original approach of natural herd immunity was a failure, and like anywhere else in Europe or the US they are now dependent on vaccines to fight this pandemic.
It seems to be another of those conveniently ignored facts that Ireland is not the first country to delay reopening. Sweden have also done so, and while hopefully they have got it right now, a relatively short time will show if they have or not.

You appear to somehow believe that Ireland`s strategy is zero Covid. I have no idea where you get that from.
The "magical threshold of vaccination" is exactly the same threshold that Sweden was attempting unethically to reach magically naturally and failed. 70% -80% of the population fully vaccinated.
At present Ireland has 24% of the 60 -69 year old cohort, one of the most vulnerable, fully vaccinated. The rest due their second dose within the next few weeks.

jaykay74

charlie14 wrote:

Interesting few posts on outliers. We were being told on this thead not to judge Sweden until the results of them being an outlier could be fully accessed. Now Ireland is being judge for being an outlier, not on Covid deaths per population of 45% less than Sweden and 100% less infected, but on reopening. Funny old thread this.

Maybe Ireland has it right and the rest of Europe has it wrong. Not being facetious, that can be true.

Blut2

Estonia, Malta, Serbia, Denmark, Cyprus, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands and other European countries all have less deaths per capita than Ireland but are substantially more open. And all have an older, more at risk population than Ireland.

If Ireland had a fraction of the deaths of all other more open European countries the argument that being an outlier was worth it might hold weight, but it doesn't. We're firmly in the middle of the pack. Despite having the least at risk, youngest population of any country in Europe.

Which would suggest our being the most locked down country in Europe isn't a policy that is working.

charlie14

jaykay74 wrote: »

Maybe Ireland has it right and the rest of Europe has it wrong. Not being facetious, that can be true.

Who knows.
What we do know is that Sweden also changed their reopening dates and as recently as April both Germany and France both got their reopening wrong, with Germany having to apply an "emergency break" and France introducing curfews.

charlie14

Blut2 wrote: »

Estonia, Malta, Serbia, Denmark, Cyprus, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands and other European countries all have less deaths per capita than Ireland but are substantially more open. And all have an older, more at risk population than Ireland.

If Ireland had a fraction of the deaths of all other more open European countries the argument that being an outlier was worth it might hold weight, but it doesn't. We're firmly in the middle of the pack. Despite having the least at risk, youngest population of any country in Europe.

Which would suggest our being the most locked down country in Europe isn't a policy that is working.

I`m not sure that a country being more open is that great an arguement .
Especially as regards Sweden. Three of the countries you mention, and direct neighbours of Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway have no discernible difference in the percentage of their older more at risk population but have a large difference in infections and deaths.


We may have a young population, but we have just 24% of our 60 -69 year olds (one of the most vulnerable age groups) fully vaccinated due to them having received the AZ vaccine. Next few weeks will see practically all of this cohort fully vaccinated.