Comments by "Terje Oseberg" (@terjeoseberg990) on "Global disinformation" video.
-
51
-
17
-
snikrepak, I’ve been mentioning it since February 2020.
Even now, we could completely stop the pandemic without vaccines within a month. All it would take is a complete and total lockdown for that month.
Pay everyone to stay home, an put police everywhere. Whoever is fought outside would be arrested, and in addition to not getting their payment, they would be jailed and fined. No excuses.
A 2 month supply of non perishable food would have to be delivered in advance, and all bills suspended for the month. Utilities paid by the government.
Actual essential workers would wear hazmat suits, and have a sticker on their car so the police know not to pull them over. The sticker could have a QR code to identify the driver and their work hours. They’d also need an ID.
Then, after the 1 month lockdown we implement contact tracing, just in case something remains. If something is found, it could be dealt with.
It’s possible to end the pandemic any time we want. We could test it in one state to verify that it’ll work if we want. This is something we could have done in 2020, and we could still do it today.
12
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Stephen Arling, One example of a bad one was the recent one with about 3,000 participants where about 2/3rd took two doses of Ivermectin 72 hours apart and the remaining 1/3rd took nothing. This study “showed” that two doses 72 hours apart is 83% effective for one month.
The problem with this study is that the participants self selected. Meaning they were all offered Ivermectin, and about 1/3rd of them refused.
Why this is bad, is because it’s possible that those who refused were people who believe that the virus “the flu” or a hoax or real, but not dangerous, and therefore were careless and refused to take other precautions. While those who accepted the Ivermectin might be people who are much more cautious and wore their masks diligently and maintained social distance.
This is why double blind is so important. Everyone in the study need to understand that they might have received the drug, or they might not. Therefor they will all behave similarly. If they had randomly given the ivermectin to half of the 3,000 and placebo to the other half, then you’d have an even mix of both types of people in both arms of the study.
So, although the study appears to show that Ivermectin is 83% effective, what it really shows is that the type of people who would choose to take Ivermectin are 83% less likely to get Covid than the type of people who would choose not to take Ivermectin.
So, to determine whether a study is good or not, you have to look at the study, and if you can’t find any such problems with it, then it’s likely good. If this particular study was a double blind study with a placebo control, then it would be a great study. Unfortunately, it’s not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Stephen Arling,
Methods
A prospective cohort study was conducted at AIIMS Bhubaneswar, which provides both COVID and Non-COVID care since March 2020. All employees and students of the institute who provided written informed consent participated in the study.Uptake of two-doses of oral ivermectin (300 μg/kg at a gap of 72 hours) was considered as exposure. The primary outcome of the study was COVID-19 infection in the following month of ivermectin consumption diagnosed by RTPCR as per Government of India testing criteria guidelines.The log-binomial model was used to estimate adjusted relative risk, and the Kaplan- Meier failure plot was used to estimate the probability of COVID-19 infection with follow-up time.
Results
Of 3892 employees, 3532 (90.8%) participated in the study. The ivermectin uptake was 62.5% and 5.3% for two-doses and single-dose, respectively. Participants who took ivermectin prophylaxis had a lower risk of getting symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection(6% vs 15%). HCWs who had taken two-doses of oral ivermectin have a signi cantly lower risk of contracting COVID-19 disease during the following month (ARR 0.17; 95% CI, 0.12-0.23). Females had a lower risk of contracting COVID-19 than males (ARR 0.70 95% CI, 0.52-0.93). The absolute risk reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 9.7%. Only 1.8% of the participants reported adverse events, which were mild and self-limiting.
Conclusion and relevance
Two-doses of oral ivermectin (300 μg/kg given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophylaxis among HCWs reduces the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month. Safe, effective, and low-cost chemoprophylaxis have relevance in the containment of pandemic alongside vaccine.
https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-208785/v1/d6ff79a3-d354-4aba-a6b0-4bc123bbd225.pdf
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
justsayupyours, Anyone, including asymptomatic spreaders, of they are shedding the virus, will test positive on a PCR test. If they are shedding, it’s not possible to test negative unless the sample is bad, which is very unlikely.
The thing is, if they are asymptomatic, they are not likely to be tested. That’s why they won’t test positive. Can’t test positive if you’re not tested, right?
What Rab J is talking about is that someone who tests positive only after 40 cycles is shedding so little virus that they are not contagious. They might not even be shedding whole viruses, but only remnants. Rab J is claiming that this should not be counted as a “case”. He’s actually correct, because a “case” should only be counted if the person is actually sick. To be a “case”, you actually have to experience symptoms.
However, what Rab J is wrong about, because he’s confused, is that anyone who has tested positive has been infected. Asymptomatic spreaders, because they are asymptomatic are not a “case” but they have been infected.
This is why the infection fatality rate, and the case fatality rate are different.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1