Coronavirus

[Mr._Clark]

I would suggest that the Venn diagram of people who insist Ivermectin is an effective COVID anti-viral and those who refuse to get vaccinated is darned close to a single circle.

My initial thought on reading your post was that there are probably more vaccine refusers than there are ivermectin believers (my initial thought was based on my conversations with people where either of the two topics have come up, which is admittedly a tiny sample).

After some quick google research, I'm not so sure my initial thought was correct. One poll showed that of adults who've heard of ivermectin 33% believed it was either very effective or possibly effective:

Most Republicans who have heard of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment think it may be effective | YouGov

Most Republicans who have heard a lot or a little about ivermectin say it is effective (56%), compared with 19% of Democrats.

today.yougov.com

Disclaimer: I know nothing about this website or it's polling methodology, it might be cr*p.

The CDC estimates that 87.6% of adults in the U.S. have gotten at least one dose of the vaccine.

COVID Data Tracker

CDC’s home for COVID-19 data. Visualizations, graphs, and data in one easy-to-use website.

covid.cdc.gov

It's possible that the two circles in your proposed Venn diagram are almost the same size if the 13% "very effective" in the poll is representative of the general population and if this is equivalent to your proposed "people who insist Ivermectin is an effective COVID anti-viral" Venn circle (the two terms seem almost identical to me), and if the 12.7% (estimated) of the adult population that have not received one dose is accurate and if it's equivalent to your proposed "those who refuse to get vaccinated" circle.

Where am I going with this? No place really, but it does seem like a remarkable coincidence that the two groups appear to be almost the same size.

I suspect you're correct that there is a lot of overlap between the circles, but I don't know of a good way to prove or disprove it.

 

[Mikado463]

Mayo Clinic and kids .......

COVID-19 vaccines for kids: What you need to know

Learn about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines for kids, the possible side effects, and the benefits of vaccination.

www.mayoclinic.org

 

[GO-NAD!]

My initial thought on reading your post was that there are probably more vaccine refusers than there are ivermectin believers (my initial thought was based on my conversations with people where either of the two topics have come up, which is admittedly a tine sample).

After some quick google research, I'm not so sure my initial thought was correct. One poll showed that of adults who've heard of ivermectin 33% believed it was either very effective or possible effective:

View attachment 53722

Most Republicans who have heard of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment think it may be effective | YouGov

Most Republicans who have heard a lot or a little about ivermectin say it is effective (56%), compared with 19% of Democrats.

today.yougov.com

Disclaimer: I know nothing about this website or it's polling methodology, it might be cr*p.

The CDC estimates that 87.6% of adults in the U.S. have gotten at least one dose of the vaccine.

View attachment 53724

COVID Data Tracker

CDC’s home for COVID-19 data. Visualizations, graphs, and data in one easy-to-use website.

covid.cdc.gov

It's possible that the two circles in your proposed Venn diagram are almost the same size if the 13% "very effective" in the poll is representative of the general population and if this is equivalent to your proposed "people who insist Ivermectin is an effective COVID anti-viral" Venn circle (the two terms seem almost identical to me), and if the 12.7% (estimated) of the adult population that have not received one dose is accurate and if it's equivalent to your proposed "those who refuse to get vaccinated" circle.

Where am I going with this? No place really, but it does seem like a remarkable coincidence that the two groups appear to be almost the same size.

I suspect you're correct that there is a lot of overlap between the circles, but I don't know of a good way to prove or disprove it.

My statement was meant to be tongue-in-cheek...kinda. I'm impressed that you did this much Googling.

 

[SithZedi]

My initial thought on reading your post was that there are probably more vaccine refusers than there are ivermectin believers (my initial thought was based on my conversations with people where either of the two topics have come up, which is admittedly a tine sample).

After some quick google research, I'm not so sure my initial thought was correct. One poll showed that of adults who've heard of ivermectin 33% believed it was either very effective or possible effective:

View attachment 53722

Most Republicans who have heard of ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment think it may be effective | YouGov

Most Republicans who have heard a lot or a little about ivermectin say it is effective (56%), compared with 19% of Democrats.

today.yougov.com

Disclaimer: I know nothing about this website or it's polling methodology, it might be cr*p.

The CDC estimates that 87.6% of adults in the U.S. have gotten at least one dose of the vaccine.

View attachment 53724

COVID Data Tracker

CDC’s home for COVID-19 data. Visualizations, graphs, and data in one easy-to-use website.

covid.cdc.gov

It's possible that the two circles in your proposed Venn diagram are almost the same size if the 13% "very effective" in the poll is representative of the general population and if this is equivalent to your proposed "people who insist Ivermectin is an effective COVID anti-viral" Venn circle (the two terms seem almost identical to me), and if the 12.7% (estimated) of the adult population that have not received one dose is accurate and if it's equivalent to your proposed "those who refuse to get vaccinated" circle.

Where am I going with this? No place really, but it does seem like a remarkable coincidence that the two groups appear to be almost the same size.

I suspect you're correct that there is a lot of overlap between the circles, but I don't know of a good way to prove or disprove it.

Thanks for posting that. Am struck by the Independents number. 46% believed it was either very effective or possible effective. Independents usually track closer to Democrats in polls. 46% to 19% is a large gap.
Then again, as you say, this could be c**p.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Dude, don't know why Pfizer filed to bury there data for 75 years, but its quite unusual. Non scientists in the media are the least of their worries. They should be worried about the plainiff bar lawyers who will be representing shareholders if they are sued. Not to mention other class action lawyers.

The below are some interesting comments made by Rubicon Capital's Kelly Brown (not the Scottish Rugby player). What ever his motivation (he could be looking to short) he's looking at 3Q to 4Q releases.
If Pfizer's stock is in your portfolio, I'd think twice about holding long term.
As always, read and make up your own mind.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1491132509593436160

From the outside looking in, it's hard to say how significant the changes in the 4Q release are.

The one that initially struck me as the most curious was the "concerns about clinical data integrity." Based on a quick google search, I suspect this was added due to the allegations by a former employee of Ventana:

Fact check: Report questioning Pfizer trial shouldn’t undermine confidence in vaccines

The story published this week in the British Medical Journal lays out issues raised by a now-former employee of Ventavia Research Group, one of the companies contracted to help run some of Pfizer’s…

www.cbs17.com

There's a link in the above link to the BMJ article that apparently kicked off the flap (I have not read the entire fact check, I'm including the link in order to identify the issue, not to advocate for the conclusions of the fact check itself or the BMJ article).

My initial impression is that the 4Q release includes "concerns about clinical data integrity" because the allegations could negatively impact earnings, even if there's little or no substance to it. But, again, I'm looking in from the outside and I most definitely do not have any inside information.

 

[SithZedi]

Opioid crisis: 'You can't put the genie back in the bottle' with the damage done, Harvard professor explains

John Abramson, Harvard Medical School Professor & drug litigation expert, joins Yahoo Finance Live to discuss the state of the opioid crisis, pharmaceutical lawsuits, prescription drug prices, and the culpability of pharmaceutical companies in drug deaths.

finance.yahoo.com

From the outside looking in, it's hard to say how significant the changes in the 4Q release are.

The one that initially struck me as the most curious was the "concerns about clinical data integrity." Based on a quick google search, I suspect this was added due to the allegations by a former employee of Ventana:

Fact check: Report questioning Pfizer trial shouldn’t undermine confidence in vaccines

The story published this week in the British Medical Journal lays out issues raised by a now-former employee of Ventavia Research Group, one of the companies contracted to help run some of Pfizer’s…

www.cbs17.com

There's a link in the above link to the BMJ article that apparently kicked off the flap (I have not read the entire fact check, I'm including the link in order to identify the issue, not to advocate for the conclusions of the fact check itself or the BMJ article).

My initial impression is that the 4Q release includes "concerns about clinical data integrity" because the allegations could negatively impact earnings, even if there's little or no substance to it. But, again, I'm looking in from the outside and I most definitely do not have any inside information.

The pharma industry in general, before Covid, was under heavy attack. John Abramson's new book, which I haven't read, has some worried.

Opioid crisis: 'You can't put the genie back in the bottle' with the damage done, Harvard professor explains

John Abramson, Harvard Medical School Professor & drug litigation expert, joins Yahoo Finance Live to discuss the state of the opioid crisis, pharmaceutical lawsuits, prescription drug prices, and the culpability of pharmaceutical companies in drug deaths.

finance.yahoo.com

 

[davidscott]

Still 2500 plus people (mostly unvaxed) people dying per day in the U.S. Hardly out of the Pandemic yet. But we are getting there as the hospitalizations continue to go down.

 

[Dude#1279435]

From the outside looking in, it's hard to say how significant the changes in the 4Q release are.

The one that initially struck me as the most curious was the "concerns about clinical data integrity." Based on a quick google search, I suspect this was added due to the allegations by a former employee of Ventana:

Fact check: Report questioning Pfizer trial shouldn’t undermine confidence in vaccines

The story published this week in the British Medical Journal lays out issues raised by a now-former employee of Ventavia Research Group, one of the companies contracted to help run some of Pfizer’s…

www.cbs17.com

There's a link in the above link to the BMJ article that apparently kicked off the flap (I have not read the entire fact check, I'm including the link in order to identify the issue, not to advocate for the conclusions of the fact check itself or the BMJ article).

My initial impression is that the 4Q release includes "concerns about clinical data integrity" because the allegations could negatively impact earnings, even if there's little or no substance to it. But, again, I'm looking in from the outside and I most definitely do not have any inside information.

I was reading up on that too...

Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial

Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight. Paul D Thacker reports In autumn 2020 Pfizer’s chairman and chief executive, Albert Bourla, released an open...

www.bmj.com

 

[mtrycrafts]

Earthling. You?

Still working on it.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Still 2500 plus people (mostly unvaxed) people dying per day in the U.S. Hardly out of the Pandemic yet. But we are getting there as the hospitalizations continue to go down.

It's odd that we as a country have gotten used to these death rates. 2,500 per day is roughly the equivalent of D-Day every single day. It's in the ballpark of 9/11 (about 3,000 deaths). The fact that most of the deaths are by choice has made me somewhat indifferent to it.

 

[cpp]

It's odd that we as a country have gotten used to these death rates.

Agree, its almost like the state and federal govt is "ok" with people dying. Business as usual or , its the price one pays. Sad really when so many good people pass. But as some great one said somewhere. 'It Is What It Is'.

 

[Dan]

Agree, its almost like the state and federal govt is "ok" with people dying. Business as usual or , its the price one pays. Sad really when so many good people pass. But as some great one said somewhere. 'It Is What It Is'.

I don't think they are OK with it but it has becomes so political. Based on the November election and mood/fatigue of the people the Dems see they can't get elected without easing off and the Republicans were never in favor of proper masking with few exceptions.

 

[rnatalli]

We were at a similar point almost a year ago when restrictions were relaxed too quickly and ended up with Delta which killed even more people than the original strain. One blip of optimistic data does not mean the pandemic is over especially after two years and multiple strains. Give it until the end of February and re-evaluate; two years have passed and yes folks have become stir crazy, but another few weeks isn't much. I fear we may jump the gun again and only a bit of luck will help the situation.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Agree, its almost like the state and federal govt is "ok" with people dying. Business as usual or , its the price one pays. Sad really when so many good people pass. But as some great one said somewhere. 'It Is What It Is'.

As a thought experiment, I've wondered at times what the reaction would be if foreign terrorists or drug lords came in and killed the same number of Americans every day. My sense is that we (I'll include myself) tend to react more strongly to human enemies than we do to other threats.

 

[davidscott]

The death toll seems to be highest in the unvaxed over 70 crowd so maybe there finally is light at the end of the tunnel. If I was over 70, I surely would want to be fully vaxed but some people are just so stubborn or stupid.

 

[Mr._Clark]

The death toll seems to be highest in the unvaxed over 70 crowd so maybe there finally is light at the end of the tunnel. If I was over 70, I surely would want to be fully vaxed but some people are just so stubborn or stupid.

I keep wondering how many people there are who are not vaccinated and have not had a prior infection ("COVID virgins")(AKA "fresh meat"). Most of the numbers I've seen concerning unvaccinated deaths do not state how many of these people had a prior infection.

Given the number of prior infectons and the relatively high vaccination rates for those over 70, the percentage the over 70 crowd that is COVID virgins must be quite small. It's hard to see how there could be very many of them remaining after omicron (I'm not saying they are all going to die, but this must be a relatively small demographic by now).

In other words, I think you might be right about light at the end of the tunnel, at least with regards to the high death rates.

 

[Mr._Clark]

This is a somewhat interesting news item about omicron. It's striking how different omicron is from delta:

>>>But omicron was almost like an orphan. It didn't have any close relatives on the tree. There are no parents, no grandparents, not even great-great-great-grandparents. Its genes just looked so different from the other genome sequences.

"This is the puzzle of omicron," Hodcroft says. "What was omicron before it was omicron? And that's what's causing a lot of the debate about omicron's origin. Where did it come from, and how did it happen? Because we just have no information essentially to help us build that picture. There's just no samples going back in time." . . .

Another possibility is that this omicron branch did grow slowly over time, but for some unknown reason, scientists couldn't see it. It was in effect invisible. Perhaps because the virus was evolving inside another animal, like a rodent, and then jumped back into people. Perhaps because the virus was evolving very rapidly inside a person who had a chronic infection. Or perhaps because the virus was spreading in parts of Africa that scientists weren't watching closely enough.

No one knows which hypothesis is correct, Hodcroft says. And this gap in our knowledge brings much uncertainty about the future of the pandemic. It means scientists are likely unaware of a pool of SARS-CoV-2 variants that are replicating, mutating and evolving over time, completely under the radar.<<<

Take a look at SARS-CoV-2's family tree. It's full of surprises

The family history of SARS-CoV-2 is not what virologists expected — and it sheds light on the coronavirus that launched a pandemic. Check out our illustration of the virus's family tree.

www.npr.org

 

[SithZedi]

This came up earlier in the thread for the US experience. Did not realize the lower rates of Vaxx for minorities in Canada were similar to the US. This is date though so hopefully some catch up was achieved.

COVID-19 vaccine willingness among Canadian population groups

The success of Canada's vaccination program relies on the willingness of Canadians to receive the vaccine. Using data from the Canadian Community Health Survey, this article examines the proportion of people who reported being very or somewhat likely to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Specifically...

www150.statcan.gc.ca

 

[davidscott]

On a side note, my home state of Florida does not report hospitalizations or deaths of any tourists or part time residents. They just send the info back to their home states. So, the Florida numbers are badly understated. But it appears the fudged numbers here are going down.

 

[RedCharles]

We were at a similar point almost a year ago when restrictions were relaxed too quickly and ended up with Delta which killed even more people than the original strain.

Wow. This is some real magical thinking. We started sinning again so we ended up with Delta.