COVID cases on the brink of breaking 100k a day (Zoe Covid Study)

Patients are always being tested when they are in hospital. DH was in hospital for 8 weeks (nothing to do with COVID) and was constantly being testedfor COVID Anyone dieing on a ward while being treated for COVID will be registered as having died of COVID. And the majority of COVID deaths are not over 28 days later

As well as that if you tested positively for COVID, recovered and three days later were killed in a car crash, it would be treated as a death from COVID.

Nice try at respreading an old COVID conspriracy Stella but it will not wash, we have been through this one before.

But I'm sure you'll admit that some people do die after the 28 day cut-off period and that it's highly unlikely that somebody would die in a car crash just after testing positively for Covid - look up the figures for the number who die in car crashes.

They probably balance out the number who die in hospital from something completely unrelated to Covid.

Nice try from you too, MOnica, the denialists have been using it for ages.

HannahLoisLuke

There’s a difference between testing positive and being ill with Covid and that’s down to vaccination. The medics in my family tell me that 98% of those in hospital with it are unvaccinated.
I think we have to accept that Covid is with us now and we should just get our annual jab and get on with life with of course taking sensible precautions.

The medics in your family are wrong. An increasing number of those in hospital with Covid are vaccinated. It is, however, true that a person is more likely to be seriously ill if he/she hasn't been vaccinated.

I watched the latest Dr Campbell video, as MayBee70 asked me if I understood why she found the first part of the video reassuring. Dr Campbell used a paper to show that most people who were affected by breakthrough infections were either old or had co-morbidities. When other people say that they get piled onto. Not Dr C though. He's allowed to say that.

In a previous video, Dr Campbell railed against a paper showing why Ivermectin doesn't work. The lead author of the paper was a student, and Dr C thought that was awful, that's not what you'd expect from a lead author, so he discredited the paper. The lead author of the paper he relies on to talk about breakthrough infections?

A student.

He's maybe not so impartial as you might think.

Campbell has done numerous videos mentioning Ivermectin.

Which one are you talking about?

HannahLoisLake here’s the FullFact article explaining the reasons behind the rise in vaccinated patients to hospital compared to unvaccinated.
fullfact.org/health/economist-vaccination-status/
According to the ONS update provided today an unvaccinated person is 32 times more likely to die from the virus.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy7c_FHiEac

4 minutes in. Watch the eyebrows.

He's a bit upset.

Alegrias1

I watched the latest Dr Campbell video, as MayBee70 asked me if I understood why she found the first part of the video reassuring. Dr Campbell used a paper to show that most people who were affected by breakthrough infections were either old or had co-morbidities. When other people say that they get piled onto. Not Dr C though. He's allowed to say that.

In a previous video, Dr Campbell railed against a paper showing why Ivermectin doesn't work. The lead author of the paper was a student, and Dr C thought that was awful, that's not what you'd expect from a lead author, so he discredited the paper. The lead author of the paper he relies on to talk about breakthrough infections?

A student.

He's maybe not so impartial as you might think.

I think people pile in when there are comments saying that it’s old people and people with co morbidities that get seriously ill and die therefore it doesn’t matter and that shouldn’t stop younger people from living normal lives. I don’t think people pile in when they’re just shown a chart breaking down the age and health status of people that are being hospitalised after being vaccinated. One of the first things I did when Dr John showed charts of those adversely affected last year was lose weight. I don’t think that was due to him giving out dangerous information. There’s surely nothing wrong at looking at medicines that are currently used for other things to see if they help with covid. Look at the anti depressant he mentioned the other day. I did dispense drugs for a long time so do have a bit of knowledge about them and most of what he says makes sense to me if only from a common sense point of view. He does say that it isn’t in the best interest of the drug companies to find a miracle drug for covid that only costs pennies and I tend to agree with him but usually keep it to myself because it makes me look like a covid denying anti vacc’er. Which I’m not.

There have been at least half a dozen fraudulent reports about the effectiveness of Ivermectin. When the vast majority of active health researchers are telling you that a drug is not effective, carrying on with a crusade about how it could be is counterproductive. Like I said before, not a freedom fighter, but irresponsible.

Discrediting people who are actually doing research in this area and insinuating that there is an effective cure that the drug companies are covering up, is not just counterproductive, its dangerous nonsense.

I'm not sure what he has said about the use of Fluvoxamine for Covid patients, but there have been clinical trials which have had positive outcomes. This kind of thing is going on all the time and the results are in the public domain. It's not unusual for a drug to be used for a different purpose. Aspirin is a classic example.

I agree with you MayBee about showing a breakdown of the people who die. It's true that age is the biggest risk factor for dying from Covid, but the implication in some posts is that these people don't matter.

Alegria You seriously give the impression of a person with personal grudges against certain people who comment on Covid.

Oh yes I remember that.

He is talking about a couple of BBC journalists who have based their advise regarding ivermectin on a study with a lead author being a student.

I must say that at the time I was surprised as we know that there are numerous other, peer reviewed studies regarding the efficacy of this drug including a study on the NIH website, The FDA who used and many many others.

Campbell is aware of all this research that supports the use of ivermectin and I absolutely agree with him that the two journalists were wrong not to mention the research by eminent scientists that supports its use nor the fact that 1.3bn people have taken it, with few side effects.

I am unclear why you mentioned his eyebrows ?

Alegrias1

There have been at least half a dozen fraudulent reports about the effectiveness of Ivermectin. When the vast majority of active health researchers are telling you that a drug is not effective, carrying on with a crusade about how it could be is counterproductive. Like I said before, not a freedom fighter, but irresponsible.

Discrediting people who are actually doing research in this area and insinuating that there is an effective cure that the drug companies are covering up, is not just counterproductive, its dangerous nonsense.

If you make comments like “fraudulent reports” and that “the vast majority of researchers are saying the drug is ineffective”
You need to provide clear evidence.

I assume you would not expect us to take your word for your assertions

I also think that hyperbole does not sit well with your apparent argument.

We should learn to live with Covid now we have the vaccine and you cannot expect people in work to test every week. Some employers do not pay their staff if they are absent so how are staff supposed to pay their bills. We have the vaccine so let's just treat it like the flu

Growstuff, I really don't have grudges, but I am gobsmacked by some of the misinformation that appears on here and I can't keep my mouth shut. My cross to bear.

Things like this quote, for instance:

Campbell is aware of all this research that supports the use of ivermectin

I know Ivermectin is widely used, but as a treatment of parasitic infections. Not for Covid, there have been no studies that show its effective for Covid, and those that purport to have been shown to be fraudulent.

But he clearly doesn't like to be argued with. Hence the eyebrows.

Its dangerous that anyone with only partial knowledge of something sets himself up as an authority on it. I expect many people will come along now and tell me I'm wrong, but while he gave excellent information at the start of the pandemic, he has gone dangerously off-piste.

Alegrias1

*Growstuff*, I really don't have grudges, but I am gobsmacked by some of the misinformation that appears on here and I can't keep my mouth shut. My cross to bear.

Things like this quote, for instance:

Campbell is aware of all this research that supports the use of ivermectin

I know Ivermectin is widely used, but as a treatment of parasitic infections. Not for Covid, there have been no studies that show its effective for Covid, and those that purport to have been shown to be fraudulent.

But he clearly doesn't like to be argued with. Hence the eyebrows.

Its dangerous that anyone with only partial knowledge of something sets himself up as an authority on it. I expect many people will come along now and tell me I'm wrong, but while he gave excellent information at the start of the pandemic, he has gone dangerously off-piste.

Campbell has been reporting on ivermectin for at least a year and he has pointed out numerous studies relating to its use for covid.

You are giving out incorrect information and like you I can’t keep my mouth shut. - not a phrase I would normally use tbh but there you go.

Your argument does not sit well, when it goes from the personal to a grudge to incorrect information.

You are entitled to your opinion, and I will be quite happy to read it, but not when it is wrapped in so called “I am a scientist, so I know better than others on this thread and should be believed even though I appear unwilling to back up my assertions with evidence”

But doctors and nurses are testing themselves via the lateral flow tests before they go to work on the ward etc so if it’s not so accurate they could be spreading covid. It’s just such a waste and dangerous

Alegrias I can only take your word for it that you don't have grudges, but it's the impression you give.

bluekarma

But doctors and nurses are testing themselves via the lateral flow tests before they go to work on the ward etc so if it’s not so accurate they could be spreading covid. It’s just such a waste and dangerous

Indeed they could! And that's why some scientists have been criticising its use for ages. They're not being used for their intended purpose.

Whitewavemark2

Alegrias1

Growstuff, I really don't have grudges, but I am gobsmacked by some of the misinformation that appears on here and I can't keep my mouth shut. My cross to bear.

Things like this quote, for instance:

Campbell is aware of all this research that supports the use of ivermectin

I know Ivermectin is widely used, but as a treatment of parasitic infections. Not for Covid, there have been no studies that show its effective for Covid, and those that purport to have been shown to be fraudulent.

But he clearly doesn't like to be argued with. Hence the eyebrows.

Its dangerous that anyone with only partial knowledge of something sets himself up as an authority on it. I expect many people will come along now and tell me I'm wrong, but while he gave excellent information at the start of the pandemic, he has gone dangerously off-piste.

Campbell has been reporting on ivermectin for at least a year and he has pointed out numerous studies relating to its use for covid.

You are giving out incorrect information and like you I can’t keep my mouth shut. - not a phrase I would normally use tbh but there you go.

Your argument does not sit well, when it goes from the personal to a grudge to incorrect information.

You are entitled to your opinion, and I will be quite happy to read it, but not when it is wrapped in so called “I am a scientist, so I know better than others on this thread and should be believed even though I appear unwilling to back up my assertions with evidence”

Evidence:

Will the WHO suffice?

www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials

Then there's the actual paper Campbell tries so hard to discredit.

www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01535-y

Quote: Since the above primary studies were published, many hundreds of thousands of patients have been dosed with ivermectin, relying on an evidence base that has substantially evaporated under close scrutiny.

Also this: www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/25/fraudulent-ivermectin-studies-open-up-new-battleground-between-science-and-misinformation

Example Quote: The paper was eventually retracted by the medical journal that published it after the data was found to have been falsified and the patients nonexistent.

Pleased to say Oxford is doing research into the possible,or not,
benefits of Ivermectin. Dr John Campbell does extensive research into the evidence he reports on, why would he do anything to discredit himself. All the research he uses is available, via his links, to read for ourselves.

www.ascot-trial.edu.au/blogs/news/oxford-is-trialling-ivermectin-the-path-to-this-point-has-been-rocky-why

Lincslass

Pleased to say Oxford is doing research into the possible,or not,
benefits of Ivermectin. Dr John Campbell does extensive research into the evidence he reports on, why would he do anything to discredit himself. All the research he uses is available, via his links, to read for ourselves.

www.ascot-trial.edu.au/blogs/news/oxford-is-trialling-ivermectin-the-path-to-this-point-has-been-rocky-why

If anybody's interested in joining the Oxford trial, the details are here:

www.principletrial.org/

I'm in a parallel universe, amn't I?

I'm away for my tea....

And some more details:

www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-23-ivermectin-be-investigated-possible-treatment-covid-19-oxford-s-principle-trial

growstuff it is perfectly possible for someone with COVID to die in a road accident or from a host of other causes within 28 days of a positive test. Quarantine times have varied from 10 - 14 days.

My DDiL (fully vaccinated) who has a faulty immune system had COVID three weeks ago. She felt very unwell for a week then recovered and was touring with her folk group as soon as quarantine ended., although for the first week they did spend nights in hotels rather than driving 100 miles home in the middle of the night, but she returned to that before the 28 days were up.