Can’t dispute the facts so you attack the source? How about this one. https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/07/02/santa-clara-county-revises-covid-death-toll-down/ Santa Clara County Revises Official COVID-19 Death Toll Down by 22 Percent
The very point of my post is that there are zero facts to dispute from a tinfoil source. I have no beef w/counties revising/improving their COVID fatality counting methodology if not under political duress.
Long, but needs to be listened to by those who are seeking information. This should start showing up in the news over the next couple of weeks. https://denisbider.blogspot.com/2021/07/dr-david-martin-with-reiner-fuellmich.html
Most of the msm articles about Delta focus on how it supposedly spreads more easily - they omit the data that shows it may be much less deadly. From none other than Public Health England https://assets.publishing.service.g...ants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_17.pdf If the above is accurate,this is how viruses die - a less dangerous variant infects a bunch of people and gives them immunity without killing them.
This fabricated nonsense regarding the Delta variant has already been debunked multiple times. There is no evidence that the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 has a lower fatality rate than the wild-type virus https://healthfeedback.org/claimrev...-the-wild-type-virus-craig-kelly-dan-bongino/ DETAILS Inadequate support: The Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 has become prevalent in the U.K. during the current vaccination campaign. Most of the at-risk groups in the country have already been vaccinated, so the fatality rate of the unvaccinated population isn’t representative of the whole population. Misleading: The comparison between the current fatality rate of the Delta variant with the fatality rate of the wild-type virus prior to the U.K. vaccination campaign is flawed. The fatality rate of the Delta variant mainly represents that of the unvaccinated population, most of whom are under 50 years old and are less likely to die from COVID-19. FULL CLAIM: The fatality rate of the Delta variant of COVID-19 is lower than the original variant. The latest data from the U.K. shows the case fatality rate for the Delta variant amongst the unvaccinated is 0.08%, which makes it less deadly that the normal flu. This Delta variant is one-tenth as deadly as the wild-type virus. Different variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19, have emerged throughout 2020 and 2021. Certain kinds of mutations make each variant genetically distinct from the precursor (wild-type) virus and from each other. These genetic differences can alter the transmissibility of the virus, the severity of the symptoms of the disease and/or the effectiveness of vaccines. One variant of concern, first identified in India in December 2020, is the Delta variant or B.1.617.2. This variant has distinctive mutations that could increase its infectivity, being more contagious than other variants and than the wild-type virus. The Delta variant has spread in several countries, including the U.K., where it is already the predominant variant of the virus. On 4 July 2021, American radio broadcaster Dan Bongino published a video on Facebook in which he questioned the lethality of this variant, claiming that it was less deadly than the original variant. The video received more than 20,000 interactions on Facebook according to social media analytics tool CrowdTangle. In support of this claim, the video included a clip of a Sky News Australia interview with Australian Member of Parliament Craig Kelly conducted on 1 July 2021 by Alan Jones. In this interview, Jones referred to epidemiological data on the Delta variant in the U.K., stating that its case fatality rate was 0.08% among the unvaccinated population, and therefore it would be less lethal than the normal flu. Kelly added that the Delta variant has one-tenth the lethality of the wild-type virus. These statements are inaccurate and misleading, as they are based solely on the fatality rate in the unvaccinated population in the U.K., who aren’t at a higher risk of death from COVID-19. Therefore, the fatality rate for the unvaccinated population doesn’t reflect the threat posed by the virus on the population as a whole. This review discusses the current data available on the case fatality rate of the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, and how age and the current vaccination campaign affect the case fatality rate. The COVID-19 vaccination campaign in the U.K. prioritized groups at a higher risk of dying from COVID-19, such as older age groups; vaccination now protects these groups The COVID-19 vaccination campaign in the U.K. started in December 2020. This vaccination campaign was carried out by dividing the population into priority groups, based on age and the presence of underlying clinical conditions. A significant percentage of the population over 18 years of age has already received at least one dose of the vaccine as of 1 July 2021, according to a report from Public Health England (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Age/Sex pyramid for COVID-19 vaccine uptake by age in England for dose 2, as of 1 July 2021. Source: Weekly national Influenza and COVID-19 surveillance report. Week 26 report (up to week 25 data), 1 July 2021. Public Health England. According to an analysis by the BBC published on 6 July 2021, “Wales has vaccinated 90% of those aged 18 and over with at least one dose, while Scotland has reached 86%, England 85% and Northern Ireland 80%. Second doses are also being rolled out, with all nations reaching 60% or more of adults so far”. Also, according to estimates from Public Health England, the vaccination campaign in the U.K. prevented between 6.4 and 7.9 million cases of COVID-19 and between 26,000 and 28,000 until 27 June 2021. It has also been estimated that around 44,500 hospitalizations were prevented in those aged 65 and older. Most cases of Delta variant infection are in unvaccinated people, who are younger than 50 years old and less likely to die from COVID-19; the Delta variant CFR may therefore be an underestimate The U.K. is the country with both the highest number of cases and the highest prevalence of the Delta variant as of 5 July 2021, according to the open-access genomic database GISAID. GISAID is officially recognized by the European Commission as a research organization and partner in the PREDEMICS consortium, which works on pandemic preparedness. The Delta variant was detected for the first time in the U.K. in February 2021. Based on the number of COVID-19 cases in which the virus was identified by genetic sequencing, the prevalence of the Delta variant in the country began to rise in May 2021, as shown in Figure 2. By June 2021, the Delta variant represented 97.8% of all cases of COVID-19 in the U.K. Figure 2. Prevalence of each variant in all of England, based on genotyped cases from 1 February to 5 July 2021. Source: SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England. Technical Briefing 18, 9 July 2021. Public Health England. According to a report on SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern in England, published by Public Health England on 9 Jul7 2021, as of 5 July 2021, 123,620 COVID-19 cases were caused by the Delta variant in England. The case fatality rate (CFR) for the Delta variant in the general population is 0.2%, according to the report. The CFR is the proportion of cases of a disease that end in death, among all diagnosed cases. It’s important to note that the CFR figures reported may underestimate the fatality rate of the Delta variant, due to a delay in reporting deaths. This caveat is indicated in a previous report from Public Health England, published 11 June 2021, “the 28-day case fatality rate for Delta remains low (0.1%), though mortality is a lagged indicator and the vast majority of cases are still within the 28 days of follow-up required”. In addition, context is important when interpreting the data. According to the same report, in the population aged 50 years or older, 12,404 COVID-19 cases by the Delta variant were detected between 1 February and 21 June 2021, of which 231 died, resulting in a CFR of 1.9% for this age group. At the same time, 111,008 COVID-19 cases caused by the Delta variant were detected in people under 50 years old in the U.K., of which 26 died, giving a CFR of 0.02% for this age group. This is, 90% of cases of COVID-19 by the Delta variant occurred among the population under 50 years old, and just 10% of cases among the population aged 50 or older. Another factor that must be taken into account when interpreting the data is that the majority of COVID-19 cases caused by the Delta variant are recent, with 52% of new cases reported in the population under 50 years old in the 28 days prior to 21 June 2021, and 48% of new cases reported in the population aged 50 years or older in the same period. Research done in a number of countries throughout the pandemic has shown that age plays a role in the CFR of COVID-19. A study based on surveillance data carried out in Italy at the beginning of the pandemic reported that the CFR was higher in the older population. The CFR in the age group under 50 years old was less than 1. But this more than doubled in the 50-59 age group, with a CFR of 2.5, further increasing as age groups became older. Despite the limitations of this study acknowledged by the authors, related to under-notification of cases, these results show how age increases risk for death from COVID-19[1]. Another study, conducted in 20 European countries, Canada, and the U.S., found that variation in the COVID-19 CFR was related to the proportion of people over 75 years old diagnosed with the disease, with the CFR increasing by 2.5% for every 5% increase in the representation of this age group among the diagnosed cases[2]. These results show how the CFR of COVID-19 is highly dependent on the age of the infected individuals. The higher the age of the infected individuals, the higher the CFR, and vice versa. As explained earlier, vaccines have considerably reduced the number of COVID-19 deaths in recent months and are highly effective. Given that the Delta variant in the U.K. is growing more prevalent at a time when many people are already vaccinated and therefore less likely to become ill and die, comparing the fatality rate of the Delta variant with the fatality rate of the virus before the protection afforded by COVID-19 vaccines was widely available is misleading, as most of the people who are at greater risk of dying from COVID-19 have already been vaccinated. The existing data don’t allow us to conclude that the Delta variant has a lower CFR than the wild-type virus. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, explained in a PolitiFact fact-check that “All variants are going to have a lower case fatality rate, because a significant portion of the population, especially those at high risk for death, are fully or partially vaccinated”. However, an increase in hospitalizations due to the Delta variant has been reported in the U.K., while in Scotland, the risk of hospitalization for the Delta variant was found to be twice as high as for the Alpha variant, which was the predominant variant in the U.K. previously[3], suggesting that the Delta variant could be more likely to cause serious illness. Finally, the comparison of the CFR of the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 with the CFR of flu is flawed. As explained above, the CFR of the Delta variant isn’t representative of the entire population, as most cases of Delta variant infection are in people under 50 years old. As with COVID-19, the fatality rate of flu varies greatly depending on age, so comparing the overall CFR of flu with the CFR of the Delta variant which mainly represents a younger population is flawed[4]. Conclusion The CFR of the Delta variant is low for the general population, around 0.2%, but this may be because most of the population at a higher risk of dying from COVID-19 has been vaccinated in the U.K., which has reduced deaths caused by the disease. This also means that those who remain unvaccinated and unprotected are mainly people under 50 years old. The majority of Delta variant infections in the U.K. are occurring in this population, hence the CFR of the Delta variant mainly represents that of the unvaccinated population. Comparing the CFR of the Delta variant with the wild-type virus at a time before vaccines were available is misleading, since the former excludes most of the population over 50 years old, which has a higher CFR but is mostly vaccinated. In summary, there isn’t sufficient evidence that allows us to conclude that the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 is less lethal than the wild-type virus. REFERENCES 1 – Signorelli and Odone (2020) Age-specific COVID-19 case-fatality rate: no evidence of changes over time. International Journal of Public Health. 2 – Hoffman and Wolf (2021) Older age groups and country-specific case fatality rates of COVID-19 in Europe, USA and Canada. Infection. 3 – Sheikh et al. (2021) SARS-CoV-2 Delta VOC in Scotland: demographics, risk of hospital admission, and vaccine effectiveness. The Lancet. 4 – Wong et al. (2013) Case fatality risk of influenza A(H1N1pdm09): a systematic review. Epidemiology.
So-called “Fact Checkers” are disinformation organizations set up by the interest groups they are hired to protect such as Big Pharma Directory of Doctors Prescribing Ivermectin Updated: 12 July 2021 https://www.exstnc.com/ gwb-trading in on my blocked member's list and it has been i don't remember for how long,( longer than a week i am sure), yet still replies to my posts ,name calling this time,it only proves my point above
So basically this fact-free Ivermectin nonsense is being pushed by the anti-vaxxer doctors and media morons. Let's take a look at reality, Ivermectin is just the latest "miracle drug" that the Hydroxychloroquine nuts have seized onto which will magically cure COVID. Ivermectin has no preventative or treatment benefits for COVID-19. The FDA states very clearly it should not be used. The FDA... Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consu...-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 New COVID-19 drug, same playbook: Like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin lacks 'strong data' https://www.healio.com/news/rheumat...droxychloroquine-ivermectin-lacks-strong-data Ivermectin: why a potential COVID treatment isn’t recommended for use The antiparasitic drug was thought to be a potential treatment for COVID-19, but there isn't sufficient evidence to recommend its use, despite widespread support online. https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/ivermectin-why-potential-covid-treatment-isnt-recommended-use Ivermectin and Covid-19: how a cheap antiparasitic became political The common antiparasitic ivermectin is being touted as a miracle cure for Covid-19 by doctors and campaigners the world over. Demand for approval of the drug is growing globally – with some countries recommending ivermectin as a treatment for coronavirus patients – despite leading health authorities consistently warning against its use. https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/ivermectin-covid-19-antiparasitic-political/ Ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine - a drug shown to have no proven benefits in preventing or treating COVID-19; yet be harked as the new miracle drug from the lunatic fringe. You got to be a lunatic to push the use of a drug meant for parasitic infections in animals for the treatment of COVID-19. Ivermectin is FDA-approved for use in animals for prevention of heartworm disease in some small animal species, and for treatment of certain internal and external parasites in various animal species. https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterina.../faq-covid-19-and-ivermectin-intended-animals
What to know about a pro-ivermectin group’s study touting the drug versus COVID-19 https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jun/30/what-know-about-pro-ivermectin-groups-study-toutin/ A study — actually a review of trials done with ivermectin on COVID-19 patients — claims large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are “possible using ivermectin.” The study was done by researchers affiliated with a group that is campaigning for ivermectin to be approved for COVID-19 use, and they did not declare that affiliation in their study. Experts said ivermectin trials on which the review is based were not high quality. The FDA warns against taking ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19. Is the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin a "cure" for COVID-19? We’ve rated False claims such as "mountains of data" show ivermectin "basically obliterates" COVID-19 transmission. Some limited studies suggested that ivermectin can help treat COVID-19; others show no significant impact. Many of the studies had small sample sizes and other limitations. At the same time, ivermectin has not been universally dismissed as a potential treatment. A new study has reignited the debate, making claims about fewer coronavirus deaths even though public health authorities say more research is needed. "New study links ivermectin to ‘large reductions’ in COVID-19 deaths," reads one headline on the Epoch Times. The headline exaggerates, given that the study says only that fewer deaths might be possible. It is a review of trials done with ivermectin on COVID-19 patients. Moreover, the study was done by researchers affiliated with a group that is campaigning for ivermectin to be approved for COVID-19 use. Despite their connection to the group, the authors declared in the study they had no conflict of interest. The World Health Organization, in its COVID-19 treatment guidelines, says: "We recommend not to use ivermectin in patients with COVID-19 except in the context of a clinical trial," citing "very low certainty evidence" about the drug. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says ivermectin should not be used to prevent or treat COVID-19. Ivermectin, which is FDA-approved to treat conditions caused by parasitic worms and parasites such as lice, in large doses "is dangerous and can cause serious harm." Here’s what we know about the study generating favorable headlines of the drug as a way to prevent or treat COVID-19. Study reviewed trials The peer-reviewed study in the American Journal of Therapeutics was published June 17 and led by Andrew Bryant, a research associate in gastroenterology at the Population Health Sciences Institute of Newcastle University. The researchers said they analyzed results from studies and looked at mortality rates among people who were given ivermectin versus people who weren’t. The researchers concluded: "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 apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally." They added: "Health professionals should strongly consider its use, in both treatment and" prevention. Study’s underpinnings Experts said the trials that the study relies on are not high quality. Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security, said the study is a meta-analysis (an analysis of other analyses) "whose strength is dependent on the underlying studies that comprise it." "In general, most of the ivermectin studies that purport to show a positive benefit are of low quality and have potential sources of bias," which is why the drug is not recommended by the National Institutes of Health or the Infectious Diseases Society of America, he said. "It is only with rigorously designed randomized control trials that any true benefit can be discovered." Assuming the meta-analysis is correct, ivermectin "would seem to merit further study," said Stephen Morse, an epidemiology professor at Columbia University Medical Center. Some drugs initially seem promising, but don’t hold up in more rigorous clinical testing, Morse said. For instance, some insisted that hydroxychloroquine was "a cure," but there hasn’t been strong supporting data for it, he said. "That can be a real problem, and raise unrealistic expectations for a drug that might be very promising or useful, but not a homerun," Morse said. Some of the studies analyzed in the ivermectin meta-analysis were not peer reviewed, said Dr. David Gorski, a professor of surgery and oncology at Wayne State University and chief of breast surgery at the Karmanos Cancer Institute, who has criticized the June study. "Pooling data from a large number of small, low-quality clinical trials does not magically create one large, high-quality clinical trial," wrote Gorski, who is also managing editor of Science-Based Medicine, a website that evaluates medical claims. He added: "The few existing higher quality clinical trials testing ivermectin against the disease uniformly have failed to find a positive result. It’s only the smaller, lower-quality trials that have been positive. This is a good indication that the drug probably doesn’t work." Gorski also pointed out that the researchers, despite claiming to have no conflicts of interest, are affiliated with BIRD (British Ivermectin Recommendation Development) Group. BIRD describes itself as "campaigning for the safe medicine ivermectin to be approved to prevent and cure COVID-19 around the world." Tess Lawrie, who is one of the study’s co-authors and a BIRD leader, told PolitiFact in an email that her study "shows that large reductions in deaths from COVID are probable when ivermectin is used, especially when employed as early treatment." Another meta-analysis, published June 28, arrived at an opposite conclusion. That study was led by a University of Connecticut researcher and appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, a publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. It found that in comparison to standard of care or placebo, ivermectin "did not reduce all-cause mortality." The study concluded saying that the drug "is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients." BIRD reacted by calling on the journal to take down the meta-analysis or issue a warning about its "incorrect information."