U.S. to close..

[Mike OReilly]

In March 2020 the CDC issued it's mortality predictions based on four different models. This came out shortly after the Imperial College study. It predicted a range of mortality, going from a low of 200,000 to a high of 1.7 million people could die.

I've referenced the original CDC document earlier. I can't get to the link right now, but here's a NY Times piece from the same period covering this story. It provides context.

Worst-Case Estimates for U.S. Coronavirus Deaths

[valhalla360]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pfizers-v...004101249.html

Some more good news. We may have 20-40% more doses available as the 5 dose vials are typically being found to contain 6-7 doses.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Exactly, rather than break political ranks, they will let the pandemic continue in Germany.



If they were worried about a "free for all", it would have been easy enough to request their portion but start shipping that portion now...not in a few weeks when the EU committees get around to looking at the application.



You yourself agreed that emergency approval is a state by state thing...so it's within the EU framework.

EMA to approve on Monday , this is a conditional approval not an emergency one , vaccinations to start by 27th Dec

It’s days not weeks

“The Commission is negotiating intensely to build a diversified portfolio of vaccines at fair prices. Contracts have been concluded with AstraZeneca (400 million doses), Sanofi-GSK (300 million doses), Johnson and Johnson (doses covering 400 million people), BioNTech-Pfizer (300 million doses), CureVac (405 million doses) and Moderna (160 million doses). Member States also have the option to donate vaccines to lower and middle income countries.”

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

That's correct. You're referring to the Imperial College study from March.


However it does not follow logically that "what we've done" has reduced deaths by 90%. You would have to assume that the model was correct. The model was obviously not correct, because it predicted millions of deaths even with strict measures.

That initial report was what caused the UK to reverse its policy and most of the world to go into lockdown, yet it was wildly wrong. It was a very alarmist report and such professionals should have know better than to release such a report with the very limited data they had.


The WHO also were talking about ridiculously high mortality rates based simply on the Number of Positive cases and deaths at the time - Even a pre-schooler could figure out that for a new pandemic that would give a totally false outcome.


So why were 2 such prominent sources (plus plenty of others) giving out what they must have known to be very misleading information?


On a different note, there have been plenty of studies showing that the virus was present back as far as mid 2019 - One study showed Cancer Trial patients had Antibodies and T Cells dating back to September 2019 - Meaning the virus would have had to have been around before then for them to acquire immunity.


So why were we not getting the moralities from the Virus back then? - If its so deadly and we know its extremely contagious this would be a pretty hard one to miss - Even the excess deaths would show this up back then.


I also see the UK is almost up to 2 Million cases, The imperial college and other Unis and agencies have run studies in the past that show up to 10 Times or more the official tested rate may have had the virus - Putting the UK up to 20 Million or 1/3 of the population - Pretty crazy. I even saw a very recent study showing that they think the UK has currently over 400,000 active covid cases out in the wild - How can you ever stop it when it is so prevalent?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by UFO

That initial report was what caused the UK to reverse its policy and most of the world to go into lockdown, yet it was wildly wrong. It was a very alarmist report and such professionals should have know better than to release such a report with the very limited data they had.. . .

I don't really agree with this. The crisis was starting and policymakers needed whatever modelling could be done in that amount of time -- they needed at least something to base policy on. I believe that Ferguson and his team just did the best they could. Ferguson is an extremely smart guy and his YouTube talks are really interesting -- I recommend them. He did get it wrong in the original IC study, and apparently got it wrong in the Mad Cow Disease studies, but I don't think it was bad faith.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I don't really agree with this. The crisis was starting and policymakers needed whatever modelling could be done in that amount of time -- they needed at least something to base policy on. I believe that Ferguson and his team just did the best they could. Ferguson is an extremely smart guy and his YouTube talks are really interesting -- I recommend them. He did get it wrong in the original IC study, and apparently got it wrong in the Mad Cow Disease studies, but I don't think it was bad faith.

You may not agree, but it does not take away the fact that they should have known better than to release such an OTT alarmist report with the minimal amount of data they had. To add insult to injury it was then released to the worlds media creating the panic and fear that ensued.



Now I am no virologist or epidemiologist, but I have done work with stats and it instantly jumped out to me at the time that it made no sense what they were saying with the data they had - How can such people and organisations with such experience make such basic 101 mistakes in their statistical analysis and modelling?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by UFO

...So why were 2 such prominent sources (plus plenty of others) giving out what they must have known to be very misleading information?

It wasn't a "study", it was a report or analysis based on the best information available at the time. If you actually read the whole report, it's very clear they were giving a possible worst-case scenario given the limited information that was available at the very start of this pandemic.

And this is why I cite the CDC report which follows soon after this Imperial College study. It shows the clear, and quick, evolution of our understanding of the pandemic. It gives a range of mortality for the USA, going from a low of 200,000 deaths, to a high of 1.7 million.

Given that the USA is now on track to hit 357,000 to 391,000 deaths by the week ending January 9, 2021, this early CDC study is looking pretty much on track.

[GordMay]

A little perspective, about Imperial College Report 9, might be useful:

“Behind the Virus Report That Jarred the U.S. and the U.K. to Action” ~ by Mark Landler and Stephen Castle (Published March 17, 2020 & Updated April 2, 2020)
➥ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/w...e-johnson.html

“Report 9: Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand” ~ Neil M Ferguson et al (March 16/20)
“... Results (pages 6 & 7, of 20)
In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour, we would expect a peak in mortality (daily deaths) to occur after approximately 3 months(Figure 1A). In such scenarios, given an estimated R0 of 2.4, we predict 81% of the GB and US populations would be infected over the course of the epidemic. Epidemic timings are approximate given the limitations of surveillance data in both countries: The epidemic is predicted to be broader in the US than in GB and to peak slightly later. This is due to the larger geographic scaleof the US, resulting in more distinct localised epidemics across states (Figure 1B) than seen across GB. The higher peak in mortality in GB is due to the smaller size of the country and its older population compared with the US. In total, in an unmitigated epidemic, we would predict approximately 510,000 deaths in GB and 2.2 million in the US, not accounting for the potential negative effects of health systems being overwhelmed on mortality.
For an uncontrolled epidemic, we predict critical care bed capacity would be exceeded as early as the second week in April, with an eventual peak in ICU or critical care bed demand that is over 30times greater than the maximum supply in both countries (Figure 2) ...”
Report 9 ➥ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imp...16-03-2020.pdf


The Imperial College COVID19 Response Team, in collaboration with Bio Nano, have released version 3* of the scenario analysis tool Covidsim.org, which was first released in May 2020.
➥ https://covidsim.org/v3.20201201/?place=gb


“COVID-19 publications” ~ Imperial College London
This page provides an overview of all publications by the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team. This includes papers based on the online reports.
Publications ➥ COVID-19 publications | Faculty of Medicine | Imperial College London
Reports ➥ COVID-19 reports | Faculty of Medicine | Imperial College London

[Thumbs Up]

More on Ivermectin. Cures and prevents COVID:

https://covid19criticalcare.com/i-ma...nd-ivermectin/
https://covid19criticalcare.com/medi...ce/ivermectin/
https://www.knocksense.com/lucknow/i...-uttar-pradesh

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

More on Ivermectin. Cures and prevents COVID ...

Dr. Paul E. Marik and crew, once again, seems to be practicing medical research by social media.

The “MARIK Protocol” Refuted" The VITAMINS Trial ~ Rinaldo Bellomo
In a JAMA publication, a study led by Professor Rinaldo Bellomo, from Monash University and Co-Director of the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre (ANZIC-RC), refutes the idea that the combination of high dose intravenous vitamin C, thiamine (vitamin B1) and hydrocortisone (the "Marik protocol") is beneficial in the treatment of sepsis.
"The findings of the VITAMINS trials are clear: in patients with septic shock from Australia, New Zealand and Brazil there was no signal of benefit with the high dose vitamin C, thiamine and hydrocortisone cocktail. The search for treatments that might improve the outcome of these very sick patients must now focus on other interventions"

“Effect of Vitamin C, Hydrocortisone, and Thiamine vs Hydrocortisone Alone on Time Alive and Free of Vasopressor Support Among Patients With Septic Shock:
The VITAMINS Randomized Clinical Trial” ~ by Tomoko Fujii et al
“... Conclusions and Relevance
In patients with septic shock, treatment with intravenous vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine, compared with intravenous hydrocortisone alone, did not significantly improve the duration of time alive and free of vasopressor administration over 7 days. The finding suggests that treatment with intravenous vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine does not lead to a more rapid resolution of septic shock compared with intravenous hydrocortisone alone ...”
➥ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31950979/

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Dr. Paul E. Marik and crew, once again, seems to be practicing medical research by social media.

The “MARIK Protocol” Refuted" The VITAMINS Trial ~ Rinaldo Bellomo
In a JAMA publication, a study led by Professor Rinaldo Bellomo, from Monash University and Co-Director of the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre (ANZIC-RC), refutes the idea that the combination of high dose intravenous vitamin C, thiamine (vitamin B1) and hydrocortisone (the "Marik protocol") is beneficial in the treatment of sepsis.
"The findings of the VITAMINS trials are clear: in patients with septic shock from Australia, New Zealand and Brazil there was no signal of benefit with the high dose vitamin C, thiamine and hydrocortisone cocktail. The search for treatments that might improve the outcome of these very sick patients must now focus on other interventions"

“Effect of Vitamin C, Hydrocortisone, and Thiamine vs Hydrocortisone Alone on Time Alive and Free of Vasopressor Support Among Patients With Septic Shock:
The VITAMINS Randomized Clinical Trial” ~ by Tomoko Fujii et al
“... Conclusions and Relevance
In patients with septic shock, treatment with intravenous vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine, compared with intravenous hydrocortisone alone, did not significantly improve the duration of time alive and free of vasopressor administration over 7 days. The finding suggests that treatment with intravenous vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine does not lead to a more rapid resolution of septic shock compared with intravenous hydrocortisone alone ...”
➥ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31950979/

What does this have to do with COVID19 or Ivermectin? Is there any other medication known that can prevent and cure COVID19? The AP put out a smear on Ivermectin. Does Big Pharma control mainstream media?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

What does this have to do with COVID19 or Ivermectin?

That one of your links is spreading inappropriate information, and has a history of doing so.

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

Is there any other medication known that can prevent and cure COVID19? The AP put out a smear on Ivermectin. Does Big Pharma control mainstream media?

There was never an AP smear on Ivermectin. They simply noted that it had to complete its trials. Getting prematurely giddy in public about it is no good for anybody. Let the grownups finish their work!

Do you also allege big conspiracies when the opposing traffic gets an advance green?

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

..............That one of your links is spreading inappropriate information, and has a history of doing so...............There was never an AP smear on Ivermectin.............

This website? https://covid19criticalcare.com/ Inappropriate how? For bringing awareness of a safe, cheap, readily available medication for which there is a ton of evidence supporting it's use as a prophylactic and cure for Covid19. The AP article states: (No evidence ivermectin is a miracle drug against COVID-19). Except for the "miracle" part although compared to anything else known it probably is a miracle. It is a smear. plain and simple. I am seeing more preprints for studies every day that have been ongoing in the past six months. There is lot's of evidence that it works! The smear is part of the anti vaccine hesitancy campaign. Do you know how much Big Pharma spends on it's lobbying campaigns (to lobby the US government?). Government by corporate lobby should be a crime!

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

.............................
......................

What exactly is wrong, in practical terms, about the pandemic response in the U.S.?........................
.........................................


So what's the actual deal?

DH, just try a comparison of any State that actually tried to help their citizens compared to say, oh, South Dakota, who has a governor who is still in total denial. I think your usually well founded research should have turned that tidbit up. The April timeframe when tRump did his "your on your own, we're not a shipping clerk" was a giveaway. Oh, and didn't he just trash Obama's pandemic plan? They still futzing with the distribution:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/healt...supply-states/

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Thumbs Up

there is a ton of evidence supporting it's use as a prophylactic and cure for Covid19.

There is SOME encouraging but still incomplete information that it has shown a useful effect in treatment of COVID-19. The prophylactic case is less well supported as of yet.

The AP article states: (No evidence ivermectin is a miracle drug against COVID-19). Except for the "miracle" part although compared to anything else known it probably is a miracle.

We don't generally approve the untested off-label use of drugs because some punters (or presidents) imagine it is "a miracle".

I am seeing more preprints for studies every day that have been ongoing in the past six months. There is lot's of evidence that it works!

-sigh- we don't generally roll out drugs on the strength of preprints and without completing some trials.

The smear is part of the anti vaccine hesitancy campaign. Do you know how much Big Pharma spends on it's lobbying campaigns (to lobby the US government?). Government by corporate lobby should be a crime!

This is only part of your capacity for self-delusion.

Look, yes it does sound promising. There's no frigging conspiracy. It's just people getting on with the hard work of ensuring it does what we think it's doing. Just like with HCQ, people yammering on about it before testing is completed helps nobody, hinders an orderly rollout, and causes runs that deprive other users of its benefits.