TallGuyJohninBKK

folks infected with the FLiRT variant are displaying much the same symptoms that were seen with JN.1: Fever or chills Cough Sore throat Congestion or runny nose Headache Muscle aches Difficulty breathing Fatigue New loss of taste or smell "Brain fog" (feeling less wakeful and aware) Gastrointestinal symptoms (upset stomach, mild diarrhea, vomiting) https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-05-covid-variants-flirt.html

Sorry, but that's simply not the way it works in the U.S., where most people have to voluntarily decide if they want to get vaccinated or not. If it were, the above chart would not be showing what it did, which was 70% of U.S. adult COVID hospitalizations in the subject study were not up-to-date with the recommended COVID vaccinations.

For people in the U.S. hospitalized with COVID, the overwhelming odds are they're NOT up-to-date with the recommended COVID vaccines (meaning having received a bivalent booster or the newest XBB monovalent vaccine), per the study below. (the gray shaded columns represent those NOT up-to-date with COVID vaccines: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2024-02-28-29/02-COVID-Taylor-508.pdf Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases COVID-19–Associated Hospitalizations among Adults — COVID-NET, 2023–2024

Take your pick of the numerous study and public health agency recommendations against the general public use of ivermectin to treat COVID (outside of clinical trials) because it simply hasn't been found to work in credible research. Yet another study shows little benefit for ivermectin with COVID-19 March 5, 2024 A new randomized control trial from the United Kingdom shows that using ivermectin during COVID-19 infections provided little improvement in recovery rates in patients treated in clinics. The study appeared in the Journal of Infection. The anti-parasitic drug has been investigated since 2020 as a potential treatment for COVID-19. Some early trials suggested the drug was able to reduce mortality rates and improve outcomes, but several of them had serious flaws, the authors noted. Subsequent trials and systematic reviews have largely disproved those earlier results. ... "Overall, these findings, while evidencing a small benefit in symptom duration, do not support the use of ivermectin as treatment for COVID-19 in the community among a largely vaccinated population at the dose and duration we used," the authors wrote. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/yet-another-study-shows-little-benefit-ivermectin-covid-19 ----------------------------- Ivermectin not effective in treating Covid-19, joint Mahidol-Oxford study shows February 24, 2023 Ivermectin is not shown to be effective against Covid-19 in clinical trials according to the findings of a joint University of Oxford and Mahidol University study. The study that was published on the peer-reviewed eLife medical journal found that high doses of the drug ivermectin, controversially recommended by some high-profile political and media figures during the pandemic, is ineffective at treating the virus. https://www.thaienquirer.com/48271/ivermectin-not-effective-in-treating-covid-19-joint-mahidol-oxford-study-shows/ ----------------------------------------- New England Journal of Medicine editorial: Time to Stop Using Ineffective Covid-19 Drugs Published August 17, 2022 For ivermectin, a meta-analysis of 16 trials8 involving 2407 patients with both severe and nonsevere illness showed no reliable evidence of reductions in mechanical ventilation, hospital admission, duration of hospitalization, clinical severity, or mortality; in addition, the investigators found no effect related to the dose of ivermectin. In light of this available evidence of nonefficacy for ivermectin and fluvoxamine, how much evidence of nonefficacy is enough? https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2209017?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article --------------------------- 2023 WHO Guidelines for treatment of COVID: WHO updates guidelines on treatments for COVID-19 10 November 2023 The update also includes a strong recommendation against the use of ivermectin for patients with non-severe COVID-19. WHO continues to advise that in patients with severe or critical COVID-19, ivermectin should only be used in clinical trials. https://www.who.int/news/item/10-11-2023-who-updates-guidelines-on-treatments-for-covid-19 -------------------------------------- European Medicines Agency: EMA advises against the use of ivermectin for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outside randomised clinical trials. In March 2021, EMA found that the published data from laboratory and observational studies, clinical trials and meta-analyses, do not support its use for COVID-19. It therefore concluded that using ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19 cannot be recommended outside controlled clinical trials. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/public-health-threats/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/covid-19-medicines/public-health-advice-covid-19-medicines

Sure thing, I'll talk about it (The Royal Society (UK) report on the effectiveness of COVID intervention measures)... Some sources are not typically peer reviewed, because the authors aren't just ordinary individual researchers, such as was the case here... Guess you'll just have to settle for this below (though note below a separate independent review process that did occur with later published summary version of this report). https://royalsociety.org/about-us/ And from the report itself: "The Royal Society is a self-governing Fellowship of many of the world’s most distinguished scientists drawn from all areas of science, engineering, and medicine. The Society’s fundamental purpose, as it has been since its foundation in 1660, is to recognise, promote, and support excellence in science and to encourage the development and use of science for the benefit of humanity." https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/impact-non-pharmaceutical-interventions-on-covid-19-transmission/the-royal-society-covid-19-examining-the-effectiveness-of-non-pharmaceutical-interventions-report.pdf Highlights from the report itself: Masks and enhanced hygiene measures Published studies generally found that masks reduced the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, recognising the risk of bias, and allowing for uncertain and variable efficacy. Importantly, there was a ‘gradient of effectiveness’, with evidence, mainly from studies in healthcare settings, that higher quality N95/FFP2 masks were more effective than surgical-type masks. AND Social distancing and ‘lockdowns’ Most effective of all the NPIs were the social distancing measures, with a gradient showing that the most stringent of these had the strongest effects. Stay-at-home orders, physical distancing measures, and restrictions on gathering sizes were repeatedly found to be associated with significant community-wide reductions in SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as was frequently assessed using the time-varying reproduction number, Rt AND Travel restrictions and controls across international borders While most countries implemented some form of border control, there are a limited number of studies examining the effectiveness of their implementation. Based on these, symptomatic screening widely adopted in the early phases of the pandemic was found to have had no meaningful effect on reducing transmission. Apart from the main and original published report, though, it does appear that a later summary version of the above report was published in the Royal Society's own journal with internal peer review, as follows: Executive Summary to the Royal Society report "COVID-19: examining the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions" August 2023 Philosophical Transactions A 381(2257):20230211 DOI:10.1098/rsta.2023.0211 "This theme issue was put together by the Guest Editor team under supervision from the journal‘s Editorial staff, following the Royal Society‘s ethical codes and best-practice guidelines. The Guest Editor team invited contributions and handled the review process. Individual Guest Editors were not involved in assessing papers where they had a personal, professional or financial conflict of interest with the authors or the research described. Independent reviewers assessed all papers. Invitation to contribute did not guarantee inclusion." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373359769_Executive_Summary_to_the_Royal_Society_report_COVID-19_examining_the_effectiveness_of_non-pharmaceutical_interventions

All of those VICP cases and dollars involve vaccines other than the COVID vaccines, which for now are covered under a different federal program... But nonetheless to add some context on the broader vaccines issue involving VICP: "How many petitions have been awarded compensation? According to the CDC, from 2006 to 2021 over 6 billion doses of covered vaccines were distributed in the U.S. For petitions filed in this time period, 10,870 petitions were adjudicated by the Court, and of those 7,846 were compensated. This means for every 1 million doses of vaccine that were distributed, approximately 1 individual was compensated. [emphasis added] https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vicp/vicp-stats-09-01-23.pdf "When coverage under the PREP Act Declaration for COVID-19 ends, COVID-19 vaccine injuries could be compensated through VICP, contingent on additional regulatory and statutory changes. To be included in the VICP, (1) the vaccine must be recommended by the CDC for routine administration to children or pregnant women; (2) the vaccine must be made subject by act of Congress to the excise tax that funds VICP; and (3) the Secretary of HHS must add the vaccine to the Vaccine Injury Table, which lists injuries and conditions associated with vaccines covered by VICP. Should all of these changes occur, COVID-19 vaccines would be covered by VICP. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46982

Then I guess you need to bone up on your medical studies: "It is well established that COVID itself caused a significantly increased risk of these related blood clots and also thrombocytopenia (low platelet count). An August 2021, analysis of 30 million vaccinated people in the UK showed that the risks of thrombocytopenic events were much higher following a COVID infection, compared with any COVID-related vaccine." https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-05-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-withdrawn-victim.html "Blood clotting is a complex process, involving many different proteins and chemical messengers all interacting with each other in a series of reactions. Venous thromboembolism, an umbrella term for several common blood clotting diseases, is quite common, affecting roughly 17,000 Australians each year. While cases can vary in severity, many are treatable with medications such as heparin and other anti-clotting treatments. Blood clots are a known complication of COVID-19 itself. One analysis found that 14.7 per cent of COVID-19 patients developed some form of blood clotting, often in places like the legs or lungs, where other blood clots are more commonly found." https://www.science.org.au/curious/people-medicine/what-we-know-about-astrazeneca-vaccine-and-blood-clots Blood clots are also a complication of COVID-19 Researchers have also seen a strong association between blood clots and COVID-19 infection itself, says Hyung Chun, MD, a Yale Medicine cardiologist. “Unfortunately, in those who are sick enough with COVID-19 to be in the intensive care unit [ICU], blood clots have been a major factor in their illness,” Dr. Chun says. Close to 20% of COVID-19 patients in the ICU develop blood clots, he says. “That’s far higher than what you’d expect for patients who are in the ICU for different conditions. Estimates I’ve seen are in the 3 to 10% range for patients admitted for other reasons," adds Dr. Chun. https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/coronavirus-vaccine-blood-clots

The good news here is, this latest edition of new COVID variants thus far haven't generated any signs of increasing infections or increased hospitalizations in the U.S. The rates for both have been steadily trending down in the U.S., even as the share of the newest variants has been rising compared to their predecessors. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_weeklyhospitaladmissions_select_00 https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#wastewater-surveillance On the flip side, the potential issues are some initial signs that the newest variants may be more resistant to the current COVID vaccines, and more than three-fourths of the U.S. population haven't even received the most recent XBB variant vaccine rolled out in the U.S. starting last fall, meaning there's potential risks there. "Speaking to WebMD, Dr. Megan Ranney, dean of the Yale School of Public Health, said the FLiRT variants display some concerning changes. One is alterations in the virus' spike protein, which the virus uses to invade the body and trigger illness. That type of change worries experts, who point to waning vaccination rates among Americans. Since September 2023, just 22.6% of Americans have gotten themselves an updated 2023-2024 COVID vaccine, the CDC said. It's possible that even folks who got the latest COVID vaccine aren't well-protected against JN.1 or the FLiRT variants: One preprint study released this week from researchers at Harvard University suggests waning effectiveness against those strains. That study has not been peer-reviewed, however." https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-05-covid-variants-flirt.html

No one's arguing there were very rare side effects from the AZ vaccine, not even AZ as a general principle. But it will come down to the UK courts to decide whether or not the vaccine was to blame in individual cases, given that both COVID and other medical conditions can and do cause the same kinds of blood clots. The other thing to keep in context about this is the 50+ plaintiffs in the UK court cases come from among 50 million total AZ vaccine doses given in the UK.... just one indication of just how rare the blood clotting issue has been.

The AZ COVID vaccine was never approved for general use in the United States... The furthest it got was a clinical trials round, and no blood clotting cases surfaced in that U.S. trial. So I'm not sure what the potential U.S. liability might be.... AstraZeneca withdraws US COVID vaccine application, shifts focus to antibody treatments Nov 10, 2022 After missing the boat for emergency use of COVID-19 vaccines, AstraZeneca has finally pulled the plug on efforts to sell its shot in the U.S. AstraZeneca has decided to withdraw its application for COVID vaccine Vaxzevria with the FDA, CEO Pascal Soriot told reporters during a press briefing Thursday. The U.S. market is already well supplied, and the demand for vaccines is declining, Soriot said. https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/astrazeneca-withdraws-us-covid-vaccine-application-focus-shifts-antibody-treatments

Well, Thaksin is the real prime minister for Thailand, right? Ever since the Pheu Thai party abandoned the Move Forward party and allied itself with the former regime, giving PT the catbird's seat. I mean, the other guy is kinda just like a stunt double, filling in for appearances sake until it's time for the lead man to step foward into the limelight again, having miraculously returned from the proverbial death's door.

AFAIK, the data looks at the actual life expectancies at the population level (meaning all) once people got to those advanced ages.

China is always good for accurate, broadly representative COVID data! Especially at the very outset of the pandemic... 🙂 From your source above: Older Statistics Data from initial studies in China ... The Epidemiological Characteristics of an Outbreak of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Diseases (COVID-19) - China CCDC, February 17 2020 Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) [Pdf] - World Health Organization, Feb. 28, 2020 [emphasis added]

Because the average lifetime ages at birth are totally different than the average age of death once people have survived into their 70s or 80s (meaning they've survived up to that point all that life could throw at them) and still have years left (absent COVID). Three myths about COVID-19 that the data proved wrong Myth 1: ‘Those who die from COVID-19 would have died soon anyway’ In the first year of COVID-19 (5 March 2020 to 5 March 2021), 1.5 million potential years of life were lost in the UK as a result of people dying with the virus. In England and Wales alone this figure is 1.4 million. On average, each of the 146,000 people who died with COVID-19 lost 10.2 years of life. https://www.health.org.uk/publications/long-reads/one-year-on-three-myths-about-COVID-19-that-the-data-proved-wrong

Average Covid-19 victim dies years before they otherwise would The idea that people who die of Covid have lived longer than average fails to appreciate these are the very people who would have been expected to live much longer. As we have written before, people dying of Covid lose about a decade of life, on average. ... An 82-year-old man can expect to live for another 7.4 years on average, while an 85-year-old woman can expect to live another 6.87 years on average. https://fullfact.org/news/boris-johnson-whatsapp-covid-life-expectancy-cummings/

Because a vaccination that reduces the risk of people getting sick and being hospitalized by 40-50% is better than doing nothing, and having all of those extra folks getting sick instead.

The official public health guidance being given at the time was generally correct, both about protecting against illness and reducing transmission. The claims made back at that early point in the pandemic were consistent with what the research at that time was showing: VACCINE DID REDUCE TRANSMISSION "Within months of the vaccine hitting the market, researchers in the UK (https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-tra-idUKKBN2AQ1A7) and Israel (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762 , opens new tab(21)00127-7/fulltext) began publishing studies suggesting that the Pfizer vaccine was reducing transmission of the virus. In February 2021, for example, Israeli data (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736 , opens new tab(21)00448-7/fulltext) showed a sharp drop in infections among healthcare workers within 15-28 days of receiving the two-shot Pfizer vaccine series, indicating the vaccine was not just preventing symptomatic disease, but also preventing the virus from being passed from person to person. [emphasis added] “Whether it is 75 or 90 percent reduction doesn’t matter - it is a big drop in transmission,” Michal Linial, a professor of molecular biology and bioinformatics at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, told Reuters at the time. “It means that not only is the individual vaccinated protected, the inoculation also provides protection to his or her surroundings” (https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-israel-vaccine-int/israeli-studies-find-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-reduces-transmission-idUSKBN2AJ08J)" https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/preventing-transmission-never-required-covid-vaccines-initial-approval-pfizer-2024-02-12/ Later, as the virus mutated and changed as the pandemic went on, the documented protections against transmission weakened. And the official public health guidance changed accordingly.

Experts say changes to CDC’s vaccination definition are normal CLAIM: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has changed its definition of vaccination because COVID-19 vaccines are ineffective. AP’S ASSESSMENT: Missing context. The CDC has altered the language in the definition of vaccination on its website, including after the development of COVID-19 vaccines, but the changes were made to prevent potential misinterpretations, and did not alter the overall definition, according to the agency. Experts confirmed to The Associated Press that the changes reflect the evolution of vaccine research and technology. ... The CDC told the AP in a statement that it made the language shifts to add detail and increase transparency. “While there have been slight changes in wording over time to the definition of ‘vaccine’ on CDC’s website, those haven’t impacted the overall definition,” the statement said, noting that the previous definition “could be interpreted to mean that vaccines were 100% effective, which has never been the case for any vaccine.” https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-976069264061

Dunno what particular vaccinations you've had, but the broader evidence says otherwise. Examples: Flu vaccine effectiveness: 2022-2023 flu season for ages 18-64 Vaccine effectiveness was 45 percent against E.D./critical care visits(moderate disease) for adults under age 65. Effectiveness against hospitalization (severe disease) was 23 percent. Flu vaccine effectiveness: 2022-2023 flu season for ages 65 and older Vaccine effectiveness was 41 percent against both flu-associated E.D./urgent care visits (moderate disease) and hospitalization (serious disease) for this age group. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20240219/CDC-studies-show-effectiveness-of-flu-vaccines-across-all-age-groups.aspx Study confirms significant waning of original shingles vaccine over 10 years The original vaccine against shingles — Zostavax, a live shingles vaccine no longer used in the U.S. — is effective in the first year after vaccination but wanes significantly over the following decade, according to a study by Kaiser Permanente’s Vaccine Study Center published in the journal BMJ. ... The study found strongest effectiveness against shingles in the first year (67%), [emphasis added] which dropped to 50% the second year, 27% the eighth year, and 15% after 10 years. https://divisionofresearch.kaiserpermanente.org/waning-original-shingles-vaccine/

No one I'm aware of ever claimed that mask wearing alone would entirely halt/stop COVID. However, in keeping with your China example, reputable sources posted here reported that face masking together with other measures (social distancing, lockdowns, etc.) could make significant impacts in doing so. Lockdowns and face masks ‘unequivocally’ cut spread of Covid, report finds Royal Society review looks at non-pharmaceutical interventions when applied in packages of several measures Measures taken during the Covid pandemic such as social distancing and wearing face masks “unequivocally” reduced the spread of infections, a report has found. Experts looked at the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) – not drugs or vaccines – when applied in packages that combine a number of measures that complement one another. The Royal Society report, called Covid-19: examining the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions, reviewed the evidence gathered during the pandemic for six groups of NPIs and their effectiveness in reducing transmission. ... When assessed individually, there was positive – if limited – evidence of transmission reduction from many of the NPIs used in the pandemic, the review found. However, evidence of a positive effect was clear when countries used combinations of NPIs. (more) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/24/lockdowns-face-masks-unequivocally-cut-spread-covid-study-finds

I thanked you for publicly acknowledging the documented truth. Sorry if you take offense at that. If you've acknowledged that here publicly before, perhaps you can point me to your prior posts saying so.

Thanks for finally acknowledging here what the scientific community has long known and reported: Face mask effectiveness: What science knows now October 29, 2023 "In an interview for 60 Minutes, CBS News chief medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook posed that question to Linsey Marr, a Virginia Tech university professor specializing in aerosol science. "They are very helpful in reducing the chances that the person will get COVID because it's reducing the amount of virus that you would inhale from the air around you," Marr said about masks. No mask is 100% effective. An N95, for example, is named as such because it is at least 95% efficient at blocking airborne particles when used properly. But even if a mask has an 80% efficiency, Marr said, it still offers meaningful protection. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-mask-effectiveness-what-science-knows-now-60-minutes/

The COVID vaccines were never approved on those bases. They were approved based on their ability to significantly reduce the risk of a vaccinated person becoming ill with COVID, which in fact they have done to varying degrees over the life of the pandemic. Fact Check: Preventing transmission never required for COVID vaccines’ initial approval; Pfizer vax did reduce transmission of early variants February 13, 2024 "To get emergency approval, companies needed to show that the vaccines were safe and prevented vaccinated people from getting ill. They did not have to show that the vaccine would also prevent people from spreading the virus to others. Once the vaccines were on the market, independent researchers in multiple countries studied people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and did show that vaccination reduced transmission of variants circulating at the time." https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/preventing-transmission-never-required-covid-vaccines-initial-approval-pfizer-2024-02-12/

If it really had been "everybody," many more people would be alive today. https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/vaccines?m49=764&n=c https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/vaccines?m49=840&n=c COVID vaccines saved 20M lives in 1st year, scientists say "The researchers used data from 185 countries to estimate that vaccines prevented 4.2 million COVID-19 deaths in India, 1.9 million in the United States, 1 million in Brazil, 631,000 in France and 507,000 in the United Kingdom. An additional 600,000 deaths would have been prevented if the World Health Organization target of 40% vaccination coverage by the end of 2021 had been met, according to the study published Thursday in the journal Lancet Infectious Diseases." https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-england-54d29ae3af5c700f15d704c14ee224

I lived in Thailand throughout the pandemic, and as best as I recall, no one here ever forced or required me to obtain a COVID vaccine, nor my Thai wife. And in my case along with many other foreigners here, it also was never made a requirement in order to renew people's annual extensions of stay to continue living here. Perhaps next time, you should reconsider posting such unsourced and unsubstantiated nonsense as: