Remember this guy on CNN ? 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chris-cuomo-makes-ivermectin-face-210453781.html

 

 

Chris Cuomo’s stance on Ivermectin as a theraputic drug for COVID-19 has done a complete 180, as the news anchor who once said on CNN that anyone promoting it should be “shamed” now says he’s “taking a regular dose” to deal with his own struggles with long-term effects of an infection.

 

“Everyone’s going to say ‘Joe Rogan was right,'” Cuomo continued. “No, Joe Rogan was saying – yeah, he was right – that’s not what matters. What matters is, the entire medical community knew that Ivermectin couldn’t hurt you. They knew it … I know they knew it. How do I know? Because now I’m doing nothing but talking to these clinicians, who at the time were overwhelmed by COVID, and they weren’t saying anything!”

When Cuomo was still a CNN anchor, he and colleague Don Lemon ridiculed its use after Rogan’s disclosure:

 

18 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Or this:

 

What We’ve Learned About So-Called ‘Lockdowns’ and the COVID-19 Pandemic

"Plenty of peer-reviewed studies have found government restrictions early in the pandemic, such as business closures and physical distancing measures, reduced COVID-19 cases and/or mortality, compared with what would have happened without those measures.

...

In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, as the virus spread around the globe, many countries implemented restrictions on movement and social gatherings in an effort to flatten the curve — or reduce sharp spikes in caseloads to avoid overwhelming health care facilities. Without vaccines or evidence-based treatments, these non-pharmaceutical interventions, or NPIs, were the only public health measures available for months to combat the pandemic.

...

There have been a lot of studies assessing whether and to what extent so-called “lockdowns” and various NPIs have been effective, and plenty of research that has concluded these measures can limit transmission, or reduce cases and deaths.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/scicheck-what-weve-learned-about-so-called-lockdowns-and-the-covid-19-pandemic/

 

 

Okay, so the fact-check article does mention that peer reviewed studies on NPIs have been done.  Still, it's rather meaningless when considering a host of variables.  And not simply the myriad of variables the studies must contend with, consider and determine how to treat, and which data to include or exclude, but also those outside variables which affect and influence the studies themselves.  To list just a few of these variables one would need to include the co-option of scientific institutions - including journals - by special and powerful monied interests, the co-option of science due to funding schemes, intense peer pressure on scientists and researchers towards conformity and groupthink, and the biases of the studies' authors and their level of honesty and objectivity whilst considering their personal interests.  Importantly, of course, always follow the money for, sadly, money is the sole and final determinative of intentions and outcomes in our dysfunctional and corrupted world.

 

For myself, there's been enough data that's surfaced over the years raising serious questions regarding the trustworthiness of any information, no matter what the supposed authoritative source is.  Given all of the instances in which trust has been destroyed by so many formerly trusted sources it is my opinion that it would be the height of foolishness to treat any information as credible enough to then blindly trust.  In my opinion so many folks fall into this trap.  Largely due to their own biased beliefs about what they want the truth to be.

 

From your link I did read one of the studies, Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe, published in Nature on 8 June 2020.  I'll use it as an example of how I believe the conclusions reached can be quite dubious and, if taken at face value, misleading.

 

The peer reviewed study considers a very limited time frame beginning with the arrival of the "pandemic" in February 2020 through 4 May 2020.  It focuses on 11 European countries, including the UK.  The first lockdown ordered in the UK occured on 23 March 2020 and came into legal force three days later.  It ran in full effect through 10 May 2020 before restrictions slowly eased over the next month.  The study concluded before that first lockdown ended.  

 

Timeline of UK coronavirus lockdowns, March 2020 to March 2021 - www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

 

It's always interesting to read through the Peer Review File on studies as the comments made by the referees can be quite revealing.  Anyone reading the study will immediately note all of the assumptions used, not to mention the limitations and uncertainties regarding the quality of data.  The authors duly noted these limitations and uncertainties throughout.  As an example of this type of disclosure I'll quote from the Abstract.

 

"Amidst the ongoing pandemic, we rely on death data that are incomplete, show systematic biases in reporting and are subject to future consolidation."

 

There are two important well known truisms to always keep in the forefront of one's mind when accessing scientific works. The first is, "assumption is the mother of all fu's."  Every theory, scientific or otherwise, is rooted in at least one base assumption.  If that were not so then it would not be a theory but a known; knowns require no assumptions.  If the assumptions are faulty then so, too, must be the conclusions.  The second is a popular  computer axiom which states, "garbage in, garbage out."  This study is forced to deal with data that is suspect in multiple respects and here again the authors duly note it:

 

"We attempt to overcome these data limitations by using a consolidated data source, incorporating noise in our observational model, partially pooling of information between countries and performing a sensitivity analysis under scenarios of underreporting to test our conclusions."

 

In other words, they are often forced to develop estimations.

 

Back to the referees' comments.

 

"The paper by Flaxman et al. presents a semi-mechanistic Bayesian hierarchical model based on death data to estimate the impact of social distancing interventions put in place in 11 countries in Europe to curb COVID-19 epidemic. Results indicate that the reproductive number has decreased from 3.87 [3.01-4.66] (averaged across all countries) to values close to 1 (with few exceptions, see Sweden) with the implementation of interventions. Percentage of infected individuals in the population is provided by country, together with the number of deaths averted. The subject addressed by the paper is certainly of extreme and urgent importance in this phase of the epidemic where countries are still in lockdown and exploring possible exit strategies for the next steps. The method however is based on some key assumptions that are affected by important biases, thus compromising its findings."

 

What becomes blatantly obvious with studies such as this is that whilst their findings may conclude, "Our results show that major non-pharmaceutical interventions—and lockdowns in particular—have had a large effect on reducing transmission. Continued intervention should be considered to keep transmission of SARS-CoV-2 under control," the conclusion should not be taken as proof positive.  Especially considering that the study itself is based purely on statistical computer modeling.  No one can ever forget the initial predictive computer models for Covid worldwide deaths which were broadcast at least in the U.S. at the start of the "pandemic."  On that basis I reject your evidence for your claim that the implemented NPIs worked and the studies hold as definitive proofs.

 

One other interesting fact of this particular study, which raises alarm bells in my mind and draws me to conclude that this study is highly suspect, is this blurb:

 

"In China, strict movement restrictions and other measures (including case isolation and quarantine) began to be introduced from 23 January 2020, which achieved a downward trend in the number of confirmed new cases during February and resulted in zero new confirmed indigenous cases in Wuhan by 19 March 2020. Studies have estimated how the values of Rt changed during this time in different areas of China, from around 2–4 during the uncontrolled epidemic to below 1 (refs. 1,2)."

 

If the authors were foolish enough to assume (remember the assumption truism for it come into play here) that the Chinese, or rather CCP reporting is to be taken at face value then I shudder to think what other assumptions they've made.  I believe everyone suffered majorly from incredulous disbelief when the CCP announced they had zero new cases by the 19th of March 2020.  We all remember the many videos of people dropping dead on the spot everywhere (amazingly seen nowhere elsewhere in the world) and the leaked reports on Twitter of the crematoriums working 24/7 yet still they could not keep up with the piles of dead.  I recall looking daily at the Covid world death trackers by country at the time and China did not have any new cases . . . not just deaths . . . for quite some time.  Sorry to say, but not sorry, I call bullsh!t.  As I do on your claim, TallGuyJohninBKK.  I'm interested in what the truth is.  Not in validating what I want to believe.

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Was it peer reviewed?  No?  How do you treat non-peer reviewed studies performed by those on the other side of you?  Do you see a problem?  Want to talk about it?  Full disclosure?

 

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

 

 

2 hours ago, johng said:

Remember this guy on CNN ? 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chris-cuomo-makes-ivermectin-face-210453781.html

 

 

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

 

 

41 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Sure thing, I'll talk about it... 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

 

LOL.  ". . . because the authors aren't just ordinary individual researchers . . ."  Are these mere mortals or are they Gods?

 

NEWS FLASH:  No one is infallible and thus beyond scrutiny.

 

Question of the Day for you, TallGuyJohninBKK.  What is politics?

 

Do you seriously believe this Royal Society would dare throw the UK government under the bus by finding their Covid protocols not only inept and ineffectual but harmful?  I know you weren't born yesterday, though it appears you were, but neither was I.

 

Just now, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

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

 

 

 

Just remember, TallGuyJohninBKK, what's important is quality, not quantity.  You can overwhelm and flood the zone with all sorts of erroneous information but that in no way makes bad information true.  In other words, your MO isn't working.

13 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

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)

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

 

 

Take your pick of who is getting funded to publish such information.  Are these guys working for free, or do they get funding by pharma companies, " philanthropic causes" (cough cough Gates Foundation and their ilk), goverment agencies who are also funded by Pharma and private interests?  In this day and age, everyone is whoring themselves out to funding, and will write whatever is needed to secure and keep such funding, even if it means changing goal posts on trials to get a favourable outcome of said trials.  Remdesivir is just one rigged trial that comes to mind after failing ebola trials and killing people.  Follow the money...........................

2 minutes ago, dhupverg said:

Take your pick of who is getting funded to publish such information.  Are these guys working for free, or do they get funding by pharma companies, " philanthropic causes" (cough cough Gates Foundation and their ilk), goverment agencies who are also funded by Pharma and private interests?  In this day and age, everyone is whoring themselves out to funding, and will write whatever is needed to secure and keep such funding, even if it means changing goal posts on trials to get a favourable outcome of said trials.  Remdesivir is just one rigged trial that comes to mind after failing ebola trials and killing people.  Follow the money...........................

 

Spot on, mate.  

Several posts commenting on fellow forum members -- instead of the actual thread topic -- have been removed.

 

Per the forum's rules:

 

You will respect other members and post in a civil manner. Personal attacks, insults or hate speech posted on the forum or sent by private message are not allowed.

 

31. You will not publicly discuss other members...

 

My step grandson, 9 months old was not well, they took him to hospital (He is insured) for a check-up. 

He tested positive for Covid, which strain I don't know. We are all a bit mystified as to how he contracted it, as he has a pretty sheltered life.

 

Thankfully, he is dealing with it OK, they hope he will be able to go home sometime this week..🤗

Post and response removed.

 

Please do not post Facebook links as only Facebook account holders can access it. If you are posting any links, please ensure they are from a reputable source and post something about what it is the link refers to etc.

 

Thank you.

1 hour ago, transam said:

My step grandson, 9 months old was not well, they took him to hospital (He is insured) for a check-up. 

He tested positive for Covid, which strain I don't know. We are all a bit mystified as to how he contracted it, as he has a pretty sheltered life.

 

Thankfully, he is dealing with it OK, they hope he will be able to go home sometime this week..🤗

 

Trans, so are you saying they admitted him to the hospital for COVID -- not just outpatient?

 

Quote

they hope he will be able to go home sometime this week

 

6 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Trans, so are you saying they admitted him to the hospital for COVID?

 

 

Weeell, Mrs.T was upset when she said the babe has Covid, is in an isolation room with mum & dad.

They sent us vids of him, looks OK, waiting for more info.. 🤗

 

If They have all made a mistake, you never know, I will report back...😉

A trolling post has been removed.

 

8 hours ago, transam said:

Weeell, Mrs.T was upset when she said the babe has Covid, is in an isolation room with mum & dad.

They sent us vids of him, looks OK, waiting for more info.. 🤗

 

If They have all made a mistake, you never know, I will report back...😉

Update, the babe has got Covid, he was tested on entry. He has just had an x-ray to check out his lungs, all seems OK, so, see what happens in the next few days. Oh, mum & dad are clear.

 

I went to see a friend in a different hospital today, the place was packed, and I noticed most were wearing masks, as well as me, I am not going in a hozzy without one, not had Covid yet, so don't want it now........😷..............🤗

9 minutes ago, transam said:

Update, the babe has got Covid, he was tested on entry. He has just had an x-ray to check out his lungs, all seems OK, so, see what happens in the next few days. Oh, mum & dad are clear.

 

I went to see a friend in a different hospital today, the place was packed, and I noticed most were wearing masks, as well as me, I am not going in a hozzy without one, not had Covid yet, so don't want it now........😷..............🤗

 

  Are you located in Issan ?

Just now, Nick Carter icp said:

 

  Are you located in Issan ?

Why..?  🤔

10 minutes ago, transam said:

Update, the babe has got Covid, he was tested on entry. He has just had an x-ray to check out his lungs, all seems OK, so, see what happens in the next few days. Oh, mum & dad are clear.

 

I went to see a friend in a different hospital today, the place was packed, and I noticed most were wearing masks, as well as me, I am not going in a hozzy without one, not had Covid yet, so don't want it now........😷..............🤗

Hmmmm.

How  many Medical ,,, Hospital facililties do not continue to insist on attendees wearing  a mask?

 

3 minutes ago, 0ffshore360 said:

Hmmmm.

How  many Medical ,,, Hospital facililties do not continue to insist on attendees wearing  a mask?

 

No idea, but I am sure you are going to tell us.........

One of the biggest atrocities I saw in Pattaya/Jomtien were the farangs in the free food lines designated for Thais whose incomes were depleted by the lack of tourism and closing of businesses.

 

Second place was seeing photos of people driving their cars, windows rolled up wearing masks in farangland.

 

4 minutes ago, 0ffshore360 said:

Hmmmm.

How  many Medical ,,, Hospital facililties do not continue to insist on attendees wearing  a mask?

 

 

 hospital I frequent will not allow entry without a mask.

Just now, G_Money said:

One of the biggest atrocities I saw in Pattaya/Jomtien were the farangs in the free food lines designated for Thais whose incomes were depleted by the lack of tourism and closing of businesses.

 

Second place was seeing photos of people driving their cars, windows rolled up wearing masks in farangland.

 

No photos then..........🤗

51 minutes ago, transam said:

No photos then..........🤗

Google is your best friend.

 

 

11 hours ago, Ralf001 said:

 

 hospital I frequent will not allow entry without a mask.

I would go to another hospital. 
 

that’s how it’s supposed to work. In the heat of covid they made all airline passengers wear masks. Imo the way it should have worked is the airlines decide then the customers decide which airline they’d fly. But they cant have that I suppose

23 hours ago, transam said:

My step grandson, 9 months old was not well, they took him to hospital (He is insured) for a check-up. 

He tested positive for Covid, which strain I don't know. We are all a bit mystified as to how he contracted it, as he has a pretty sheltered life.

 

Thankfully, he is dealing with it OK, they hope he will be able to go home sometime this week..🤗

 

Sorry to hear.  I'm sure he's resilient enough to get over it.  He has my positive thoughts.  Do keep us informed as to the outcome.

 

On 5/10/2024 at 12:32 PM, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

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

 

 

The Royal Society!! An old boys club, hopelessly out of date.

23 hours ago, Ralf001 said:

 

 hospital I frequent will not allow entry without a mask.

BHP hasn't required masks for least 1 1/2 yrs.

Remember wearing masks riding solo on motorbikes just to appease the populace.

On 5/13/2024 at 7:30 PM, Ralf001 said:

 

 hospital I frequent will not allow entry without a mask.

I don't know any vendor that requires a mask, for at least 1 yr, maybe 2yrs.

15 hours ago, Robert Paulson said:

I would go to another hospital. 
 

that’s how it’s supposed to work. In the heat of covid they made all airline passengers wear masks. Imo the way it should have worked is the airlines decide then the customers decide which airline they’d fly. But they cant have that I suppose

With exception of Makro or 7-11, I wouldn't use any vendor that required a mask.

3 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

BHP hasn't required masks for least 1 1/2 yrs.

Don't know anyone that does, and not sure I believe Ralf1

3 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Remember wearing masks riding solo on motorbikes just to appease the populace.

IMHO, that, and riding in car, whether alone or with wife wearing mask was pretty much the epitome of stupidity.

3 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Remember wearing masks riding solo on motorbikes just to appease the populace.

 

85% of people where I live still do this(roughly)... and of course no helmet...