Mandatory vaccines for care workers now law.

[MercyBooth]

Big Brother Watch
@BigBrotherWatch
·
2h
Police cars revolving lightBREAKING

Mandatory vaccines for care workers is now law. Millions more workers will be affected.

The House of Lords passed the new law after just 90 minutes debate, with a regret motion noting there is insufficient evidence for it and that the severity of impact is unknown.

twitter.com/BigBrotherWatch/status/1417573871130234883?s=20

@Tealightsandd

Is smoking allowed in care homes? It should be. Personal responsibility.

Not in the place I work, outside only. And because many residents would require at least supervision with a cigarette, if not help to stop them burning themselves or the place down, that would fall to care staff - who may not smoke, to have to do. I have worked in homes that had a smoking room for residents in the past and as a smoking member of staff at the time, used to supervise residents smoking in there, non smoking staff refused and some got a hard time for that because it was seen as the rights and choices of the resident came first.

Though I do realise that many people think that care workers should just put up and shut up with anything that anyone wants regardless of how it affects them, and more so be grateful for it too.

I get the feeling that this is less and less about the actual vaccination and more about care workers getting out of their box and not knowing their place as society skivvies and not doing as they're told.

@Steamedhams

Ok since no one actually read any of the articles let me give some info from the final one I posted. This initially was a small trial which was then expanded. It looked at healthcare workers some took normal PPE precautions (masks etc) and some did PPE and ivermectin

From the paper-----
A total of 1,195 health care workers were recruited from 4 major hospitals in Argentina with 730 from Alberto Antranik Eurnekian Hospital, 150 from Hospital Municipal Angel Marzetti, 150 from Other peripheral Medical Centre and 15 from Centro Medico Caseros. 788 participants received IVERCAR and PPEs, while the remaining 407 simply adhered to standard PPEs.

Infection Rates - Pooled Results
The overall infection rate in health care workers recruited for this study was 20% with 237 testing positive for CoVid 19 during the 3 month study recruitment. Of those infected, all patients were from the comparator group of using PPE alone. This represented an overall infection rate of 58.2% ( 237 of 407) in the PPE group.

--

Just to really make that clear. Not a single person taking ivermectin caught covid. Now, it obviously is not going to be 100%. Data I am aware of puts it between 75-99% dependent on dosage and a bunch of other variables. It is certainly a signal worth investigating.

It isn't a conspiracy
It isn't a flat earth wack job idea

It is something worthy of further study independently.

oh my goodness, have you read any of my posts @Steamedhams?

As I have said, there is no robust evidence to suggest ivermectin is effective in treating or preventing COVID, including the study you have just linked to.

Have you read it, checked the authors expertise, gone through the methods, assessed for risk of bias and assessed the interpretations the authors have made?

Ok, please enlighten me. What is the problem with this study? I mean that genuinely by the way I am not trying to be snarky.

[quote Mickarooni]@Tealightsandd

Suffering from lung cancer or COPD isn’t particularly pleasant. Besides, it isn’t just underfunding of care. That’s far too simplistic. There is a rapidly ageing population.[/quote]
Not particularly pleasant. Nor is suffering unsafe care or Covid.

Not smoking is no guarantee of avoiding lung cancer. Non smoking related lung cancer cases are on the rise.

There is a rapidly ageing population. Hmmm. Could that be because people are told not to smoke...?

In any case it's a temporary issue - care home funding. Life expectancy has stagnated (this was even before Covid).

@Steamedhams

Ok, please enlighten me. What is the problem with this study? I mean that genuinely by the way I am not trying to be snarky.

@Steamedhams

If you read the paper and come up with some thoughts I'm really happy to chat about the flaws that make it a low quality epidemiological study

Taking the time to type out a review of an academic paper onto anonymous forum is basically my day job with no pay and the very high likelihood you'll never reply

But always happy to discuss epi with interested parties

www.bbc.com/future/article/20180625-why-the-rate-of-women-getting-lung-cancer-is-rising

Lung cancer is commonly associated with smoking. But rates of the disease among non-smokers – and women – are rising.

So are you asking me to guess your problem with it? This makes no sense. I've clearly gone to the trouble of finding links to articles when asked, highlighting key portions of the text and sending them over. The only critique I can think of is that it isn't random double blind etc but I wouldn't say that completely negates the data shown. This just sounds like a cop out honestly.

@Steamedhams

So are you asking me to guess your problem with it? This makes no sense. I've clearly gone to the trouble of finding links to articles when asked, highlighting key portions of the text and sending them over. The only critique I can think of is that it isn't random double blind etc but I wouldn't say that completely negates the data shown. This just sounds like a cop out honestly.

Ok so some questions:

1. What was the active treatment?
2. What was the control group?
3. How did the authors assign participants to the treatment group?
4. Were there any differences between the treated and control group?
5. Did the authors attempt to control (i.e., statistically adjust) for these differences?
6. What methods were used to analyse if there was a difference in infection rate between groups?
7. Was the study adequately powered?

(and my own personal rhetorical question, why on earth are they attempting to do epidemiological analyses in excel)

This is a normal timeline for a vaccine roll out.

Please do not belittle those who are being cautious regarding covid vaccines as being selfish or ignorant, they have every right to question long term effects.

@leafyygreens

(and my own personal rhetorical question, why on earth are they attempting to do epidemiological analyses in excel)

Easier to lose down the back of a sofa.

@Tealightsandd

they have every right to question long term effects

What about the long term effects of Covid? Or don’t they count?

@MillyMolly123

This is a normal timeline for a vaccine roll out.

Please do not belittle those who are being cautious regarding covid vaccines as being selfish or ignorant, they have every right to question long term effects.

As has been said so many times before, the money and resources thrown at the vaccines has had a HUGE impact on timescales.

Can you post a link rather than a screenshot so that we can all see who has produced the information you have posted?

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow Heart failure (possible vax side effect) v long covid. Tough choice for anyone, I’ll give you that.

Bearing in mind the covid vax is not stopping covid, those with underlying health conditions may want more time to make an informed decision. Perfectly reasonable IMO.

they have every right to question long term effects.

They do, but it's strange there seems to be less concern about long term effects of actual Covid.

With the vaccines, red tape re legal ownership - patents etc, was speeded up. Testing wasn't.

I do wonder why there isn't the same amount of questioning about the long term effects of Covid. Particularly as there's still so much unknown about it.

Remember this might not be a 'natural' disease. It was potentially man made in a lab. Experts are still investigating whether it leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Bearing in mind the covid vax is not stopping covid

Data from America suggests that Pfizer and Moderna work very well at preventing serious illness and death. Almost all of their hospitalisations are in the unvaccinated.

Still haven't provided me with your information as to why this is an extremely poor study but I will do my best to answer your questions as best I can

1.What was the active treatment?
Carageenan nasal spray several times per day- in the smaller pilot this was more frequent but in the larger study it was reduced 4x daily and ivermectin 12mg weekly

1. What was the control group?

Both groups used standard PPE while one group used IVERCAR. There doesn't seem to be info on whether a placebo was used. Either way, they weren't given ivermectin

1. How did the authors assign participants to the treatment group?

prospective, observational, not randomized trial The numbers aren't equal as people have either elected to take or not take.

1. Were there any differences between the treated and control group?

Yes. There is a table of demographics for the smaller pilot study if you look at the paper. Data wasn't collected for the larger trial. In the smaller study (200+ people) there were differences but in tiny numbers.

1. Did the authors attempt to control (i.e., statistically adjust) for these differences?

No but even with these tiny differences there is sucha strong signal for iver

1. What methods were used to analyse if there was a difference in infection rate between groups?

Patients in the PPE group and IVECAR groups were evaluated at 7 and 14 days completing symptom questionnaires ( including the reporting of any adverse effects from the treatment), physical examinations and CoVid-19 testing of nasopharyngeal secretions (PCR or rapid test) at each time point. Both groups continued to adhere to standard PPEs and were evaluated at 7, 14, 21 and 28 days from the commencement of the study. Infection rates were reported for each group,

1. Was the study adequately powered?

COVID-19 transmission rates in both arms were compared by chi squared test. Transmission rate in the treated group is statistically significantly lower in the treated group (p < 0.0001).

@Steamedhams ok so,

-The active treatment was ivermectin nasal drops + another compound called carrageenan which the authors are suggesting is an anti-viral. For any effects you will therefore have no idea if it's due to ivermectin, carrageenan, or some magical compound formed from the two of them.

• This was a cohort study, not a RCT. This immediately causes issues as you don't know whether any differences are due to the treatment or to differences in the groups. For the first study the authors give a table of demographics, which demonstrate the two groups are not comparable. For the second study the information isn't provided - big red flag.
• In an observational study, you can attempt to control for confounding by statistically adjusting for differences - not as good as an RCT but still better. The authors did not do this.
• Groups weren't blinded - causing bias due to participants knowing the treatment they had been assigned.
• Yup a large difference as observed between groups, but due to the high degree of confounding and bias, we have no idea if this was a causal effect of ivermectin + the other anti-viral, or due to differences in the two groups.

/fin

NB - This isn't my opinion, it's an established set of criteria used to rate epidemiological studies.

@foxandbee www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4313108/

Thanks Milly, but I can't see the chart you posted in that link?

Yes you are right. This is not a double blind RCT and thank you for taking the time to review. There is still such a large difference however between these two groups for the larger trial that it is surely worth probing a little more deeply. This is also why the meta analyses are worthwhile as they pick up lots of different studies and look at the bigger picture. Often with less bias than with a single study as by amalgamating different data sets you can counter these effects. I think you should check out the interview with Pierre Kory and Robert Malone as these very well qualified individuals get into it probably in a much better way than I can

podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/how-to-save-the-world-in-three-easy-steps/id1471581521?i=1000525032595

I think my main issue is that whenever you mention that ivermectin does have some data (and we can debate quality) you're met with such intolerance that there might be something else that works besides a vaccine and worthy of study. It feels like the mentality is a bit culty. It is a religious response rather than a scientific one.

@Steamedhams

Yes you are right. This is not a double blind RCT and thank you for taking the time to review. There is still such a large difference however between these two groups for the larger trial that it is surely worth probing a little more deeply. This is also why the meta analyses are worthwhile as they pick up lots of different studies and look at the bigger picture. Often with less bias than with a single study as by amalgamating different data sets you can counter these effects. I think you should check out the interview with Pierre Kory and Robert Malone as these very well qualified individuals get into it probably in a much better way than I can

podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/how-to-save-the-world-in-three-easy-steps/id1471581521?i=1000525032595

I think my main issue is that whenever you mention that ivermectin does have some data (and we can debate quality) you're met with such intolerance that there might be something else that works besides a vaccine and worthy of study. It feels like the mentality is a bit culty. It is a religious response rather than a scientific one.

@Steamedhams the thing is it doesn't matter how large the difference is when it is explained by residual confounding. You will of course get large, biased effects when you allow confounding in a study.

As I have said (4th time now?!) there is no robust evidence for ivermectin - this is shown in meta-analyses. In my first post I said that one of the most influential RCTs (which was still very problematic in design but nevertheless promoted) was found to be fraudulent and has since been retracted, I linked to an article about this.

I can assure you it is a scientific response and not a "religious" one, when a) many epidemiologists have assessed the existing body of literature and found it doesn't provide robust evidence for efficacy and b) scientists are now conducting RCTs to properly assess if it make a difference.

As I said, Oxford and others are running well powered, well designed RCTs which will give an answer, which I suspect will be null. Awaiting with interest.

In which case we shall see when these trials are concluded and the papers have been peer reviewed. My assumption is that these are going to be of a calibre which is high enough to trust the results. Then we can put the matter to rest. There is already computer modelling of the interaction between IVM and a protein so we will have to agree to disagree on whether it is likely to be effective.

@foxandbee if you read the content of the article, the chart is just a visual summary. The chart was produced by Wellcome, based on articles from three sources referenced at the bottom of the chart (albeit in tiny letters, so I guess pretty illegible from my screenshot).

Anyway, if you look at fig.2 in the article, there is another version of the chart. It is presented slightly differently, but the message is the same.