South African Covid-19 News and Discussions 3

Cius

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
7,243
Yes that is what can be achieved with a rapid and fast roll out.
Secondly, symptomatic infections are down. There is a subtle difference. No one really knows how many asymptomatic infections are still happening.
Still good news because hospitalisations and deaths would follow.
Any idea what treatment your colleague is getting? What her prescription drugs are?
Not sure what treatment she is getting but I will ask.
 

noxibox

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
21,486
Why has the government not rolled out cheap, quick lateral flow tests yet?

DIY, results in half an hour.
Then they'd have to take into account the lower accuracy. The ease of doing the test will also tempt them to follow the UK government's bad example of engaging in broad testing. The false positives then become a problem.

Test 1 million people when prevalence is 1% and there'll be 5000 false positives, 7000 true positives and 3000 false negatives.

She struggled to find simple words to complete a sentence. Coughing fits very min or so in which she could not even talk for 20+ seconds. Over the weekend she barely had the strength to make it to the bathroom and back. This is not something I ever want to experience.
Sounds like the last time I was really sick.
 

Gordon_R

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
19,288
Brett Herron too

And to De Villiers and EP rugby players:
 

Sinbad

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
77,720
Ugh. Family members have been in contact with a confirmed and are now sick.

Tested negative, but the doctor thinks it's a false result.
 

nivek

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
10,054
Ugh. Family members have been in contact with a confirmed and are now sick.

Tested negative, but the doctor thinks it's a false result.
yeah I had a family member test negative twice before a positive result on the third test

First test - 4 days after contact - negative, no symptoms - the test was precautionary as this person was very high risk and we knew it was likely to come back negative
Second test 6 days after contact - negative, symptoms started so another test was done
Third test 10 days after contact - positive, lots of symptoms
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
24,982
yeah I had a family member test negative twice before a positive result on the third test

First test - 4 days after contact - negative, no symptoms - the test was precautionary as this person was very high risk and we knew it was likely to come back negative
Second test 6 days after contact - negative, symptoms started so another test was done
Third test 10 days after contact - positive, lots of symptoms
Now here is precisely where access to a prophylactic treatment would be of enormous benefit, and why there are some of us pushing for the use of known, safe drugs such as IVM to be used under emergency regulations.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that such a person would benefit from a course of IVM.

Why must the person first wait until they are really sick, and a test confirms an infection, just because a damn regulator has not issued a piece of paper?
 

nivek

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
10,054
Now here is precisely where access to a prophylactic treatment would be of enormous benefit, and why there are some of us pushing for the use of known, safe drugs such as IVM to be used under emergency regulations.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that such a person would benefit from a course of IVM.

Why must the person first wait until they are really sick, and a test confirms an infection, just because a damn regulator has not issued a piece of paper?
I'm 100% on the same page as you, I tried to get Ivermectin for her and her GP refused to prescribe it, fortunately she recovered anyway

The HPCSA are responsible for many many deaths in this country
 

MiW

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
2,303
benefit from a course of IVM
Begs the question what is safe dose. Originally you drink it ones and if needed second dose 6 months later.
There is no study at all on side effects from using it in higher doses or longer time.
Beats me when people says vaccines are not tested enough, but Ivermectin is OK.
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
24,982
Begs the question what is safe dose. Originally you drink it ones and if needed second dose 6 months later.
There is no study at all on side effects from using it in higher doses or longer time.
Beats me when people says vaccines are not tested enough, but Ivermectin is OK.
Each ailment treated with IVM has its own dosage required to be effective. NO drug has a one dose fits all ailments regime.
There are no studies that have been accepted by the authorities, BUT there are dozens of studies available dealing with the safety of IVM.
And, there are specific dosages determined by the doctors who are using IVM to treat their Covid patients. Both as a preventative measure and as a treatment for mild and severe conditions. The FLCCC alliance is the best source to find what those are. Needless to say, none of the regulators has approved any of them so the dosages do not carry any approvals.

And it is not about comparing vaccines with IVM it is about accepting both. Vaccines carry some sort of approvals and have been "trialled". The argument is about the resistance to allow repurposed drugs to get the same consideration.
 
Last edited:

Paulsie

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
3,147
Begs the question what is safe dose. Originally you drink it ones and if needed second dose 6 months later.
There is no study at all on side effects from using it in higher doses or longer time.
Beats me when people says vaccines are not tested enough, but Ivermectin is OK.
I have not yet heard a comment from authorities along the lines of "the benefits if IVM exceed the risks". The sad tragedy is that no-one in the officialdom is even prepared to look at what the actual "risks" are
 

JohnStarr

Executive Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
9,343
Vaccines will prevent infections. They won't prevent ALL infections.

1. Because it doesn't prevent all infections.
2. Because it doesn't absolutely do this either. Not in all cases. And in cases it does it will reduce the spread.

It's like having a good alarm system, dog, electric fence and burglar bars. It won't absolutely prevent all break ins but it will make it more likely your home is not broken into.

FAQ: If I have bars, electric fence and alarm with armed response, does it mean I don't have to lock my door or publicly brag about how much money I keep in my home safe? Well, you should still not do these things.
You're arguing with an expert there...beware. People like that are as bad as people claiming this virus is a hoax. Same side of the coin really.
 

Paulsie

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
3,147
You're arguing with an expert there...beware. People like that are as bad as people claiming this virus is a hoax. Same side of the coin really.
Vaccines DO NOT prevent infection, they help body deal with it. Get your facts straight before you start being clever with fences and alarm systems (via the post that you so readily acknowledged).
Vaccine is not a fence that stops infection getting through, vaccine is your Rottweiler inside the house that deals with the threat once it has penetrated.
 

JohnStarr

Executive Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
9,343
Vaccines DO NOT prevent infection, they help body deal with it. Get your facts straight before you start being clever with fences and alarm systems (via the post that you so readily acknowledged).
Vaccine is not a fence that stops infection getting through, vaccine is your Rottweiler inside the house that deals with the threat once it has penetrated.
I suspect you quoted the wrong person here. I never said anything like that.

Apology in 3...2...1...
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
24,982
Vaccines DO NOT prevent infection, they help body deal with it. Get your facts straight before you start being clever with fences and alarm systems (via the post that you so readily acknowledged).
Vaccine is not a fence that stops infection getting through, vaccine is your Rottweiler inside the house that deals with the threat once it has penetrated.
At it again I see. No contribution to make except to attack the other person. He truly is a pain.
Bet you he misinterprets the comment highlighted because he does not understand the implication of his acceptance of the post he agreed with.
He is then bound to now attack you as well.
 
Last edited:

MiW

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
2,303
Each ailment treated with IVM has its own dosage required to be effective. NO drug has a one dose fits all ailments regime.
There are no studies that have been accepted by the authorities, BUT there are dozens of studies available dealing with the safety of IVM.
And, there are specific dosages determined by the doctors who are using IVM to treat their Covid patients. Both as a preventative measure and as a treatment for mild and severe conditions. The FLCCC alliance is the best source to find what those are. Needless to say, none of the regulators has approved any of them so the dosages do not carry any approvals.

And it is not about comparing vaccines with IVM it is about accepting both. Vaccines carry some sort of approvals and have been "trialled". The argument is about the resistance to allow repurposed drugs to get the same consideration.
I see you don't have a clue... But if you like to pretend, feel free to show me control group with the list of side effects in people taking IVM for a month , two, three...
 

Geoff.D

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
Messages
24,982
I see you don't have a clue... But if you like to pretend, feel free to show me control group with the list of side effects in people taking IVM for a month , two, three...
No you have no clue. You refuse to acknowledge the trials and studies that have been done with all that you are looking for. But, to do that you need to remove your blinkers and "approval coloured glasses" to see past the BS the regulatory environment is feeding you.
 

neoprema

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
6,556
Now here is precisely where access to a prophylactic treatment would be of enormous benefit, and why there are some of us pushing for the use of known, safe drugs such as IVM to be used under emergency regulations.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that such a person would benefit from a course of IVM.

Why must the person first wait until they are really sick, and a test confirms an infection, just because a damn regulator has not issued a piece of paper?
My doctor gave us a cocktail of drugs to use but not IVM. I asked him and he said we're not animals and he's not a vet, he prefers to stick to scientifically proven medication lol.

So far what he gave has worked well.
 
Top