|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On February 02 2023 23:51 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2023 23:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2023 23:21 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2023 11:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2023 11:32 Sermokala wrote:On February 02 2023 11:18 evilfatsh1t wrote:
posts a bunch of nonsense, gets called out on it, then chooses to disengage or ask for a change of topic because they are sitting on a high horse and are apparently either too civil to argue their points or have better things to do with their time.
this is a recurring pattern here among a number of posters I agree everytime this thread goes to shit its either you or BJ not being able to handle being disagreed with. I'm glad you're able to self critize like this it shows good character. 100% agree on the irony of evil's post lol. On topic: Here's a cool scientific breakdown of the newer generations of bivalent covid vaccines, from a Nature article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00220-z Interesting, they are sure making some cool advancememts, hopefully enough people will take them. Two of my friends day homes are now shut down, oir day care is still good. It is super hard to find new short term childcare, and I hope the sick kids get better! https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/news/Page17121.aspx From your article: "Immunization is the best method to protect against and limit the spread of pertussis, along with regular hand washing and remembering not to share drinks, food, or cutlery. Pertussis immunization is safe and effective against preventing severe illness. In Alberta, it is free for all children less than 18 years of age, people who are in the third trimester of pregnancy (27 weeks), and adults who have not had a tetanus booster in the past 10 years." Seems pretty straightforward. I wonder what percentage of anti-covid-vaccine people are completely against all vaccines (no pertussis, MMR, influenza, etc.) vs. what percentage of anti-covid-vaccine people are okay with other vaccines but are specifically against the covid vaccine for whatever reason (mRNA sounds scary, it's too new despite having gone through clinical trials, their favorite conservative newscaster or politician thinks covid vaccines are a hoax, etc.). Anecdotally around here it is very very much alligned. Now we had some religious groups that were antivax before this, but that would have made up maybe 10% likely lower. That it is this high is driven almost compeltely by this political movement. For context I live about 40 mins from where the border was shut down, until it was revealed that some of those people had the weapons and were plotting to kill RCMP officers. The court cases are in the city my office is in and the downtown shuts down fo to security and protests during the court times. I do not really get why the conspiracy about this mrna vaccine has created all vaccines, even the long proven ones without that tech, but it has. At one point I wondered if it had impacted over all pharma use and doctors visits, but at least so far it has not. I just live where "vaxx is bad" and it is basically macho (for lack of a better term) to not take em. And bad ass to refuse to get your kids vaxxed. I also no 2 marriages that have ended because the mendid mot want their kids vaccinated and the moms did. It is messing with tons of lives and relationships here still.
It's really tragic that marriages are ending over something so simple. Your post made me wonder what the best way to convince others would be, assuming they're open to being convinced in the first place. It depends on the person you're trying to persuade, of course, and why they aren't vaccinated in the first place. I found a pretty good list of approaches:
Recommendations
Expand vaccination access at the community level through various services.
Increase awareness, knowledge, and dissemination of accurate vaccination information.
Address conspiracy theories, misinformation, and disinformation through constant and consistent truth-telling and myth-busting public health campaigns.
Develop communication strategies that use personal narratives and emphasize the "why" of vaccination.
Employ multiple vaccination-acceptance-boosting strategies directed at more than one level of engagement among hesitant populations.
Tailor vaccination-acceptance-boosting messages, messengers, and messaging platforms to a particular community's root causes of hesitancy.
Develop and implement unified federal, state, and local vaccination campaigns and initiatives that are apolitical.
Identify strategies to boost vaccine acceptance among those with political, religious, or conspiratorial reasons for vaccine avoidance, and individuals who may identify with the anti-vaccination movement that existed prior to COVID-19.
Normalize vaccination as a patriotic or public health action that strives to help the greater good and overcome a common threat while removing any semblance of performativity.
Foster a sense of belonging and community associated with vaccination to replace the appeal of endorsing conspiracy theories.
Leverage technology to promote vaccinations, such as convenient, "smart" scheduling and tailoring messages via text-messaging to those who have not yet been reached.
Prioritize research and further evaluation of effective strategies to overcome hesitancy in hard-to-reach populations and to inform vaccination-acceptance efforts in the ongoing COVID-19 and future pandemics.
Develop and implement vaccination programs through public-private partnerships. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1446-1.html
|
|
|
On February 03 2023 00:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2023 00:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2023 23:51 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2023 23:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2023 23:21 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2023 11:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2023 11:32 Sermokala wrote:On February 02 2023 11:18 evilfatsh1t wrote:
posts a bunch of nonsense, gets called out on it, then chooses to disengage or ask for a change of topic because they are sitting on a high horse and are apparently either too civil to argue their points or have better things to do with their time.
this is a recurring pattern here among a number of posters I agree everytime this thread goes to shit its either you or BJ not being able to handle being disagreed with. I'm glad you're able to self critize like this it shows good character. 100% agree on the irony of evil's post lol. On topic: Here's a cool scientific breakdown of the newer generations of bivalent covid vaccines, from a Nature article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00220-z Interesting, they are sure making some cool advancememts, hopefully enough people will take them. Two of my friends day homes are now shut down, oir day care is still good. It is super hard to find new short term childcare, and I hope the sick kids get better! https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/news/Page17121.aspx From your article: "Immunization is the best method to protect against and limit the spread of pertussis, along with regular hand washing and remembering not to share drinks, food, or cutlery. Pertussis immunization is safe and effective against preventing severe illness. In Alberta, it is free for all children less than 18 years of age, people who are in the third trimester of pregnancy (27 weeks), and adults who have not had a tetanus booster in the past 10 years." Seems pretty straightforward. I wonder what percentage of anti-covid-vaccine people are completely against all vaccines (no pertussis, MMR, influenza, etc.) vs. what percentage of anti-covid-vaccine people are okay with other vaccines but are specifically against the covid vaccine for whatever reason (mRNA sounds scary, it's too new despite having gone through clinical trials, their favorite conservative newscaster or politician thinks covid vaccines are a hoax, etc.). Anecdotally around here it is very very much alligned. Now we had some religious groups that were antivax before this, but that would have made up maybe 10% likely lower. That it is this high is driven almost compeltely by this political movement. For context I live about 40 mins from where the border was shut down, until it was revealed that some of those people had the weapons and were plotting to kill RCMP officers. The court cases are in the city my office is in and the downtown shuts down fo to security and protests during the court times. I do not really get why the conspiracy about this mrna vaccine has created all vaccines, even the long proven ones without that tech, but it has. At one point I wondered if it had impacted over all pharma use and doctors visits, but at least so far it has not. I just live where "vaxx is bad" and it is basically macho (for lack of a better term) to not take em. And bad ass to refuse to get your kids vaxxed. I also no 2 marriages that have ended because the mendid mot want their kids vaccinated and the moms did. It is messing with tons of lives and relationships here still. It's really tragic that marriages are ending over something so simple. Your post made me wonder what the best way to convince others would be, assuming they're open to being convinced in the first place. It depends on the person you're trying to persuade, of course, and why they aren't vaccinated in the first place. I found a pretty good list of approaches: Recommendations
Expand vaccination access at the community level through various services.
Increase awareness, knowledge, and dissemination of accurate vaccination information.
Address conspiracy theories, misinformation, and disinformation through constant and consistent truth-telling and myth-busting public health campaigns.
Develop communication strategies that use personal narratives and emphasize the "why" of vaccination.
Employ multiple vaccination-acceptance-boosting strategies directed at more than one level of engagement among hesitant populations.
Tailor vaccination-acceptance-boosting messages, messengers, and messaging platforms to a particular community's root causes of hesitancy.
Develop and implement unified federal, state, and local vaccination campaigns and initiatives that are apolitical.
Identify strategies to boost vaccine acceptance among those with political, religious, or conspiratorial reasons for vaccine avoidance, and individuals who may identify with the anti-vaccination movement that existed prior to COVID-19.
Normalize vaccination as a patriotic or public health action that strives to help the greater good and overcome a common threat while removing any semblance of performativity.
Foster a sense of belonging and community associated with vaccination to replace the appeal of endorsing conspiracy theories.
Leverage technology to promote vaccinations, such as convenient, "smart" scheduling and tailoring messages via text-messaging to those who have not yet been reached.
Prioritize research and further evaluation of effective strategies to overcome hesitancy in hard-to-reach populations and to inform vaccination-acceptance efforts in the ongoing COVID-19 and future pandemics.
Develop and implement vaccination programs through public-private partnerships. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1446-1.html Interesting read, TBH in my real life I have not made much effort to convince people, it seems like a lot of work and not that pleasant. When it comes up though I do say I have and have gotten my children theirs as well. When I asked why I say, I just treat it the same way I do with the rest of my health issues including surgeries I've needed, I listen to my doctor and do what they say. The general response has been "Well I guess", or "makes sense" then we generally stop talking about it.
Yeah that's fair. People only have so much free time outside of work and other obligations, so I'm not at all surprised when they don't want to waste every waking moment on a moral crusade, no matter how noble it may be.
|
They absolutely exist. But if I post such links for you will I get warned/banned?
Or are we adult enough to be able to make up our own minds if we personally find individual sources compelling or not
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On February 03 2023 00:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2023 23:51 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2023 23:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2023 23:21 JimmiC wrote:On February 02 2023 11:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 02 2023 11:32 Sermokala wrote:On February 02 2023 11:18 evilfatsh1t wrote:
posts a bunch of nonsense, gets called out on it, then chooses to disengage or ask for a change of topic because they are sitting on a high horse and are apparently either too civil to argue their points or have better things to do with their time.
this is a recurring pattern here among a number of posters I agree everytime this thread goes to shit its either you or BJ not being able to handle being disagreed with. I'm glad you're able to self critize like this it shows good character. 100% agree on the irony of evil's post lol. On topic: Here's a cool scientific breakdown of the newer generations of bivalent covid vaccines, from a Nature article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00220-z Interesting, they are sure making some cool advancememts, hopefully enough people will take them. Two of my friends day homes are now shut down, oir day care is still good. It is super hard to find new short term childcare, and I hope the sick kids get better! https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/news/Page17121.aspx From your article: "Immunization is the best method to protect against and limit the spread of pertussis, along with regular hand washing and remembering not to share drinks, food, or cutlery. Pertussis immunization is safe and effective against preventing severe illness. In Alberta, it is free for all children less than 18 years of age, people who are in the third trimester of pregnancy (27 weeks), and adults who have not had a tetanus booster in the past 10 years." Seems pretty straightforward. I wonder what percentage of anti-covid-vaccine people are completely against all vaccines (no pertussis, MMR, influenza, etc.) vs. what percentage of anti-covid-vaccine people are okay with other vaccines but are specifically against the covid vaccine for whatever reason (mRNA sounds scary, it's too new despite having gone through clinical trials, their favorite conservative newscaster or politician thinks covid vaccines are a hoax, etc.). Anecdotally around here it is very very much alligned. Now we had some religious groups that were antivax before this, but that would have made up maybe 10% likely lower. That it is this high is driven almost compeltely by this political movement. For context I live about 40 mins from where the border was shut down, until it was revealed that some of those people had the weapons and were plotting to kill RCMP officers. The court cases are in the city my office is in and the downtown shuts down fo to security and protests during the court times. I do not really get why the conspiracy about this mrna vaccine has created all vaccines, even the long proven ones without that tech, but it has. At one point I wondered if it had impacted over all pharma use and doctors visits, but at least so far it has not. I just live where "vaxx is bad" and it is basically macho (for lack of a better term) to not take em. And bad ass to refuse to get your kids vaxxed. I also no 2 marriages that have ended because the mendid mot want their kids vaccinated and the moms did. It is messing with tons of lives and relationships here still. It's really tragic that marriages are ending over something so simple. Your post made me wonder what the best way to convince others would be, assuming they're open to being convinced in the first place. It depends on the person you're trying to persuade, of course, and why they aren't vaccinated in the first place. I found a pretty good list of approaches: Show nested quote +Recommendations
Expand vaccination access at the community level through various services.
Increase awareness, knowledge, and dissemination of accurate vaccination information.
Address conspiracy theories, misinformation, and disinformation through constant and consistent truth-telling and myth-busting public health campaigns.
Develop communication strategies that use personal narratives and emphasize the "why" of vaccination.
Employ multiple vaccination-acceptance-boosting strategies directed at more than one level of engagement among hesitant populations.
Tailor vaccination-acceptance-boosting messages, messengers, and messaging platforms to a particular community's root causes of hesitancy.
Develop and implement unified federal, state, and local vaccination campaigns and initiatives that are apolitical.
Identify strategies to boost vaccine acceptance among those with political, religious, or conspiratorial reasons for vaccine avoidance, and individuals who may identify with the anti-vaccination movement that existed prior to COVID-19.
Normalize vaccination as a patriotic or public health action that strives to help the greater good and overcome a common threat while removing any semblance of performativity.
Foster a sense of belonging and community associated with vaccination to replace the appeal of endorsing conspiracy theories.
Leverage technology to promote vaccinations, such as convenient, "smart" scheduling and tailoring messages via text-messaging to those who have not yet been reached.
Prioritize research and further evaluation of effective strategies to overcome hesitancy in hard-to-reach populations and to inform vaccination-acceptance efforts in the ongoing COVID-19 and future pandemics.
Develop and implement vaccination programs through public-private partnerships. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1446-1.html
Indeed. What we all need indeed is even more nauseating nudging propaganda from public health authorities — the infallible completely uncorrupted public health authorities!
These are truly amazing recommendations
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Advice based on science and data isn't "propaganda".
|
|
|
On February 04 2023 02:55 Mikau313 wrote:
Advice based on science and data isn't "propaganda".
Advice based on science and data is when you deliberately obfuscate died with and of covid? That is definitely not propaganda in your eyes?
To give one example out of a trillion
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On February 04 2023 02:13 bITt.mAN wrote:
They absolutely exist. But if I post such links for you will I get warned/banned?
Or are we adult enough to be able to make up our own minds if we personally find individual sources compelling or not
Is this a reply to me? What is "They"? You didn't quote a previous post so I'm not sure what/who you're responding to, although you wrote your post after something I wrote, and I didn't want to ignore it if you were talking to me.
|
There is for quite a while now ongoing argument that FDA and CDC are not fit for purpose anymore. This is however new low:
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-fda-removes-covid-test-requirements-pfizer-merck-pills-2023-02-01/
"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Wednesday removed the need for a positive test for COVID-19 treatments from Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) and Merck & Co Inc (MRK.N). "
"The health regulator said individuals with recent known exposure with signs and symptoms may be diagnosed by their healthcare providers with COVID even if they have a negative test result."
Edit: Also does anyone know any active admin of this site? I feel like I have to fill complain, which probably wont do much, but needs doing anyway.
|
People are treated all the time for things there's a clinical suspicion for but not a definitive diagnosis. Just look at how overprescribed antibiotics are. If people want to take an EUA drug for a disease they are testing negative for I say let them have at it. No skin off my back.
There's a website feedback forum here: https://tl.net/forum/website-feedback/ if that helps
|
On February 04 2023 20:47 BlackJack wrote:
People are treated all the time for things there's a clinical suspicion for but not a definitive diagnosis. Just look at how overprescribed antibiotics are. If people want to take an EUA drug for a disease they are testing negative for I say let them have at it. No skin off my back.
Totally agree. The only situation I could think of that might change my mind would be if there hypothetically was a huge shortage during a serious crisis, to the point where we might need to guarantee that the small quantity of remaining medicine is getting to the people who need it the most (and, hopefully, we could still do something for everyone else).
|
On February 04 2023 20:47 BlackJack wrote:People are treated all the time for things there's a clinical suspicion for but not a definitive diagnosis. Just look at how overprescribed antibiotics are. If people want to take an EUA drug for a disease they are testing negative for I say let them have at it. No skin off my back. There's a website feedback forum here: https://tl.net/forum/website-feedback/ if that helps
Bolded: I think this is quite different though. Negative test should be pretty definitive - f it isn't on significant scale then it is quite frankly useless. So this create situation where actual suspicion is confirmed to be inaccurate by test. Covid symptoms also have a lot in common with flu and cold, so saying someone with those symptoms needs covid medicine, despite negative test is somewhat weird. Also, depending on the doctor and the actual person, you dont have much influence what you get prescribed. It is more often, than not "take this x times a day"
|
On February 04 2023 22:00 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2023 20:47 BlackJack wrote:People are treated all the time for things there's a clinical suspicion for but not a definitive diagnosis. Just look at how overprescribed antibiotics are. If people want to take an EUA drug for a disease they are testing negative for I say let them have at it. No skin off my back. There's a website feedback forum here: https://tl.net/forum/website-feedback/ if that helps Bolded: I think this is quite different though. Negative test should be pretty definitive - f it isn't on significant scale then it is quite frankly useless. So this create situation where actual suspicion is confirmed to be inaccurate by test. Covid symptoms also have a lot in common with flu and cold, so saying someone with those symptoms needs covid medicine, despite negative test is somewhat weird. Also, depending on the doctor and the actual person, you dont have much influence what you get prescribed. It is more often, than not "take this x times a day"
I think it’s safe to assume that this change is not so people that are testing negative can get Paxlovid. It’s to get rid of a layer of red tape of requiring a positive test to prescribe COVID. Patient says “hey doc my whole family tested positive for COVID and now I’m sick and I have a positive home test, can i get Paxlovid?” Before now standard operating procedures was to require the patient to get another test because a home test is heresy and that box of the patient being positive needs to be checked. The efficiency gained by removing an unnecessary layer of red tape outweighs a small percentage of patients taking Paxlovid when they don’t have COVID. Also false negatives aren’t unheard of.
Not sure what your point is about patients not being able to decide what they are prescribed. You can absolutely decide not to be prescribed Paxlovid. Nobody is shoving pills down anyone’s throat. If you would rather be prescribed what they give for a flu and a cold - which is momma’s chicken soup and bed rest, you still have that option too.
|
On February 04 2023 19:28 Razyda wrote:There is for quite a while now ongoing argument that FDA and CDC are not fit for purpose anymore. This is however new low: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-fda-removes-covid-test-requirements-pfizer-merck-pills-2023-02-01/"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Wednesday removed the need for a positive test for COVID-19 treatments from Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) and Merck & Co Inc (MRK.N). " "The health regulator said individuals with recent known exposure with signs and symptoms may be diagnosed by their healthcare providers with COVID even if they have a negative test result." Edit: Also does anyone know any active admin of this site? I feel like I have to fill complain, which probably wont do much, but needs doing anyway.
Apart from your belief that covid medicine ought to require a positive covid test first, what are some other things you'd like the FDA and CDC to do differently? Suppose you could wave a magic wand and change whatever you wanted to, about the FDA and CDC. What would you do? (I don't mean something like "eliminate them entirely and replace them with nothing else", but rather, how would you improve them so that they actually do a better job of what they're supposed to be doing?)
|
On February 04 2023 22:21 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2023 22:00 Razyda wrote:On February 04 2023 20:47 BlackJack wrote:People are treated all the time for things there's a clinical suspicion for but not a definitive diagnosis. Just look at how overprescribed antibiotics are. If people want to take an EUA drug for a disease they are testing negative for I say let them have at it. No skin off my back. There's a website feedback forum here: https://tl.net/forum/website-feedback/ if that helps Bolded: I think this is quite different though. Negative test should be pretty definitive - f it isn't on significant scale then it is quite frankly useless. So this create situation where actual suspicion is confirmed to be inaccurate by test. Covid symptoms also have a lot in common with flu and cold, so saying someone with those symptoms needs covid medicine, despite negative test is somewhat weird. Also, depending on the doctor and the actual person, you dont have much influence what you get prescribed. It is more often, than not "take this x times a day" I think it’s safe to assume that this change is not so people that are testing negative can get Paxlovid. It’s to get rid of a layer of red tape of requiring a positive test to prescribe COVID. Patient says “hey doc my whole family tested positive for COVID and now I’m sick and I have a positive home test, can i get Paxlovid?” Before now standard operating procedures was to require the patient to get another test because a home test is heresy and that box of the patient being positive needs to be checked. The efficiency gained by removing an unnecessary layer of red tape outweighs a small percentage of patients taking Paxlovid when they don’t have COVID. Also false negatives aren’t unheard of. Not sure what your point is about patients not being able to decide what they are prescribed. You can absolutely decide not to be prescribed Paxlovid. Nobody is shoving pills down anyone’s throat. If you would rather be prescribed what they give for a flu and a cold - which is momma’s chicken soup and bed rest, you still have that option too.
I agree that removing layer of red tape is positive thing. What I have issue with, is the fact that test was done and came negative. If test weren't done and someone came with covid symptoms after being in contact with someone with covid then it would be perfectly fine. If test is done and came negative patient still get paxlovid, then what exactly is the point of the test?
I also see that I was somewhat unclear about what I meant about meds prescribed. What I meant there, is that a lot of people goes to the doctor and just get the meds as prescribed rather than going and asking "can I get this, or that". I didnt meant that they cant ask for some med, but rather that they wont.
On February 04 2023 23:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2023 19:28 Razyda wrote:There is for quite a while now ongoing argument that FDA and CDC are not fit for purpose anymore. This is however new low: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-fda-removes-covid-test-requirements-pfizer-merck-pills-2023-02-01/"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Wednesday removed the need for a positive test for COVID-19 treatments from Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) and Merck & Co Inc (MRK.N). " "The health regulator said individuals with recent known exposure with signs and symptoms may be diagnosed by their healthcare providers with COVID even if they have a negative test result." Edit: Also does anyone know any active admin of this site? I feel like I have to fill complain, which probably wont do much, but needs doing anyway. Apart from your belief that covid medicine ought to require a positive covid test first, what are some other things you'd like the FDA and CDC to do differently? Suppose you could wave a magic wand and change whatever you wanted to, about the FDA and CDC. What would you do? (I don't mean something like "eliminate them entirely and replace them with nothing else", but rather, how would you improve them so that they actually do a better job of what they're supposed to be doing?)
First couple of things that comes to mind would be to end revolving door thing. I believe it is what like 9 out of last 10 FDA commissioners went from FDA to sitting on the boards of the companies they used to regulate. That hardly makes me confident that their decisions werent affected at all.
Second would be that all the trial data are open for public for independent review before any decision is made.
|
On February 05 2023 04:13 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2023 23:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 04 2023 19:28 Razyda wrote:There is for quite a while now ongoing argument that FDA and CDC are not fit for purpose anymore. This is however new low: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-fda-removes-covid-test-requirements-pfizer-merck-pills-2023-02-01/"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Wednesday removed the need for a positive test for COVID-19 treatments from Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) and Merck & Co Inc (MRK.N). " "The health regulator said individuals with recent known exposure with signs and symptoms may be diagnosed by their healthcare providers with COVID even if they have a negative test result." Edit: Also does anyone know any active admin of this site? I feel like I have to fill complain, which probably wont do much, but needs doing anyway. Apart from your belief that covid medicine ought to require a positive covid test first, what are some other things you'd like the FDA and CDC to do differently? Suppose you could wave a magic wand and change whatever you wanted to, about the FDA and CDC. What would you do? (I don't mean something like "eliminate them entirely and replace them with nothing else", but rather, how would you improve them so that they actually do a better job of what they're supposed to be doing?) First couple of things that comes to mind would be to end revolving door thing. I believe it is what like 9 out of last 10 FDA commissioners went from FDA to sitting on the boards of the companies they used to regulate. That hardly makes me confident that their decisions werent affected at all.
I could see a cause for concern there, as there might hypothetically be a conflict of interest. Out of curiosity, is there any evidence of foul play with these commissioners, like if they gave preferential treatment to a company that didn't deserve it, and later conveniently got a job on that company's board (hinting at some sort of quid pro quo)?
Second would be that all the trial data are open for public for independent review before any decision is made.
That sounds fair to me. I don't know what reason a company would have to not post the data for something that was successful, and that would probably go a long way to restoring public trust.
|
On February 05 2023 04:13 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2023 22:21 BlackJack wrote:On February 04 2023 22:00 Razyda wrote:On February 04 2023 20:47 BlackJack wrote:People are treated all the time for things there's a clinical suspicion for but not a definitive diagnosis. Just look at how overprescribed antibiotics are. If people want to take an EUA drug for a disease they are testing negative for I say let them have at it. No skin off my back. There's a website feedback forum here: https://tl.net/forum/website-feedback/ if that helps Bolded: I think this is quite different though. Negative test should be pretty definitive - f it isn't on significant scale then it is quite frankly useless. So this create situation where actual suspicion is confirmed to be inaccurate by test. Covid symptoms also have a lot in common with flu and cold, so saying someone with those symptoms needs covid medicine, despite negative test is somewhat weird. Also, depending on the doctor and the actual person, you dont have much influence what you get prescribed. It is more often, than not "take this x times a day" I think it’s safe to assume that this change is not so people that are testing negative can get Paxlovid. It’s to get rid of a layer of red tape of requiring a positive test to prescribe COVID. Patient says “hey doc my whole family tested positive for COVID and now I’m sick and I have a positive home test, can i get Paxlovid?” Before now standard operating procedures was to require the patient to get another test because a home test is heresy and that box of the patient being positive needs to be checked. The efficiency gained by removing an unnecessary layer of red tape outweighs a small percentage of patients taking Paxlovid when they don’t have COVID. Also false negatives aren’t unheard of. Not sure what your point is about patients not being able to decide what they are prescribed. You can absolutely decide not to be prescribed Paxlovid. Nobody is shoving pills down anyone’s throat. If you would rather be prescribed what they give for a flu and a cold - which is momma’s chicken soup and bed rest, you still have that option too. I agree that removing layer of red tape is positive thing. What I have issue with, is the fact that test was done and came negative. If test weren't done and someone came with covid symptoms after being in contact with someone with covid then it would be perfectly fine. If test is done and came negative patient still get paxlovid, then what exactly is the point of the test? I also see that I was somewhat unclear about what I meant about meds prescribed. What I meant there, is that a lot of people goes to the doctor and just get the meds as prescribed rather than going and asking "can I get this, or that". I didnt meant that they cant ask for some med, but rather that they wont.
I think these will be very fringe cases where Paxlovid is prescribed despite a negative test. Overall the move was made to erase the burden of having to get a positive test in order to get Paxlovid.
Your point about the prescriptions is clear, it's just somewhat moot. Patient's don't need to go to the doctor and ask if they can "get this or that" for flu/cold like symptoms because there are no medicines to be prescribed for cold/flu symptoms (with the exception of tamiflu which doesn't do much).
|
On February 04 2023 19:28 Razyda wrote:There is for quite a while now ongoing argument that FDA and CDC are not fit for purpose anymore. This is however new low: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-fda-removes-covid-test-requirements-pfizer-merck-pills-2023-02-01/"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Wednesday removed the need for a positive test for COVID-19 treatments from Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) and Merck & Co Inc (MRK.N). " "The health regulator said individuals with recent known exposure with signs and symptoms may be diagnosed by their healthcare providers with COVID even if they have a negative test result." Edit: Also does anyone know any active admin of this site? I feel like I have to fill complain, which probably wont do much, but needs doing anyway.
Depends (I did not read the article) - ist it about pcr tests or the ones you can do yourself?
I am currently recovering from covid and it was really not pleasant. Was trying to take sick days but unfortunately the system here (Germany) seems to be that while you currently still can get sick leave prescribed for minor respiratory diseases on the telephone, for covid you need a positive pcr test. No matter that my gf had confirmed contact, positive tests and I tested myself positive as well. We both had/have major symptoms too. So I just stayed at home working instead because getting a pcr test to confirm what I already knew was too much of a hassle. If the goal of this is to reduce official covid cases I am sure it is working.
|
On February 05 2023 20:28 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2023 19:28 Razyda wrote:There is for quite a while now ongoing argument that FDA and CDC are not fit for purpose anymore. This is however new low: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-fda-removes-covid-test-requirements-pfizer-merck-pills-2023-02-01/"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Wednesday removed the need for a positive test for COVID-19 treatments from Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) and Merck & Co Inc (MRK.N). " "The health regulator said individuals with recent known exposure with signs and symptoms may be diagnosed by their healthcare providers with COVID even if they have a negative test result." Edit: Also does anyone know any active admin of this site? I feel like I have to fill complain, which probably wont do much, but needs doing anyway. Depends (I did not read the article) - ist it about pcr tests or the ones you can do yourself? I am currently recovering from covid and it was really not pleasant. Was trying to take sick days but unfortunately the system here (Germany) seems to be that while you currently still can get sick leave prescribed for minor respiratory diseases on the telephone, for covid you need a positive pcr test. No matter that my gf had confirmed contact, positive tests and I tested myself positive as well. We both had/have major symptoms too. So I just stayed at home working instead because getting a pcr test to confirm what I already knew was too much of a hassle. If the goal of this is to reduce official covid cases I am sure it is working.
According to the FDA information sheet, paxlovid can be prescribed even with negative PCR test result.
Q: Does the EUA require a positive result from a direct SARS-CoV-2 viral test prior to prescribing
Paxlovid to a patient who is at high risk for severe COVID-19?”
A: No. The Agency removed the requirement for positive test results effective February 1, 2023. FDA
recognizes that, in rare instances, individuals with a recent known exposure (e.g., a household contact)
who develop signs and symptoms consistent with COVID-19 may be diagnosed by their health care
provider as having COVID-19 even if they have a negative direct SARS-CoV-2 viral test result. In such
instances, their health care provider may determine that treatment with Paxlovid for COVID-19 is
appropriate if the patient reports mild-to-moderate symptoms of COVID-19 and is at high-risk for
progression to severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death, and the terms and conditions of the
authorization are met, as detailed in the Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers.
source:
https://www.fda.gov/media/155052/download
It just stated that the FDA acknowledge that in rare case, the patient with COVID symptom can have negative COVID test result. Therefore, in the appropriate situation (see last sentence of the qoute), healthcare provider is allowed to prescribe paxlovid even if the test result becomes negative.
This change is recommendation is still in line with science, especially when we consider the known issue of some patient having COVID symptom while still having negative test result in the earlier days of infection (the test turn positive may be a few days later).
I understand that everything around COVID became political and granting a drug with investigation product status with such a lax control don't sit well with everyone. But at least for now, I would not be too concern, not until report of health care provider dumping ppl with covid drug unnecessarily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
