For the vaccine sceptics https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/new-us-study-shows-profound-impact-of-covid-19-vac
If anything that number is an UNDERCOUNT given all the NEFARIOUS attempts to downplay Covid in RED states. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/17/us-excess-deaths-pandemic-cdc
I remember I said this also here: SARS-Cov2 is a systemic disease. If you are weak you risk something. It's simple. It's like for flue [and being a coronavirus we could say that it's like cold ...]. Old and weak individuals need to be vaccinated to face the seasonal flue. About Covid it's the same. We need to protect the susceptible individuals reducing the circulation of the virus which is well more lethal than flue [also the last "mild" variant, Omicron]. And to be fully vaccinated doesn't protect you from the contagion of the Omicron variant [take a look at the numbers in South Korea]. It protects from worse consequences. I cannot comment about hospitalization in a country I don't know. In Italy, despite the still high numbers, hospital are not suffering at all. And this thanks to vaccination.
Hospitals aren’t suffering in Massachusetts. It’s the suffering of the fully vaccinated patients that is my primary concern. I’m one of the rare individuals who would like to spare both vaccinated and unvaccinated from Covid. I propose emphasizing mitigations as effective as vaccination in reducing relative risk of hospitalization in the unvaccinated and that increase the efficacy of vaccines for the vaccinated. I’m thankful vaccines are helping. The science is clear we can do better. I think we should.
We can do something more. Now we've got specific medicine, for example. I do know that there are support therapies, but to talk about them in public on the net ... it's not a great idea: those support therapies help, but without vaccines and medicines, they don't save lives.
The things I’m talking about prevent infection and hospitalization as effectively as vaccination and also increase efficacy of vaccination. Why shouldn’t they be discussed in public? The people hospitalized with Covid apparently aren’t benefiting from specific medicine are they?
I am sure he would have but he had to focus on erasing every executive order Trump did. Also, that would be stupid because it would look like Trump cured covid instead of Biden. It had to be a year after Biden had been in office.
We know it's because omicron is less dangerous, but Biden suddenly pretending it's not dangerous anymore is just political convenience.
First, people don't need to understand epidemiology to know the difference between being hospitalized "with" Covid or "for" Covid. All this requires is a basic grasp of the English language. Furthermore, the reason most people don't make the distinction is because they can't because, as you know very well, almost all available data doesn't make the distinction either. Second, you don't make the distinction. Your link/data for Massachusetts hospitalizations is NOT in fact hospitalizations FOR Covid-19. Yes, it says on the graphic "there were 259 patients hospitalized for COVID-19" but that's not what it actually is. I'm guessing you were aware that Massachusetts has recently become one of the few sources which does make the distinction but failed to verify the data you used is in fact reflective of this, and it isn't. Massachusetts hospitalization data for those hospitalized "due to" Covid-19 or tested positive on hospitalization for something else is provided on the "Incidental Covid-19 Report". This shows that 89 (34%) of the 259 hospitalizations on March 10 were "due to" Covid-19. Unfortunately, it does not detail how many of these 89 were vaccinated or unvaccinated. Which takes us back to square one. https://www.mass.gov/doc/incidental-covid-19-report-march-11-2022/download
The specific medicines [and they are American medicines, so you should know them] work before of hospitalization, in the first phase of development of the disease and they can avoid hospitalization [overall the one produced by Pfizer].
Agree you don’t have to understand epidemiology to know the difference. But you do need an understanding to know why it matters. For two years ya’ll said it didn’t matter—they were one and the same. If a hospital said the patient was a Covid patient you believed it. Hospitals are reporting hospitalization for Covid. It’s rarely passed on to “consumers” because it often doesn’t fit the narrative. If you read the note accompanying the supplement you link to you see the data you believe to be counts of Covid as primary admittance aren’t. The data is actually counts of medical billing codes for dexamethasone that correlate with a positive Covid test in medical records. It’s a silly (useless) way to estimate because the NIH recommends against dexamethasone for all Covid hospitalizations that do not require oxygen therapy or intubation at admittance. Any patient hospitalized FOR Covid because of dehydration, high fever, heart/clotting issues, arterial tears, etc. will not receive dexamethasone. Again, you have to have some understanding of Covid to know this. I’m aware Massachusetts is attempting to clean up the dishonest reporting. They are going to remove somewhere around 10-15% of Covid deaths from official records because Covid was not cause of death. This is likely an attempt to clean up inflated hospitalization reporting as well. More below. No. That’s actually patients that received dexamethasone and had a hot test in the hospital. It’s a loose correlation, not actual data they made you believe it is. Now to the moment of truth. Weren’t you in the camp of folks who believed hospitalization data was not over reported? When people would question whether hospitalization data was accurate or not, weren’t we told hospitals would never call Covid hospitalizations that if they weren’t really Covid hospitalizations? If you want to say today hospitalizations are over reported in Massachusetts by a factor of three, when did this start? Did hospitals over report Covid hospitalizations in 2020? In 2021? Or just in 2022? You are either going to have to accept that when a hospital reports a hospitalization for Covid it is for Covid, or you have to accept hospitals have been over reporting Covid hospitalizations for two years. If you think today Massachusetts hospitals are lying about Covid hospitalizations how can you post things like the post below? If hospitals are lying to the Massachusetts Department of Health today, they have been lying all along and all data on hospitalizations is meaningless—CDC data included. Pick a position and we can continue—has hospitalization data been over reported all along and all calculations of real world efficacy are invalid or has reporting been straight up and can be counted on today to buttress my point about the need for a systemic approach to Covid mitigation. Can’t have it both ways. If you don’t want to use MA hospital reporting as support for my stated position we need to do more than vaccinate to save lives, consider this. In the week 2-26-22 to 3-5-22, sixty fully vaccinated Massachusetts citizens died as a result of a breakthrough infection. That week there were around 220 total Covid deaths reported. That seems like quite a lot (about 27% of deaths fully vaccinated) to just pass off as a statistic to me.
I’m well aware of them. My point is exactly that even WITH the availability of these drugs a bunch of vaccinated folks are ending up hospitalized and dead. If they are hospitalized or dead they didn’t benefit from the drug much, did they? LOL Can you not answer my question about why mitigations proven by peer reviewed studies to be effective can’t be discussed in public? Cat got your tongue?
Nope. 2x impeached supporters posts are never to be trusted. Sorry. But. Reality sucks for them. But you admit to being a CNN follower?
How has reporting on it changed? And we are now into the 3rd yr of this, do you think nothing changes?
Statistically also flu kills and this may happen also to persons who got the anti-flu vaccine. It's not a long time that the new drugs are available in the hospitals, so only if hospitalized you can get them [in Italy]. Sure they help, they reduce mortality [at least considering early data]. About mitigations, sure we can discuss, but my experience on the net is that usually these debates derail towards a curious list of substitute solutions. If you want to debate administrative mitigations [distance, masks, disinfectants ...] there are no great problems at the horizon. If you want to enter the mist of vitamin D and anti-inflammatory drugs [and the non steroidal ones are generally available for all in common pharmacies], well there is the risk to give medical advises without being doctors [and overall without knowing who is reading and following those advises].
