Quote:
Originally Posted by Redboard
The John Hopkins graphs are only for the last few weeks or so.
|
The graphs displayed on the webpages I linked to were current as of the day (or the day before) each of my posts.
If you visit the page for Uttar Pradesh on the Johns Hopkins University CSSE Site at the link below and hover your mouse over the right-most (or most recent) dot on the graph:
The most recent date on the graph is yesterday Monday October 11 2021.
According the Johns Hopkins University CSSE Site - this is the current data for Uttar Padesh:
https://coronalevel.com/India/Uttar_Pradesh/
Quote:
Development of number of Coronavirus cases: Uttar Pradesh, India
In Uttar Pradesh there have been 1,709,965 confirmed cases of COVID-19. Currently about 200 people are sick, that is one in every 990,000 inhabitants.
The current incidence is 0.0 new cases per week per 100,000 inhabitants*.
|
Same for Kerala. If you visit the page on the Johns Hopkins University CSSE Site at the link below and hover your mouse over the right-most (or most recent) dot on the graph:
The most recent date on the graph is yesterday Monday October 11 2021.
According the Johns Hopkins University CSSE Site - this is the current data for Kerala:
https://coronalevel.com/India/Kerala/
Quote:
Development of number of Coronavirus cases: Kerala, India
In Kerala there have been 4,801,796 confirmed cases of COVID-19. Currently about 190,000 people are sick, that is one in every 180 inhabitants.
The current incidence is 217.7 new cases per week per 100,000 inhabitants*.
|
If you visit the page at the above link and hover your mouse over the right-most (or most recent) dot on the graph:
The most recent date on the graph is yesterday Monday October 11 2021.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redboard
Uttar Prashesh has had 22,756 deaths vs. Kerala's 16,781. If your population estimates are correct, 10,600 deaths(Uttar Prashesh) vs. 16,783 deaths(Kerala)...
|
Uttar Pradesh has higher population density than Kerala.
Link to a Wikipedia page listing the largest cities by population in Uttar Pradesh:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_population
Link to a Wikipedia listing the largest cities by population for Kerala:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...in_Kerala#List
According to a study published on the NIH.gov site, population density matters.
Relationship between population density and COVID-19 incidence and mortality estimates: A county-level analysis:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8253654/
Quote:
|
Until January 27, 2021, SARS-CoV-2 has infected 134,556 patients and resulted in 2755 deaths in Sergipe. Currently, the state has the highest incidence (5854 cases per 100,000 inhabitants) and mortality (120 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants) rates of COVID-19 in the Northeast region. Incidence and mortality rates by county ranged from 965 to 10,130 cases of COVID-19 per 100,000 inhabitants and 21 to 169 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, respectively. Thirty-two (42.7%) counties had less than 50 inhabitants/km2, 22 (29.8%) between 50–99 inhabitants/km2, and 21 (28.0%) a population density = 100 inhabitants/km2. We found a positive correlation between population density and incidence (rs = 0.326, CI 95% 0.106–0.514, p = 0.005; effect size = weak) (Fig. 1 A) and mortality (rs = 0.518, CI 95% 0.329–0.666, p < 0.001; effect size = moderate) (Fig. 1B) rates for COVID-19.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redboard
As far as where this Ivermectin saga will end, it's obvious that it(and HCQ) would have been helpful to a lot of people. I can understand why they disparaged HCQ (after all, defeating Donald Trump was far more important that saving thousands of lives), but their narrative for Ivermectin will be that:
1) More people would have died because they would not have gotten the vaccine thinking that they could always have taken Ivermectin if infected.
2)They knew that Ivermectin was effective, but it would have gutted the world's supply of Ivermectin, which for poor countries, was their only means of fighting the virus for many months.
#1 is hard to defend. It precludes that people are stupid and takes away their freedom of choice. #2 might be more defendable, although I have no idea what the state of world's supply chain for that drug is.
|
I don't know where the Ivermectin saga ends either.
I do know that Vaccines had not yet been rolled out and were not widely available during India's Delta Variant surge back in May 2021.
Imo, Ivermectin and other repurposed drugs were pretty much all health officials in India had to work with.
The authors of the
peer reviewed Ivermectin study using data for health care workers in India reached the following conclusion:
Quote:
Conclusion
Two doses of oral ivermectin (300 µg/kg/dose given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophylaxis among HCWs reduced the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month. Safe, effective, and low-cost chemoprophylaxis has relevance in the containment of pandemic alongside vaccine.
|
Keep in mind that Vaccine Immunity fades over time.
Nature | 17 September 2021
COVID vaccine immunity is waning — how much does that matter?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02532-4
Quote:
Six months ago, Miles Davenport and his colleagues made a bold prediction. On the basis of published results from vaccine trials and other data sources, they estimated that people immunized against COVID-19 would lose approximately half of their defensive antibodies every 108 days or so. As a result, vaccines that initially offered, say, 90% protection against mild cases of disease might only be 70% effective after 6 or 7 months 1.
“It felt a little bit out on a limb at the time,” says Davenport, a computational immunologist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. But on the whole, his group’s predictions have come true.
|
I would argue the 83% reduction in risk cited in the
Peer Reviewed Ivermectin Study actually stacks up pretty well compared to vaccine immunity when you consider:
- Vaccine immunity fades over time.
- Ivermectin has proven to be one of the safer drugs in use over the past several decades.
- The sheer number of cases reporting adverse side effects for the current vaccines in the VAERS database. (Many orders of magnitude higher than all other vaccines combined over the past 10-15 yrs.)
- The lack of long term safety data about the current vaccines.
Someone of median age with minimal risk factors who became fully vaccinated 15 days ago would have a 90% or higher risk reduction against infection from the current vaccines.
But that same person six months after their most recent Covid vaccination likely only has a 70% risk reduction against infection from the current vaccines. (Thus the push for booster shots.)
Whereas, even six months or a year out - a person of the same median age and nearly identical risk factor profile using Ivermectin for prophylaxis likely continues to have an 83% risk reduction against infection. Plus zero risk for adverse side effects the vaccinated person is subjected to with each new dose or booster shot.
I would further argue that last part is not trivial.
Sorry for the long winded rant.
Somewhere out there in cyberspace RR (who hasn't posted in a while) has probably suffered another new thumb cramp.
Cheers,
-jp
.
