Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of hospitalization for Covid

thelancet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 127 posts

Re: Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of hospitalization for Covid

#111

Post by quotemstr »

loudtieblahblah wrote: post #29
bhouston wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the issue is how was it proven back then? There are a lot of people promoting ideas, some of which will eventually get clinical backing that they are correct. Prior to studies being done, how do we evaluate who is a quack and who is correct? There is a lot of harm promoting quack ideas during a pandemic. Based on reputation? Twitter followers? Their passion? I do not believe anyone censored research and scien…

>Prior to studies being done, how do we evaluate who is a quack and who is correct You allow the dialog to take place and make up your own mind. >I would argue that anyone who had a solution to Covid should rush to get it published in a reputable Any tool thats not a vaccine gets associated with Trump or the right wing and is dismissed. Its even stifled funding for anti-virals that give a 50% reduction in hospitaliza…

> You allow the dialog to take place and make up your own mind.

The number of replies to your comment against this idea is terrifying. What's even worse is the outright hostility --- it's not good enough that they trust the experts and you don't. You have to go along with it too, according to them, or they'll attack you. It's a totalitarian mindset.

Re: Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of hospitalization for Covid

#112

Post by tinus_hn »

javagram wrote: post #110
tinus_hn wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a straw man. It’s perfectly possible to be for vaccinations and against mandates.

I never said it wasn’t possible, in fact I gave some examples of people who are - politicians and tv hosts who have gotten vaxxed. Most people don’t fall into that category though. The “people” who are up in arms usually cite stuff like the vaccines rewriting DNA, being unsafe, untested, Nuremberg violations, “did my own research” and a hundred other reasons they found online to claim the vaccine is unsafe or ineffec…

> I personally know someone who thought the vaccine had a good chance of killing

This is the straw man

Re: Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of hospitalization for Covid

#113

Post by tinus_hn »

javagram wrote: post #109
tinus_hn wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meanwhile vaccines are about 80-90% effective against hospitalization and death And falling. Remember how people were parading around 95%? Just like ‘99% of people in hospital are unvaccinated’. While now in some areas it’s ‘70% vaccinated’. Vaccines are not a magic bullet and delaying covid using measures that make people fat is not a smart move. Not to mention stealing 1.5% of peoples lifetime to delay a disease…

Obesity hasn’t changed that much. Around 70% of Americans were overweight or obese before the pandemic. Diet is the most important factor in weight gain or weight loss. And except for a few dumb months at the beginning, parks and outdoor areas are open for recreation. I’ve been running 4x a week for the whole pandemic without issue where I live, nothing stopped people from exercising if they wanted to follow the heal…

I did not say anything about your statement ‘that the vaccines remain more than 80% effective against death’ apart from that being down from the claim it was 95% effective. And dropping.

But from the typical ‘I endured lockdown just fine’ tripe it’s clear what you think:

I have no problems with restricting others from doing things I don’t care about and I think it’s fine to force others to adopt my position. Because I think I know better than them.

And those first few months of peoples basic human rights being taken away based on ideas that clearly were never going to work? Oh, they were just a few dumb months. Pfft who cares. We’re over that now, there’s a new battle to fight. Who thinks about these measures that were going to be the end-all solution? There’s a new measure that’s going to be the end-all solution. To force on others because clearly we know what’s best for them.

Re: Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of hospitalization for Covid

#114

Post by chiefalchemist »

javagram wrote: post #97
nradov wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obesity is a critical risk factor. https://www.wfae.org/health/2021-09-30/novant-says-9-of-10-c... https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-3742#f1-M203742 https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/obesity-and-covid-19.html https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/07/21/bjsports-2021-...

Look at your cdc link and it proves my point. I never said obesity wasn’t a risk factor, just that covid is plenty dangerous to the non obese as well. “ More than 900,000 adult COVID-19 hospitalizations occurred in the United States between the beginning of the pandemic and November 18, 2020. Models estimate that 271,800 (30.2%) of these hospitalizations were attributed to obesity.6” This is from your link - even if…

> More than 900,000 adult COVID-19 hospitalizations occurred in the United States between the beginning of the pandemic and November 18, 2020. Models estimate that 271,800 (30.2%) of these hospitalizations were attributed to obesity.6”

Hospitalization is a deceptive metric. What's more important is: long term hospitalizations, as well as higher use of treatment (e.g., ICU).

That's that data needed. This other stat - like so many Covid stats - is too high level. The Devil is in the details.

Re: Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of hospitalization for Covid

#115

Post by chiefalchemist »

javagram wrote: post #109
tinus_hn wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meanwhile vaccines are about 80-90% effective against hospitalization and death And falling. Remember how people were parading around 95%? Just like ‘99% of people in hospital are unvaccinated’. While now in some areas it’s ‘70% vaccinated’. Vaccines are not a magic bullet and delaying covid using measures that make people fat is not a smart move. Not to mention stealing 1.5% of peoples lifetime to delay a disease…

Obesity hasn’t changed that much. Around 70% of Americans were overweight or obese before the pandemic. Diet is the most important factor in weight gain or weight loss. And except for a few dumb months at the beginning, parks and outdoor areas are open for recreation. I’ve been running 4x a week for the whole pandemic without issue where I live, nothing stopped people from exercising if they wanted to follow the heal…

> Vaccines aren’t a magic bullet.

That's not what the narrative says. It's earier (and popular) to say "it's a pandemic of the unvaxinated" than to tell the truth. That is, diet, lifestyle and personal health matter. They impact day to day heatlth, and they impact your ability to recover from unplanned health challenges (e.g., car accident, Covid, etc.)

The idea that there is zero connection between diet + lifestyle and health is completely unscientific. To promote / deny that during a pandemic is insane.

Re: Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of hospitalization for Covid

#116

Post by ceejayoz »

tinus_hn wrote: post #107
ceejayoz wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This really doesn't track with even basic fact checking. They didn't treat it like the Black Death; if anything, death estimates were way too low. https://www.npr.org/2020/04/09/830664814/fauci-says-u-s-coro... > The final toll currently "looks more like 60,000 than the 100,000 to 200,000" that U.S. officials previously estimated, Fauci said. As for obesity and age, they were pretty clear on that: https://www.fierceh…

Or perhaps they just aren’t that good? Because they might have poopoo-ed the risks at one time, at another time they have also inflated the risks to the point of making people think a positive test is a death sentence. In addition to flat out lying about that Chinese lab, of course.

Or, estimates are hard.

Any programmer knows “that should take a couple hours” may take just a few minutes or wind up taking days. We’ve all been there, despite being experts in our field.

At no point did I ever feel public health experts portrayed a COVID case as a death sentence. Much of the early uncertainty was whether the CFR was 1% versus 2% or so.

Re: Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of hospitalization for Covid

#117

Post by tinus_hn »

ceejayoz wrote: post #116
tinus_hn wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or perhaps they just aren’t that good? Because they might have poopoo-ed the risks at one time, at another time they have also inflated the risks to the point of making people think a positive test is a death sentence. In addition to flat out lying about that Chinese lab, of course.

Or, estimates are hard. Any programmer knows “that should take a couple hours” may take just a few minutes or wind up taking days. We’ve all been there, despite being experts in our field. At no point did I ever feel public health experts portrayed a COVID case as a death sentence. Much of the early uncertainty was whether the CFR was 1% versus 2% or so.

Oh yeah, when it’s time to put measures on other people, we’re all so absolutely sure how it’s necessary and how it’s going to work. Just trust the experts, they know what’s right!

But when it later turns out it didn’t work, well we can never be sure now can we?

Re: Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of hospitalization for Covid

#118

Post by ceejayoz »

tinus_hn wrote: post #117
ceejayoz wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, estimates are hard. Any programmer knows “that should take a couple hours” may take just a few minutes or wind up taking days. We’ve all been there, despite being experts in our field. At no point did I ever feel public health experts portrayed a COVID case as a death sentence. Much of the early uncertainty was whether the CFR was 1% versus 2% or so.

Oh yeah, when it’s time to put measures on other people, we’re all so absolutely sure how it’s necessary and how it’s going to work. Just trust the experts, they know what’s right! But when it later turns out it didn’t work, well we can never be sure now can we?

I trust that experts in epidemiology have a better chance than I do, yes. Similarly, they should trust me on estimating software projects, even if I've been by no means perfect at it.

Re: Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of hospitalization for Covid

#119

Post by tinus_hn »

ceejayoz wrote: post #118
tinus_hn wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yeah, when it’s time to put measures on other people, we’re all so absolutely sure how it’s necessary and how it’s going to work. Just trust the experts, they know what’s right! But when it later turns out it didn’t work, well we can never be sure now can we?

I trust that experts in epidemiology have a better chance than I do, yes. Similarly, they should trust me on estimating software projects, even if I've been by no means perfect at it.

An interesting difference is that if I hire you and common sense tells me your estimate is impossible I’ll just not do business with you.

But even if common sense makes it clear that the ideas of these experts are unachievable and are never going to work, like the ‘covid 0’ plans and the ‘15 days to stop the spread’ plans, or the doomsday predictions that are clearly never going to come true, I can’t choose not to suffer the consequences.

These experts are a lot less than perfect. Some of them are more like politicians then like scientists. And the ones that are more like scientists frequently contradict each other, which is perfectly fine but should show people with common sense that it is not the brightest idea to blindly trust anything they say.

Re: Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of hospitalization for Covid

#120

Post by loudtieblahblah »

hacksnewer wrote: post #36
loudtieblahblah wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Prior to studies being done, how do we evaluate who is a quack and who is correct You allow the dialog to take place and make up your own mind. >I would argue that anyone who had a solution to Covid should rush to get it published in a reputable Any tool thats not a vaccine gets associated with Trump or the right wing and is dismissed. Its even stifled funding for anti-virals that give a 50% reduction in hospitaliza…

How many people actually have the expertise to evalaute medical data like that? They don't. There's a very very small number of Hners that if they are honest with themselves are qualified to do that. I'm not saying that from a high and mghty position, I'm doing that from a place that I see HN talk incredibly ignorantly about all the time. HN is supposed to be smart. You give the average person the ability to do "rese…

You're making the argument against free speech, no matter the subject. You realize that, right?

And if only "experts" are allowed speech, then how do we qualify an expert? Bc if we go by the last 2 years we're not even allowing public debate amongst medical experts, intellectuals or even the person who helped invent an mrna vaccine without gross censorship.

Experts has come to mean government appointments and government agencies,which makes them all potentially influenced by political pressures.

So the only "valid" opinions have obvious flaws and no one else, regardless of qualifications is allowed to speak up.

Bc medical experts and scientists not deemed as part of the agenda get derided as "the average person" bc they dared to have wrongthink.

Post reply on HN