My Quarantine And Vaccination Plan. - Page 3 - Chit Chat/Intros - HayTalk - Hay & Forage Community - Page 3

Jump to content




Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

My Quarantine And Vaccination Plan.


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#41 somedevildawg

somedevildawg

    Member

  • Members
  • 10015 posts
  • LocationTifton georgia

Posted 18 January 2021 - 09:48 PM

Interesting about the MMR vaccine.....hadn’t thought about that possibility. But it certainly doesn’t explain why my aunt at 91 had Covid-19 and barely ran a fever. Just a wide array of differences in the way it affects certain people. What ever became of the blood links....evidence that 0 types fared better? Kinda strange it seems, don’t ever remember blood types being linked.....

And congrats on the new addition, what a cool name! Nothing quite like being a father.....nothing in this mortal world (Although being a “Big Daddy” does run a close second :D )
  • Hayjosh likes this

#42 Hayjosh

Hayjosh

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 982 posts
  • LocationKalamazoo, MI

Posted 18 January 2021 - 10:32 PM

Interesting about the MMR vaccine.....hadn’t thought about that possibility. But it certainly doesn’t explain why my aunt at 91 had Covid-19 and barely ran a fever. Just a wide array of differences in the way it affects certain people. What ever became of the blood links....evidence that 0 types fared better? Kinda strange it seems, don’t ever remember blood types being linked.....

And congrats on the new addition, what a cool name! Nothing quite like being a father.....nothing in this mortal world (Although being a “Big Daddy” does run a close second :D )

 

Yeah my grandma who's about the same age as your aunt had it as well in her nursing home (along with many others) and she didn't get so much as a runny nose. That lady is built like an Abrahm's tank despite her small frail size. I've lost track of how many times she's been in and out of hospice as they were thinking it was finally her end. She just keeps on ticking.

 

It really does affect people in different ways. I guess there's a lot we'll have to learn on that. One running hypothesis is severity of disease is based on the viral dose you're infected with (maybe this explains asymptomatic people...they just got hit with very tiny dose). Have heard about the blood type link as well but haven't looked into it.



#43 Hayjosh

Hayjosh

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 982 posts
  • LocationKalamazoo, MI

Posted 18 January 2021 - 10:39 PM

I’ve often said, I would much rather have a blood test for antibodies than a CoronaVirus test....I think it takes a little longer but it would seem to glean much more information that a + - test....what say you Josh? I’m not sure I could take repeated testing.....I had a friend that could thankfully get in for a prostate removal about two weeks ago, had to be tested twice in consecutive days. Why not do a antibodies test first, if negative then proceed with the jamming of a q-tip up your nose :o

 My antibody test is just a positive or negative result (like a home pregnancy test). It tests a prick of blood from your finger and you get a result in 10 minutes. You ask a good question, but there's an even better answer ;) 

 

There's a lag in the time it takes to make antibodies if you're infected. If a test is detecting IgM antibodies, which is the first antibody class your body makes, it takes about 5-10 days for them to pop up. If the test is detecting IgG antibodies, it takes that antibody class about 14 days to pop up after infection. So a negative antibody test doesn't indicate you're not infected (you could be in that window).  The antigen test (nose test) will detect viral genetic material (RNA) if it's present then. There are some antigen tests that only require swabbing inside the nose and not stabbing the brain, and others can use saliva or gum swab.

 

I only see two purposes for COVID antibody tests, the first being to tell if you'd been previously exposed or infected, or the second to monitor duration of an antibody response, whether it be to vaccination or infection. It doesn't have utility as an indicator of active infection.


  • somedevildawg and r82230 like this

#44 somedevildawg

somedevildawg

    Member

  • Members
  • 10015 posts
  • LocationTifton georgia

Posted 18 January 2021 - 11:17 PM

But given that....doesn’t it seem better for (say my buddies case) take the antibodies test prior (14-21 days) and if they show up, you and the surrounding people are good.....if not, test. Doesn’t that make more sense? Btw, they had to jab his briain (that’s the way he described it) twice. He still hasn’t been tested for antibodies that I know of....interesting enuf, if you give blood they automatically do the test...in my wife’s case, they wanted her to have the vaccine even tho she had Covid back in July.....the vaccine (moderno ) made her feel exactly like when she had the virus but for only about 36 hrs....my take was if she had been tested for Covid and tested + then she certainly should have antibodies. Enough in her case that she felt comfortable letting someone else that was higher priority have her dosage, it is after all about saving lives. Seems antibody testing should be implemented more.....we really have little data on how many are living with antibodies now. Have you seen evidence that points to an individual having previous CoronaVirus strains having desirable antibodies for fighting Covid 19?
  • Hayjosh likes this

#45 Hayjosh

Hayjosh

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 982 posts
  • LocationKalamazoo, MI

Posted 19 January 2021 - 09:02 PM



 

But given that....doesn’t it seem better for (say my buddies case) take the antibodies test prior (14-21 days) and if they show up, you and the surrounding people are good.....if not, test. Doesn’t that make more sense?

 

Yeah it does make a lot of sense and that's a good point. Because like you're getting at, if you're antibody positive, you probably aren't going to be virus positive (since your quarantine/infectious period is up before you start getting measurable IgG antibodies). 

 

 

Btw, they had to jab his briain (that’s the way he described it) twice. He still hasn’t been tested for antibodies that I know of....interesting enuf, if you give blood they automatically do the test...in my wife’s case, they wanted her to have the vaccine even tho she had Covid back in July.....the vaccine (moderno ) made her feel exactly like when she had the virus but for only about 36 hrs....my take was if she had been tested for Covid and tested + then she certainly should have antibodies.

 

You would be surprised at the number of people that are COVID pos and do not make an antibody response. I just completed an antibody testing study with a medical school and 15% of the subjects tested with a previous diagnosis of COVID (within several months) tested negative for antibodies  on two different tests. One person had just mild symptoms and I don't know how bad symptoms were for the other people. It could be that if disease is mild your innate immunity takes care of it all and you never mount an active immune response where you'd make antibodies. If your wife had pretty bad symptoms and was sick for awhile then she most certainly has lots of antibodies. The antibody results seem like they're all or nothing. The people that are antibody positive are REALLY positive. Those people that are antibody negative despite a previous COVID diagnosis are the ones I believe are susceptible to reinfection.

 

 

we really have little data on how many are living with antibodies now.

 

That's an academic question and is a type of study I'd love to do, especially among retail workers, cashiers, etc who have had a lot of exposure to the public during the entire pandemic. Currently 1 in 16 people in the US have been infected with COVID now. Although I can say among people I've tested that have had no known exposure to COVID, there has not been a single one of them antibody positive. Also important to know is how long antibody responses last in people with COVID diagnosis and/or vaccination.

 

 

Have you seen evidence that points to an individual having previous CoronaVirus strains having desirable antibodies for fighting Covid 19?

 

Oh absolutely. They make neutralizing antibodies which is why plasma from convalescent (recovered) patients has been used to treat those with active infection. My own studies in animals have shown this as well.


  • somedevildawg, RockyHill and r82230 like this

#46 somedevildawg

somedevildawg

    Member

  • Members
  • 10015 posts
  • LocationTifton georgia

Posted 19 January 2021 - 09:27 PM

Good info, thanks
  • RockyHill likes this

#47 somedevildawg

somedevildawg

    Member

  • Members
  • 10015 posts
  • LocationTifton georgia

Posted 20 January 2021 - 08:00 PM

Josh, To let you know......that MMR has been in my head all day :( ain’t a whole lot of room up there for expansion :o but one other thought that has been plagueing my thought process that you may have seen any research or have been privy to; concerning asymptomatic transmission......I “think” the widespread opinion has been that asymptomatic people typically are not reliable vessels for transmission, at least I’ve never really heard much of it. But the entire transmission theory behind this virus has been centered, almost exclusively, on transmission by asymptomatic people. Given that that seems to run contrary to my perceived knowledge of viral transmissions, is there any data to suggest that this virus, despite perhaps being more infectious....Transmits at via asymtomatic people much more aggressively than any before.....
To the layman, it seems to run against the grain......
  • Hayjosh likes this

#48 Gearclash

Gearclash

    Hay Master (Supposedly)

  • Members
  • 3449 posts
  • LocationSioux County, NWIA

Posted 21 January 2021 - 08:02 AM

The early studies with hydroxychloroquine were anecdotal and were not controlled or randomized. They generated the hypothesis that hydroxychloroquine is worth investigating. When large, controlled randomized studies were conducted, hydroxychloroquine more often than not showed no benefit whatsoever. In fact one study terminated early because the treatment group was experiencing a higher mortality rate than the control group. Early on, there were no treatments 'known' or 'proven' to work. It was grasping for straws, and when something looked promising anecdotally, it went into larger studies.

 

The therapeutics used to treat Trump's COVID were the Regeneron monoclonal antibody, Remdesivir, Dexamethasone (an extremely common and inexpensive steroid that has been around forever), and he had been on Vitamin D supplements. None of these are snake oil.  Hydroxychloroquine was not used. The former have become a very successful treatment regimen and have no doubt contributed to decreased mortality.

This is what I gathered from a “best practices” “memo” circulating in the medical world.  It showed hydroxychloroquine as being of doubtful benefit at best, in some cases seemed to be harmful.  Ivermectin on the other hand, was shown to be almost across the board beneficial.


  • Hayjosh likes this

#49 r82230

r82230

    Hay Master

  • Members
  • 3981 posts
  • LocationThumb of Michigan

Posted 21 January 2021 - 08:39 AM

  Ivermectin on the other hand, was shown to be almost across the board beneficial.

 

Yep, here's one from right here in the good old USA. Seems mom was given a 20% chance of survival on ventilator.  Gave her a dosage, she then had a 48 hour turn around, so they took her out of the ICU wing to a different area of hospital, with a different doc in charge.  He refused to use Ivermectin, mom was taking a turn back to the worst, so family went to court.

 

https://www.thedeser...69ec28f4c0.html

 

https://www.legitgov...ive-life-saving

 

Larry

 

PS lady check out of the hospital two days ago. :)

 

https://spectrumloca...ental-treatment


  • somedevildawg likes this

#50 somedevildawg

somedevildawg

    Member

  • Members
  • 10015 posts
  • LocationTifton georgia

Posted 21 January 2021 - 08:58 PM

But....I’ve heard of the same type stories with hydro as well. I remember (March) one guy said he didn’t think he would be alive the next day, got a call from an old friend that was a MD and told him of the Hydroxy/zinc/d, convinced his MD and after taking them had a terrible night and the next day said he wanted to be discharged. Felt great.....
of course in the early days we were throwing everything in the book at it, but I never heard of ivermectin until we progressed thru the human drugs......who the hell knows.....

#51 swmnhay

swmnhay

    Hay Master and Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 8662 posts
  • LocationReading,Mn

Posted 22 January 2021 - 05:29 AM

I wonder if the pour on ivomectrin would work?I think in cattle it’s absorbed threw the hair to get internal well cattle have a lot more hair then We do but would it absorb threw your skin?I sure got plenty on me when I had cattle here.Wonder how long it lasts in a person.?

 

ive read where some have taken the horse paste and said it worked.

 

So why not take it if you get it right away seems to me treating something at first sign of it is better then sending people home after testing positive and tell them only to come back if it gets worse.

 

If I had a calf getting sick I’d treat it immediately with good results if I waited until Tommorow good chance it would be unresponsive to treatment and die


  • somedevildawg, CowboyRam and r82230 like this

#52 r82230

r82230

    Hay Master

  • Members
  • 3981 posts
  • LocationThumb of Michigan

Posted 22 January 2021 - 09:12 AM

 but I never heard of ivermectin until we progressed thru the human drugs......who the hell knows.....

 

Been around since 1975 so most likely off patent.  Use in humans for parasites like head lice, scabies, etc., just in today's world Doc's prescribe possibly more expensive drugs for those treatments.  ;)  

 

 

I wonder if the pour on ivomectrin would work?I think in cattle it’s absorbed threw the hair to get internal well cattle have a lot more hair then We do but would it absorb threw your skin?I sure got plenty on me when I had cattle here.Wonder how long it lasts in a person.?

 

 

Cy,  if you look like attached pix your hair might absorb it just fine. :D  :lol:  Actually, I think it's absorbed into the skin on cattle, as a mode of treatment.  This guy looks similar to the last popsicle in the freezer, IMHO.  :o

 

Larry

Attached Files


  • swmnhay and somedevildawg like this

#53 swmnhay

swmnhay

    Hay Master and Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 8662 posts
  • LocationReading,Mn

Posted 22 January 2021 - 10:33 AM

Been around since 1975 so most likely off patent. 

 

 

Its been off patent quite awhile.IIRC before went off patent it was around $600 for a 5L jug.Now its about $70


  • somedevildawg likes this

#54 somedevildawg

somedevildawg

    Member

  • Members
  • 10015 posts
  • LocationTifton georgia

Posted 22 January 2021 - 06:11 PM

I’ve only heard of it’s use in veterinarian medicine, but I can see why.....my mother said they would put warm milk under the nose to pull parasites out so they could retrieve them :o I’m sure a dose of ivermectin woulda been better :D I, for one, am thankful of modern medicine if for nothing alone than the replacement of castor oil for all that ails you......
  • r82230 likes this

#55 r82230

r82230

    Hay Master

  • Members
  • 3981 posts
  • LocationThumb of Michigan

Posted 22 January 2021 - 07:06 PM

Prices from Canadian pharmacies has sky rocketed it seems for the 3mg size.  Now at $39 for 20 - 3mg, 20 - 6mg @ $27 yet, 20 - 12mg @ $30.  Yea, backwards pricing, but market demand could be at play.  :rolleyes:

 

https://www.canadian....com/stromectol

 

Larry



#56 Hayjosh

Hayjosh

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 982 posts
  • LocationKalamazoo, MI

Posted 24 January 2021 - 12:42 AM

The ivermectin thing is still trying to find its feet for sure. The Australian study found that ivermectin inhibited viral replication in vitro, but the concentrations at which it was used were very high...much higher than what you could safely dose. That immediately cast a lot of doubt among some groups of scientists.

 

So, same story as hydroxy. Lots of observational and anecdotal evidence that it works, yet lacking in controlled, randomized large studies.

 

Just a few days ago a new study was reported in one of the papers published by The Lancet, which is the most prestigious medical journal in the world. This study looked at ivermectin in mild COVID cases, using viral RNA detection as the benchmark. There was not a statistical difference in amount of virus detected in treatment vs placebo group, but treatment group did have lower antibody titers, lower viral loads (albeit not statistically significant), and reported faster recovery of smell. So this conclusion was there could be something here, and it warrants further investigation. This study itself certainly wasn't a slam dunk for or against. 

 

There's a few exceptions I take to the study, which always make me feel a bit foolish because some very, very smart people have peer-reviewed this study and it's like 'who am I to take exception to these people?' But perhaps they had noted the same exceptions in their review (that being said, I have both authored and peer-reviewed scientific papers for veterinary journals).

 

The exceptions are...viral load by PCR is a poor benchmark for success because it does not indicate viable virus, only presence of RNA and we know that the viral RNA can hang around in people after they've cleared infection. In other words, people treated with ivermectin very well could have had reduced viral load earlier, but that can't be detected as a limitation of the study test method.

 

The second being this was mild disease, and patients were all pretty young, so not a lot to extract from reduction in symptoms or severity of symptoms, because disease was never very bad in the first place.

 

https://www.thelance...0464-8/fulltext



#57 Hayjosh

Hayjosh

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 982 posts
  • LocationKalamazoo, MI

Posted 24 January 2021 - 01:13 AM

Josh, To let you know......that MMR has been in my head all day :( ain’t a whole lot of room up there for expansion :o but one other thought that has been plagueing my thought process that you may have seen any research or have been privy to; concerning asymptomatic transmission......I “think” the widespread opinion has been that asymptomatic people typically are not reliable vessels for transmission, at least I’ve never really heard much of it. But the entire transmission theory behind this virus has been centered, almost exclusively, on transmission by asymptomatic people. Given that that seems to run contrary to my perceived knowledge of viral transmissions, is there any data to suggest that this virus, despite perhaps being more infectious....Transmits at via asymtomatic people much more aggressively than any before.....
To the layman, it seems to run against the grain......

 

That's the trillions dollar question. What seems to be more likely is transmission from people who were asymptomatic at the time. Viral shedding can start a few days before symptoms present which is why masking is important even if you feel fine.

 

I have my own theories...there has to be SOME level of transmission from asymptomatic individuals because the virus had to be circulating in people for a long time in order to mutate itself into pathogenicity. Evolutionary analysis of the SARS-CoV-2 virus suggests it evolved approximately 70 years ago. When it made the jump into people isn't exactly known, but it very likely would have had to move through humans for awhile until there was a random mutation event. And in order to move through people...it had to be contagious from asymptomatic people.

 

A recent report that just blew up everything we thought we know now points to the earliest known case of COVID in a young boy in Italy in November 2019. Virus collected from his specimens had 100% identity to the original Wuhan strain. That means it had to be moving through people much earlier than we know, but wasn't making substantial disease at that point and likely wasn't AS contagious. It also removes the exotic meat market in Wuhan as the original source.

 

To answer your question, here's an interesting conundrum posed by a recent article in the British Medical Journal.

 

 

The transmission rates to contacts within a specific group (secondary attack rate) may be 3-25 times lower for people who are asymptomatic than for those with symptoms.1121415 A city-wide prevalence study of almost 10 million people in Wuhan found no evidence of asymptomatic transmission.16 Coughing, which is a prominent symptom of covid-19, may result in far more viral particles being shed than talking and breathing, so people with symptomatic infections are more contagious, irrespective of close contact.17 On the other hand, asymptomatic and presymptomatic people may have more contacts than symptomatic people (who are isolating), underlining the importance of hand washing and social distancing measures for everyone.

 

 

https://www.bmj.com/...t/371/bmj.m4851


  • Vol, somedevildawg, r82230 and 1 other like this

#58 stack em up

stack em up

    They say you’re a man of vision....

  • Members
  • 3053 posts
  • LocationWatonwan County MN

Posted 24 January 2021 - 09:05 AM

Dang Josh, that’s a lot of neat info, thanks!

Oh, and congrats on the baby girl!
  • Hayjosh likes this

#59 Hayjosh

Hayjosh

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 982 posts
  • LocationKalamazoo, MI

Posted 24 January 2021 - 01:21 PM

Patent protection is granted for 20 years.

 

Ivermectin theoretically is absorbed through the skin. But interestingly enough, only very little of it is absorbed into the skin; most of it is ingested by licking (either from the cow or other cows).



#60 Gearclash

Gearclash

    Hay Master (Supposedly)

  • Members
  • 3449 posts
  • LocationSioux County, NWIA

Posted 24 January 2021 - 03:58 PM

"A recent report that just blew up everything we thought we know now points to the earliest known case of COVID in a young boy in Italy in November 2019. Virus collected from his specimens had 100% identity to the original Wuhan strain. That means it had to be moving through people much earlier than we know, but wasn't making substantial disease at that point and likely wasn't AS contagious. It also removes the exotic meat market in Wuhan as the original source."

 

 

That is indeed interesting.  If true it would explode a lot of current notions about Covid.  My own personal thought about the origins of Covid19 is that it is a virus doing what viruses do.  Yellow fever is a virus that didn’t exist in humans something like 500 years ago--until it mutated slightly and infected humans with disastrous consequences.  That was all long before people understood what a virus was, let alone able to engage in manipulating viruses.  No reason to think that hasn’t happened again unless there is good evidence otherwise.


  • Hayjosh likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

× Sponsors