Coronavirus on a Personal Basis

[Slim Cognito]

I'm late to this thread. Big hugs and positive thoughts to PG and Kev.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

SIL's aunt passed away this morning. I've reminded her that she can rant at me as much as she needs. The rage was palpable.

[Dave from down under]

My sympathy

[Uninformed]

and mine.

[Volkonski]

and mine.

Ditto.

[filly]

A few decades ago, men were used for testing pharmaceuticals that would be used by women. IIRC, this was a big problem re estrogen for birth control pills and menopause. And then the number of women having breast and cervical cancer increased.... Doses are much lower now.

Are you saying birth control pills were tested on men?

[AndyinPA]

Sorry, Kevin.

[Lani]

Hugs for you Kevin.

[Lani]

A few decades ago, men were used for testing pharmaceuticals that would be used by women. IIRC, this was a big problem re estrogen for birth control pills and menopause. And then the number of women having breast and cervical cancer increased.... Doses are much lower now.

Are you saying birth control pills were tested on men?

That was decades ago. Planned Parenthood doctors told clients (including me) that there needed to be time off from the pills due to serious side effects including depression. A 2 year break IIRC. I was told that men were used in the trials (maybe as a control group) and did not have the same side effects or had a lower percent of side effects.

The level of estrogen and progestin in the pill was dramatically reduced in the mid-1970's.

Ignoring women in drug trials has continued. In 2016:

Critics derided the drug’s limited pool of legitimate patients (which will certainly expand through popular usage beyond the prescribed indications), low level of effectiveness, significant side effects, and misleading feminist-themed marketing campaign.

But perhaps lost amidst the media blitz was the design of a study that the FDA required the drug company to complete to determine the degree of danger in mixing Addyi with alcohol, in which the researchers concluded that women should not drink any alcohol while taking this daily drug. That study enrolled 23 men and only two women. That’s a population of 92 percent men for a drug intended only for women....

For decades, biomedical researchers excluded women from clinical trials, assuming that women and men experience conditions and treatments identically. And for decades, we’ve known that isn’t true. Women differ from men in the prevalence, symptoms and response to treatments for many health problems.

https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/ ... ed-on-men/

[Sam the Centipede]

Thanks Lani, that's really interesting.

I never realized that bias could be quite so ridiculous! One could make an argument from a safety perspective for very limited tests in men, but surely that's all.

There used to be a problem that most early clinical trials of drugs were on medical students because (I guess) they formed an accessible and compliant population. But they were young adults, generally healthy, and (at the time) overwhelmingly male. In other words, an unrepresentative sample of the general population in all dimensions.

As women became more included, there was still the issue of women's bodies experiencing more variation through their lives than men's do. There are the same general "wearing out" issues in both sexes, but men don't pass through menopause, and women's bodies change following pregnancy. Plus, of course, the additional confounders of monthly cycles and being pregnant (and not necessarily being aware of that).

I recommend a recent (2019) book by Caroline Criado Perez titled Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. It has insights both small and large. Ms. Criado Perez is British so her focus is (iirc) on Europe but I think it will work for readers in other regions of the world. I can't recall whether she explores medicine much.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Sympathy, kevin.

[filly]

A few decades ago, men were used for testing pharmaceuticals that would be used by women. IIRC, this was a big problem re estrogen for birth control pills and menopause. And then the number of women having breast and cervical cancer increased.... Doses are much lower now.

Are you saying birth control pills were tested on men?

That was decades ago. Planned Parenthood doctors told clients (including me) that there needed to be time off from the pills due to serious side effects including depression. A 2 year break IIRC. I was told that men were used in the trials (maybe as a control group) and did not have the same side effects or had a lower percent of side effects.

The level of estrogen and progestin in the pill was dramatically reduced in the mid-1970's.

Ignoring women in drug trials has continued. In 2016:

Critics derided the drug’s limited pool of legitimate patients (which will certainly expand through popular usage beyond the prescribed indications), low level of effectiveness, significant side effects, and misleading feminist-themed marketing campaign.

But perhaps lost amidst the media blitz was the design of a study that the FDA required the drug company to complete to determine the degree of danger in mixing Addyi with alcohol, in which the researchers concluded that women should not drink any alcohol while taking this daily drug. That study enrolled 23 men and only two women. That’s a population of 92 percent men for a drug intended only for women....

For decades, biomedical researchers excluded women from clinical trials, assuming that women and men experience conditions and treatments identically. And for decades, we’ve known that isn’t true. Women differ from men in the prevalence, symptoms and response to treatments for many health problems.

https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/ ... ed-on-men/

I'm sorry, but men being used in clinical trials of birth control pills isn't making sense to me. Perhaps you are thinking about the components (i.e., estrogen) having been tested on men? But the birth control pills themselves, which work on the functions of the female reproductive system, being tested on men?

[Suranis]

Since Men have No Oestrogen they could have been a useful control for the effects of the drug without the women's own Oestrogen production mucking up the numbers.

And when was this? Science has advanced since the 1930s. they might not have realised the differences between Women's bodies compared with Men. nearly 100 years of Biology does make a serious difference in how we understand gender difference.

Aside from today when we are told that Men can turn into women to the point that they can compete with Women in sports without any advantage at all despite still posting times and weightlifting scores that are Average for men's sports.

Oh, sorry, not supposed to notice that men's bodies are different to women's bodies when it comes to that stuff, are we. *sips latte*

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

So Dr. Vicklund went in for a bunch of shots yesterday. They are switching her to another steroid that is less effective because the one she was on now costs $1000 per shot. Why? Well, because it is the same steroid used to treat hospitalized Covid patients, and there's not enough supply to meet demand.

[sugar magnolia]

So Dr. Vicklund went in for a bunch of shots yesterday. They are switching her to another steroid that is less effective because the one she was on now costs $1000 per shot. Why? Well, because it is the same steroid used to treat hospitalized Covid patients, and there's not enough supply to meet demand.

Fuck those people. Damn them all to hell.

[bill_g]

Two stories from co-workers:

Our AP manager is taking bereavement leave because her 46yo son died from covid. Truely unfortunate.

We may have to terminate another apprentice tech because of covid. This week we found out an apprentice knew he tested positive, withheld the information, came to work anyway because he felt good enough, and went to multiple job sites exposing his colleagues and other trades. We found out when his wife called in for him saying how sick he was, that they thought he had gotten over it ...... ! Ugh.

And his supervisor knew he was a refusenik about covid. Double Ugh.

So, we will have at least ten people out on quarantine putting a bunch of work on hold.

[sidebar] We let an apprentice from the same group go a few months ago because he came to work to tell us he tested positive over the weekend. Brilliant. But, he also refused to *not* carry a sidearm at all times even at customer locations with signs clearly stating their policies about firearms at their entrances.

[p0rtia]

They don't make the news (okay, the news is pretty busy), but we all know stories like this are playing out everywhere. In states where individuals are encouraged to spread death by actively homicidal governors, it's no doubt worse. But still, everywhere.

I've had chats with friends who have decided to act on the principle that they can trust no one's word that they are vaccinated or not sick, even people they know pretty well. Which is just brutal in work situations.

Ugh.

[MN-Skeptic]

My oldest sister is going to be a grandmother for the first time in January when her daughter gives birth to a baby boy. Unfortunately, my sister is adamantly against the Covid vaccine. She wrote a long piece on her blog about all the things wrong with the vaccine. My very intelligent niece, though, is just as adamantly pro-vaccine and had told her mother that she will not be allowed to be around the baby as long as she is not vaccinated. So my sister will not even be able to hold and play with her new grandson. How sad.

[p0rtia]

My oldest sister is going to be a grandmother for the first time in January when her daughter gives birth to a baby boy. Unfortunately, my sister is adamantly against the Covid vaccine. She wrote a long piece on her blog about all the things wrong with the vaccine. My very intelligent niece, though, is just as adamantly pro-vaccine and had told her mother that she will not be allowed to be around the baby as long as she is not vaccinated. So my sister will not even be able to hold and play with her new grandson. How sad.

This is sad, and I'm so sorry for you, your niece, and everyone else who has a loved one who has gone down the antivaxx rabbit hole. So I hope this doesn't clunk with you: I'm just thinking, if you, your niece, and whoever decide to work on your sister to get vaxxed, and if you succeeded in disposing of all her arguments, one by one, for as long as it takes, that would be great; but if you try and fail, or if, come birthing day and after, your sister is still refusing, I might conclude that there is hell of a lot more going on here than "all the things wrong with the vaccine."* Because though I've never been a grandmother, I'm pretty sure from watching the grandmothers I know, that they would walk through fire to do anything for their grand-kids. A neutral observer (me) might fairly feel that a COVID vaccine is a laughable nothing compared to what most grandmothers would do for their grand-kids.

* Not implying family relations at all; thinking more along the lines of deep-seated ignorance or a functional disorder that has led to noticable lifelong anomalies. And I hope this doesn't read as rude as I fear it might; I am just fascinated by this stuff.

[pipistrelle]

My oldest sister is going to be a grandmother for the first time in January when her daughter gives birth to a baby boy. Unfortunately, my sister is adamantly against the Covid vaccine. She wrote a long piece on her blog about all the things wrong with the vaccine. My very intelligent niece, though, is just as adamantly pro-vaccine and had told her mother that she will not be allowed to be around the baby as long as she is not vaccinated. So my sister will not even be able to hold and play with her new grandson. How sad.

Her choice of what’s more important to her. Will you get to? Post/send lots of photos to her.

[Phoenix520]

How sad.

It is sad but not full-sized violin sized sad.

You makes your choices
And takes your chances

MN, I’m sorry, it’s your sister, things feel different with family. Even my Vedantic beliefs, which hold that every single person on earth is just like me (or IS me, I haven’t gotten to that part yet ) and we’re all doing the same thing, the purfuit of happineff, and I can’t judge them, (Until they become a danger to me, then I can judge but not hate) can’t stop how I feel about the willfully obstinate.


I hope she changes her mind.

[MN-Skeptic]

My oldest sister has always been a bossy know-it-all. She is also brilliant with a master’s degree in math. Unfortunately, like a lot of other brilliant people, she also believes that gives her the ability to do critical research on the internet and then know more than anyone else. Oh, she’s done her research on the Covid vaccine! There are a slew of knowledgeable sounding scientists who have written very impressive articles on why the vaccine is really bad. Those are the articles my sister cites as references.

As far as trying to change her mind? Not going to happen. Her daughter’s wife has a PhD in chemistry and is working in a medical laboratory. She has an actual educated knowledge of these vaccines. Yet my sister will choose to believe internet scientists over her own daughter-in-law.

The other thing about my sister? She, like most of my siblings (and me) inherited our father’s stubborn streak (although, in me, it’s the “courage of my convictions” ). So I can’t imagine my oldest sister ever changing her mind. My sister lives in Atlanta, her daughter is in the Boston area, and I live in Minnesota. Actually, we were all together in August at a family reunion. Apparently my niece felt she was protected enough with a vaccine to be around the rest of the family. I just learned that my niece’s wife recently experienced a very mild breakthrough case of Covid.

I’m glad my niece will be putting her son’s health first and I sure hope they develop and approve a vaccine for the youngest children soon.

[bill_g]

Epitaph for the age: I did my own research.

[MN-Skeptic]

When Obama was running for office and I saw a post somewhere else that he was not eligible, I did internet research to find out what the issue was. That led me to Doc Conspiracy’s website, and then to The Fogbow.

There are some things I may be an expert on, but the law is not one of them. So, I realized that I had to find reasonable sounding lawyers and rely on their knowledge. It’s the same thing with medical issues - find the reasonable main stream experts and listen to what they have to say. When you rely on a contrary position rejected by mainstream lawyers and mainstream scientists, you are proclaiming that YOU know more than those mainstream lawyers and scientists. I’ve seen enough technical analyses from both areas to know that it requires a lot more education on my part to intelligently reject their conclusions. And, if I did have that education, I would probably agree with them.

[Sam the Centipede]

On MN-S's point: somewhere I saw a screen capture of a fragment of a Twitter argument which was a beautiful demolition job, something like this:

Antivaxxer: So you believe the government about Covid, sucker? Do your research sheeple!

Sane person: Hell yes, I do! The CDC is an organization with an annual budget of about six billion dollars, thousands of staff trained in infectious diseases, hundreds of experts with many years of experience, medical degrees, university doctorates, including world-respected authorities. It has access to experts in the best universities and laboratories in America and the world. You think I should instead trust the incoherent ravings of gullible losers with no medical qualifications, no education in microbiology, no understanding of immunology? You're an idiot!