Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hospitals in New York region say they've run out of antibody treatment for omicron variant
NBC ^ | 21 December 2021 | Shannon Pettypiece and Stephanie Ruhle

Posted on 12/22/2021 12:43:55 AM PST by blueplum

Federal supply of the one monoclonal antibody treatment that has proven effective is now "limited," with more doses expected in January, a Health and Human Services spokesperson said.

Major hospitals in the New York region say they have stopped using monoclonal antibody therapies because they have run out of the one treatment that appears to be effective against the omicron variant of the coronavirus, leaving doctors without a vital tool to treat severely ill Covid-19 patients.

New York University and Valley Health System in northern New Jersey notified doctors Sunday...

Meanwhile, Mount Sinai Health System in New York said it would stop offering monoclonal antibodies in its emergency departments....

...only one of the available antibodies — sotrovimab, made by GlaxoSmithKline — appears to be effective against the omicron variant, which accounts for the majority of new Covid cases in the U.S.

Hospitals in other parts of the country say they have very limited supplies of sotrovimab given how new it is, said Dr. Marcus Plescia, the chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials....

(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Health/Medicine; Science
KEYWORDS: anthonyfauci; carona; covidstooges; death; ivermectin; justtheflu; mab; monoclonalantibodies; monoclonalantibody; monoclonalspandemic; moronic; newyork; rona; sotrovimab
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-104 next last
To: Pollard

Saying a prayer for your wife, you and those at the nursing home. Hope she’s able to get all she needs to get well fast.


41 posted on 12/22/2021 5:38:51 AM PST by I want to know
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
I mentioned the UKSHA figures earlier. I was referring in particular to the COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report for week 44.

Table 4 a/b on pages 18 and 19 of the report is very instructive.

It lists 'Deaths within 28 days / within 60 days of positive test' respectively.

It is presented by age profile, and over a short time window so we don't get early-year mixed with late-year data.

What we don't have (and which is needed to complete the picture) is an accurate vaccination rate by age cohort.

At the time of the report (week 44) the vax rate in the UK was about 67% of the general population, and maybe 91% of the oldest age cohort.

I can't vouch for the rate estimate for the oldest cohort, so I am willing to entertain the possibility of 100% vax coverage rather than 91%. This assumption would lead to the very best outcome for the vaccine.

Looking at that cohort in Table 4 a/b. Of the 1897 deaths reported in-period in the over-80 cohort, 181 were of unvaccinated persons.

The rest (91%) were vaccinated.

If 91% of cases leading to death are of vaccinated people then we must look hard at the vax rate.

If the over-80s age-cohort was ~90% vaccinated in week 44 then the vaccine is clearly doing nothing. If 100% were vaccinated (clearly not literally true of course as we have unvaccinated deaths in this age cohort, but bear with me) then we are seeing a roughly 10% improvement in outcomes in this age cohort.

If people were really being injected with an effective vaccine - wouldn't the correct figure for vaccinated deaths in the most vulnerable (>80) cohort be much less than those for the unvaccinated, even if there were ~10 times as many vaccinated people in the sample?

It seems that we are looking at a 'vaccine' that statistically has very little effect.

And that's without considering the effects of Vaccine-caused injury and death. The UK MHRA may soon be taken to court for their alleged breaches of care in this respect.

42 posted on 12/22/2021 5:49:49 AM PST by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

” the omicron variant, which accounts for the majority of new Covid cases in the U.S.”

A few days ago it was the first cases, now it is most?? BS!


43 posted on 12/22/2021 5:53:47 AM PST by CodeToad (Arm up! They Have!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qilin

“due to some wackadoodle internet nonsense they’ve bought into.”

The fact you believe in this covid crap says you are the wackadoodle. Easily gullible.


44 posted on 12/22/2021 5:56:05 AM PST by CodeToad (Arm up! They Have!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EBH; I want to know

Thanks

MO had it’s first Omicron case on the 16th in St Louis which is 50 miles up the interstate so I have no idea if it’s Delta or Omicron. If it’s Omicron, it’s not too big of a big deal. Can’t be sure though so I’m going forward like it’s Delta.


45 posted on 12/22/2021 6:03:38 AM PST by Pollard (PureBlood -- youtube.com/watch?v=VXm0fkDituE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

I must say Code that I thank God for omicron.

It’s like a Christmas present. A safe variant that spreads easily with low-to zero fatality (depending on how you look at patient co-morbidities).

And once you’ve had it, that’s it. You’ve had the cowpox, so you’re immune to the smallpox.

Of course our politicians and half our citizens are still infected with fear and spiritual pride. But even that will pass, please God.


46 posted on 12/22/2021 6:08:59 AM PST by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
If 100% were vaccinated (clearly not literally true of course as we have unvaccinated deaths in this age cohort, but bear with me) then we are seeing a roughly 10% improvement in outcomes in this age cohort.

My bad - this isn't true. I can't just pretend that 100% of the >80 cohort is vaccinated: we would end up with an insane signal as a denominator would go to zero. Medical statisticians on FR are now looking at me funny.

The 91% estimated full vax rate for the >80 yr cohort is plausibly correct: Graphs from the BBC seem to indicate that 92% of the >80 yr cohort have had a 1st injection.

Caveat: this graph seems to be based on estimates based on NHS registrations rather than actual injection receipts.

47 posted on 12/22/2021 6:44:11 AM PST by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64

We are working on our second batch of homemade HCQ which we take daily with tonic water and a thousand supplements. So far not a sniffle.


48 posted on 12/22/2021 6:49:53 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LilFarmer

Got her an appointment. She wasn’t too happy when I told her that her BMI was what qualified her because bronchitis doesn’t count. LOL.

COPD is what her diagnosis was a few years back but I couldn’t think of it and she was sleeping when I called the infusion center. COPD is actually a qualifying condition.

Just found out she’s got to go to work and get a retest this morning as standard procedure. That communication thing I mentioned. She doesn’t have a fever but still coughing, headache and feeling generally ill. If she tests negative this time, who knows where we go from there. Maybe immediately test again? Best 2 out of 3?


49 posted on 12/22/2021 8:40:59 AM PST by Pollard (PureBlood -- youtube.com/watch?v=VXm0fkDituE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Pollard

If it’s Omicron, she may not have much more than what you mentioned.

I don’t know if Omicron is what my son and friends had, but it was a cold with a mild fever for 3 days, and a mild cough for a week.

None of them tested positive for covid, all are vaxxed but my son, I was sure he would give it to DH and I since we took care of him and weren’t careful, but we never caught it.


50 posted on 12/22/2021 8:45:41 AM PST by LilFarmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: blueplum

I don’t trust that they are not just limiting a proven, effective therapy so that they have plenty available for their friends.

I don’t trust that they are not just limiting the therapy because they think doing so will lead to increased vaccinations.

I don’t trust that they are not just limiting the therapy to increase deaths.


51 posted on 12/22/2021 10:34:46 AM PST by BusterDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LilFarmer

Well she got the monoclonal.

The nursing home is required to report all cases so by the time we got back, someone from the county health dept had called. The wife called back and the woman just asked about how she’s feeling, listed off symptoms for yes or no replies. When my wife said she’d had the treatment, she asked if her doctor had prescribed it, no. Then asked how she found out about it, husband looked it up on the web. I did a web search for “monoclonal antibody treatment locations missouri” and the top result was MO health dept with a link to a map of all locations. Simple. Then the woman said a lot of people have been asking about it but that they had no answers for them. I found a link on health.mo.gov and these people who work for the county health dept have no clue about where the infusion centers are. She also said most doctors don’t know where to get them either.

I’m starting to think Dr Scott Atlas is right. Most of these people are just incompetent. I had to wait in the car for two hours because they don’t let anyone in there that’s not getting the treatment. Found some talk radio and during one segment, a guy said that due to obamacare, doctors are now employees as opposed to individual thinking doctors. The government pays them in a lot of cases so they’ve become government employees which breeds incompetence and lack of accountability.


52 posted on 12/22/2021 3:34:01 PM PST by Pollard (PureBlood -- youtube.com/watch?v=VXm0fkDituE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster; Cobra64; blueplum

“Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22446-z

“This collaborative meta-analysis of 28 published or unpublished RCTs, including 10,319 patients, shows that treatment with HCQ was associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there was no benefit from treatment with CQ. No differences were seen across subgroup analyses on patient setting, diagnosis confirmation, control type, publication status, or dose and the between-study heterogeneity was low. For CQ, the number of studies was too small to draw clear conclusions.”

“This meta-analysis offers useful insights for a challenging health situation. Hundreds of thousands of patients have received HCQ and CQ outside of clinical trials without evidence of their beneficial effects. Public interest is unprecedented, with weak early evidence supporting HCQ’s merits being widely discussed in some media and social networks—despite the unfavorable results by a very large RCT. Numerous clinical studies have been investigating HCQ and CQ almost simultaneously. Although several systematic reviews and meta-analyses are already available, they only consider the small handful of RCTs being already published (which were all included here). While data sharing has been rather limited to date in biomedical research, such openness can be transformative in generating knowledge. This pandemic has brought together a collaboration of clinical trialists agreeing to share their data, which allows this study to not only summarize the existing evidence but also illustrate the accumulation of evidence that would otherwise not be available.”

“For HCQ, evidence is dominated by the RECOVERY trial13, which indicated no mortality benefit for treated COVID-19 patients, together with longer hospitalization and higher risk of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation and/or death. Similarly, the WHO SOLIDARITY trial indicated no mortality benefit. The RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY trials used HCQ in comparatively higher doses than all other trials except REMAP-CAP. There was no evidence for an effect modification by dose, and the combined effect of all the trials with lower dose did not indicate a benefit of HCQ but tended to a null effect, compatible with the main effect estimate.

This meta-analysis does not address prophylactic use nor other outcomes besides mortality. All but three trials excluded children and the majority excluded pregnant or breastfeeding women; generalizability remains unclear for those populations. Among the five studies on outpatients, there were three deaths, two occurring in the one trial of 491 relatively young patients with few comorbidities and one occurring in a small trial with 27 patients. For outpatients who are elderly or have comorbidities, evidence is sparse. Most of the 28 trials excluded persons with comorbid conditions carrying higher risk of adverse events from HCQ or CQ16. No evidence is in the pipeline for these groups, which echoes clinical reasoning being reluctant to expose them to risk.


53 posted on 12/22/2021 6:28:43 PM PST by Pelham (Q is short for quack )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Paul R.

good point


54 posted on 12/22/2021 7:27:26 PM PST by blueplum ("...this moment is your moment: it belongs to you... " President Donald J. Trump, Jan 20, 2017) )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: blueplum; Cobra64; null and void; SeekAndFind; Paul R.; Pelham; kiryandil; FreedomPoster; ...

I found a link yesterday that I think was dealing with this overall topic, but was paying more attention to the many comments and posting same. But check it out.

https://www.aol.com/news/omicron-may-sideline-two-leading-154642435-035119133.html


55 posted on 12/22/2021 7:36:38 PM PST by gleeaikin (Question authority!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

so....they “let” the UK and France get 90% and 78% vaccinated, for why? Are they the new masters? Long Live the Queen! Viva le Champes Elyesse lol.

If “the plan” was to off the eaters, why does the virus attack old people who don’t eat much and stay home in front of the tv instead of young kids who eat like they have hollow legs and go out and burn and break things?


56 posted on 12/22/2021 7:39:38 PM PST by blueplum ("...this moment is your moment: it belongs to you... " President Donald J. Trump, Jan 20, 2017) )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: blueplum
If “the plan” was to off the eaters, why does the virus attack old people who don’t eat much and stay home in front of the tv instead of young kids who eat like they have hollow legs and go out and burn and break things?

I never wrote anything about "offing the eaters".

I have just been pointing out that when you have pallets upon pallets of Benjamins, there might be no need to share what you believe to be the finite resources of a planet with people who don't have pallets of Benjamins.

A few hundred thousand people or a few million people would have a nice tidy little planet of their very own without all this worry about "climate change", if only 7.9 billion people "went away"...

In demographics, the world population is the total number of humans currently living, and was estimated to have reached 7,905,000,000 people as of November 2021 .

Bill Gates doesn't need you or me hanging around cluttering up the view on any of his newly-declared Elite Nature Preserves, after him and his pals flip the OFF switch...

57 posted on 12/22/2021 9:10:09 PM PST by kiryandil (China Joe and Paycheck Hunter - the Chink in America's defenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: gleeaikin

Thanks. I’m waiting for the government to allow the release of Ivermectin. I had to buy the tablets from overseas.


58 posted on 12/22/2021 11:52:57 PM PST by Cobra64 (Common sense isn’t common anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: blueplum; kiryandil; Cobra64; All

The virus is offing the old people who get little sun and therefore are more deficient in Vitamin D, and since they don’t eat as much are likely to be more deficient in a number of critical nutrients. Thus they get sick and die. Why do you think the plan was to “off the eaters”? If it was, it is because the “planners” are following the drug model rather than the nutrition model of disease prevention and cure. We have pretty much solved most of the diseases that can be cured with drugs. Our big killers like diabetes, morbid obesity, heart disease, etc. are primarily nutritional and life style diseases, not caused by pathogens. Big pharma may be getting scared, I certainly hope so.


59 posted on 12/23/2021 3:28:13 AM PST by gleeaikin (Question authority!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64; All

I believe at least one of the major government health agencies has gone neutral on Ivermectin, but many doctors and health centers are still running scared of consequences.


60 posted on 12/23/2021 3:29:58 AM PST by gleeaikin (Question authority!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-104 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson