I think this really talks to the politicization of (1) prophylactic preparation, (2) outpatient covid treatment and (3) vaccine only approaches, and (4) inpatient care where required, and the drugs used for the first and second respectively.
We've come to the point now that much of the prophylaxis, and outpatient treatment protocols for Covid are being actively suppressed on social media, and in the MSM, despite them being an adjunct, rather than a replacement for vaccination. This is similar to those that are contra-indicated for vaccines due to the pericarditis/mycarditis risk, known allergies, or peculiar side effects of certain vaccines. In my geography there is a local hospital system that is discounting prior severe anaphylaxis from covid injections, and requiring multiple injections and boosters anyways.
On the other hand, some places in flyover country have responded with the opposite tack, minimizing wanting only the politicized drugs, without having a focus on all the tools in the toolbox. Despite flyover country having huge obesity problems, I have yet to see strong mention of getting healthy and keeping BMI in check to reduce risk factors as a good response. It seems like business as usual there.
I believe strongly in science-based approaches towards our response to this crisis, involving both prophylactic/lifestyle changes, outpatient treatment, and vaccinations where indicated by risk level, unless contraindicated, with inpatient care reserved for appropriate need.
> We've come to the point now that much of the prophylaxis, and outpatient treatment protocols for Covid are being actively suppressed on social media, and in the MSM, despite them being an adjunct, rather than a replacement for vaccination.
Here are some examples of people that were banned/suspended, and one that was not.
[1] Dr. Zelenko of the Zelenko protocol fame
[2] Alex Berenson, formerly of the NYT, for raising the vaccine lack of protection issues, and for merely posting Pfizer test results [3]
[4] Dr. Martin Kulldorf, Epidemiologist, for stating natural immunity from previous infection superior to vaccine. Later proved correct by Israeli studies which proved natural immunity superior via "Interestingly, CD4+ T cell responses equally target several SARS-CoV-2 proteins, whereas the CD8+ T cell responses preferentially target the nucleoprotein, highlighting the potential importance of including the nucleoprotein in future vaccines" [5]
[6] Facebook suspended users for casting doubt on origins which later became more credible after the US government gave it more credence [7]
I think a big part of the problem is when BigTech tries to become the authority on information, and is often trailing the data from authoritative sources, or, incorrectly inserting itself into scientific debates in order to prop up a prevailing line, for which there may be weaker evidence.
[8] Jon Stewart was not banned or censored when he raised some of the same covid origin logic problems. I am not sure if this is because he is quite funny, or, it may have been viewed as a comedy bit. However, he did receive a large amount of flak from the left.
At this point in treatment, a lower risk option would likely not be enough. That said, the hospitals didn't do anything at all. A low risk option would have been better than nothing.
I think some likely did end up there after missing an early monoclonal antibody treatment protocol. Those are low-risk, high-effectiveness treatments for early phases and yet do not appear to be a universal standard of care for eligible patients.
(Low risk enough that they’re approved for some confirmed exposure cases prior to developing even a positive PCR test result.)
There are low risk options for covid. Do something. Dont just sit there.