Our Covid Response

[Phoenixmgs]

Fucking classic. I give up.

You can find a bad study for anything. Doing a 20-person study you can "prove" anything.

No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You'd think requesting evidence of something being true would imply you actually want solid evidence, not some dinky little 20 person study where there's studies with 20,000+ people saying the opposite. The point is there is literally no solid data on covid causing long-term symptoms any more than any other viral infection that does the same thing. Long covid is nothing to be fearful over anymore than long flu.

I'll give you a 20 person study that ivermectin works as prophylaxis for covid, are you going count that as legit evidence?

 

[Silvanus]

You can find a bad study for anything. Doing a 20-person study you can "prove" anything.

And you will call any study "bad" if it doesn't align with what you want it to say.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

And you will call any study "bad" if it doesn't align with what you want it to say.

And nobody's ever going to get him to admit otherwise, because this entire "discussion" has been his enraged chest-beating at how we dare to consider our own lives more important than his convenience. Just do what I did, put him on ignore and let him scream into the void.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

And you will call any study "bad" if it doesn't align with what you want it to say.

So these studies saying ivermectin works are good studies then? You give me good studies and I'll agree with them but you don't, you just search for studies that align with your preconceived notions and that's it. I agree with the data is pointing to most if not all gender treatments being good but you have to go and say it's settled science when that's not even close, that's not even how science works. The second someone posted the big and well done RCT on ivermectin, I agreed with it immediately. Where's a single example of you saying you were wrong about something covid related on this forum?

You won't even admit the vaccines don't reduce transmission when there was never even a study done on that. And when I asked you to admit that with Pfizer literally saying they never ever tested that, you don't even reply to that at all...

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Judge orders all public employees fired for not complying with the vaccine mandate get their jobs back and also get BACKPAY.

 

[Kwak]

I'll give you a 20 person study that ivermectin works as prophylaxis for covid, are you going count that as legit evidence?

Not when there's a 1600 person study that says otherwise.

Effect of Ivermectin vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19

This randomized clinical trial compares the efficacy of ivermectin vs placebo in shortening symptom duration among adult outpatients in the US with symptomatic mild to moderate COVID-19.

jamanetwork.com

 

[Thaluikhain]

And nobody's ever going to get him to admit otherwise, because this entire "discussion" has been his enraged chest-beating at how we dare to consider our own lives more important than his convenience. Just do what I did, put him on ignore and let him scream into the void.

Second that. Though, that means giving up on a profitable discussion here, because every post is from a banned person or responding to something obviously wrong from a banned person.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Not when there's a 1600 person study that says otherwise.

Effect of Ivermectin vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19

This randomized clinical trial compares the efficacy of ivermectin vs placebo in shortening symptom duration among adult outpatients in the US with symptomatic mild to moderate COVID-19.

jamanetwork.com

Exactly my fucking point. I gave you a 26,000+ person study on long covid and you refute it with a 20 person study.

Second that. Though, that means giving up on a profitable discussion here, because every post is from a banned person or responding to something obviously wrong from a banned person.

I've only ever been 100% genuine in my posts. Have I been overly favorable or unfavorable to certain things? Sure, who isn't, but I always give my completely honest take at the time. I've never posted some conspiracy level type of bullshit about covid, like microchips or the spike protein being bad (and thus vaccines being bad). The people claiming hydroxychloroquine work explain why it could work early in infection and no studies were done early in infection so it was never really proven to be bad. Covid is a different disease early in infection vs later in infection when you're in the hospital. What works later won't work early and vice verse. Just last week I listened to a bunch of virologists saying the biggest mistake in the pandemic was remdesivir (which I've said does nothing) and the reason they said it was a mistake was that it is given too late because you need to give anti-virals early in infection. That goes against my stance on remdesivir but not really my overall reasoning (which is why I just quickly talked about hydroxychloroquine) and the problem with remdesivir is that they only did studies on hospitalized patients (late in the infection) and those studies said it didn't work. I'm more than willing to admit my mistake on remdesivir or anything else when there's actual data showing it was wrong.

 

[Silvanus]

Exactly my fucking point. I gave you a 26,000+ person study on long covid and you refute it with a 20 person study.

You've not provided a 2,600-person study on the actual things we were discussing: biological indicators and symptoms for long covid.

Here are the relevant ones posted so far:

This, from Kwak: 147 participants. Found biological indicators.

This, from you: 309 participants (self-selected, which is acknowledged as a limitation by the study itself). Did not find biological indicators, but did find a clear correlation between Covid infection and Long Covid, and did not suggest that it's psychosomatic, as you seem to be implying.

This, from Kwak: 92 participants. Found biological indicators.

This, from Kwak: 40 participants. Found biological indicators.

 

[Gamertrek]

Judge orders all public employees fired for not complying with the vaccine mandate get their jobs back and also get BACKPAY.

Wow amazing all of those nutjobs who retired are like "Can I get my job back"

 

[gorfias]

Dr. Aaron Kheriaty's new book, "The New Abnormal" sounds like it may be good reading.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You've not provided a 2,600-person study on the actual things we were discussing: biological indicators and symptoms for long covid.

Here are the relevant ones posted so far:

This, from Kwak: 147 participants. Found biological indicators.

This, from you: 309 participants (self-selected, which is acknowledged as a limitation by the study itself). Did not find biological indicators, but did find a clear correlation between Covid infection and Long Covid, and did not suggest that it's psychosomatic, as you seem to be implying.

This, from Kwak: 92 participants. Found biological indicators.

This, from Kwak: 40 participants. Found biological indicators.

26,000 people in the original study I posted...

Belief in Having Had COVID-19 Associated With Long COVID Symptoms

People who thought they’d been infected with SARS-CoV-2 had more persistent symptoms than those whose infections were confirmed by antibody testing in a recent study.

jamanetwork.com

And the 309 study I posted, they did a whole complete slew of testing on these people (blood tests, CT scans, etc) and couldn't find any biological reason. Also, one of the reasons they probably found the correlation between covid and long covid was because covid has been the very dominant viral infection now. And the French study was done at a time during the first wave where other viral infections were still around (and causing their long term symptoms as well as covid). Did you not notice how the flu completely disappeared? Thus, there's no long flu so everyone with long term symptoms probably now gets it from covid because that's like the only option. Question is does covid cause these long cases at greater frequency than any other viral infection, which we have literally no idea.

The 1st one from Kwak, 147, found no difference in markers between people with long covid and normal covid. They found differences in those that didn't have covid because their last infection of whatever was probably much longer ago than those with covid, thus their markers were lower probably due to no recent infections (vs some difference in covid specifically vs other viral infections). The 92 one was old people (not that they don't matter because you'll pull that fucking card) and the narrative was young healthy people also have to be concerned over covid because of long covid and that's why we have to keep these asinine restrictions in place and there's no evidence of that. Then, the 40 one is not close to enough people, did you not look at the plots of data? The only marker that shows decent consistency in being higher in long covid is the α-2AP one, the other markers' plots aren't really consistent (with several long covid people have markers below the control group as well). That might end up being something if the average of those markers was higher in a much bigger group but with such a small group (15 control, 25 long covid), it's not much. How would say that study is in any way able to refute the 2 studies I posted that are much bigger?

 

[Silvanus]

26,000 people in the original study I posted...

Belief in Having Had COVID-19 Associated With Long COVID Symptoms

People who thought they’d been infected with SARS-CoV-2 had more persistent symptoms than those whose infections were confirmed by antibody testing in a recent study.

jamanetwork.com

Right-- and that study didn't test for the various biological indicators identified in the other studies. It merely looked at the correlation between positive serology and self-identification with long-covid symptoms.

The 1st one from Kwak, 147, found no difference in markers between people with long covid and normal covid. They found differences in those that didn't have covid because their last infection of whatever was probably much longer ago than those with covid, thus their markers were lower probably due to no recent infections (vs some difference in covid specifically vs other viral infections). The 92 one was old people (not that they don't matter because you'll pull that fucking card) and the narrative was young healthy people also have to be concerned over covid because of long covid and that's why we have to keep these asinine restrictions in place and there's no evidence of that. Then, the 40 one is not close to enough people, did you not look at the plots of data? The only marker that shows decent consistency in being higher in long covid is the α-2AP one, the other markers' plots aren't really consistent (with several long covid people have markers below the control group as well). That might end up being something if the average of those markers was higher in a much bigger group but with such a small group (15 control, 25 long covid), it's not much. How would say that study is in any way able to refute the 2 studies I posted that are much bigger?

This is all blather, and excuses to downplay whichever studies you didn't like.

The other three studies explicitly found biological indicators. Your study of 309 is the only one that actually looked for them and didn't find them-- but it's also the only one in which participants were entirely self-selecting, which the study itself acknowledges as a limitation. It has the weakest selection process of the four that are relevant.

 

[Kwak]

Effects of Wearing FFP2 Masks on SARS-CoV-2 Infection Rates in Classrooms

In this retrospective cohort study involving 614 secondary school students, the likelihood of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 in schools with different focus (sports focus vs. general branch; the only difference in the sports focus school was that PE was allowed at all times without...

www.mdpi.com

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Right-- and that study didn't test for the various biological indicators identified in the other studies. It merely looked at the correlation between positive serology and self-identification with long-covid symptoms.



This is all blather, and excuses to downplay whichever studies you didn't like.

The other three studies explicitly found biological indicators. Your study of 309 is the only one that actually looked for them and didn't find them-- but it's also the only one in which participants were entirely self-selecting, which the study itself acknowledges as a limitation. It has the weakest selection process of the four that are relevant.

The point of me posting that 1st study wasn't based on proving or disproving biological indicators but pointing that other viruses lead to the production the same long symptoms as covid. What we need to know is if covid frequency of doing that is any more than other circulating viruses, which we have literally no clue about. You can't make policy or recommendations or guidance without that knowledge.

They are small ass studies. How are they better at figuring out long covid then the bigger study I posted that found no biological reason? If you choose to accept these lesser studies then why don't you accept that ivermectin works against covid? Those studies aren't like fraudulent and ivermectin did work in those studies, it's just that either they were too small or there was a confounding reason why ivermectin worked in those cases. That's why you have to do several studies and bigger studies to figure stuff out.

How am I writing them off because i didn't like them? The first one's methodology showed nothing of importance with regards to what we are talking about. You have to find a difference between normal covid and long covid to have any idea what is different, don't you? That's just basic logic. So what if the markers are different between a healthy person (no recent infection) and a recently infected covid person? They are supposed to be different. I just got over a head cold a week or so back, I bet my markers are different than someone who hasn't been sick for months.

Effects of Wearing FFP2 Masks on SARS-CoV-2 Infection Rates in Classrooms

In this retrospective cohort study involving 614 secondary school students, the likelihood of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 in schools with different focus (sports focus vs. general branch; the only difference in the sports focus school was that PE was allowed at all times without...

www.mdpi.com

In many cases, however, infection appears to be postponed rather than avoided.

Why are we trying to postpone an inevitable infection?

 

[bluegate]

In many cases, however, infection appears to be postponed rather than avoided.

Why are we trying to postpone an inevitable infection?

Well, for one, it's a lot more convenient if infections are spread out rather than everyone getting infected at once.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, for one, it's a lot more convenient if infections are spread out rather than everyone getting infected at once.

Huh, we still have to explain "flatten the curve" to people, it seems.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Huh, we still have to explain "flatten the curve" to people, it seems.

Especially to people who would probably demand to see someone's manager if more than two people were on break while they were standing in a checkout line.

 

[Silvanus]

They are small ass studies. How are they better at figuring out long covid then the bigger study I posted that found no biological reason?

For one thing, your study had entirely self-selecting participants. It's selection process is easily the worst-- and the study acknowledges that limitation. For another thing, even your own study doesn't actually make the claim you're ascribing to it, that LC is just psychosomatic.


But this really is beside the point. You said "no studies". Then when you were provided with 3, you just shifted to saying they didn't show the right things. Then when it was pointed out they specifically do show both biological indicators and symptoms, you just shifted to insisting the studies are "bad". And now you're just insisting they're too "small", and that we should trust your study more...

...except this was never a fucking competition between whose study was best. You said "no study" shows those things. You're categorically, demonstrably wrong, so rather than admit it you've just shunted the conversation onto other grounds entirely, about which studies are better or whatever-the-fuck, even though that was never the nature of your original statement.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Well, for one, it's a lot more convenient if infections are spread out rather than everyone getting infected at once.

We don't do this for any other endemic infections. Also, the longer between infections, the higher the chance of said infection being more severe as you see in the children RSV cases right now filling up hospitals because they went a couple years without exposure to RSV. Expose is usually a good thing.

For one thing, your study had entirely self-selecting participants. It's selection process is easily the worst-- and the study acknowledges that limitation. For another thing, even your own study doesn't actually make the claim you're ascribing to it, that LC is just psychosomatic.


But this really is beside the point. You said "no studies". Then when you were provided with 3, you just shifted to saying they didn't show the right things. Then when it was pointed out they specifically do show both biological indicators and symptoms, you just shifted to insisting the studies are "bad". And now you're just insisting they're too "small", and that we should trust your study more...

...except this was never a fucking competition between whose study was best. You said "no study" shows those things. You're categorically, demonstrably wrong, so rather than admit it you've just shunted the conversation onto other grounds entirely, about which studies are better or whatever-the-fuck, even though that was never the nature of your original statement.

OMG, there's a study for literally everything covid related saying anything you can possibly think of. I didn't think I have to say to give me good fucking studies to prove shit. Give me actual good studies that actually mean something, how is that not assumed? Are you going to accept the any of the hundreds of ivermectin studies that said it worked? I wouldn't give you those type of studies and I expect the same from you.