Comparing rates of symptoms and cross referencing it with rates of covid and non-covid infections is literally the only way research could be done on this.
You can complain about the limits of the methodology all you like, but it's the only one available. And I'll trust the conclusions of peer-reviewed researchers rather than your armchair gripes about limitations.
Obviously. Why would it be? Other infections can also cause long-lasting symptoms over the same timescale.
"Why would I make that argument"? In case you missed the context, another poster explicitly compared wearing masks to wearing the star of David in 1930s Germany.
That's what I was responding to. And then you interjected.
I know that, that study didn't do that. Nor has any study tried to figure the frequency of say long flu so even if you found of the frequency of long covid, we'd have no context for how often it occurs in comparison to another virus. It would be like me telling you a console is capable of X amount of teraflops when you have no idea what the other consoles are capable of so you have no clue if that's high or low or average. Then of course, you'd have to have the same criteria for long flu and long covid so you're actually comparing apples to apples vs oranges. What conclusions did I jump to? I just said the very basic thing the study found and that's it. I can link to what 2 professional peer reviewers think of the long covid studies but you'd probably complain about them.
So finally we're on the same page I think. I thought you've been saying long covid is some unique phenomenon to covid. With the fact that long symptoms happen from other endemic respiratory viruses, why is long covid raised up as being any more important to worry about than say long flu? That has been my point the whole time. Show me why I should care about long covid more than I care about long flu.
My fault, I didn't quite catch the context of that discussion.
I said that if the origins didn't really matter, then it's in our best interests to not let racists use it to be xenophobic
No, it's not, and classifying that way is not helpful
It is much easier for a layperson to tell if they have measles than covid. Hell, you thought you had mild covid a couple times last week because, what, you woke up a bit stuffed up a few times?
Yeah, why would a country want to mandate it's citizens protect itself from severe disease and death. That's crazy.
I have specifically never made an argument about fat and will continue to not make an argument about fat
Bullshit, and not what you said originally.
If i find the source of that quote and you're taking it out of context, you owe me $20
Sure thing, Papa Nurgle
Neat. They also don't know why there's an uptick to begin with
"The exploding segment of the population suffering from certain food ailments is skyrocketing, and experts are stumped on the reasons why."
The origin does matter, just not to the vast majority of the population. And regardless of where it came from, it wasn't going to change anything with regards to the response so it was rather meaningless in the present (when the pandemic was happening). And, again, the wet market has more use for racism.
But many people knew they had covid, why make them get vaccinated? Why make anyone get vaccinated with no community effect? Covid was the only thing going around in the summer, it probably was some exposure to covid being fought off, not that it really matters much if it was. But I've never had those issues in the summer before (I've never gotten sick in the summer once in my life) and the time my nose felt like it was going to be stuffy, it was literally 2 days after I played board games sitting next to someone that tested positive the next day.
For much of the population, covid is hardly severe death and disease, it's less deadly than the flu to most people. Are people mandated to get the flu shot every year? NOPE.
Why would you blindly trust official recommendations from anyone without seeing evidence of why it's the recommendation?
You said blanket immunization is good policy and then I said this below several posts back. How is that not what I said originally?
There's data literally showing several groups of people are put at more risk getting just vaccinated once (vs an actual covid infection).
The quote is right here. All you had to do was google that in quotes to find it, literally the first result.
Are the new Omicron boosters the same as annual flu shots? Not so fast...
zdoggmd.com
It's like you don't want to believe in actual science only because I said something that is basic scientific knowledge. And by the way, I'm gonna go out on a limb and claim the earth is round, I guess you'll have to disagree with that squarely because I said it and no other reason.
Because the guidelines were to not expose kids early to peanuts...
This report describes face mask or respirator effectiveness in helping protect against COVID-19 infection.
www.cdc.gov
This was published in February of 2022, but it is possible that cloth masks might not help as much against the current variant.
CDC studies are notoriously bad, even this study literally admits it's bad but you have to read the fine print. The CDC even published that one study from Kansas IIRC where they said natural immunity was weaker than vaccine immunity (when literally every other study in the world said the opposite). And then the CDC released data showing that in fact natural immunity was indeed stronger. Notice the pound sign right after Cloth Mask and when you follow it down it says "not statistically significant"? That basically means the study whether size and/or methods/whatever weren't good enough to actually prove the result in any way.
Recently, immune response to coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has attracted attention where an association between higher antibody titer and worsening disease severity has been reported. However, our experiences with severe COVID-19 patients with low antibody titers led to hypothesizing that...
www.nature.com
Hospitalized breakthrough cases were more likely to have underlying risk factors than unvaccinated patients. Low-spike antibody titers may serve as an indicator for poor prognosis in breakthrough cases admitted to the hospital.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
An antibody titer is a type of blood test that determines the presence and level (titer) of antibodies in the blood.
www.news-medical.net
"Determining the titer for
neutralizing antibodies, which are specialized antibodies that bind pathogens and prevent them from spreading infection, is another important aspect to ensure protection against a particular disease.
Neutralizing antibody titers in the blood closely correlate with the protection provided by an effective vaccination."
Just looking at that first study it says "may" so that's a bad sign already. Then, looking at the patient pool, 8 of the non-survivors were on dialysis so these people weren't healthy. There's a reason why booster data only shows it working in old and vulnerable people because they have health issues meaning their immune systems are likely not working normally. Thus, the vulnerable probably need those antibodies because their immune systems aren't good enough on their own to fend off the virus (that's why catching the flu can be devastating for them as well).
Here is Paul Offit talking about the importance of T-cells (just ctrl+f t-cells in the transcipt) to see what Paul says about t-cells and how they are the main thing protecting you. The problem is the vulnerable's immune system is no longer operating like normal. The reason the mRNA vaccines were 2 doses and the J&J was one dose was because the J&J produced a t-cell response in one dose while it took a 2nd dose for that to occur in the mRNA vaccines, it was never about antibody numbers, it's just that the media kept acting like antibodies are important.
I've got a question for everyone
Why is trust so important to people?
Does TRUSTING the person/ institution help you determine your level of understanding of the research?
Trust isn't important for me, I ask for the same level of evidence whether I trust you or not. I even ask "why?" at work all the time when there's some new thing/change at work and at best, 10% of the time it actually makes sense, and 90% of the time it doesn't (and my boss is like I'm just the messenger), which means then I basically don't have to do it.
www.ft.com
www.goodrx.com
