How were there any deaths from covid then if getting infected "protects" you?Anyone of you guys wanna admit that covid vaccine mandates were bullshit yet?
How were there any deaths from covid then if getting infected "protects" you?Anyone of you guys wanna admit that covid vaccine mandates were bullshit yet?
"InterpretationAnyone of you guys wanna admit that covid vaccine mandates were bullshit yet?
Yes, that's very Prasad. He uses the typical terms of social media gobshites ("Bombshell"! "Devastating"! "Destroyed"!) to attract attention to articles much less clear than he presents them as. He has a very particular performance where he boasts about his accomplishments, how scientific and reasonable he is, and then proceeds to present grey area and controversy as the obvious reality in a way that makes less showy experts cringe."Interpretation
Protection from past infection against re-infection from pre-omicron variants was very high and remained high even after 40 weeks. Protection was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant and declined more rapidly over time than protection against previous variants. Protection from severe disease was high for all variants. The immunity conferred by past infection should be weighed alongside protection from vaccination when assessing future disease burden from COVID-19, providing guidance on when individuals should be vaccinated, and designing policies that mandate vaccination for workers or restrict access, on the basis of immune status, to settings where the risk of transmission is high, such as travel and high-occupancy indoor settings."
Have you ever stopped to think that blind idolisation of self-declared experts with YouTube channels, who may be a lot less reliable than you realise, is more likely to bring you to foolishness than wisdom?Anyone of you guys wanna admit that covid vaccine mandates were bullshit yet?
That's not the same thing, though, is it?The Covidian narrative did exactly that. 20% of people that had asymptomatic covid (not just covid mind you, ASYMPTOMATIC covid) got long covid is total fucking bullshit.
Positive covid serology does have a meaningful positive relationship with long covid symptoms. There's no different standard being applied here.Yes, there was no MEANINGFUL positive relationship with ivermectin same as there was no MEANINGFUL positive relationship in the those numbers for long covid either. See how you're purposefully comparing 2 different standards? You're making ivermectin have a meaningful positive relationship while just requiring the long covid study to have a positive relationship (minus the meaningful).
What on earth are you talking about? The country with >20 trillion GDP, which spends 750 billion per annum on defence, cannot afford to set up a contact tracing system.. even though it has already done so in the past?The US was already proven to not have the resources to do contact tracing...
Look, if you're going to require a comparison in which every single variable is the same, you'll never have one. Ever.Contact tracing has worked in the US against a virus similar to covid (that spreads as fast, as easily and before a person is symptomatic)?
...right. And they could have done those things if they did plan.You brought up planning in advance, not me. The US didn't plan in advance and thus couldn't do things that require said advanced planning.
Jesus Christ. The graph I provided was diagnosed cases only. The actual number of infections is going to be far, far higher, and it also shows how the rate of growth was increasing massively by the day.Uhh... yeah, that's literally what we've been talking about for several posts now. Add up all the known cases in NYC until say April 20th (I forget if the survey started April 15th or 19th), you posted the graph. I did just some ballpark math (5,000 cases x 30 days = 150,000 cases) which is probably an overestimate if you manually count each day. That doesn't even get you to 2% of the city infected when the survey done mid-late April says 20% of the city was infected. How are the official stats anywhere near close to accurate?
But people would never lie on the internet in video format...Have you ever stopped to think that blind idolisation of self-declared experts with YouTube channels, who may be a lot less reliable than you realise, is more likely to bring you to foolishness than wisdom?
You guys have been at this with him for almost three years. I don’t think you’re gonna change his mind and frankly it’s a waste of of your precious minutes to try.Have you ever stopped to think that blind idolisation of self-declared experts with YouTube channels, who may be a lot less reliable than you realise, is more likely to bring you to foolishness than wisdom?
And I am saying that they are not using a catch-all version. You are the one doing that. Not them. You do not get to project your own failings onto other people.I stopped trying to make the argument already as I admitted to being mistaken... I SAID THAT THE PEOPLE CLAIMING LONG COVID IS SOME KIND OF THING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT (anymore than long flu or whatever) ARE USING THE CATCH ALL VERSION AND CLAIMING COVID IS CAUSING ALL THESE LONG TERM SYMPTOMS IN ALL THESE PEOPLE.
No, you were 'asking a question' as a rhetorical lead-in with an implied conclusion: Eg, if I say "Are you an idiot?" the sentence takes the form of a question, but its purpose is rhetorical, it's a question that implies that the answer is a given and that "you are acting like an idiot". Similarly, while "did you eat my ice cream?" is framed as a question, its intent and effect is to convey your suspicion that the answer is - again - "you ate my ice cream" under the pretense of a question. In this case you 'asked a question' presuming that a lack of IgM antibodies would rule out Long Covid, and followed that up by explaining why the conclusion you were implying was a point in favor of it being an argument against Long Covid. Let's review:I was just asking a the question to try to figure out a way to actually conclude when covid actually causes said long-term symptoms in a world where everyone's had covid already (probably multiple times at this point).
That's a rhetorical question, followed by an argument that presumes the answer to that question is an affirmative, and from that infers that - as these would be cases where IgM antibodies would not be present - they would have been incorrectly counted as Long Covid, which is further contextualized through your longstanding and continuing incredulity towards Long Covid. Which is to say it's you doing what you always do in trying to force the data to support your extant conclusion.If they don't have IgM antibodies, then is it not long covid for sure? Because I very much doubt the people getting long symptoms in the following study have those antibodies anymore. Months later after confirmed infection, there's new people in the study that get these symptoms long after their covid infection (and months after doing fine). The study also shows almost nobody gets these long symptoms for a prolonged period, they get better. The study shows long covid is not a "mass disabling event" as claimed by some.
...And yet again you illustrate that you have learned nothing, don't care enough to do any independent research, and mistake your resulting willful ignorance with the answer not existing. Once again: Long Covid is a recovery period issue, which is to say a long term impact that extends beyond the virus's actual infection. Hence "Post Covid Conditions". As an analogy, think of the Covid virus like the reactor meltdown at Chernobyl and Long Covid like the structural damage and lingering radiation in the aftermath. The initial disaster is over, but the damage inflicted by that disaster can endure for a long time afterwards.I know long covid is not long covid until a certain time frame obviously (which every study seems to use different time frames). Where is there data that long covid triggers in people with no symptoms months later after infection or in people that get better for a prolonged period (at least of month) after initial symptoms? I'm pretty sure this data does not exist. Long covid seems to be your immune system continuing to stay active weeks/months after covid is long gone so why would you be perfectly fine for months and then your immune system starts going haywire and this is somehow, for sure, all because of covid? Again, where is this proof?
...*blink* ...Do you just pull random studies under the presumption that nobody will actually read them, or something? Or did you just blindly pull a listed reference from a Youtube video that presumed - apparently correctly - that its credulous audience wouldn't bother to read it? That paper isn't even about how Covid compares to other viruses, much less making the idiotic inference that the comparative frequency of long-term symptoms was reason to downplay the impact of those long-term symptoms. Moreover, it in fact concludes the opposite of what you were saying; that "the distribution of symptom prevalence differed by SARS-CoV-2 PCR status (p ≤ 0.004) except for experiencing sores or blisters on feet (p = 0.064)."Also the following study basically flies in the face that covid is triggering long-term symptoms any more than similar viruses.
Where is what actually being done? Pretentious amateurs incorrectly assuming that long term symptoms immediately qualify as "Long Covid"? Aside from that being the sampling criteria for that very study, one might note that that's exactly the 'definition' you've been insisting on this whole time!Where is this actually being done?
Well the joke's on him, because my time is worthless!You guys have been at this with him for almost three years. I don’t think you’re gonna change his mind and frankly it’s a waste of of your precious minutes to try.
You're making a completely different argument that isn't the point of natural immunity and vaccine mandates...How were there any deaths from covid then if getting infected "protects" you?
Again, what's the point of this have to do with vaccine mandates and natural immunity? Vaccines also don't stop re-infection either. Why is reinfection your endpoint? Protection from severe disease and death should be your endpoint."Interpretation
Protection from past infection against re-infection from pre-omicron variants was very high and remained high even after 40 weeks. Protection was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant and declined more rapidly over time than protection against previous variants. Protection from severe disease was high for all variants. The immunity conferred by past infection should be weighed alongside protection from vaccination when assessing future disease burden from COVID-19, providing guidance on when individuals should be vaccinated, and designing policies that mandate vaccination for workers or restrict access, on the basis of immune status, to settings where the risk of transmission is high, such as travel and high-occupancy indoor settings."
Typical ad hominem attacks vs actually demonstrating how someone is actually wrong...Yes, that's very Prasad. He uses the typical terms of social media gobshites ("Bombshell"! "Devastating"! "Destroyed"!) to attract attention to articles much less clear than he presents them as. He has a very particular performance where he boasts about his accomplishments, how scientific and reasonable he is, and then proceeds to present grey area and controversy as the obvious reality in a way that makes less showy experts cringe.
The more I observe Vinay Prasad, the more I think there's a huge whiff of crankery about him. And / or, perhaps, that like many people keen on hammering social media, it's actually a sort of narcissism and search for fame, adulation and monetisable content. He's realised his best earnings are in contrarianism, so off he goes. The moment I mostly switched off was when he went full Godwin and started claiming all sorts of reasonable public health measures would destroy democracy.
In fact, here's scientist/clinician Dr. David Gorski doing a monster takedown on Vinay Prasad (It's worth pointing out that Gorski and Prasad have history and do not get along, as there's plenty more: https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/tag/vinay-prasad/):
Projection and methodolatry over COVID-19
Projection, thy name is Dr. Vinay Prasad, who tone polices criticism while issuing bad takes on COVID-19 based on methodolatry.www.respectfulinsolence.com
There was literally never any data supporting vaccine mandates the entire time. Where is the data saying vaccination stops covid spread? Pfizer had to literally come out not too long back and said they never did a trial on the vaccine stopping covid spread. Basically every other peer country worked natural immunity into their policies.Have you ever stopped to think that blind idolisation of self-declared experts with YouTube channels, who may be a lot less reliable than you realise, is more likely to bring you to foolishness than wisdom?
That is the same thing because to get into those ridiculous numbers you have to count cases of "long covid" not actually caused by covid.That's not the same thing, though, is it?
Positive covid serology does have a meaningful positive relationship with long covid symptoms. There's no different standard being applied here.
Whenever you've disputed the positive relationship, you've fallen into the same holes: comparing it with other respiratory illnesses, or making the argument that covid's overall prevalence in the community explains it (which doesn't make a lick of sense).
What on earth are you talking about? The country with >20 trillion GDP, which spends 750 billion per annum on defence, cannot afford to set up a contact tracing system.. even though it has already done so in the past?
Look, if you're going to require a comparison in which every single variable is the same, you'll never have one. Ever.
But we know: the US has successfully done contact tracing in the past; and other countries successfully used contact tracing against covid.
It is not unreasonable to conclude from that that it's more than possible for the US to use contact tracing against covid.
...right. And they could have done those things if they did plan.
Jesus Christ. The graph I provided was diagnosed cases only. The actual number of infections is going to be far, far higher, and it also shows how the rate of growth was increasing massively by the day.
That's how you reach 20%.
The CDC director just literally lied to Congress a few weeks back about masking still...But people would never lie on the internet in video format...
You can easily change my mind with basic proof.You guys have been at this with him for almost three years. I don’t think you’re gonna change his mind and frankly it’s a waste of of your precious minutes to try.
They are using that version because the amount of long covid happening according to these people are so unrealistically high that they have to be using cases not caused by covid.And I am saying that they are not using a catch-all version. You are the one doing that. Not them. You do not get to project your own failings onto other people.
No, you were 'asking a question' as a rhetorical lead-in with an implied conclusion: Eg, if I say "Are you an idiot?" the sentence takes the form of a question, but its purpose is rhetorical, it's a question that implies that the answer is a given and that "you are acting like an idiot". Similarly, while "did you eat my ice cream?" is framed as a question, its intent and effect is to convey your suspicion that the answer is - again - "you ate my ice cream" under the pretense of a question. In this case you 'asked a question' presuming that a lack of IgM antibodies would rule out Long Covid, and followed that up by explaining why the conclusion you were implying was a point in favor of it being an argument against Long Covid. Let's review:
That's a rhetorical question, followed by an argument that presumes the answer to that question is an affirmative, and from that infers that - as these would be cases where IgM antibodies would not be present - they would have been incorrectly counted as Long Covid, which is further contextualized through your longstanding and continuing incredulity towards Long Covid. Which is to say it's you doing what you always do in trying to force the data to support your extant conclusion.
Don't try to pull that just asking questions bullshit with me. I've already made it clear that my patience with you is already paper thin and I do not appreciate you taking that as an invitation to test it further with more juvenile facsimiles of argumentation whose only purpose is to change the form of your argument into passive aggressive insinuation in a feeble effort to give yourself deniability and avoid owning up to your own ignorance. Making mistakes is human. But jumping through so many hoops to try and pretend those mistakes never happened - as you have been doing - only ensures that you never learn from them.
...And yet again you illustrate that you have learned nothing, don't care enough to do any independent research, and mistake your resulting willful ignorance with the answer not existing. Once again: Long Covid is a recovery period issue, which is to say a long term impact that extends beyond the virus's actual infection. Hence "Post Covid Conditions". As an analogy, think of the Covid virus like the reactor meltdown at Chernobyl and Long Covid like the structural damage and lingering radiation in the aftermath. The initial disaster is over, but the damage inflicted by that disaster can endure for a long time afterwards.
Among other things, you're also making the mistake of assuming that people are claiming that this is unique to Covid, else it wouldn't be worth mentioning. Neither of those things are true. Point of fact, precedence is why this could be so quickly recognized in the first place. Acute respiratory infections have a bit of history with lingering effects. Further reading here and here.
You being "pretty sure the data doesn't exist" and incredulously asking "where is the proof" means bupkis when you very obviously never bothered to even look for it and are instead just assuming your conclusion.
...*blink* ...Do you just pull random studies under the presumption that nobody will actually read them, or something? Or did you just blindly pull a listed reference from a Youtube video that presumed - apparently correctly - that its credulous audience wouldn't bother to read it? That paper isn't even about how Covid compares to other viruses, much less making the idiotic inference that the comparative frequency of long-term symptoms was reason to downplay the impact of those long-term symptoms. Moreover, it in fact concludes the opposite of what you were saying; that "the distribution of symptom prevalence differed by SARS-CoV-2 PCR status (p ≤ 0.004) except for experiencing sores or blisters on feet (p = 0.064)."
Even if I'm being generous, the best explanation I can come up with for you reaching that conclusion is still a spectacular misunderstanding of their results for specific symptoms at the baseline, 6-month and 12-month markers. More specifically, it would be rooted in misinterpreting the final sentence of the results subsections as being broadly applicable to long-term impact in general rather than an exception to the observed trend in those who first reported the symptoms a full year later.
As an aside, I find it morbidly amusing that despite your continued incredulity about "how would you even know that in a world where everyone has had covid" even in this very post, you evidently failed to notice that this paper casually alluded to their ability to do exactly that as a matter of course in the sample selection process.
"After excluding test-positives who were reinfected and test-negatives who were infected after baseline testing (determined by PCR test results held by UKHSA and self-report of whether (or not) the CYP ever had a positive COVID-19 test, including Lateral Flow Tests), 12,949 participants who responded at 6 months post-test were included"
Setting that aside for a minute, it's further worth noting that even if you had been right about comparative incidence rate, it would still be - once again - irrelevant, because concerns about Long Covid are not predicated on comparative incidence rate as contrasted with the long term aftereffects for other diseases. This isn't a footrace wherein all the prize money goes to the first person past the post. Generously, that'd be what we'd call the Fallacy of Relative Privation (aka the "Appeal to Worse Problems" Fallacy), a positively puerile fallacy that insists that if something isn't the foremost example of its kind, it's not worth concerning yourself with. Eg, "Breast Cancer isn't as bad as Brain Cancer, so why do we make a big deal about being vigilant about it?" When you understand why trying to object to Breast Cancer screenings by comparing Breast Cancer's fatality rate to that of Brain Cancer is idiotic, you will understand why the argument you just attempted by misrepresenting that study is equally stupid.
Where is what actually being done? Pretentious amateurs incorrectly assuming that long term symptoms immediately qualify as "Long Covid"? Aside from that being the sampling criteria for that very study, one might note that that's exactly the 'definition' you've been insisting on this whole time!
Again: You very obviously do not understand this topic.
The ones that claim something to be true are the ones that have to prove it. I'm still waiting for that proof. If I said I have the cure for cancer, you'd ask me for proof wouldn't you? It wouldn't be on you to prove me wrong, it's on me to prove my claim.
Au contraire, I supplied a link to an article by David Gorski that supplied reasons why Prasad's take on things is at best dubious. As I supplied it, a reasonable expectation is that you should have read it before commenting.Typical ad hominem attacks vs actually demonstrating how someone is actually wrong...
The data basically backs that every single demographic group would benefit from covid vaccination, including children. That's basically therefore where mainstream science and medicine stands, and most people on this forum. What the rest you're blathering on about, who gives a damn? This is a lot of what you have been doing the last few years: talking at users here, demanding that they shouldn't believe in relative trivialities that they never said they believed in anyway. Because you're actually not arguing with them: you're arguing against the straw men that your crank sources created so that they could sell money-making web subscriptions and merchandise to gullible conspiracy theorists.There was literally never any data supporting vaccine mandates the entire time. Where is the data saying vaccination stops covid spread? Pfizer had to literally come out not too long back and said they never did a trial on the vaccine stopping covid spread. Basically every other peer country worked natural immunity into their policies.
"They are out to get you! They are the cause of all the problems in your life! Give me money so that I can continue my crusade on your behalf!"Because they're all calls not to trust perceived authority or "elites": the medical community, the scientific community, the government, the Democratic Party, CDC, Anthony Fauci, Big Pharma, the media, Big Tech (social media). The constant, neverending tone is conspiracy: censorship, lies, attempts to control us, destroy democracy blah blah blah. It's the same old shit of posturing as bold mavericks willing to face persecution telling truth to power, but really it's just being David Icke or Alex Jones without the full-on crazy.
So they didn't actually count it, you're just making an additional assumption based on your own understanding. Got it.That is the same thing because to get into those ridiculous numbers you have to count cases of "long covid" not actually caused by covid.
That's literally not how a positive relationship is identified. My lord, you genuinely just have no idea about the most basic elements of this.Without adjustments, ivermectin also shows a positive relationship with providing benefits. If say 70% of the community got covid, then 70% of long [whatever] cases will probably be caused by covid...
You are the one constantly harping about how America doesn't have the resources. You cannot then whine and gripe when the reply directly addresses resources. You're the one who made it about that.OMFG, YOU CAN'T JUST THROW MONEY AT PROBLEMS AND HAVE THEM GO AWAY. It isn't an issue of money. How are you gonna get the workers needed to contact trace? How are you gonna get testing results back fast enough?
It's almost like those things aren't pandemics!Contact tracing is very different with regards to different diseases. Why'd the US ever have a measles issue, we can just contact trace it, right? Why have a flu vaccine, just contact trace it?
"They couldn't do stuff they didn't do cos they didn't do them!"But they didn't plan so any options that require advanced planning are off the table. Japan didn't try to do things they knew they couldn't do.
The CDC already had numbers from early-mid March that were no less accurate than the ones in April, and already showed a significant growing problem. That's why NYS already implemented restrictions in March.Yeah and what's your point? That's literally what I've been saying the entire time. When Fauci told New York that everything is fine on Feb 29th, it wasn't fine because of all the cases we didn't know about, that's literally my point. And April survey was the 1st time we got accurate numbers. The US went from "everything's fine" to "oh shit, shutdown the country" in a couple days because of said unknown cases and covid spread.
The very first argument against Prasad was hilariously bad so why should I even keep reading his reasons at this point? Prasad's comparison to the flu in kids was argued as wrong and misinformation because covid killed 227 kids during the pandemic and the flu killed 1 kid in that same time. Uhh..... THE FLU WAS FUCKING GONE FOR A YEAR OR SO. No shit covid will kill more when the thing you are comparing it to vanished during that time. The question would be, did covid kill more kids than the flu USUALLY does during that time? Point out me an actual good argument in good faith that what Prasad said is definitely wrong.Au contraire, I supplied a link to an article by David Gorski that supplied reasons why Prasad's take on things is at best dubious. As I supplied it, a reasonable expectation is that you should have read it before commenting.
It's also worth taking a look through some of his many other posts on Vinay Prasad, because he skewers quite a lot of Prasad's claims. Plus also, we can see, despite you throwing the claim of "ad hominem" at me, what's clear is that ad hominem is a favourite tactic of Vinay Prasad. (Are you critising him for it in his Twitter feed or YouTube comments?)
You enjoy your ZDogg MD vids as well. It's interesting to note contributor Jonathan Howard's comments here, that ZDogg, far from presenting any special insight into Covid, is in fact pushing a very unbalanced line. Note, for instance, where Howard points out ZDogg's overall misrepresentation of vaccines, hyping the threats (myocarditis) far more than representing the benefits. And oh look: who also pops up here identified as another serial misinformer to the public who enjoys much of ZDogg's largesse, but one your other favourite sources, Marty Makary. See how he notes that the likes of Makary and Prasad are now supplying heaps of material which is being used by the flat-out anti-vaxxers. And there are people here who would like us to believe it's mainstream science and medicine that's the problem.An Open Letter to ZDoggMD
I hope you'll agree with me that the biggest advocate for vaccination on social media should have no trouble sharing all of the facts about COVID-19 and children on a very frequent basis.sciencebasedmedicine.org
And herein lies a lot of the problem: you have placed utterly disproportionate trust in sources which are unbalanced and fringe, and formed your worldview around them. The cartoon supplied by Crimson5phoenix then really does sum up where you are.
The data basically backs that every single demographic group would benefit from covid vaccination, including children. That's basically therefore where mainstream science and medicine stands, and most people on this forum. What the rest you're blathering on about, who gives a damn? This is a lot of what you have been doing the last few years: talking at users here, demanding that they shouldn't believe in relative trivialities that they never said they believed in anyway. Because you're actually not arguing with them: you're arguing against the straw men that your crank sources created so that they could sell money-making web subscriptions and merchandise to gullible conspiracy theorists.
What you, following the lead of your crank/quack sources, are doing, is not really engaging with the simple, broad facts. It's the way you're sort of constantly dancing around the big picture. You frequently bring up oblique and even digressive issues that you appear to have taken wholesale from the crank / quack / contrarian / conspiracy theory fringes. These oblique attacks exist because the broader, bigger picture is relatively straightforward and much harder to argue with. So the crank fringe manufacture weak, minor and oblique criticisms as a tactic to undermine trust in the bigger picture, because they lack good grounds to attack its main pillars. (Although, as Gorski & Howard point out, they just flat out lie and misrepresent when it suits them too.)
And you think it's not conspiracy theory? Because it is. Because they're all calls not to trust perceived authority or "elites": the medical community, the scientific community, the government, the Democratic Party, CDC, Anthony Fauci, Big Pharma, the media, Big Tech (social media). The constant, neverending tone is conspiracy: censorship, lies, attempts to control us, destroy democracy blah blah blah. It's the same old shit of posturing as bold mavericks willing to face persecution telling truth to power, but really it's just being David Icke or Alex Jones without the full-on crazy.
Show me any legit data that long covid happens more often than long [whatevers] that we need to be concerned about it any more than the other long lasting symptons from other infections. That's literally all you have to do is show the data, it seems like you all allergic to proving anything with basic data.So they didn't actually count it, you're just making an additional assumption based on your own understanding. Got it.
That's literally not how a positive relationship is identified. My lord, you genuinely just have no idea about the most basic elements of this.
You are the one constantly harping about how America doesn't have the resources. You cannot then whine and gripe when the reply directly addresses resources. You're the one who made it about that.
They had more than enough time to hire, considering its an unskilled position in a hirer's market, and they knew about the danger ~4 months beforehand at least. And covid contact tracing systems have already worked with the test results coming back quickly enough, so that's just a nonissue.
It's almost like those things aren't pandemics!
"They couldn't do stuff they didn't do cos they didn't do them!"
The fuck argument is that?
The CDC already had numbers from early-mid March that were no less accurate than the ones in April, and already showed a significant growing problem. That's why NYS already implemented restrictions in March.
If you're well aware that the undiagnosed cases mean the total will be far higher, even in mid March, then you know it wasn't at "zero". So you knew from the start your "0 to 20% overnight" line was utter drivel.
That's not required. You're yet again trying to shift the conversation onto whether/how much we should care, rather than sticking with your original claims.Show me any legit data that long covid happens more often than long [whatevers] that we need to be concerned about it any more than the other long lasting symptons from other infections. That's literally all you have to do is show the data, it seems like you all allergic to proving anything with basic data.
Just reiteration of your position, and some more blabbering. Nothing new here to address.We literally didn't have the resources (there's more resources needed than just money)...
*rolleyes*Yes, flu and measles were never pandemics... sure...
I've already provided you with the CDC data, which includes numbers from early March. I'm not interested in your incessant moaning that data hasn't been provided, when it already has and you've just failed to read it properly. It's your favourite tactic but it's tiresome as all hell.Where are these numbers...? The Santa Clara county survey was the very first one in America IIRC and that was beginning of April. From what WE KNEW, covid spread wasn't nearly even close to that great (tip of the iceberg). Talk to any infectious disease expert and they will say you can't contact trace something like covid that had already spread that much.
And just like that, the mask slips and you just out and admit that your position is simply an argument from incredulity. You don't like the results you see, therefore make assumptions that you presume "have to be" true because you believe you simply know better and that therefore good data must confirm your preconceptions. That is to say, you had already decided what the conclusion should be and are trying to force the data to fit it. You think the results are too high, and therefore conclude that they must be using a catch-all definition.They are using that version because the amount of long covid happening according to these people are so unrealistically high that they have to be using cases not caused by covid.
How about we cut the shit and get right to the chase. Because I could probably pull and quote medical journals until I was blue in the face, but at the end of the day it wouldn't matter. I've already provided you with resources that lay out a few tests doctors currently use to identify whether or not a patient had a recent covid infection, and the very sources you yourself are citing not only corroborate them but actively employ them in their methodology. Hell, the aforementioned paper specifically laid out the serologic testing they employed. And yet you're still insisting on acting like I'm trying to innovate some hypothetical test rather than simply explaining that the methods you're claiming can't exist actually do exist.I'll stop "asking questions" then... I was legit asking for a way to determine long covid properly so we can accurately know how common or uncommon it actually is. What is your method for determining whether long term symptoms is caused by covid or something else?
I speak to you like that because you very obviously don't understand basic things. For goodness sake, this entire conversation is a product of you trying to pass off your ignorance as expertise and being so stubbornly prideful that you started insisting on demonstrably false statements and downright idiotic non-sequitur that showed that you didn't even read the things you were citing and simply didn't want to accept that you were wrong.Stop talking down to me like I don't understand basic things.
Perhaps you should try actually reading the post and links provided instead of just making assumptions about them? Once again:I completely get that long covid is a post infection issue. If I didn't understand that I would say long covid isn't a thing because all people with long covid would test negative for covid. When I have ever insinuated that? My issue was that you said sometimes long covid just happens months later basically out of the blue. Where's this rationale for long covid or long whatever happening in people that are fine months after infection, then getting hit these symptoms? To my knowledge, people with these long term symptoms never can shake these symptoms, maybe they have a good week or feel like they are getting better, but then get worse again. They don't get perfectly fine for months and they get hit with said symptoms basically.
Oh goody, yet another study you're bastardizing. From your argument, I think it's more likely that you didn't bother to read it than it is that you simply misunderstood their results, because it strains credulity that you could have walked away with that conclusion naturally.My fault, linked the wrong study. I linked this one before and you never actually commented on it.
SARS-COV-2 Positivity and Patient-Reported Well-being 3 Months After Symptomatic Illness
This cohort study compares patient-reported physical, mental, and social well-being at 3 months after symptomatic illness among adults with positive vs negative test results for SARS-CoV-2 infection.jamanetwork.com
Bluntly, I don't give a flying flip what pretentious and self-serving justification you're telling yourself as to why you claim to be arguing. I care that you're ignorantly mistaking your uninformed - and frequently unequivocally false - assumptions for robust data, brazenly lying about the data you're pretending to defer to because you evidently either didn't look at it or didn't understand a word of it, and then doubling down on that when people point out that you're not only demonstrably wrong but breathtakingly so.The ones claiming long covid is a "mass disabling event" are not trying to actually determine which cases are legit long covid and those that aren't. If this narrative was never pushed, I wouldn't have ever talked about long covid in the 1st place.
Okay, let's think that through.The very first argument against Prasad was hilariously bad so why should I even keep reading his reasons at this point? Prasad's comparison to the flu in kids was argued as wrong and misinformation because covid killed 227 kids during the pandemic and the flu killed 1 kid in that same time. Uhh..... THE FLU WAS FUCKING GONE FOR A YEAR OR SO.
Firstly, ZDogg has given a platform to people who oppose vaccinating children. Secondly, they might not be explicitly saying "don't vaccinate", but they have been free to advance a series of misleading and tendentious arguments that tend to deter vaccination. This is just anti-vaxx lite. Saying "Hey, you can get that vaccination, but it's on your own head if you suffer a lethal complication": no-one would be under any illusions that this was warning against vaccination that serves to deter people. And again, I suggest you read the article, which stresses how ZDogg's channel has hammered this line very heavily.When have ZDogg, Prasad, Makary said those that haven't been infected with covid should NOT be vaccinated?
Uh-huh. And which groups are they?Also, there are certain groups (age/sex) that actually do get more harm from the vaccine vs actual covid infection.
You go by cherry-picked data from biased sources. "The data" needs to be comprehensive or representative of the whole.I go by the data,
Yes, we all remember you touting Paul Offitt all those times... and quietly ignoring the bit where Offitt said he thought people should get vaccinated. Thus, cherry-picking.those doctors have shown the data that covid infection provides at least as good or better protection as the vaccine so you don't need it if you had gotten covid (sure there's exceptions like the vulnerable without normal working immune systems should be vaccinated or boosted), that's what literally every piece of data on the subject says. Same thing with the cost-benefit analysis of the vaccine in certain groups.
I think you're confused about what "scientific truth" is: your very phrasing is scientifically illiterate.if you had covid, you don't need the vaccine (that is literally scientific truth).
You couldn't talk about the lab leak theory even though now the FBI and DoE both have found that to be the most likely scenario.