Our Covid Response

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
4,657
2,567
118
Country
United States of America
Mis-typed that.

Here you go, brand new study about long covid with a control group. Guess what, the control group that was sick without covid did worse after 3 months than the covid group. Looks like long covid isn't anything thing to worry about (well, anymore than from any other viral infection). The fact that long covid was used as some scare tactic is ridiculous and anti-science.


🍒⛏
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,756
4,294
118
Country
United Kingdom
Mis-typed that.

Here you go, brand new study about long covid with a control group. Guess what, the control group that was sick without covid did worse after 3 months than the covid group. Looks like long covid isn't anything thing to worry about (well, anymore than from any other viral infection). The fact that long covid was used as some scare tactic is ridiculous and anti-science.

So, the cohort here was entirely comprised of people experiencing acute symptoms of respiratory infection. Not necessarily covid-positive, but certainly suffering from some respiratory illness.

Which just indicates that... more than one respiratory infection can have long-lasting symptoms.

This has never been in dispute. Both groups experienced those long-term symptoms at a much higher rate than people who didn't have respiratory illnesses at all. So all this shows is that respiratory illnesses-- both covid and non-covid-- significantly increase your risk of long-term complications.

In fact, If anything, this study dramatically undermines your own argument, by showing seriously high rates of long-term symptoms in those who had covid as well as those who had other respiratory illnesses.

---

EDIT: Also, you still haven't addressed the fact that in the previous study you provided, without adjustment, positive serology for covid had a positive relationship with 10 LC symptoms.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,714
639
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
More dead people, yay!!!
From what? Over 90% of the population has been exposed to covid already and it's less deadly than the flu now. Why don't you look into what's causing all the excess deaths that aren't from covid? Funny how everyone is so mum on that (because it points to something people don't want to admit) but still have to virtue signal about covid acting like covid deaths are more important than all these other equally important deaths.


Where's any data actually saying long covid is anything that needs to be worried about more than long flu or long RSV or long [insert viral infection of choice]?

You can't even cherry pick that because there's no hanging cherries there.

So, the cohort here was entirely comprised of people experiencing acute symptoms of respiratory infection. Not necessarily covid-positive, but certainly suffering from some respiratory illness.

Which just indicates that... more than one respiratory infection can have long-lasting symptoms.

This has never been in dispute. Both groups experienced those long-term symptoms at a much higher rate than people who didn't have respiratory illnesses at all. So all this shows is that respiratory illnesses-- both covid and non-covid-- significantly increase your risk of long-term complications.

In fact, If anything, this study dramatically undermines your own argument, by showing seriously high rates of long-term symptoms in those who had covid as well as those who had other respiratory illnesses.

---

EDIT: Also, you still haven't addressed the fact that in the previous study you provided, without adjustment, positive serology for covid had a positive relationship with 10 LC symptoms.
My point has always been there was no reason to worry about long covid any more than any other long [insert common viral infection of choice]. Long covid was used to fearmonger people into continuing with covid restrictions that were unneeded. Has long flu ever been used to keep people from living their lives?

Why was that adjustment a bad adjustment? You still haven't addressed that.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
6,997
5,184
118
Country
United States
From what? Over 90% of the population has been exposed to covid already and it's less deadly than the flu now. Why don't you look into what's causing all the excess deaths that aren't from covid? Funny how everyone is so mum on that (because it points to something people don't want to admit) but still have to virtue signal about covid acting like covid deaths are more important than all these other equally important deaths.
Covid's still killing three times more people than the maximum potential flu and related pneumonias. Why do you keep pretending otherwise?
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
16,463
1,995
118
Aaaaand we've been taking extraordinary measure to combat covid that we don't to combat the flu, and it's still been much more deadly.

It's almost like it's blatantly obvious that covid is worse than the flu, and anyone who says otherwise is obviously lying.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2014
1,890
1,352
118
Country
4

 
  • Like
Reactions: Seanchaidh

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,756
4,294
118
Country
United Kingdom
My point has always been there was no reason to worry about long covid any more than any other long [insert common viral infection of choice]. Long covid was used to fearmonger people into continuing with covid restrictions that were unneeded. Has long flu ever been used to keep people from living their lives?
No, your original argument was that long covid was nothing to do with covid. You also extensively argued that people who had covid were no more likely to have those long term symptoms than if they didn't have an infection at all.

You've now shifted what you've been arguing onto whether "worrying" is important, or public health policy. Neither of those were your original statement.

Why was that adjustment a bad adjustment? You still haven't addressed that.
If an adjustment is used to totally erase a positive relationship, then that's rather questionable. It suggests they must have adjusted positive responses down based on their own assumptions about the group. And when your entire model is based on self-reportage, that's a no-no.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,714
639
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male



No, your original argument was that long covid was nothing to do with covid. You also extensively argued that people who had covid were no more likely to have those long term symptoms than if they didn't have an infection at all.

You've now shifted what you've been arguing onto whether "worrying" is important, or public health policy. Neither of those were your original statement.



If an adjustment is used to totally erase a positive relationship, then that's rather questionable. It suggests they must have adjusted positive responses down based on their own assumptions about the group. And when your entire model is based on self-reportage, that's a no-no.
How many damn times do I have to repeat myself... Long covid (the catch-all definition used by the study I originally linked) is not associated with covid.

So you have no reason why the adjustment is bad. If you haven't noticed doing adjustments happens all the time.

Also, all the cross-sectional long covid studies are extremely flawed.

This unique study finds that in most CYP, specific adverse symptoms reported at testing and 6-months later had resolved by 12-months, although in a minority they were persistent, and that new-onset had emerged. If we had simply looked at cross-sectional prevalence of adverse symptoms at testing, 6-months and 12-months, as is commonly done in other studies, it would have appeared as if the prevalence of specific common post-COVID-symptoms stayed largely stable, or increased, over time. However, we show that this is not the case. The new-onset adverse symptoms arising 6- or 12-months after initial viral infection should not exclusively be viewed as new long COVID symptoms as a consequence of the initial SARS-COV-2 infection. Rather, these adverse symptoms should be seen in the wider context of health and well-being in the general adolescent population. Recent reviews of Long COVID in CYP indicate that higher quality studies are needed and that a consistent definition of Long COVID is required; our research goes one step further and indicates that studies with repeat measurement on the same CYP are needed to track individual trajectories and not simply report repeat cross-sectional prevalence's of symptoms over time.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,756
4,294
118
Country
United Kingdom
How many damn times do I have to repeat myself... Long covid (the catch-all definition used by the study I originally linked) is not associated with covid.
You can repeat yourself as many times as you like, it won't make the case any more compelling.

Respiratory diseases can cause long-term respiratory symptoms to occur at a much higher rate than baseline. Covid is one of them that can do this. Your own study supports that conclusion.

So you have no reason why the adjustment is bad. If you haven't noticed doing adjustments happens all the time.
Any adjustment that entirely negates a positive relationship in the raw data is pretty suspect.

Ah yes, Vinay Prasad, who thinks public health policies are comparable to Nazi Germany and that masks stunt children's ability to speak. And who himself has a tendency to ignore rigour in the pursuit of a scary, misleading soundbite.


The dude's a nut.
 
Last edited:

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,714
639
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
... Did you seriously just post a tweet?
You guys love tweets, some of you seem to get your news exclusively from tweets in fact. The tweet just perfectly fit since it's about the story and the fact that people believe so many bad studies.

Not just that, a tweet that wasn't even referring to the articles posted, nor does it any way refute them. It's just some words. Bravo.
It was about the brain shrinking article.......................................................................................................

The study is so bad, he's not wasting his time refuting it. Would you waste your time refuting a study saying the earth is flat?

You can repeat yourself as many times as you like, it won't make the case any more compelling.

Respiratory diseases can cause long-term respiratory symptoms to occur at a much higher rate than baseline. Covid is one of them that can do this. Your own study supports that conclusion.



Any adjustment that entirely negates a positive relationship in the raw data is pretty suspect.



Ah yes, Vinay Prasad, who thinks public health policies are comparable to Nazi Germany and that masks stunt children's ability to speak. And who himself has a tendency to ignore rigour in the pursuit of a scary, misleading soundbite.


The dude's a nut.
It is compelling because no good study has shown links to long covid from covid. The study I just linked to in the last post showed people with long covid seem to get said symptoms months after the covid infection is gone meaning that covid can hardly be surmised as the cause. No proof covid causes long covid at any higher baseline than the flu or anything else.

Suspect? Where's your proof that the study is bad?

Really you're using that article as some proof Vinay Prasad is a nut?!?! You're trying to say he's a literal nut vs just slightly misreading something or applying some incorrect logic? Just reading the 1st part of the criticism is pretty horrible already. Prasad is saying there is literally no GOOD data (real world and randomized) that what the CDC director said is true. Also that Lynn lady talks about Prasad "omitting uncomfortable truths"; funny how she omits the fact that the cloth mask P value is too high to be counted as statistically significant. That's Prasad's point, there's no proof of the CDC director's claim actually being true. The CDC failed to actually do the science (where's a cluster randomized mask study in the US?) and the CDC is trying to say this is the science when it was never even fucking done. There exists no proof to make those mask claims. Oh and by the way Prasad is a much more accomplished scientist and peer reviewer than the Lynn lady.

Word for word from the study (concerning blood confirmed covid positivity as Prasad was referencing):
In table S9, we run the same specifications using the smaller sample used in our symptomatic seroprevalence regression (i.e., those who consented to give blood). In this sample, we continue to find an effect overall and an effect for surgical masks but see no statistically significant effect for cloth masks.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,756
4,294
118
Country
United Kingdom
It is compelling because no good study has shown links to long covid from covid. The study I just linked to in the last post showed people with long covid seem to get said symptoms months after the covid infection is gone meaning that covid can hardly be surmised as the cause.
Tell me you don't understand what long term symptoms are without telling me you don't know what long term symptoms are.

No proof covid causes long covid at any higher baseline than the flu or anything else.
Plenty of proof that covid causes long term respiratory symptoms at a higher rate than they occur in people without acute respiratory infection.

Which, let me remind you yet again, was originally something you were disputing, but have now seemingly retreated from.

Suspect? Where's your proof that the study is bad?
I didn't say "the study is bad". I said the adjustment is doing a hell of a lot of heavy lifting.

Tell me, what valid adjustment could they make that would entirely erase a positive relationship in the raw data? Right now, we don't know what exactly that adjustment was, because the study doesn't specify. So we're left to just see two things: 1) the data shows a positive relationship; and 2) the writer says that it isn't there after he's done something to the data, but doesn't say what it was.

I'm not even saying the conclusion is necessarily false. But bloody hell, that needs some explanation.

Really you're using that article as some proof Vinay Prasad is a nut?!?! You're trying to say he's a literal nut vs just slightly misreading something or applying some incorrect logic?
I'm using his own words and actions. He's been a hysterical peddler of half-truths and outright misrepresentations from the start. That article merely points to several examples of shoddy science.
 
Last edited:

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 1, 2016
1,976
1,121
118
Country
United States
You guys love tweets, some of you seem to get your news exclusively from tweets in fact. The tweet just perfectly fit since it's about the story and the fact that people believe so many bad studies.
Holy projection, Batman!
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,714
639
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Tell me you don't understand what long term symptoms are without telling me you don't know what long term symptoms are.



Plenty of proof that covid causes long term respiratory symptoms at a higher rate than they occur in people without acute respiratory infection.

Which, let me remind you yet again, was originally something you were disputing, but have now seemingly retreated from.



I didn't say "the study is bad". I said the adjustment is doing a hell of a lot of heavy lifting.

Tell me, what valid adjustment could they make that would entirely erase a positive relationship in the raw data? Right now, we don't know what exactly that adjustment was, because the study doesn't specify. So we're left to just see two things: 1) the data shows a positive relationship; and 2) the writer says that it isn't there after he's done something to the data, but doesn't say what it was.

I'm not even saying the conclusion is necessarily false. But bloody hell, that needs some explanation.



I'm using his own words and actions. He's been a hysterical peddler of half-truths and outright misrepresentations from the start. That article merely points to several examples of shoddy science.
A new symptom occurring 3 months after a covid infection doesn't mean covid caused said symptom.

Why would you get symptoms from nothing? Nope, I've reiterated it many times, I'm using the same definition of long covid as the study used.

It's on you to prove your claim, which you haven't.

He conveniently did a recap of the pandemic and his stances have been about as spot-on as you can get, he goes over what he said a year or 2 back and what is the current science with hindsight and he was right just about every time (you can read his stuff from back then to find your smoking gun if you want, you ain't gonna find it). If you think he is some nut, there's really no way you'll believe in actual science as you just believe the science that confers without your own views. What he said about masks is literally true. There is no real-world and randomized study saying cloth masks work. I guess you think a nut is someone that demands proof for something to be actually true.


So saying that covid has long-term symptoms is the same as saying the Earth is flat because you read it in a tweet. Got it.
Covid shrinking people's brains has as much proof as the world being flat.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2014
1,890
1,352
118
Country
4
Covid shrinking people's brains has as much proof as the world being flat.
You're hilariously delusional.

A summary of the study....
"Compared with 384 uninfected control subjects, those who tested positive for Covid had greater overall brain shrinkage and more grey matter shrinkage, particularly in areas linked to smell. For example, those who had Covid lost an additional 1.8% of the parahippocampal gyrus, a key region for smell, and an additional 0.8% of the cerebellum, compared with control subjects."


The citations used in the article you dismiss.

"There is strong evidence of brain-related abnormalities in COVID-19"1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13.

  1. Paterson, R. W. et al. The emerging spectrum of COVID-19 neurology: clinical, radiological and laboratory findings. Brain 143, 3104–3120 (2020).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  2. de Erausquin, G. A. et al. The chronic neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19: the need for a prospective study of viral impact on brain functioning. Alzheimers Dement. 17, 1056–1065 (2021).
    Article PubMed CAS Google Scholar
  3. Yang, A. C. et al. Dysregulation of brain and choroid plexus cell types in severe COVID-19. Nature 595, 565–571 (2021).
    Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  4. Deleidi, M. & Isacson, O. Viral and inflammatory triggers of neurodegenerative diseases. Sci. Transl. Med. 4, 121ps123 (2012).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  5. Butowt, R., Meunier, N., Bryche, B. & von Bartheld, C. S. The olfactory nerve is not a likely route to brain infection in COVID-19: a critical review of data from humans and animal models. Acta Neuropathol. 141, 809–822 (2021).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  6. Taquet, M., Geddes, J. R., Husain, M., Luciano, S. & Harrison, P. J. 6-month neurological and psychiatric outcomes in 236 379 survivors of COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study using electronic health records. Lancet Psychiatry 8, 416–427 (2021).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  7. Taquet, M., Luciano, S., Geddes, J. R. & Harrison, P. J. Bidirectional associations between COVID-19 and psychiatric disorder: retrospective cohort studies of 62 354 COVID-19 cases in the USA. Lancet Psychiatry 8, 130–140 (2021).
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  8. Helms, J. et al. Neurologic features in severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. N. Engl. J. Med. 382, 2268–2270 (2020).
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  9. Manca, R., De Marco, M., Ince, P. G. & Venneri, A. Heterogeneity in regional damage detected by neuroimaging and neuropathological studies in older adults with COVID-19: a cognitive-neuroscience systematic review to inform the long-term impact of the virus on neurocognitive trajectories. Front. Aging Neurosci. 13, 646908 (2021).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  10. Mukerji, S. S. & Solomon, I. H. What can we learn from brain autopsies in COVID-19? Neurosci. Lett. 742, 135528 (2021).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  11. Meinhardt, J. et al. Olfactory transmucosal SARS-CoV-2 invasion as a port of central nervous system entry in individuals with COVID-19. Nat. Neurosci. 24, 168–175 (2021).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  12. Puelles, V. G. et al. Multiorgan and renal tropism of SARS-CoV-2. N. Engl. J. Med. 383, 590–592 (2020).
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  13. Matschke, J. et al. Neuropathology of patients with COVID-19 in Germany: a post-mortem case series. Lancet Neurol. 19, 919–929 (2020).Return to ref 13 in article
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  14. Chertow, D. et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection and persistence throughout the human body and brain. Preprint at Research Square https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1139035/v1 (2021).
  15. Philippens, I. H. C. H. M. et al. SARS-CoV-2 causes brain inflammation and induces Lewy body formation in macaques. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.23.432474 (2021).
  16. Lechien, J. R. et al. Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions as a clinical presentation of mild-to-moderate forms of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19): a multicenter European study. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 277, 2251–2261 (2020).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  17. Cooper, K. W. et al. COVID-19 and the chemical senses: supporting players take center stage. Neuron 107, 219–233 (2020).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  18. Hosp, J. A. et al. Cognitive impairment and altered cerebral glucose metabolism in the subacute stage of COVID-19. Brain 144, 1263–1276 (2021).
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
  19. Postma, E. M., Smeets, P. A. M., Boek, W. M. & Boesveldt, S. Investigating morphological changes in the brain in relation to etiology and duration of olfactory dysfunction with voxel-based morphometry. Sci. Rep. 11, 12704 (2021).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  20. Butowt, R. & Bilinska, K. SARS-CoV-2: olfaction, brain infection, and the urgent need for clinical samples allowing earlier virus detection. ACS Chem. Neurosci. 11, 1200–1203 (2020).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
  21. Netland, J., Meyerholz, D. K., Moore, S., Cassell, M. & Perlman, S. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection causes neuronal death in the absence of encephalitis in mice transgenic for human ACE2. J. Virol. 82, 7264–7275 (2008).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  22. Brann, D. H. et al. Non-neuronal expression of SARS-CoV-2 entry genes in the olfactory system suggests mechanisms underlying COVID-19-associated anosmia. Sci. Adv. 6, eabc5801 (2020).
    Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Where's your equivalent in flat earth evidence?