Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

medrxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 103 posts

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#91

Post by ajross »

orangecat wrote: post #56
ajross wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html Worst season in recent memory was 61k deaths among influenza patients. Last year saw 600k americans die of covid. Meanwhile flu fatalities cratered due to the pandemic response. Full data isn't available yet, but this site has some details (e.g. pediatric flu deaths dropped between 37x and 199x -- there was ONE child who died of the flu last year): https://www.cd…

Meanwhile flu fatalities cratered due to the pandemic response. That's not at all clear. Different areas have had vastly different levels of response to Covid, but the flu disappeared everywhere. So either minimal levels of non-pharmaceutical interventions are sufficient to virtually eradicate the flu, or something else is going on. Viral interference seems likely: https://www.statnews.com/2021/01/31/a-viral-mystery-…

No, it's 100% true. Flu deaths are just data. You can't argue with data. You're engaging in excuse-making to try to rule out the most obvious hypothesis for the enormous drop in deaths. You can't deny that it happened.

And while such excuses do exist, they don't represent consensus opinions anywhere. Those who believe them are essentially 1:1 with those who want to believe that covid "is only as bad as the flu", which is provably false.

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#93

Post by ajross »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #76
qw3rty01 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Directly after the quote you mentioned: - 33 are under investigation - 61 unrelated to the vaccine - 52 had insufficient information to determine if the vaccine was linked to the death and finally the piece of information we're interested in: - 6 due to TTS (a known side-effect), all from people who received the COVISHIELD/AstraZeneca vaccine

Sure except, I wish you just quoted directly. "61 of these deaths are unlikely linked to a COVID-19 vaccine." Is not the same as 61 unrelated to the vaccine.

Sorry, you don't get to cite data incorrectly, get corrected, and then perform your own amateur epidemiology live on the internet to nitpick your way back to the argument. If you genuinely believe the vaccine is killing people, you need to find an expert saying that.

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#94

Post by timr »

ajross wrote: post #78
Izkata wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you go: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33768536/ > Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries and locations.

Good grief. I don't even have to click on that to know you've misinterpreted or the paper is garbage. We've measured 600k US deaths (with a real count somewhat higher, excess death metrics usually overshoot that by 20-30%)? You'd need 400M+ Americans to even make that work. What's the contention here, magic unmeasured multiple infections? People dying more than once?

So, OP provided a high-quality source, and you're ignoring it without reading it, because you know it's wrong? Without reading it. Is that right?

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#95

Post by rualca »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #76
qw3rty01 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Directly after the quote you mentioned: - 33 are under investigation - 61 unrelated to the vaccine - 52 had insufficient information to determine if the vaccine was linked to the death and finally the piece of information we're interested in: - 6 due to TTS (a known side-effect), all from people who received the COVISHIELD/AstraZeneca vaccine

Sure except, I wish you just quoted directly. "61 of these deaths are unlikely linked to a COVID-19 vaccine." Is not the same as 61 unrelated to the vaccine.

> Is not the same as 61 unrelated to the vaccine.

You do understand it also does not mean they are related to the vaccine, right?

I mean, putting aside the grasping as straws aspect of this claim, let's look at your original claim: in a country where there are already 20 million person's who already were administered the vaccine, and given that by your own account you can only put together two dozen cases among those 20 million that are not ruled out vaccine side-effects, don't you agree that the tradeoff is clear?

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#96

Post by dukeofdoom »

rualca wrote: post #95
dukeofdoom wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure except, I wish you just quoted directly. "61 of these deaths are unlikely linked to a COVID-19 vaccine." Is not the same as 61 unrelated to the vaccine.

> Is not the same as 61 unrelated to the vaccine. You do understand it also does not mean they are related to the vaccine, right? I mean, putting aside the grasping as straws aspect of this claim, let's look at your original claim: in a country where there are already 20 million person's who already were administered the vaccine, and given that by your own account you can only put together two dozen cases among those…

Well you don't know the long term effects. So you can't say the trade off is worth it. It's just blind optimism on your part, not even shared by the vaccine manufacturers, that put in their government contracts clauses that they will not guarantee that it works or take liability for any side effects. Despite making billions on these drugs.

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#97

Post by trainsplanes »

timr wrote: post #72
trainsplanes wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because the CDC says on their website that the flu is more dangerous than covid for young people. Depends what you're defining as young people. Under 5 as in those quotes, maybe virtually no risk. But I know otherwise healthy people in their 20s who got sick over a year ago. Their sense of smell and taste is still completely fried with no sign of recovery. Maybe that can happen with a bad flu sometimes, but it seem…

> Their sense of smell and taste is still completely fried with no sign of recovery. This is exceptionally rare. The vast majority of people who develop anosmia regain their smell and taste. And yes, it does happen with other viruses. > Maybe that can happen with a bad flu sometimes, but it seems way more common with covid. The danger here is the distance between what it "seems" like, and what it actually is. If you'…

I'm basing my experience on people I know who got infected. So are many other people who got vaccinated.

People who are screaming about the vaccine being a bigger risk than the virus are the ones being fed info by outrageous media reporting.

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#98

Post by ajross »

timr wrote: post #94
ajross wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good grief. I don't even have to click on that to know you've misinterpreted or the paper is garbage. We've measured 600k US deaths (with a real count somewhat higher, excess death metrics usually overshoot that by 20-30%)? You'd need 400M+ Americans to even make that work. What's the contention here, magic unmeasured multiple infections? People dying more than once?

So, OP provided a high-quality source, and you're ignoring it without reading it, because you know it's wrong? Without reading it. Is that right?

Yes, that's exactly right. It can only be true if there were 400M US covid infections. There are only 330M americans. I'll put my basic math skills up against any "high quality source" with a claim this ridiculous. The IFR is just plain not 0.15%. Period. That value is simply wrong. Or the paper might be from very early in the pandemic (and... wrong). Or most likely the comment above has simply misinterpreted it, deliberately or not.

An IFR of 0.15% for covid is laughably ridiculous.

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#99

Post by [deleted] »

ajross wrote: post #98
timr wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, OP provided a high-quality source, and you're ignoring it without reading it, because you know it's wrong? Without reading it. Is that right?

Yes, that's exactly right. It can only be true if there were 400M US covid infections. There are only 330M americans. I'll put my basic math skills up against any "high quality source" with a claim this ridiculous. The IFR is just plain not 0.15%. Period. That value is simply wrong. Or the paper might be from very early in the pandemic (and... wrong). Or most likely the comment above has simply misinterpreted it, del…

[deleted]

Re: Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank

#100

Post by timr »

ajross wrote: post #98
timr wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, OP provided a high-quality source, and you're ignoring it without reading it, because you know it's wrong? Without reading it. Is that right?

Yes, that's exactly right. It can only be true if there were 400M US covid infections. There are only 330M americans. I'll put my basic math skills up against any "high quality source" with a claim this ridiculous. The IFR is just plain not 0.15%. Period. That value is simply wrong. Or the paper might be from very early in the pandemic (and... wrong). Or most likely the comment above has simply misinterpreted it, del…

Stop arguing. Read the paper. The parent did not misinterpret it. It is not from early in the pandemic. You are wrong.
Post reply on HN