191–200 of 229 posts
Unease and woe are the two feelings I'm left with after my quick layman reading of the article. Think I am most concerned with the reproductive implications, which seem under researched. Coupled with the unrelated decline in sperm count the past decade... I'm hoping my ruminations are just me catastrophizing. Can anyone more medically and scientifically literate provide some context to temper my doom and gloom?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I find it worth mentioning that the conscious choice not to do this and argue with overall numbers is clearly showing a lack of integrity in the source aimed at pushing a predetermined narrative.
You can not in good concise pretend or even imply that this an evenly distributed risk. Be it among agegroups, comorbidities or among the time axis since the start of the pandemic.
And to give some food for thought, people will reliably overcorrect to adapt for that distortion in their sense making process. Its how a justified loss in credibility looks like and influences peoples behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I stand by what I originally said. It seems like you are misinterpreting it somewhere along the line but what I said is backed by fact. Again, check the source I linked. It is verifiably true that the death rate of covid is 1.1% in the U.S. Do you have a different definition of "death rate"? > now admit it is at least 5-10x lower Never did I say anything to this effect. So who is really arguing in bad faith?
Come on you don’t even know the definition of IFR? Seriously. You linked to CFR data yet frame it as IFR, this is like an amateur level discussion if we are back to discussion IFR and CFR. I don’t even know where to start if that is where we are at.
I have been thinking about this a bit, i believe the pandemic (and this conversation) has been a great example for the general limits of distributed sensemaking and how it breaks down at communicating (and capsuling) all the relevant aspects and perspectives to a topic or statement.
I think in the end everyone has their map of the problem and we are failing (due to the limited bandwith of speech and text among others) at comparing why they differ where. Be it incomplete data, overlooking important perspectives or simply cognitive biases/ ego induced (not wanting to be wrong, tribalism...) errors.
Would you agree?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The VA is almost nothing but old sick people, the demographic most susceptible to serious COVID. Fortunately, most of the population isn't old sick people. The study you reference isn't relevant to conversations about the general population. The view that risk from subsequent infections is negligible is informed by the fact that vast numbers of people have had subsequent infections , including most of the people they…
> The VA is almost nothing but old sick people, the demographic most susceptible to serious COVID. On the other hand, that someone served in the military means they were healthy enough to get in. Those with serious defects never get to the VA.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/14/health/long-covid-children/in...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like long COVID and CFS are being conflated here.
Not really, they're basically the same thing. Except hopefully you (eventually) recover from long covid. If you don't recover, it's medically indistinguishable. Like CFS, "pushing through" can worsen symptoms - permanently.
It quite invalidates the figures
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The boosters do almost nothing about XBB.1.5 and the upcoming strains - this is evolution at play! You can't use the same strategy we've used for the flu - this virus mutates much faster as it infects a lot more people.
My point was that we've reached the mid-term status quo. If you're still wearing a mask, you're going to be wearing it for a while.
Face masks might be a novelty in the Western Hemisphere, but in the more populated other half of our planet, people have been wearing masks as less inconvenient than getting sick.
People should learn about Hayflick limit before saying they can keep surviving a reinfection every couple of months - especially one, which exploits such a common receptor as ACE2!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have had Covid at least 2 times and influenza once in the last 2 or 3 years. The influenza is the one that knocked me on my ass and sent me to the doctor thinking I might have something more wrong with me. Covid was meh, not worse than any other sickness the toddlers bring home.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 30% - 40% of the population disabled? That assumes likelihood of getting long covid doesn't drop after successive infections.
Some studies that infection actually may make it easier to catch it again https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq1841 and that covid causes immunological dysfuction even 8 months later https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-021-01113-x
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v...
See Figure 2 (end of the paper). Preprint, but pretty straightforward census of hospital staff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> walk longer than a minute without needing to lay down for the rest of the day and sleep I'm sorry, do you mean it literally?
Not OP but yes, literally. A friend of mine has long covid, used to run marathons. For a time he was unable to go up the stairs without crashing hard.
Note: I had mild-to-serious COVID myself with severe fever and 12% of lungs damaged, and was literally one day from rushing to the hospital. 0/10 will not recommend, had to fight with after effects, but nothing even near what you or OP described.