Covid-19 Discussion

Lol this is just nonsense. What has the length of time the vaccine remains in the body got to do with any possible long term effects? Vaccine triggered myocardytis for example could have drastic long term effects. Cancers triggered by the vaccine could take years to become apparent.

Notice the difference between "there will be no long term effects" and "we won't know the long term effects." If someone has a problem from the vaccine, we know it very quickly. Once the vaccine is gone, it cannot cause any new effects.

This is just made up nonsense. What cancers have been triggered by the vaccine? And if none, how would the vaccine that had been eliminated from the body trigger cancer years later? Explain that mechanism.

These specific vaccines have been in use for 3+ years now and there are zero signs of anything unusual in the long term.

COVID has been around a little longer and there are *massive* signs of long term trouble already.

Brian, one of these days you might learn that you do not know better than those qualified to speak on a subject. It may take lots of times being humiliated for being wrong, but one day it may sink in.

Back to reality, again.

Interesting write up in the NY Times for the 4th anniversary of covid reaching pandemic status. It contained some eye-opening graphs. Something we've always really known, but seeing it graphed is still quite startling.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/brief...

The covid death rate stratified by conservative/liberal voting areas (specifically, Trump voters).

You can clearly see that blue was hit hard early, likely due to the initial waves being in high population areas, but once the conservatives started demanding things go back to normal, their death rate sky-rocketed. And then it got completely out of hand after the vaccines were released. Quite jarring. Pretty consistently about double the death rate for Trump voters.

More here, looks very similar.

Also this graphic showing vaccination lowering death rate by 5x in 34-65 year olds, and 2x in 65+ for Washington state. Having seen lots of data like this, I can confirm that is not an anomaly at all. It's pretty typical.

It's really sad that these people are killing themselves and everyone around them. I guess the problem does fix itself though.

Than why do the vaccine manufacturers still require immunity on their vaccines?

So that one bad reaction doesn't bankrupt a company that does so much good for society.

A bit of an exaggeration but it gets the point across. Companies like Pfizer or Moderna are less willing to take on the task of vaccines if it has a lot of risk. Vaccines are so beneficial to society that the government agrees to take on that risk for them to encourage vaccine development.

Trump voters (and repub in general) tend to be older. People who die of COVID tend to be older.

Dems get overwhelming support from young people. Covid has almost zero shot at killing young people.

Pretty cool how the vaccine made people so much older than before. And how old Democrats were at the beginning of the pandemic. Good catch.

Must have missed that graphic showing the difference for different age groups though.

Also a possible explanation:

Conservatives are far less likely to employ any mitigations at all, such as masking, distancing, and vaccinating. All of these mitigations reduce the chances and severity of infection.

Vaccinating in particular is very successful at reducing rate and severity of infection. There's tons of peer-reviewed, age matched data showing this is true.

This explanation has the bonus of exactly explaining that jump in disparity after the vaccines were available.

Because that was the original agreement with the government. It expires October 1st.

Look, they have questions!

They don't. That's made up nonsense you read on a conspiracy site. Stop doing that. It's not real.

Simple. It's not true and isn't happening. Not even hard.

No it wasn't.

You could view the trial data before the vaccine was even released to most of the public. You can view it right now. Even the FOIA parts are being released, but they don't say anything we didn't already know

Mega sigh.

Tell you what. We'll consider stopping the calling you a conspiracy theorist if you'll stop going on conspiracy theory sites that lie and believing the crap they spread without verifying it. All the stuff you've said above is easily disproven. Easily. You expended zero effort legitimately trying to find out if any of it was true.

That's why you get called that. It's easy to fix. If you have legitimate questions or concerns, many of us are happy to help you find correct information.

Lol when even the Guardian admits long covid is intellectual fraud and the sequelae of most other contagious diseases we always dealt with without the "long" terminology are as severe or worse, it's only Gorgon left believing it like the japanese on the island in the 70s thinking ww2 was still ongoing

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024...

The results of the study, which Gerrard will present next month at the European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases in Barcelona, found no evidence that those who had Covid-19 were more likely to have functional limitations a year on compared with those who did not have Covid-19 (3.0% v 4.1%).

Gorgon , the last of the covidians

Even the Guardian!

lol

For those that can't read (you, apparently) I said we don't know what's going on with long covid yet. We only know what research tells us. I haven't looked at the paper that the Guardian (!!!) is referring to, but I will. If it's new info that changes the way we think about it, particularly for the better, that's great news, not bad news. Unlike others, when new info becomes available, I'm able to adjust to it.

However, I can't comment on that since I haven't looked at it, but I don't just believe the headlines without looking into it.

I will when I get time and I'll comment on it. But new info that clarifies questions the entire legitimate scientific community has is not some gotcha for you or an insult to me.

I will say even the article says this:

“The study is observational, based on reported symptoms with no physiological or detailed functional follow-up data. Without laboratory pathophysiological assessment of individual patients, it is impossible to say that this is indistinguishable from flu-related or any other post-viral syndrome,” Nicholson said.

Even though it says it's impossible to do so, that certainly does seem to be what you and the authors are trying to do.

So it certainly doesn't appear to be the dagger you believe it is on the surface, but like I said, I'll look into it.

But I do hope your ego is doing better.

Also, wtf is a "covidian?"

Also also, why did they not link to the paper? Curious.

They didn't even give the title or journal. Can you link it for us? Or did you even read it?

You failed to quote the last couple of paragraphs where both the authors of the study and other medical professionals highlight possible shortcomings in the methodology and caveats about conclusions. And they certainly dont call it a fraud in any way.

It seems to me you may have jumped on the lead in but are disregarding the ending. All studies contribute something to the collection of data and possible answers, but rarely is any one considered sufficient by itself to somehow make all the other studies obsolete.

The part that you might be missing is that about the guardian having been obsessed about covid, having favoured all the most tragic violations of human rights related to covid management and so on.

If even them publish something like this it means it was already absolutely obvious to all other people for a while lol.

This is like the time of Israel publishing an article about how hamas could have a point

Isnt the Guardian just a news media source rather than a medical journal? Since the authors of the study themselves warn people not to read too much into their conclusions, it's not like the Guardian editors are some sort of scientific study gatekeeper. As is the process for scientific studies, a group of professionals conducts a study, selects a particular approach to interpreting the data collected, and publish their findings. Others then examine all those factors and either suggest flaws that may call their conclusions into question or reinforce them. And that's what these scientists themselves stated.

So your statement that the Guardian publishing an article about the study carrying some sort of extra meaning is unsupported. Esp when you consider that the guardian article itself made the effort to seek comments from other doctors.

The guardian is a media source, and as most media sources it took a very political stance during covid. And it was extremely pro state violence to mitigate the virus, including because of purported long covid risks among other things.

They never published stuff against their narrative for years. About sweden, they wrote with the most negative possible cut, using voices that agreed with them, never those claiming sweden was actually doing something right (and this included published papers in respectable journals to be clear).

So if they publish, no matter the caveats, an article about the possibility that one of the core pillars that justified exceptional levels of state violence was actually completly made up, that's a very very big pivot.

Again imagine the washington post publishing an article about a scientific study that claims the climate crisis is horribly over-exaggerated

Uh, so again, Where's the study?

lol

Your view on The Guardian is wild. It does have an editorial stance that is moderately left of centre but as major newspapers go it is not all that rigid in having what is published be strictly adhering to it - certainly much less so than something like The Telegraph. For example I spent all of 2 minutes searching and found 4 articles that talk negatively about lockdowns, 2 opinion pieces (from prolific contributors) and 2 from the newspaper proper:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/j...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/202...

As far as UK papers go The Guardian might be legitimately the most diverse of the large dailies when it comes to the political bias of their articles. Them posting an article about a study that suggests long Covid isn't a useful term is not the huge deal that you think it is.

for some weird reason, i can read the first 2 while the 3rd and 4th link are gated .

The first is legitimately something i had missed, given she was a staunch ally of us (the anti-NPI crowd) and i didn't know she got a say on the guardian.

The second doesn't look like anti lockdown at all though, it's at the end of 2021, where everyone with half a brain and their dogs understood everything should already be back to complete normality no exception, and even countries like italy had reopened everything, claiming "perhaps doing more lockdowns right now isn't exactly optimal" lol

EDIT: sorry i mistaken the author of the first article with another person. Lol she was a pro lockdown person as well

Just no.

Under no circumstances does a non-medical news source reporting on the existence of a medical study give weight to that study. You are displaying a significant misunderstanding of the field of science here.

But even more importantly: where is the paper?

I didn't actually know The Guardian paywalled anything, are you sure it's not just a message that you have to click "I'll do it later" on? If it is a genuine gate then I assume it's to do with being outside of the UK as I'm 99% sure they don't wall anything behind even a free registration in the UK.

I was admittedly going almost entirely on the article headlines as I didn't spend long searching so it wouldn't surprise me too much if one of them isn't really very anti-lockdown. I think the point I was making is still valid though - The Guardian regularly publishes articles that don't rigidly toe the line of its high level editorial stance.

This is what i get (strange thing is to get this in some of them but not in the others)

I found some other articles about this paper and it's really not that interesting. There's still no link to it, which tells me it hasn't been published yet, so likely not peer reviewed. So already that's a big strike.

This is another of those "how do you feel" questionnaire studies. Not useless, but there's no way to know if there are issues that can't be detected by the subject themselves.

As an example, if there is organ damage that increases a person's risk of certain outcomes, that isn't going to be reported in a response to a text message (that's how this questionnaire was sent. Really.) asking a couple of questions about how they feel.

It was done during omicron and the bat majority of people were vaccinated by then, and there was much more general acquired immunity by then. It's pretty strongly theorized that vaccination improves long covid outcomes, so this would check out. There was no control for vaccination status.

But we can't get too deep into the woods because this study doesn't appear to actually exist anywhere that we can read it yet.

Whatever it says is highly unlikely to significantly change how we currently view long covid, though it could certainly influence things.

I think we all are rooting for long covid to not be a serious issue here, so let's save the victory dances either way, yeah?