Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) (SARS-CoV-2) [2020]

Yeap, good ol attack the person because then you don't ever need to discuss the substance of what they are actually saying

And yet you seem to give the benefit of a doubt gladly, from what i've been understading from your posts, to the `official science`. Which is many times funded by capital/interests orders of magnitude higher by the manufacturers themselves. You can't have it both ways here

I suggest you watch the video Davros posted last week. A thorough debunking of one of Campbell's "Just Asking Questions" videos which shows how utterly dishonest/disingenuous he has become.

My previous post was just pointing out how lucrative it has become for Campbell as he has moved on from being an interesting and balanced source of information during the early stages of the pandemic to the conspiracy theorist we see today.

The 'official science' is correctly termed, 'science'. Vast reams of data and analysis thereof available online, all of which show that the vaccines are safe and effective. And yes, they are very profitable for the manufacturers. Of course they are. It's why the manufacturers are in business - they aren't in it for fun.

It has also become very profitable for anti-vaxx grifters such as Campbell.

Ain't capitalism wonderful?
 
A study of VA patients attempted to determine the risks of reinfections.

“This study’s findings were unanticipated,” says Stanley Perlman, a microbiologist at the University of Iowa’s Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine, in Iowa City, who was not involved in the study. “We would have expected repeat disease to be milder because of immunity from the first infection. Perlman emphasizes that Al-Ali’s results still need to be validated in other populations, and that more research on reinfections is needed, especially among vaccinated people exposed to newer variants. Most hospitalizations and deaths from COVID are occurring among the elderly and in unvaccinated or immunocompromised people, Perlman says. But for people outside those groups, “I think most subsequent infections are milder than the initial ones,” he speculates, but he cautions that there could be unexpected immunological effects occurring that scientists do not understand.

Yet recent data reinforce Al-Ali’s evidence that repeat infections can be severe, while providing new insights into what heightens risks for vulnerable people. A preprint study posted in January (which has not yet been peer-reviewed), for instance, reported that the severity of a person’s initial bout with COVID predicts how severe the disease might be should it strike again. The investigators in this case reviewed electronic health records from a more diverse population of 1.5 million COVID patients treated at U.S. hospitals between March 1, 2020 and July 1, 2022. Nearly 6 percent of these individuals had been infected more than once, and in most cases, the reinfections occurred when the original Omicron variant was spreading (November 2021 to mid-March 2022).

Among those hospitalized with severe COVID the first time around, nearly half were hospitalized again when reinfected. Conversely, roughly 90 percent of people with mild initial infections avoided hospitalization when sickened again with COVID later. Notably, the investigators found that reinfections were also associated with elevated risks of long COVID—lingering symptoms such as fatigue, shortness of breath and brain fog that persist months or years after an initial infection. But the basis for that trend is unclear. There could be biological factors at play, or maybe “doctors are simply documenting a backlog of long COVID with the new diagnostic code, which became available in late 2021,” says Emily Hadley, a data scientist at RTI International, a nonprofit research institute in Durham, N.C., and the study’s first author.


So I don't think it would be a good idea to conclude that if you've been infected once, reinfections won't be as bad, won't have potential consequences.

The research is mixed at best.
 
Anti maskers did a victory tour after a meta-analysis of masking found that masks didn't make one bit of difference in covid infections.

Cochrane reviewed 78 studies but only two were specifically about covid masking. One done in India showed statistical differences and one done in Denmark showed a little difference but the data set was small.

Most of the other studies were done before the Covid-19 pandemic. They were studies on flu transmission, not only comparing masking but other mitigation measures such ashand-washing.

The lead author seems to have a certain POV.

Some observers have taken this as a final, authoritative conclusion on the matter, an opinion shared by the man behind the review. “There is just no evidence that they make any difference. Full stop,” Tom Jefferson, the study’s lead author, said in an interview. Even fitted N95 masks in health care settings, the interviewer asked? “It makes no difference — none of it.”

I think Jefferson — an Oxford University epidemiologist who has a number of eccentric and flatly nonsensical opinions about Covid-19, including that it didn’t originate in China and may have been circulating in Europe for years before its global emergence — is overstating his case. There is something we can learn from the Cochrane paper, but it’s as much about the process of science as it is about the effectiveness of masks.


This masking meta-analysis has received criticism.

“I was really surprised that the Cochrane group let this go through,” Jake Eaton, a public policy and global health researcher who was the lead researcher on a Cochrane review of childhood nutrition, told me. “The fact it’s looking at masks across different settings and with different diseases makes it really tricky. Cochrane reviews are very good if you really want to assemble the most rigorous evidence and say, ‘Do we have a conclusive signal that this works?’ This is something of a perverse use of a Cochrane review.”
 
Yeah, I've read several articles talking through the obvious failures of that Cochrane review.

We know COVID is transmitted via water droplets and not by dry diffusion. We can empirically prove masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks all significantly reduce the movement of water droplets in free air. That by itself demonstrates an unequivocal ability to reduce disease transmission, not just limited to COVID.
 
I remember one early study, they used the material used for surgical masks as a filter on animals -- rats or hamsters -- and the control group was more frequently infected and more severely infected compared to the study group which had the masking filte.

There seems to be a dose-dependency when it comes to whether you're infected or how badly you are infected. This study was before vaccines and it was with the early strains.

I just heard an interview with an ER doctor who's written a book about his work. It isn't specifically about covid but he talked about how they worried about disinfecting themselves when going home or improvising protection. He cited young doctors in their 30s and 40s succumbing to the first waves, probably because of repeated exposure and probably high doses cumulative exposure.

These days, the covid deniers like to pretend that younger people have little to worry about, because the virus has mutated to milder form. They're even considering whether to recommend that people under 40 or 50 no longer get boosted.
 
Honestly I've given up on modern science. It's all the same. You get a paper here, a paper there, then a meta analysis years later that tries to find some conclusion among all the weak experiments. It'll take 2000 papers, reject 1960 on account of being crap experiments riddled with bias or other failures, eventually settle on a few and draw a conclusion - well, a reasonably firmish correlation - based on statistics, not actual experimentation that proves a hypothesis. Then every single review calls on larger, proper experiments to actually test the hypothesis, which never happen.
 
That's the hard part about all of this: real science isn't easy, and it requires a modicum of scientific understanding to properly read and interpret a good publication. Because of this admittedly steep requirement, it's REALLY simple for anyone with an agenda to toss some ugly fake junk psuedo-science (the 'alternate' medicine angle, which is to say, an alternative to proven medical procedures which is fucking stupid) into the mix, point to it and say "see, experts don't agree!" The lacking component here is critical thinking in the public space.

Non-critical thinking example regarding that Cochrane review: "See, experts say masks do nothing for COVID! It's a Cochrane review!!"

Critical thinking counter example to the Cochrane review: "Well, wait... There has to be good reason why, for literally decades, surgeons have worn masks. Why would they have started? Presumably it's the same reason plague doctors had those horrible masks... it's something to do with keeping our breath or spit from falling into cut-open bodies. So wait, what would that prevent? If we think about it, something in our breath must be bad. I mean, I've breathed on a piece of glass and have seen all the moisture. And I already know moisture breeds a lot of nasty fungal and bacterial things thanks to how kitchens and bathrooms smell if messes of any sort are allowed to stay wet for very long... So, thinking critically about this for just 30 seconds, humans have known for a hundred years or more that masks block transmission of infectious disease. Yeah, so this new 'finding' really doesn't pass the smell test."

Here's an alternative critical thinking strategy: "Who is communicating this new finding, and what might be their motiviation?"

If the answer is a public university publishing new findings, there's not a lot of specific incentive to find an answer that particularly leans in any one direction vs another.

If the answer is a private entity, or a for-hire research entity, there's a LOT of very specific incentive to generate an answer with a specific tilt.

And SOOOOOO much of the junk, shit, garbage psuedo-science in the world is very sorely and very obviously the 2nd option.

Now, as for "not actual experimentation that proves a hypothesis" -- you need to consider what that means. We can't morally experiment by giving some people diseases on purpose, or by permitting them to get diseased on purpose as some sort of control group, and so SO SO much of the junk psuedo-science going around is about disease prevention. The only moral option we have is observational studies, with blinding and controls in place to keep as much of the study participants in equal risk categories as possible. And basically every time humans are involved, it's not really possible to keep everything exactly equal in these studies.

Which is why statistics is core to making the data make sense.
 
Department of Energy concluded, in a report that was just released, that Covid virus likely leaked from a Chinese lab.

No doubt many will hold this report up as vindication for their theories and for Trump.

But the proponents of the lab leak theory had an agenda, which was to exculpate Trump's response and blame China, as if he wouldn't be responsible for leading the national and global response to the pandemic if it leaked from Chinese labs.

Now of course the right wing will hold up this report to attack CDC, NIH, China. More anti-Asian hate to come.

Meanwhile, apparently this new DOE report doesn't represent any unanimity in the federal govt.

In addition to the Energy Department, the F.B.I. has also concluded, with moderate confidence, that the virus first emerged accidentally from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a Chinese lab that worked on coronaviruses. Four other intelligence agencies and the National Intelligence Council have concluded, with low confidence, that the virus most likely emerged through natural transmission, the director of national intelligence’s office announced in October 2021.

Mr. Sullivan said those divisions remain.


One of the sources said that the new assessment from the Department of Energy is similar to information from a House Republican Intelligence Committee report released last year on the origins of the virus.

National security adviser Jake Sullivan said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday that the intelligence community remains divided on the matter, while noting that President Joe Biden has put resources into getting to the bottom of the origin question.


Unless they have smoking gun evidence, this conclusion is just going to raise political heat and polarization.
 
Don't know but they have several agencies investigating and issuing reports.

Main thing is the conclusions from all these different entities are all different.

None of them cite evidence or anything close to conclusive.
 
Sure but I believe those are physicists and those who specialize in weapons and nuclear energy research?

Not virologists, molecular biologists, etc.?

Are they conversant with virus research, how those types of labs work versus weapons research labs, including things like security and decontamination protocols?
 
DOE did apply a "low confidence" to their lab leak support decision. FBI shares support for the lab leak theory with "moderate confidence". Four other agencies support the natural source theory.

The timing is convenient with all the political realigment towards China after the recent pressure on Taiwan and their support for Russia against Ukraine.

Cheers
 
Sure but I believe those are physicists and those who specialize in weapons and nuclear energy research?

Not virologists, molecular biologists, etc.?

Are they conversant with virus research, how those types of labs work versus weapons research labs, including things like security and decontamination protocols?
They have their hands in everything.

A quick search says they operate several BSL-3 labs.
 
Couple of observations, no conclusions as I've no idea what's what any more.

This is the UK hospital admission rate:

1677841494184.png

And here's deaths with C19 on the certificate:

1677841622476.png

This is a clear view of a 3 to 4 month cadence to C19 waves. There's an obvious downward trend on peak infections with each cycle. There's also a subtle upward trend on the minimum, rather than the whole curve tending towards zero, so there's more ongoing C19 among the population over time rather than the whole thing fizzling out to a trickle. The info on other pathogens isn't as clear, but generally we see an annual cadence.
 
While there's a fair amount of research going on with Long Covid, it's difficult to determine the probability of getting covid or predicting those most vulnerable to it.

For one thing, because it takes at least several months to see if it develops in people, they can't run RCT.

They mostly have observational and surveys as well as doctors on the front lines dealing with it.

Based on those sources and experiences, doctors estimate 5-10% probability for vaccinated people and 15-20% for unvaccinated people. Several doctors said closer to 5% for those vaccinated, especially if they've had boosters.

Generally, LC incidence appears to be going on, especially with Omicron variants compared to the pre-Omicron variants.

Experts offered a few likely explanations for the downward trend in long Covid cases: the uptake of vaccines and treatment, and the nature of the omicron variant.

A spate of studies have shown that even getting a single Covid shot decreases a person’s chances of long-term symptoms, and that the risk declines further with each additional shot. The antiviral Paxlovid also seems to lower the odds of long Covid, according to a study that’s awaiting peer review.

"We now have more things that can help reduce your risk," said Dr. Michael Gottlieb, an emergency medicine physician and researcher at Rush University Medical Center.

Studies have also shown a decline in long Covid rates after the rise of the omicron variant, though researchers disagree as to whether the variant itself is associated with fewer long-term health issues than its predecessors.

"The existing data does suggest that the risk of long Covid in the post-omicron era may be less, but it's confounded by the rise in vaccination rates occurring essentially over the same time period," said Dr. Stuart Katz, a principal investigator with the National Institutes of Health's RECOVER initiative, which is studying the long-term effects of Covid.


Factors that influence a person's risk of long Covid include their age, sex, health history and the severity of their illness. According to a review in the journal Nature, women and people with Type 2 diabetes or ADHD may have an elevated risk.

Kaushal said she is seeing persistent heart and kidney problems in older men who had severe Covid, as well as sleep disorders and shortness of breath in younger women.

Read in NBC News: https://apple.news/AY2dWLSJFRO-yosLvPifVBg


However, reinfections raise your odds of developing LC

Even reinfections bring a risk of long Covid, they added.

"You may get long Covid the second time around, the third time around. That reinfection is absolutely consequential, and you’re pretty much doing Russian roulette again," said Dr. Ziyad Al-Aly, chief of research and development at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System and a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis.

"Out of 100 people you see, 95 or 96 people are going to be just fine. But you could be one of those unlucky four, and I personally don’t want to take my chances," Al-Aly said.

And some vaccinated people still face persistent, life-altering health issues after getting Covid.

"I see these patients — some of them literally cannot even read an email. They have brain fog that is so profound, it substantially impairs their cognitive abilities," Al-Aly said.
 
Based on those sources and experiences, doctors estimate 5-10% probability for vaccinated people and 15-20% for unvaccinated people. Several doctors said closer to 5% for those vaccinated, especially if they've had boosters.
The issue I have wit that number is, as discussing with my friend last night, I know of no-one with Long Covid. I know of people who have had C19 several times, but no LC. At those percentages, everyone should know someone who's got it, or someone who knows someone who's struggling. Certainly not 1 in 20 of my acquaintances has LC. DOes anyone here have that proportion of friends with it?
 
Back
Top