1005 replies to this topic

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re post #738

 

Click "Comments" in the study at albedo's link:

 

"November 3, 2023

Infectivity of Omicron vs Earlier Iterations of Covid19

Barnett Mennen, MD | AllCare Primary Care and Urgent Care

 

The large Indian study referenced in this article was conducted in 2020 and thus likely relates to the Alpha variant of Covid19. The Omicron variant that has been dominant for the past 18 months or so appears to have greater infectivity than the earlier variants, e.g., 

 

https://www.medrxiv....2.21.22271300v1

 

Thus, the masking data as presented in this study may have less relevance to the current variant that is more contagious than the earlier ones."

 

There appear to be too many confounds in the studies that show that masks are effective.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 07 November 2023 - 09:02 PM.

[Florin]

This review has 1 RCT study (not controlled for most conditions related to hospitalization and death) which showed only modest effects in stopping COVID transmission 

 

The rest is all low-powered, uncontrolled, observational studies.

 

Up until 2020, we had a century of RCT and observational studies which showed conclusively that masking would be ineffective as a pandemic response. In addition, we all saw with our own eyes that masking did not stop transmission of COVID anywhere in the world. Everyone I know got COVID, no matter if they wore a mask religiously or not. The virus is smaller than the pores in all of the surgical masks that most people were wearing!!!! Yet, some people have an unscientific devotion to the idea. Physics and reality be damned I guess.

 

The study's authors suggests that RCTs aren't necessarily better in evaluating any intervention. I suppose their attitude is some evidence is better than none.

 

Masking didn't stop covid, but they'd argue that masking slowed it down.

 

The virus is transmitted in aerosols, not via separate virus particles floating around. Even surgical mask material can filter out a significant amount of aerosols. Respirator pore size doesn't indicate efficacy because respirator filter material works via electrostatic charge (to attract particles smaller than the pore size) and chaotic motion (particles eventually stick to the material due to the material's convoluted air flow pathways). The problem is that non-respirator masks can't get close to 100% filtration efficiency, and even if they could, most masks (including some disposable N95 respirators) leave large air gaps around the face.

 

For me, these sorts of studies are a bit of a red herring. Do parachutes work? What about parachutes that have some holes in them? There are no RCTs about the effectiveness of parachutes. Are fancy RCTs or huge observational studies needed to sort this out? The answer should be obvious.

[albedo]

I am sorry to post another recent study on masks (just logging here information coming from studies I admit mainly for my own log/benefit ...)

 

As far as my opinion is concerned and for the small it might matter, I try to use common sense and responsibility. Switzerland where I live and Sweden of some of my relatives, called a lot during the pandemic upon people responsibility and freedom of choice and, while of course not doing perfectly, did not do so bad. But even here tensions were high. I still mask from time to time in crowdy situations such as long hours in public transportation and flu/covid/cold times. I did vaccinate but not doing this year even for the flu as discussed with my doctor. I hate mandates which I thinks were a mistake and have a sense of complete disgust and arrogance at statements such as “follow-the-science” of few today which I no longer hear I must say, going to the face of science as conjectures, refutations, uncertainty and openness.  I strongly feel the pandemic should have thought more in terms of logic, uncertainly and Bayesian reasoning. Still waiting for large scale policy effectiveness studies but sure they will come.

 

Quantitative errors in the Cochrane review on “Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.”
http://dx.doi.org/10...3.rs-3486610/v1

 

(from the conclusions) “Studies of the efficacy and effectiveness of respiratory protection have potentially profound implications as decisions are made on policies to protect the public generally and workers specifically against airborne infections. In this paper, we have shown that empirical results, interpreted as showing no or weak effects of proven methods of respiratory protection in the workplace, rest on flawed assumptions in study design and analysis. Most critically, studies do not reflect the critical distinction between infections resulting from exposure while using an intervention from those resulting from exposures when the intervention is not being used. We show why these empirical results are flawed and the scientifically incorrect conclusions that result. The net result is a strong bias towards null findings and a failure to reflect the full statistical uncertainty of study results. These flaws of individual studies are compounded in meta-analyses. Conventional analyses do not correct quantitatively for these problems. Technically, the analysis of clinical studies of mask efficacy are missing four things: (1) propagation of uncertainty leading to biased estimate of the mean and underestimate of uncertainty, (2) compounding of effects of masking on non-study participants, (3) importantly, analysis of significance—the meaning of the results through their implications for health (current results, even with all of the limitations that reduce effect sizes, show that with high probability physical interventions reduce the spread of respiratory viruses), and (4) proper contextualization of purported adverse effects of mask wearing. We illustrate these points by reanalyzing both the Cochrane review and a trial that claims to limit the benefits of N95 respirator masks compared to surgical masks in health care workers to 2X, and show that correcting the analysis based upon their own empirical data results in a bound of 10X or even larger. Further, the results only apply to an unspecified class of low risk procedures. Considering the broader benefits of respiratory protection, including the benefit of source control for infections in others, yields an even higher upper bound of potential benefit. In other words and consistent with the laboratory-established efficacy of N95 respirators, we show that, including the effect of source control on infections of others (including patients), the available empirical evidence is consistent with

masks being highly effective. The empirical approach taken to date in the design and analysis of studies of respiratory protection has not been adequately grounded in the correct theoretical assumptions around the transmission of airborne infections. The microenvironmental formulation clarifies the necessity of considering exposures not addressed at all by the intervention(s) of interest. While we have focused on interventions for respiratory infection, the same considerations can be extended to studies of other interventions, e.g., increased ventilation or ultraviolet radiation. For developing guidelines for public health protection, an approach based in gathering all related evidence through systematic review and meta-analysis is generally followed. However, limitations that extend to an entire body of evidence are not reversed by the review and pooling processes. We urge caution with using extant interpretations of the evidence on respiratory protection for formulating guidelines.”

 

Edited by albedo, 07 November 2023 - 09:44 PM.

[Mind]

Here is a look at the disastrous COVID policies from an economic perspective. The lockdowns and other harsh measures led to the destruction of small businesses to the benefit of the richest/biggest corporations and people in the world. The wealth transfer was in the trillions of dollars Now the world's middle and lower classes are getting poorer still because of the inflation unleashed by the pandemic policies.

 

Remember when Walmart, and Costco, and other big box stores were allowed to stay open but small shops were forced to close. It destroyed small communities.

 

Remember when liquor shops were allowed to stay open but churches were forced to close.

 

The policies were an awful failure and we are still dealing with the awful effects to this day.

[Mind]

I am sorry to post another recent study on masks (just logging here information coming from studies I admit mainly for my own log/benefit ...)

 

 

 The empirical approach taken to date in the design and analysis of studies of respiratory protection has not been adequately grounded in the correct theoretical assumptions around the transmission of airborne infections. The microenvironmental formulation clarifies the necessity of considering exposures not addressed at all by the intervention(s) of interest. 

 

They are basically saying the Cochrane review is not valid because they only looked at the end results. (which is really what matters)

 

They are basically saying that if two people dressed in hazmat suits sit in a room for a week they will not transmit viruses between each other. Duh! The Cochrane review is more representative of the real world - where people don't live in a sterile bubble.

[Mind]

Some people say the hatred, vitriol, censorship, violence, etc... leveled against anyone offering helpful differing opinions wasn't very bad.

 

Just a reminder of how bad it was.

Attached Files

•  How bad it was during COVID.jpg   77.71KB   0 downloads

[Hip]

Some people say the hatred, vitriol, censorship, violence, etc... leveled against anyone offering helpful differing opinions wasn't very bad.

 

Just a reminder of how bad it was.

 

Isn't your post self-contradictory, Mind?

 

You complain that during the pandemic it was hard to offer differing opinions, and you have often posted that you believe different opinions should be heard; well, the views of the 6 people in your picture are themselves just differing opinions, and therefore by your own standards, they have a right to make them.

 

 

I think the views of the 6 people in your picture are rather tame. In my view, the surviving relatives of the estimated 200,000 people in the US who died of COVID because they were convinced by the antifaxers to shun vaccination should get together in a class action lawsuit, and sue the living daylights out of these antifaxers. 

 

People are suing the UK government now because of blood clots triggered by the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine led to injury or death. And they have every right to sue.  But shouldn't people also be suing antifaxer organisations and media outlets for the lethal antifax messaging they put out? Murdoch's Fox News for example; they were putting out antifax messages on TV, while all their presenters themselves were fully vaxed up. Clearly they did not really believe in the antifax message, but broadcast it because it was good for gaining audiences. I know that it is difficult to sue media organisations, because of free speech laws, but maybe it's worth trying.

 

(Ironic though that it was the AstraZeneca vector vaccine which produced serious adverse effects, and not the new-fangled mRNA vaccine. Vector vaccines have been around for 50 years, whereas mRNA tech is much newer). 

Edited by Hip, 11 November 2023 - 10:55 PM.

[Hip]

Interesting SciAm article about Tony Fauci's interest in ME/CFS, long COVID and post viral diseases. 

[Mind]

 

 

But shouldn't people also be suing antifaxer organisations and media outlets for the lethal antifax messaging they put out?

 

There are no long term RCT placebo-controlled studies with all cause mortality as an end point that prove vaccines are "effective". If you can find one, post it. You are making accusations without presenting evidence.

 

After the COVID vaccination rollout around the world, excess deaths in many countries are soaring. Without differing viewpoints, the tragedy might have been worse. The pandemic policies were awful enough, destroying lives with no quantifiable benefit, then you have the serious adverse events and deaths (peer-reviewed) adding to the disaster.

 

 

 

Isn't your post self-contradictory, Mind?

 

Not at all, unless you have a different definition of "contradictory".

 

They were calling for awful things to be done to unvaccinated people and to those with differing science-based opinions. I have never called for any such things, except for the people who have committed crimes (Dr. Fauci - lying to congress - conspiracy/cover up - etc.) All of the people in the graphic are free to say whatever awful things they want. All I am saying is we should remember who they were and the hatred they harbor.

[Hip]

There are no long term RCT placebo-controlled studies with all cause mortality as an end point that prove vaccines are "effective". If you can find one, post it. You are making accusations without presenting evidence.

 
I've posted links to vaccine studies demonstrating high protection against death multiple times. If you did not notice or read those studies in the past, you are not likely to read them now, so it's not worth me posting the links again.
 
Are you sure that the Internet echo chambers that people place themselves in are not resulting in you missing a lot of relevant information? It's pretty established that COVID vaccines were highly effective at reducing COVID death risk. 
 
 
 

After the COVID vaccination rollout around the world, excess deaths in many countries are soaring. Without differing viewpoints, the tragedy might have been worse. The pandemic policies were awful enough, destroying lives with no quantifiable benefit, then you have the serious adverse events and deaths (peer-reviewed) adding to the disaster.

Do you actually read these COVID threads? Because we have been over this excess deaths point many times. How come you have not taken this info on board?

Excess deaths in nearly all countries appeared when the COVID virus hit, not when the vaccines arrived some 18 months later. 


 

They were calling for awful things to be done to unvaccinated people and to those with differing science-based opinions. I have never called for any such things, except for the people who have committed crimes (Dr. Fauci - lying to congress - conspiracy/cover up - etc.) All of the people in the graphic are free to say whatever awful things they want. All I am saying is we should remember who they were and the hatred they harbor.

 
Awful things? Since when is a vaccine passport "awful"? It's an inconvenience, yes, but it's not the end of the world.
 
Whereas there's not much which is more awful than death, and people here have been calling for more COVID deaths throughout this pandemic. Every time something comes along which help can prevent COVID death (vaccines, masks, lockdowns, etc), many here are fiercely against it.

 

 

[Daniel Cooper]

Some people say the hatred, vitriol, censorship, violence, etc... leveled against anyone offering helpful differing opinions wasn't very bad.

 

Just a reminder of how bad it was.

 

For what it's worth, last I heard (earlier this year) Howard Stern is still locked up inside his personal compound unwilling to venture out hardly at all due to his fear of coivd.

 

It was about this time last year that he went out for the first time since Feb 2020 and apparently it was a very traumatic experience for him. Bill Maher says he doesn't think Stern will ever go back to being in public in a pre-covid way.

 

So at least some of the people in your graphic above were (and apparently still are) operating on the basis of a completely irrational (I would say pathological) fear of covid.

[Hip]

So at least some of the people in your graphic above were (and apparently still are) operating on the basis of a completely irrational (I would say pathological) fear of covid.

 

With the risk of getting life destroying long COVID being around 1 in a 100 for healthy people of all ages, I would not say trying to avoid COVID is irrational, though it may be difficult. However, a good N95 mask should give you total protection in public, so no need to fear going out if you wear a mask.

 

Just because some people catch COVID and have no issues, their N=1 experience does not inform of the risks. You have to look at the statistics. 

 

 

There is far more irrationality on these COVID threads, where people seem to have pathological fear of COVID vaccines, even though statistically your chances of getting adverse effects from the vax are very low. There are quite a few people here who genuinely believe the COVID vaccines are killing millions and millions, but somehow nobody noticed! 

 

Rationality is based on looking at the stats.

Edited by Hip, 13 November 2023 - 05:57 PM.

[Mind]

 
I've posted links to vaccine studies demonstrating high protection against death multiple times. If you did not notice or read those studies in the past, you are not likely to read them now, so it's not worth me posting the links again.
 
Are you sure that the Internet echo chambers that people place themselves in are not resulting in you missing a lot of relevant information? It's pretty established that COVID vaccines were highly effective at reducing COVID death risk. 
 
 
 

Do you actually read these COVID threads? Because we have been over this excess deaths point many times. How come you have not taken this info on board?

Excess deaths in nearly all countries appeared when the COVID virus hit, not when the vaccines arrived some 18 months later. 


 

 
Awful things? Since when is a vaccine passport "awful"? It's an inconvenience, yes, but it's not the end of the world.
 
Whereas there's not much which is more awful than death, and people here have been calling for more COVID deaths throughout this pandemic. Every time something comes along which help can prevent COVID death (vaccines, masks, lockdowns, etc), many here are fiercely against it.

 

Did you even look at the quotes?

 

They weren't calling for "vaccine passports". They said "F*^k your freedom". They said "Screw your freedom". They clamored for unvaccinated people to be denied medical treatment. They called for unvaccinated to be denied any public space. They called for your people's children to be taken away. They called for unvaccinated people to be hauled away to re-education camps.

[Mind]

 
I've posted links to vaccine studies demonstrating high protection against death multiple times. If you did not notice or read those studies in the past, you are not likely to read them now, so it's not worth me posting the links again.
 
Are you sure that the Internet echo chambers that people place themselves in are not resulting in you missing a lot of relevant information? It's pretty established that COVID vaccines were highly effective at reducing COVID death risk. 
 
 
 

Do you actually read these COVID threads? Because we have been over this excess deaths point many times. How come you have not taken this info on board?

Excess deaths in nearly all countries appeared when the COVID virus hit, not when the vaccines arrived some 18 months later. 


 

 
Awful things? Since when is a vaccine passport "awful"? It's an inconvenience, yes, but it's not the end of the world.
 
Whereas there's not much which is more awful than death, and people here have been calling for more COVID deaths throughout this pandemic. Every time something comes along which help can prevent COVID death (vaccines, masks, lockdowns, etc), many here are fiercely against it.

 

I have posted plenty of data and studies. Sadly ,you might have missed most of it.

 

Singapore had the vaccine rollout in 2021, then excess deaths soared in 2022 and 2023, when COVID rates went way down. Take a look. Since there is so much peer-reviewed and published research showing widespread severe adverse side effects and deaths, as well as contamination in the COVID injections, it is reasonable (for sane people) to question whether or not the COVID injections have cause millions of excess deaths around the world in 2022 and 2023.

 

I have read the studies you posted about vaccine "effectiveness". These are not long-term placebo-controlled RCT studies with all cause mortality as an end point. What good is a vaccine if it is effective in the short term, but mortality is higher in the long term. Please post a placebo-controlled RCT study which shows lower mortality over the long term, instead of just calling people names.

 

There are studies showing that higher childhood vaccination is associated with HIGHER mortality among children.

[Hip]

Did you even look at the quotes?

 

They weren't calling for "vaccine passports". They said "F*^k your freedom". They said "Screw your freedom". They clamored for unvaccinated people to be denied medical treatment. They called for unvaccinated to be denied any public space. They called for your people's children to be taken away. They called for unvaccinated people to be hauled away to re-education camps.

 

Some of those statements might have been said with an emotional stance, meaning that it's just a way to express yourself and let off steam; but you don't really mean it. But they might also have been said with literal intent. In any case, these statements are not actually that extreme, especially when you consider the morality of the situation.

 

Unvaccinated people taking 3 weeks to die of COVID in hospital were clogging up the hospital system, and thus causing harm to other non-COVID patients who might need medical attention. You may think it is your right to refuse a vaccination, but when these actions lead to the harm or death of others, because you are taking up hospital resources while you die, it becomes a moral question.

Edited by Hip, 13 November 2023 - 08:24 PM.

[Hip]

I have read the studies you posted about vaccine "effectiveness". These are not long-term placebo-controlled RCT studies with all cause mortality as an end point. What good is a vaccine if it is effective in the short term, but mortality is higher in the long term. Please post a placebo-controlled RCT study which shows lower mortality over the long term, instead of just calling people names.

 

You have a valid point with regards to all-cause mortality after vaccination. 

 

Unfortunately science has not shown much interest in studying long term all-cause mortality after vaccination, so there is not much data. But I agree that this area should be more explored. 

 

 

I did post a thread detailing some very intriguing though preliminary Danish research by Prof Christine Stabell-Benn, who found the mRNA COVID vaccines (like Pfizer and Moderna) may actually increase the risk of death from non-COVID causes, even though these vaccine help protect from COVID death.

 

But Prof Stabell-Benn also found that the adenovirus vector COVID vaccines (like AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson) dramatically reduce all-cause mortality (that is, they reduce both COVID and non-COVID deaths).

 

 

This research by Prof Stabell-Benn needs to be replicated, but it is fascinating.

 

And it is especially fascinating from the longevity point of view, as her research has found live attenuated vaccines in general will dramatically reduce all-cause mortality. So if you want to live longer, you might want to get yourself jabbed with a live attenuated vaccine (of any kind).

 

Whereas according to Prof Stabell-Benn, dead inactivated vaccines actually increase all-cause mortality, in spite of protecting recipients from the infection the vaccine targets.

Edited by Hip, 13 November 2023 - 08:48 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

With the risk of getting life destroying long COVID being around 1 in a 100 for healthy people of all ages, I would not say trying to avoid COVID is irrational, though it may be difficult. However, a good N95 mask should give you total protection in public, so no need to fear going out if you wear a mask.
 
Just because some people catch COVID and have no issues, their N=1 experience does not inform of the risks. You have to look at the statistics. 
 
 
There is far more irrationality on these COVID threads, where people seem to have pathological fear of COVID vaccines, even though statistically your chances of getting adverse effects from the vax are very low. There are quite a few people here who genuinely believe the COVID vaccines are killing millions and millions, but somehow nobody noticed! 
 
Rationality is based on looking at the stats.

 

See, I'm just not buying your 1 in a 100 metric. I don't doubt that you have at least one study that shows that number. But I also know that estimates of long covid are all over the place. And I think "getting their life destroyed" is an overstatement. Many people that get long covid do get over it. It's not a life long affliction for many and perhaps most. We are after all only 3 years into this. We can't say what percentage of people will or won't recover from it because we just don't have that much data in terms of time.
 
Here's a recent article about the omicron variant and long covid and the underlying paper:
 
Long COVID less likely after Omicron than other variants, data show
 
Post–COVID-19 Condition After SARS-CoV-2 Infections During the Omicron Surge vs the Delta, Alpha, and Wild Type Periods in Stockholm, Sweden

 

That study found a 0.2% risk of long covid (1 in 500) from the Omicron variant. And we know that some of those people recover.

 

And if we say that Long Covid is a form of ME/CFS which can be caused by any number of other viruses, should we all be locking ourselves away regardless of SARS-CoV-2 and should we all have been continuously masked up for years prior to covid-19?

 

Howard Stern has locked himself inside his (admittedly palatial) home now for almost 3 years. Not only himself, but he's forced the people closest to him to lock themselves up as well, lest he catch covid from them.

 

That's no way to live. Quality of life matters. Until science unlocks the secrets to aging and how to reverse it we are here in this world for a limited amount of time. There's no point to it if you live in fear the whole time and lock yourself away. Risk is inherent to life, and if you don't accept that the life you have isn't going to be a very pleasant one.

 

 

 

 

[Hip]

That study found a 0.2% risk of long covid (1 in 500) from the Omicron variant. And we know that some of those people recover.

 
OK, let's go with your 0.2% risk of long COVID from omicron. The virus has evolved into a weaker more benign pathogen over time, and that, added to the fact that may people have a degree of both natural and vaccine immunity, does seem to reduce the incidence of LC.
 
Then we might guess about half of those with LC will recover within a year or so, leaving 0.1% with long term illness. So that's 1 in 1000 with their life potentially destroyed. 
 
From what we know about ME/CFS, recovery from a post-viral fatigue if it does occur happens in the first 1 or 2 years. After that, if it has not cleared up, you are pretty much stuck with ME/CFS for the rest of your life. It's quite likely the same will be true of ME/CFS caused by SARS-CoV-2. So personally I don't hold out much hope those who have had the ME/CFS form of LC for 2 years or more are ever going to recover.
 
Also note that SARS-CoV-2 is not going to go away, but will keep reinfecting people. People I know that are out a lot socially have caught COVID once every year or so. 
 
Thus if you are catching COVID every year, and each occasion has a 1 in 1000 chance of LC, we might argue that over a decade you will have a 1 in 100 risk of LC.


 

And if we say that Long Covid is a form of ME/CFS which can be caused by any number of other viruses, should we all be locking ourselves away regardless of SARS-CoV-2 and should we all have been continuously masked up for years prior to covid-19?

 

Well if like me you subscribe to Professor Paul Ewald's view that most chronic diseases (including mental illnesses) as well as cancers will likely turn out to be caused by infectious pathogens like viruses and bacteria, then it would be wise to protect yourself to some extent from catching these microbes. We cannot lock ourselves away, but we can take certain precautions. 

 

If I had to live my life again, with the wisdom of hindsight, I would not indulge in gratuitous amorous relations (one night stands, etc), and just keep to the meaningful relationships. 

 

This is because I caught the pathogen which triggered my ME/CFS by French kissing on a gratuitous amorous date. And 6 years before that, I caught the pathogen which triggered my IBS from another gratuitous amorous one night stand.

 

 

Many of the nasty pathogens which are heavily linked to multiple chronic diseases, such as coxsackievirus B, are most easily spread by kissing. They can also be spread by close social contact, as you get with a family living in the same home. But home spread may take years (except if there is an acute infection), whereas French kissing is a fast track route to viral spread (since viruses are present in the saliva). 

 

Or bodies harbour many chronic viruses, and we can spread them to others even if we are completely well, and do not have a current acute infection. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Hip, 15 November 2023 - 05:32 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

 
OK, let's go with your 0.2% risk of long COVID from omicron. The virus has evolved into a weaker more benign pathogen over time, and that, added to the fact that may people have a degree of both natural and vaccine immunity, does seem to reduce the incidence of LC.
 
Then we might guess about half of those with LC will recover within a year or so, leaving 0.1% with long term illness. So that's 1 in 1000 with their life potentially destroyed. 
 
From what we know about ME/CFS, recovery from a post-viral fatigue if it does occur happens in the first 1 or 2 years. After that, if it has not cleared up, you are pretty much stuck with ME/CFS for the rest of your life. It's quite likely the same will be true of ME/CFS caused by SARS-CoV-2. So personally I don't hold out much hope those who have had the ME/CFS form of LC for 2 years or more are ever going to recover.
 
Also note that SARS-CoV-2 is not going to go away, but will keep reinfecting people. People I know that are out a lot socially have caught COVID once every year or so. 
 
Thus if you are catching COVID every year, and each occasion has a 1 in 1000 chance of LC, we might argue that over a decade you will have a 1 in 100 risk of LC.

 

I don't think we have any data on the risk of long covid on subsequent infections. Maybe it's better, maybe it's worse. But I'd be shocked if it was a constant 1:1000 for each subsequent infections after the first encounter.

 

My guess would be it would be less since you should have some protective immunity from your initial infection. In fact, if you just look at the graphs of new covid infections you have to pretty much conclude that natural immunity combined ongoing exposure to covid is a pretty robust protection. In my area and most of the world new covid infections have gone to a very low level. The state that I reside in hasn't recorded a covid death since May of this year.

 

I'll also give you a totally anecdotal data point - In my expanded circle of friends, co-workers and acquaintances I know three people that suffered myocarditis within two days of receiving a covid vaccine. Now, according to what's been published that's supposed to be a relatively rare event. On the other hand - I don't know anyone claiming to have long covid in that same circle. And by long covid I'll roughly define that as anyone complaining of lingering issues beyond two months after their acute infection.  So my personal experience is that long covid does not appear to be highly frequent. But, maybe my personal experience is an outlier.

 

[Daniel Cooper]

 
Well if like me you subscribe to Professor Paul Ewald's view that most chronic diseases (including mental illnesses) as well as cancers will likely turn out to be caused by infectious pathogens like viruses and bacteria, then it would be wise to protect yourself to some extent from catching these microbes. We cannot lock ourselves away, but we can take certain precautions. 

 

If I had to live my life again, with the wisdom of hindsight, I would not indulge in gratuitous amorous relations (one night stands, etc), and just keep to the meaningful relationships. 

 

This is because I caught the pathogen which triggered my ME/CFS by French kissing on a gratuitous amorous date. And 6 years before that, I caught the pathogen which triggered my IBS from another gratuitous amorous one night stand.

 

 

Many of the nasty pathogens which are heavily linked to multiple chronic diseases, such as coxsackievirus B, are most easily spread by kissing. They can also be spread by close social contact, as you get with a family living in the same home. But home spread may take years (except if there is an acute infection), whereas French kissing is a fast track route to viral spread (since viruses are present in the saliva). 

 

Or bodies harbour many chronic viruses, and we can spread them to others even if we are completely well, and do not have a current acute infection. 

 

Professor Ewald's hypothesis seems most unlikely to me. To accept that you'd have to believe that we all arrive into this world in a genetically perfect state, and that all our ills are the result of degradation of that perfect state through what amounts to lingering damage due to infection.

 

I can't believe that. I look at all the genetic malignancies plainly visible in the form of obvious birth defects and I understand that there have to be far more genetic defects that are subtle and are not so readily apparent.

 

I certainly believe that various infections can leave a lingering detrimental impact, but some of us are just born with broken genetic code. In fact, I suspect all of us have broken genetic code in places though for some the impairment may be minimal, or at least not apparent.

 

 

 

 

[Hip]

I'll also give you a totally anecdotal data point - In my expanded circle of friends, co-workers and acquaintances I know three people that suffered myocarditis within two days of receiving a covid vaccine. Now, according to what's been published that's supposed to be a relatively rare event. On the other hand - I don't know anyone claiming to have long covid in that same circle. And by long covid I'll roughly define that as anyone complaining of lingering issues beyond two months after their acute infection.  So my personal experience is that long covid does not appear to be highly frequent. But, maybe my personal experience is an outlier.

 

I am the other way around: in my social circle of family and friends, I know 4 people who died of COVID (3 before the vaccines were available, and one vulnerable person who died in spite of getting the vaccine). 

 

I know 3 people who got long COVID, 2 recovered, one has not recovered. 

 

But I have not heard any stories of vaccine side effects from my social network, apart from one or two minor issues (like one person had a slight tenderness in his arm at the injection site for some months).

Edited by Hip, 15 November 2023 - 07:18 PM.

[Hip]

Professor Ewald's hypothesis seems most unlikely to me. To accept that you'd have to believe that we all arrive into this world in a genetically perfect state, and that all our ills are the result of degradation of that perfect state through what amounts to lingering damage due to infection.

 

Prof Ewald (who is an evolutionary biologist) argues that evolution and natural selection are such powerful and ruthless eliminators of faulty genes, that it's almost impossible for a duff gene to survive. The only way a duff gene can survive is if it offers a compensatory benefit. For example, the gene that causes sickle cell disease is faulty, but the same gene protects from malaria, which is rife in Africa. So that's why in spite of being faulty, you find this gene is common in Africans. 

 

So evolution is a powerful process that drives towards perfection. 

 

Furthermore, we now know for a fact that genes are not the cause of most diseases. Genes may play a minor role in disease, but they are not the cause. This knowledge was obtained after we completed the human genome project in 2003 (before that, many scientists assumed that genes would be the major cause of many diseases, but since 2003 we know this is not the case).

 

You can also demonstrate that genes are not the cause of most diseases by what are known as concordance rates — how often identical twins will both develop the same disease. In the case of Parkinson's for example, the concordance rate is only 4%, showing that genes do not play an important role in this disease. 

 

 

So you have to ask yourself: if genes are not the causal factor behind disease, what is?

Edited by Hip, 15 November 2023 - 08:12 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

I am the other way around: in my social circle of family and friends, I know 4 people who died of COVID (3 before the vaccines were available, and one vulnerable person who died in spite of getting the vaccine). 

 

I know 3 people who got long COVID, 2 recovered, one has not recovered. 

 

But I have not heard any stories of vaccine side effects from my social network, apart from one or two minor issues (like one person had a slight tenderness in his arm at the injection site for some months).

 

Oh, I know at least 4 people that died of covid, and 3 people that got myocarditis, but I don't know anyone that claims to have had long covid for many months. If they had long covid it wasn't long enough for me to know about it.

 

As far as vaccine side effects - myocarditis is the only one that sticks in my head. But, I really do question the official rate of that side effect given the number of people I know that have had it given my pool of acquaintances which probably isn't more than a couple of hundred people.

 

 

[joesixpack]

Isn't your post self-contradictory, Mind?

 

You complain that during the pandemic it was hard to offer differing opinions, and you have often posted that you believe different opinions should be heard; well, the views of the 6 people in your picture are themselves just differing opinions, and therefore by your own standards, they have a right to make them.

 

 

I think the views of the 6 people in your picture are rather tame. In my view, the surviving relatives of the estimated 200,000 people in the US who died of COVID because they were convinced by the antifaxers to shun vaccination should get together in a class action lawsuit, and sue the living daylights out of these antifaxers. 

 

People are suing the UK government now because of blood clots triggered by the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine led to injury or death. And they have every right to sue.  But shouldn't people also be suing antifaxer organisations and media outlets for the lethal antifax messaging they put out? Murdoch's Fox News for example; they were putting out antifax messages on TV, while all their presenters themselves were fully vaxed up. Clearly they did not really believe in the antifax message, but broadcast it because it was good for gaining audiences. I know that it is difficult to sue media organisations, because of free speech laws, but maybe it's worth trying.

 

(Ironic though that it was the AstraZeneca vector vaccine which produced serious adverse effects, and not the new-fangled mRNA vaccine. Vector vaccines have been around for 50 years, whereas mRNA tech is much newer). 

 

What do you have against Fax machines?

[Mind]

Turns out the US Government and Stanford University were lying about their illegal and unconstitutional censorship activities during the COVID panic. Will anyone be held accountable? Of course not. Leadership in the US is corrupt. Many US Universities like Stanford are unethical and corrupt.

 

They censored true information about COVID, about alternative treatments, about the injection side effects. about natural immunity, etc... Why? Probably because they are bought out by large corps and are megalomaniacs addicted to power. What other explanation is there?

[Mind]

Just like masking (which was studied for a century and never found to be effective), contact tracing and testing did nothing to limit the spread of COVID according to a new Dutch study. The study authors suggest that if more people used the contact tracing application and did more self-testing then maybe it might have worked better. Maybe a little better, but even if there was 100% tyrannical monitoring of the population, there are delays in testing and notification. South Korea had the most stringent contact tracing in the world but as of latest stats, have the highest percentage of their population who has tested positive for COVID. However, playing devil's advocate, if South Korea tested the most people then they probably just revealed the most cases. If other countries did the same, they might have higher case percentage as well.

 

The most interesting thing, like the masking, contract tracing was studied before. Prior to the COVID panic, the WHO studied contract tracing with the flu and found it didn't work. How come they didn't rely upon their own study to let the public know that contract tracing would be ineffective? Incompetence? Other motives?

[Hip]

What do you have against Fax machines?

 

What is the difference between an anti-faxer and an anti-vaxer?

 

The anti-faxers say "I don't need a fax, because I've an email".

 

The anti-vaxers say "I don't need a vax, because I've a mectin".

Edited by Hip, 17 November 2023 - 05:08 AM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Very good Hyp.

 

As a prize, I'm prescribing some cookies and a green horse:

 

or  hydrox y chloro 'quine

 

Ride the green horse to the bakery for the cookies, and call me in the morning.

 

(Sorry about eliding an 'e' in the above. I hope by doing so that I haven't made an ass of myself)

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 17 November 2023 - 05:09 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

Oh no!  Madness contagion spreading among members!  

 

https://youtu.be/h0J...0FbAUXv8MsQmbTZ

 

Too much pondering of life's persistent problems!

[Daniel Cooper]

Oh no!  Madness contagion spreading among members!  

 

https://youtu.be/h0J...0FbAUXv8MsQmbTZ

 

Too much pondering of life's persistent problems!

 

I'm mad, bad, and dangerous to know.