Coronavirus (screened, live, retired)

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Not enough is known about long COVID at this time.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronav...-plos-medicine

"The Oxford-led team also found that people who had more severe COVID-19 illness were more likely to get long COVID."


This is specifically what I'm talking about. People who initially had mild, or even nonexistent symptoms from covid19, aren't at risk for any long term illness. It would defy logic to expect a reemergence of worse symptoms if your original bout with covid19 was entirely asymptomatic or nothing worse than a mild cold.



And the problem with not enough being known about the extent of severity isn't totally true. That NPR piece even hints at that in the third to last paragraph. We do know things about other post-viral symptoms which are applicable to covid19.



It's always been a big balancing act between taking appropriate cautions and not smothering the world with safety protocols. We have a vaccine which is working as intended. We can't continue to base everything on not having enough data, not that I think you're suggesting that. There's always going to be some unknown factor.

[goodheathen]

Originally Posted by joosoon

"The Oxford-led team also found that people who had more severe COVID-19 illness were more likely to get long COVID."


This is specifically what I'm talking about. People who initially had mild, or even nonexistent symptoms from covid19, aren't at risk for any long term illness. It would defy logic to expect a reemergence of worse symptoms if your original bout with covid19 was entirely asymptomatic or nothing worse than a mild cold.



And the problem with not enough being known about the extent of severity isn't totally true. That NPR piece even hints at that in the third to last paragraph. We do know things about other post-viral symptoms which are applicable to covid19.



It's always been a big balancing act between taking appropriate cautions and not smothering the world with safety protocols. We have a vaccine which is working as intended. We can't continue to base everything on not having enough data, not that I think you're suggesting that. There's always going to be some unknown factor.

Well, you must have selectively read the article, because it says mild cases have led to long-COVID. But that's City-Data and maybe the world today, where people won't change their minds even when it's made very clear facts contradict their beliefs.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

Good article. I'm surprised it points toward younger adults. Maybe because the older folks tend to be used to fatigue and pain.

Could be. And that's only one article. If I were one of the people who'd suffered some of these long term effects like fatigue, coughing, no sense of smell or taste--the latter of which two people in their twenties that I know of personally still have--I would be researching this subject.

https://www.technologynetworks.com/i...g-covid-351439
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...covid-symptoms

We just don't know enough about how COVID-19 affects people in the long run.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by goodheathen

Well, you must have selectively read the article, because it says mild cases have led to long-COVID.

Long term mild symptoms are still mild symptoms.
The level of severity of long term covid symptoms, is based upon the severity of the initial case. Why is that selectivity on my part when it's true? People who were asymptomatic or had mild case aren't being hospitalized or killed by "long covid". They aren't getting sicker in the long run than they were when they were first infected. If you don't take that into consideration, fine. It's no different than lingering effects of a bad bout of influenza which is technically less preventable than covid19, in spite of the annual flu vaccine cocktail. Long term ill effects aren't unique to covid19.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

And that's only one article.

Are you familiar with the term "confirmation bias"?

[goodheathen]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Long term mild symptoms are still mild symptoms.
The level of severity of long term covid symptoms, is based upon the severity of the initial case. Why is that selectivity on my part when it's true? People who were asymptomatic or had mild case aren't being hospitalized or killed by "long covid". They aren't getting sicker in the long run than they were when they were first infected. If you don't take that into consideration, fine. It's no different than lingering effects of a bad bout of influenza which is technically less preventable than covid19, in spite of the annual flu vaccine cocktail. Long term ill effects aren't unique to covid19.

You're mixing truths, some absurdly obvious, with statements that aren't true. Nobody is being killed by long-COVID, but severity isn't very strongly tied to initial symptoms, and it's much more of an issue than post-viral probably anything because so many people get the infection and a fair number suffer for a while afterwards. Anyway, without disability data (probably too soon for government-granted) and a few years of study, nobody knows how harmful that is. I repeat my concern that organ damage might prove to be the worse issue.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Are you familiar with the term "confirmation bias"?

Did you note the last sentence in CA4Now’s same post? Here it is again:

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Could be. And that's only one article.

…


We just don't know enough about how COVID-19 affects people in the long run.

Seems to me, from years of her postings, that she’s quite aware of “confirmation bias” … and that here she’s pointing out the reality of just how new we all are - even the *experts* - to this particular virus.

So much completely inexpert amateur analyses in these threads. On and on and on and on absolute know-nothing people go … *figuring out* what even the actual experts haven’t yet got a handle on.

[Racer46]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Did you note the last sentence in CA4Now’s same post? Here it is again:


Seems to me, from years of her postings, that she’s quite aware of “confirmation bias” … and that here she’s pointing out the reality of just how new we all are - even the *experts* - to this particular virus.

So much completely inexpert amateur analyses in these threads. On and on and on and on absolute know-nothing people go … *figuring out* what even the actual experts haven’t yet got a handle on.

That is the point; none of us know, so saying here is what we should do, either cautious or not, is a waste of time and has nothing to do with reality.

I would rather be safe than sorry.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Did you note the last sentence in CA4Now’s same post?

Yes. That's what makes it that much more ironic.
It goes like this: We just don't know much about yadda-yadda.... but here are three more links about yadda-yadda I found that validates my belief.


Also, in two of those links alone, it's mentioned that post-viral effects of viruses are indeed well known which leads one to conclude that the refrain in question ("we don't know enough...") isn't actually true. Even Fauci is quoted in the first one saying something to that effect. I mentioned that already.


The other thing worth noting here is that this is the same refrain being used by people to rationalize their resistance to getting vaccinated: We don't know the long term side-effects of the vaccine yadda-yadda.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Yes. That's what makes it that much more ironic.
It goes like this: We just don't know much about yadda-yadda.... but here are three more links about yadda-yadda I found that validates my belief.


Also, in two of those links alone, it's mentioned that post-viral effects of viruses are indeed well known which leads one to conclude that the refrain in question ("we don't know enough...") isn't actually true. Even Fauci is quoted in the first one saying something to that effect. I mentioned that already.


The other thing worth noting here is that this is the same refrain being used by people to rationalize their resistance to getting vaccinated: We don't know the long term side-effects of the vaccine yadda-yadda.

You and I certainly have different takes on CA4Now’s postings. I find her contributions good reminders for others to consider as many posters FLOOD these threads with bs home-brewed analyses. She could link a hundred stories and still not accomplish enough ‘balance’ to make her / my point that unqualified, amateur assumptions here are ridiculously out of control.

I’ll also point out that I haven't read CA4Now actually argue anything faux-analytically. All I see from her are interesting contributions of information from credible sources [other than herself] to muse over and consider. Yes, one can glean her personal positions. But they aren’t preached with any ideological OCD, nor as if she thinks of herself as any Madame Currie.