MCPS Covid Data Updated Daily (in a single thread)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?

Then that suck for 20% of the children.

over 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors under the age of 65 could develop long COVID

coronavirus inoculation has only a "slight protective effect" against long COVID

long COVID might "affect a patient's ability to contribute to the work force and might have economic consequences for survivors and their dependents."

The study's results could "potentially translate into millions of people with new diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, neurologic problems"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-study-tells-us-long-095511394.html

What about the 1-in-6 people that study found had the same symptoms as long covid, but no evidence of a past infection?

Can you point to any results from that study that support the claim that long covid is preventing people from contributing to the work force, or that it is leading to serious, chronic conditions that don’t resolve with time? You’re not going to be able to, because the study didn’t (and couldn’t) look at that. You seem to be confusing what some people fear with what we actually know.

If you've been following the studies coming out on long covid, you should have already observed a pattern. The weaker the controls (or complete lack thereof), the higher the estimated rate of long covid. This obviously comes as no surprise, but it bears calling attention to. This was a good study, but it still had weak controls. Individuals implicitly self-selected, since it was based on people choosing to seek medical attention. Most of the conditions are subjectively assessed, usually through symptom reporting by patients, sometimes by assessments by the providers. The patients and doctors know which patients previously had covid, so many will be more inclined to be looking for (and seeking treatment for) symptoms believed to be associated with long covid.

Is there a higher-than-baseline risk of various medical conditions following recovery from a virus? Of course there is. That's not unique to covid. And that doesn't mean had it not been for covid they wouldn't develop those conditions following recovery from some other infection.

Quit being reasonable. That takes the fun out of posting a passage of an article/study without really understanding it. What is there left for PP to do if she doesn’t have that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?

We haven't seen Covid's playbook yet.

You know covid isn’t sentient, don’t you?

Wow. That must be the poster that doesn't know what antibodies are. Did you figure out they don't go away after 5 days yet?

It was a rhetorical device. You know, the stuff our kids get taught in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?

Then that suck for 20% of the children.

over 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors under the age of 65 could develop long COVID

coronavirus inoculation has only a "slight protective effect" against long COVID

long COVID might "affect a patient's ability to contribute to the work force and might have economic consequences for survivors and their dependents."

The study's results could "potentially translate into millions of people with new diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, neurologic problems"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-study-tells-us-long-095511394.html

Since we're talking abut kids here, let's actually consult studies that looked at kids.

Long COVID symptoms and duration in SARS-CoV-2 positive children — a nationwide cohort study
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-021-04345-z

This was a nationwide cohort study that compared 37,522 children with confirmed COVID cases against a control group of 78,037 children. When looking at 15 symptoms commonly attributed to long COVID, the study did not find a consistent and significant pattern of of these symptoms occurring more frequently in among children who previous had COVID. The differences varied by symptom. Some symptoms, like loss of smell/test or fatigue, occurred about 5-10% more frequently in the group that had COVID. Other symptoms, like cough and concentration difficulties, occurred more frequently in the control group.

Long-term Symptoms After SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Children and Adolescents
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.11880

This was a cohort study in schools in Zurich that compared questionnaire responses about symptoms between students that were and were no seropositive for COVID (indicating a prior infection). Like the other study, it obviously found reports of the symptoms associated with "long COVID" in both groups. The study was fairly small, only including about 1300 kids, so it didn't couldn't accurately measure rates. But what it did find suggests long COVID symptoms are fairly uncommon (less than 4% reporting any symptom beyond 12 weeks) and the occur at a similar level in kids that had not been infected with COVID.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?

We haven't seen Covid's playbook yet.

You know covid isn’t sentient, don’t you?

Wow. That must be the poster that doesn't know what antibodies are. Did you figure out they don't go away after 5 days yet?

It was a rhetorical device. You know, the stuff our kids get taught in school.

It's certainly fresh, isn't it? From the "Covid playbook" of "You may be done with Covid, but Covid's not done with you" that originated back in 2020. Some posters are still stuck in 2020 so that's not surprising...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?

Then that suck for 20% of the children.

over 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors under the age of 65 could develop long COVID

coronavirus inoculation has only a "slight protective effect" against long COVID

long COVID might "affect a patient's ability to contribute to the work force and might have economic consequences for survivors and their dependents."

The study's results could "potentially translate into millions of people with new diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, neurologic problems"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-study-tells-us-long-095511394.html

What about the 1-in-6 people that study found had the same symptoms as long covid, but no evidence of a past infection?

Can you point to any results from that study that support the claim that long covid is preventing people from contributing to the work force, or that it is leading to serious, chronic conditions that don’t resolve with time? You’re not going to be able to, because the study didn’t (and couldn’t) look at that. You seem to be confusing what some people fear with what we actually know.

If you've been following the studies coming out on long covid, you should have already observed a pattern. The weaker the controls (or complete lack thereof), the higher the estimated rate of long covid. This obviously comes as no surprise, but it bears calling attention to. This was a good study, but it still had weak controls. Individuals implicitly self-selected, since it was based on people choosing to seek medical attention. Most of the conditions are subjectively assessed, usually through symptom reporting by patients, sometimes by assessments by the providers. The patients and doctors know which patients previously had covid, so many will be more inclined to be looking for (and seeking treatment for) symptoms believed to be associated with long covid.

Is there a higher-than-baseline risk of various medical conditions following recovery from a virus? Of course there is. That's not unique to covid. And that doesn't mean had it not been for covid they wouldn't develop those conditions following recovery from some other infection.

Quit being reasonable. That takes the fun out of posting a passage of an article/study without really understanding it. What is there left for PP to do if she doesn’t have that?

Welp, being as I have friends who live all over the country and many of them have had covid, and at least a dozen have continuing symptoms, three severe enough to be disabled... I have some concerns. I realize you don't.

Also, there is no conclusive test that can determine if an individual has ever had COVID. Or not. Full stop. So, there's no saying the control group didn't have it. Antibodies for COVID may or may not be present for a duration of time after an infection. Or they may not. So there's really no way of knowing what the control group had or did not have.

And while it's certainly true that *some* symptoms of covid are vague and nebulous to fall under the umbrella of things like "fibromyalgia" etc, others are not. I know six people last year who had random blood clots. Three years ago, that number was zero. Another three friends dropped dead from heart attacks. Again, three years ago, that number was zero.

None of this makes me "frightened" of the virus. There's no point. All of it makes me wear a mask and not eat in restaurants.

Why are you such a pathetic sociopath? Childhood trauma?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?

Then that suck for 20% of the children.

over 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors under the age of 65 could develop long COVID

coronavirus inoculation has only a "slight protective effect" against long COVID

long COVID might "affect a patient's ability to contribute to the work force and might have economic consequences for survivors and their dependents."

The study's results could "potentially translate into millions of people with new diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, neurologic problems"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-study-tells-us-long-095511394.html

What about the 1-in-6 people that study found had the same symptoms as long covid, but no evidence of a past infection?

Can you point to any results from that study that support the claim that long covid is preventing people from contributing to the work force, or that it is leading to serious, chronic conditions that don’t resolve with time? You’re not going to be able to, because the study didn’t (and couldn’t) look at that. You seem to be confusing what some people fear with what we actually know.

If you've been following the studies coming out on long covid, you should have already observed a pattern. The weaker the controls (or complete lack thereof), the higher the estimated rate of long covid. This obviously comes as no surprise, but it bears calling attention to. This was a good study, but it still had weak controls. Individuals implicitly self-selected, since it was based on people choosing to seek medical attention. Most of the conditions are subjectively assessed, usually through symptom reporting by patients, sometimes by assessments by the providers. The patients and doctors know which patients previously had covid, so many will be more inclined to be looking for (and seeking treatment for) symptoms believed to be associated with long covid.

Is there a higher-than-baseline risk of various medical conditions following recovery from a virus? Of course there is. That's not unique to covid. And that doesn't mean had it not been for covid they wouldn't develop those conditions following recovery from some other infection.

Quit being reasonable. That takes the fun out of posting a passage of an article/study without really understanding it. What is there left for PP to do if she doesn’t have that?

Welp, being as I have friends who live all over the country and many of them have had covid, and at least a dozen have continuing symptoms, three severe enough to be disabled... I have some concerns. I realize you don't.

Also, there is no conclusive test that can determine if an individual has ever had COVID. Or not. Full stop. So, there's no saying the control group didn't have it. Antibodies for COVID may or may not be present for a duration of time after an infection. Or they may not. So there's really no way of knowing what the control group had or did not have.

And while it's certainly true that *some* symptoms of covid are vague and nebulous to fall under the umbrella of things like "fibromyalgia" etc, others are not. I know six people last year who had random blood clots. Three years ago, that number was zero. Another three friends dropped dead from heart attacks. Again, three years ago, that number was zero.

None of this makes me "frightened" of the virus. There's no point. All of it makes me wear a mask and not eat in restaurants.

Why are you such a pathetic sociopath? Childhood trauma?

With all your anecdotes…tell me you don’t understand science without telling me you don’t understand science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?

Then that suck for 20% of the children.

over 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors under the age of 65 could develop long COVID

coronavirus inoculation has only a "slight protective effect" against long COVID

long COVID might "affect a patient's ability to contribute to the work force and might have economic consequences for survivors and their dependents."

The study's results could "potentially translate into millions of people with new diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, neurologic problems"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-study-tells-us-long-095511394.html

What about the 1-in-6 people that study found had the same symptoms as long covid, but no evidence of a past infection?

Can you point to any results from that study that support the claim that long covid is preventing people from contributing to the work force, or that it is leading to serious, chronic conditions that don’t resolve with time? You’re not going to be able to, because the study didn’t (and couldn’t) look at that. You seem to be confusing what some people fear with what we actually know.

If you've been following the studies coming out on long covid, you should have already observed a pattern. The weaker the controls (or complete lack thereof), the higher the estimated rate of long covid. This obviously comes as no surprise, but it bears calling attention to. This was a good study, but it still had weak controls. Individuals implicitly self-selected, since it was based on people choosing to seek medical attention. Most of the conditions are subjectively assessed, usually through symptom reporting by patients, sometimes by assessments by the providers. The patients and doctors know which patients previously had covid, so many will be more inclined to be looking for (and seeking treatment for) symptoms believed to be associated with long covid.

Is there a higher-than-baseline risk of various medical conditions following recovery from a virus? Of course there is. That's not unique to covid. And that doesn't mean had it not been for covid they wouldn't develop those conditions following recovery from some other infection.

Quit being reasonable. That takes the fun out of posting a passage of an article/study without really understanding it. What is there left for PP to do if she doesn’t have that?

Welp, being as I have friends who live all over the country and many of them have had covid, and at least a dozen have continuing symptoms, three severe enough to be disabled... I have some concerns. I realize you don't.

Also, there is no conclusive test that can determine if an individual has ever had COVID. Or not. Full stop. So, there's no saying the control group didn't have it. Antibodies for COVID may or may not be present for a duration of time after an infection. Or they may not. So there's really no way of knowing what the control group had or did not have.

And while it's certainly true that *some* symptoms of covid are vague and nebulous to fall under the umbrella of things like "fibromyalgia" etc, others are not. I know six people last year who had random blood clots. Three years ago, that number was zero. Another three friends dropped dead from heart attacks. Again, three years ago, that number was zero.

None of this makes me "frightened" of the virus. There's no point. All of it makes me wear a mask and not eat in restaurants.

Why are you such a pathetic sociopath? Childhood trauma?

With all your anecdotes…tell me you don’t understand science without telling me you don’t understand science.

Aside from consistently whining that other posters don't understand science, can you point to a post you've made that shows any understanding of science?

I have seen none.

Which brings me back to my main point: what happened in your life to make you like this? Brain damage? Inter-generational trauma? Epigenetics? Or are you just the bad seed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?

Then that suck for 20% of the children.

over 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors under the age of 65 could develop long COVID

coronavirus inoculation has only a "slight protective effect" against long COVID

long COVID might "affect a patient's ability to contribute to the work force and might have economic consequences for survivors and their dependents."

The study's results could "potentially translate into millions of people with new diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, neurologic problems"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-study-tells-us-long-095511394.html

What about the 1-in-6 people that study found had the same symptoms as long covid, but no evidence of a past infection?

Can you point to any results from that study that support the claim that long covid is preventing people from contributing to the work force, or that it is leading to serious, chronic conditions that don’t resolve with time? You’re not going to be able to, because the study didn’t (and couldn’t) look at that. You seem to be confusing what some people fear with what we actually know.

If you've been following the studies coming out on long covid, you should have already observed a pattern. The weaker the controls (or complete lack thereof), the higher the estimated rate of long covid. This obviously comes as no surprise, but it bears calling attention to. This was a good study, but it still had weak controls. Individuals implicitly self-selected, since it was based on people choosing to seek medical attention. Most of the conditions are subjectively assessed, usually through symptom reporting by patients, sometimes by assessments by the providers. The patients and doctors know which patients previously had covid, so many will be more inclined to be looking for (and seeking treatment for) symptoms believed to be associated with long covid.

Is there a higher-than-baseline risk of various medical conditions following recovery from a virus? Of course there is. That's not unique to covid. And that doesn't mean had it not been for covid they wouldn't develop those conditions following recovery from some other infection.

Quit being reasonable. That takes the fun out of posting a passage of an article/study without really understanding it. What is there left for PP to do if she doesn’t have that?

Welp, being as I have friends who live all over the country and many of them have had covid, and at least a dozen have continuing symptoms, three severe enough to be disabled... I have some concerns. I realize you don't.

Also, there is no conclusive test that can determine if an individual has ever had COVID. Or not. Full stop. So, there's no saying the control group didn't have it. Antibodies for COVID may or may not be present for a duration of time after an infection. Or they may not. So there's really no way of knowing what the control group had or did not have.

And while it's certainly true that *some* symptoms of covid are vague and nebulous to fall under the umbrella of things like "fibromyalgia" etc, others are not. I know six people last year who had random blood clots. Three years ago, that number was zero. Another three friends dropped dead from heart attacks. Again, three years ago, that number was zero.

None of this makes me "frightened" of the virus. There's no point. All of it makes me wear a mask and not eat in restaurants.

Why are you such a pathetic sociopath? Childhood trauma?

With all your anecdotes…tell me you don’t understand science without telling me you don’t understand science.

Aside from consistently whining that other posters don't understand science, can you point to a post you've made that shows any understanding of science?

I have seen none.

Which brings me back to my main point: what happened in your life to make you like this? Brain damage? Inter-generational trauma? Epigenetics? Or are you just the bad seed?

What is wrong with you? You cannot have a reasonable discussion and when you don't have anything useful to say beyond claiming "science" you then have to be a bully and nasty person. If this is how you parent, lets hope for your kids sake MCPS stays in person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?

Then that suck for 20% of the children.

over 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors under the age of 65 could develop long COVID

coronavirus inoculation has only a "slight protective effect" against long COVID

long COVID might "affect a patient's ability to contribute to the work force and might have economic consequences for survivors and their dependents."

The study's results could "potentially translate into millions of people with new diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, neurologic problems"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-study-tells-us-long-095511394.html

What about the 1-in-6 people that study found had the same symptoms as long covid, but no evidence of a past infection?

Can you point to any results from that study that support the claim that long covid is preventing people from contributing to the work force, or that it is leading to serious, chronic conditions that don’t resolve with time? You’re not going to be able to, because the study didn’t (and couldn’t) look at that. You seem to be confusing what some people fear with what we actually know.

If you've been following the studies coming out on long covid, you should have already observed a pattern. The weaker the controls (or complete lack thereof), the higher the estimated rate of long covid. This obviously comes as no surprise, but it bears calling attention to. This was a good study, but it still had weak controls. Individuals implicitly self-selected, since it was based on people choosing to seek medical attention. Most of the conditions are subjectively assessed, usually through symptom reporting by patients, sometimes by assessments by the providers. The patients and doctors know which patients previously had covid, so many will be more inclined to be looking for (and seeking treatment for) symptoms believed to be associated with long covid.

Is there a higher-than-baseline risk of various medical conditions following recovery from a virus? Of course there is. That's not unique to covid. And that doesn't mean had it not been for covid they wouldn't develop those conditions following recovery from some other infection.

Quit being reasonable. That takes the fun out of posting a passage of an article/study without really understanding it. What is there left for PP to do if she doesn’t have that?

Welp, being as I have friends who live all over the country and many of them have had covid, and at least a dozen have continuing symptoms, three severe enough to be disabled... I have some concerns. I realize you don't.

Also, there is no conclusive test that can determine if an individual has ever had COVID. Or not. Full stop. So, there's no saying the control group didn't have it. Antibodies for COVID may or may not be present for a duration of time after an infection. Or they may not. So there's really no way of knowing what the control group had or did not have.

And while it's certainly true that *some* symptoms of covid are vague and nebulous to fall under the umbrella of things like "fibromyalgia" etc, others are not. I know six people last year who had random blood clots. Three years ago, that number was zero. Another three friends dropped dead from heart attacks. Again, three years ago, that number was zero.

None of this makes me "frightened" of the virus. There's no point. All of it makes me wear a mask and not eat in restaurants.

Why are you such a pathetic sociopath? Childhood trauma?

With all your anecdotes…tell me you don’t understand science without telling me you don’t understand science.

Aside from consistently whining that other posters don't understand science, can you point to a post you've made that shows any understanding of science?

I have seen none.

Which brings me back to my main point: what happened in your life to make you like this? Brain damage? Inter-generational trauma? Epigenetics? Or are you just the bad seed?

Probably a number of things, with #1 being intolerance for those who are in scientifically illiterate and #2 intolerance for a$$holes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?

Then that suck for 20% of the children.

over 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors under the age of 65 could develop long COVID

coronavirus inoculation has only a "slight protective effect" against long COVID

long COVID might "affect a patient's ability to contribute to the work force and might have economic consequences for survivors and their dependents."

The study's results could "potentially translate into millions of people with new diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, neurologic problems"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-study-tells-us-long-095511394.html

What about the 1-in-6 people that study found had the same symptoms as long covid, but no evidence of a past infection?

Can you point to any results from that study that support the claim that long covid is preventing people from contributing to the work force, or that it is leading to serious, chronic conditions that don’t resolve with time? You’re not going to be able to, because the study didn’t (and couldn’t) look at that. You seem to be confusing what some people fear with what we actually know.

If you've been following the studies coming out on long covid, you should have already observed a pattern. The weaker the controls (or complete lack thereof), the higher the estimated rate of long covid. This obviously comes as no surprise, but it bears calling attention to. This was a good study, but it still had weak controls. Individuals implicitly self-selected, since it was based on people choosing to seek medical attention. Most of the conditions are subjectively assessed, usually through symptom reporting by patients, sometimes by assessments by the providers. The patients and doctors know which patients previously had covid, so many will be more inclined to be looking for (and seeking treatment for) symptoms believed to be associated with long covid.

Is there a higher-than-baseline risk of various medical conditions following recovery from a virus? Of course there is. That's not unique to covid. And that doesn't mean had it not been for covid they wouldn't develop those conditions following recovery from some other infection.

Quit being reasonable. That takes the fun out of posting a passage of an article/study without really understanding it. What is there left for PP to do if she doesn’t have that?

Welp, being as I have friends who live all over the country and many of them have had covid, and at least a dozen have continuing symptoms, three severe enough to be disabled... I have some concerns. I realize you don't.

Also, there is no conclusive test that can determine if an individual has ever had COVID. Or not. Full stop. So, there's no saying the control group didn't have it. Antibodies for COVID may or may not be present for a duration of time after an infection. Or they may not. So there's really no way of knowing what the control group had or did not have.

And while it's certainly true that *some* symptoms of covid are vague and nebulous to fall under the umbrella of things like "fibromyalgia" etc, others are not. I know six people last year who had random blood clots. Three years ago, that number was zero. Another three friends dropped dead from heart attacks. Again, three years ago, that number was zero.

None of this makes me "frightened" of the virus. There's no point. All of it makes me wear a mask and not eat in restaurants.

Why are you such a pathetic sociopath? Childhood trauma?

So, you realize as you get older you’re going to know more and more people with heart attacks, strokes, and clots, right? That’s one of many reasons why personal anecdotes isn’t meaningful data.

And if you read the studies about long Covid, they’re not finding large numbers of cases of heart attacks and clots. They’re finding large numbers of people reporting things like fatigue, congestion, cough, anxiety, and depression.

Obviously we're going to see higher rates of more unusual conditions, like heart attacks and strokes, in the first year after an infection. That's the case for things like influenza, too. But when people and news articles reference these large numbers of people with Covid, those aren't the problems they're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?

Then that suck for 20% of the children.

over 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors under the age of 65 could develop long COVID

coronavirus inoculation has only a "slight protective effect" against long COVID

long COVID might "affect a patient's ability to contribute to the work force and might have economic consequences for survivors and their dependents."

The study's results could "potentially translate into millions of people with new diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, neurologic problems"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-study-tells-us-long-095511394.html

What about the 1-in-6 people that study found had the same symptoms as long covid, but no evidence of a past infection?

Can you point to any results from that study that support the claim that long covid is preventing people from contributing to the work force, or that it is leading to serious, chronic conditions that don’t resolve with time? You’re not going to be able to, because the study didn’t (and couldn’t) look at that. You seem to be confusing what some people fear with what we actually know.

If you've been following the studies coming out on long covid, you should have already observed a pattern. The weaker the controls (or complete lack thereof), the higher the estimated rate of long covid. This obviously comes as no surprise, but it bears calling attention to. This was a good study, but it still had weak controls. Individuals implicitly self-selected, since it was based on people choosing to seek medical attention. Most of the conditions are subjectively assessed, usually through symptom reporting by patients, sometimes by assessments by the providers. The patients and doctors know which patients previously had covid, so many will be more inclined to be looking for (and seeking treatment for) symptoms believed to be associated with long covid.

Is there a higher-than-baseline risk of various medical conditions following recovery from a virus? Of course there is. That's not unique to covid. And that doesn't mean had it not been for covid they wouldn't develop those conditions following recovery from some other infection.

Quit being reasonable. That takes the fun out of posting a passage of an article/study without really understanding it. What is there left for PP to do if she doesn’t have that?

Welp, being as I have friends who live all over the country and many of them have had covid, and at least a dozen have continuing symptoms, three severe enough to be disabled... I have some concerns. I realize you don't.

Also, there is no conclusive test that can determine if an individual has ever had COVID. Or not. Full stop. So, there's no saying the control group didn't have it. Antibodies for COVID may or may not be present for a duration of time after an infection. Or they may not. So there's really no way of knowing what the control group had or did not have.

And while it's certainly true that *some* symptoms of covid are vague and nebulous to fall under the umbrella of things like "fibromyalgia" etc, others are not. I know six people last year who had random blood clots. Three years ago, that number was zero. Another three friends dropped dead from heart attacks. Again, three years ago, that number was zero.

None of this makes me "frightened" of the virus. There's no point. All of it makes me wear a mask and not eat in restaurants.

Why are you such a pathetic sociopath? Childhood trauma?

So, you realize as you get older you’re going to know more and more people with heart attacks, strokes, and clots, right? That’s one of many reasons why personal anecdotes isn’t meaningful data.

And if you read the studies about long Covid, they’re not finding large numbers of cases of heart attacks and clots. They’re finding large numbers of people reporting things like fatigue, congestion, cough, anxiety, and depression.

Obviously we're going to see higher rates of more unusual conditions, like heart attacks and strokes, in the first year after an infection. That's the case for things like influenza, too. But when people and news articles reference these large numbers of people with Covid, those aren't the problems they're talking about.

Let her be. Her MO is to spout scientifically unsound crap then throw in an insult at the end. She needs this. Let her be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?

Then that suck for 20% of the children.

over 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors under the age of 65 could develop long COVID

coronavirus inoculation has only a "slight protective effect" against long COVID

long COVID might "affect a patient's ability to contribute to the work force and might have economic consequences for survivors and their dependents."

The study's results could "potentially translate into millions of people with new diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, neurologic problems"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-study-tells-us-long-095511394.html

What about the 1-in-6 people that study found had the same symptoms as long covid, but no evidence of a past infection?

Can you point to any results from that study that support the claim that long covid is preventing people from contributing to the work force, or that it is leading to serious, chronic conditions that don’t resolve with time? You’re not going to be able to, because the study didn’t (and couldn’t) look at that. You seem to be confusing what some people fear with what we actually know.

If you've been following the studies coming out on long covid, you should have already observed a pattern. The weaker the controls (or complete lack thereof), the higher the estimated rate of long covid. This obviously comes as no surprise, but it bears calling attention to. This was a good study, but it still had weak controls. Individuals implicitly self-selected, since it was based on people choosing to seek medical attention. Most of the conditions are subjectively assessed, usually through symptom reporting by patients, sometimes by assessments by the providers. The patients and doctors know which patients previously had covid, so many will be more inclined to be looking for (and seeking treatment for) symptoms believed to be associated with long covid.

Is there a higher-than-baseline risk of various medical conditions following recovery from a virus? Of course there is. That's not unique to covid. And that doesn't mean had it not been for covid they wouldn't develop those conditions following recovery from some other infection.

Quit being reasonable. That takes the fun out of posting a passage of an article/study without really understanding it. What is there left for PP to do if she doesn’t have that?

Welp, being as I have friends who live all over the country and many of them have had covid, and at least a dozen have continuing symptoms, three severe enough to be disabled... I have some concerns. I realize you don't.

Also, there is no conclusive test that can determine if an individual has ever had COVID. Or not. Full stop. So, there's no saying the control group didn't have it. Antibodies for COVID may or may not be present for a duration of time after an infection. Or they may not. So there's really no way of knowing what the control group had or did not have.

And while it's certainly true that *some* symptoms of covid are vague and nebulous to fall under the umbrella of things like "fibromyalgia" etc, others are not. I know six people last year who had random blood clots. Three years ago, that number was zero. Another three friends dropped dead from heart attacks. Again, three years ago, that number was zero.

None of this makes me "frightened" of the virus. There's no point. All of it makes me wear a mask and not eat in restaurants.

Why are you such a pathetic sociopath? Childhood trauma?

This speaks volumes of the type of person you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?

Then that suck for 20% of the children.

over 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors under the age of 65 could develop long COVID

coronavirus inoculation has only a "slight protective effect" against long COVID

long COVID might "affect a patient's ability to contribute to the work force and might have economic consequences for survivors and their dependents."

The study's results could "potentially translate into millions of people with new diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, neurologic problems"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-study-tells-us-long-095511394.html

What about the 1-in-6 people that study found had the same symptoms as long covid, but no evidence of a past infection?

Can you point to any results from that study that support the claim that long covid is preventing people from contributing to the work force, or that it is leading to serious, chronic conditions that don’t resolve with time? You’re not going to be able to, because the study didn’t (and couldn’t) look at that. You seem to be confusing what some people fear with what we actually know.

If you've been following the studies coming out on long covid, you should have already observed a pattern. The weaker the controls (or complete lack thereof), the higher the estimated rate of long covid. This obviously comes as no surprise, but it bears calling attention to. This was a good study, but it still had weak controls. Individuals implicitly self-selected, since it was based on people choosing to seek medical attention. Most of the conditions are subjectively assessed, usually through symptom reporting by patients, sometimes by assessments by the providers. The patients and doctors know which patients previously had covid, so many will be more inclined to be looking for (and seeking treatment for) symptoms believed to be associated with long covid.

Is there a higher-than-baseline risk of various medical conditions following recovery from a virus? Of course there is. That's not unique to covid. And that doesn't mean had it not been for covid they wouldn't develop those conditions following recovery from some other infection.

Quit being reasonable. That takes the fun out of posting a passage of an article/study without really understanding it. What is there left for PP to do if she doesn’t have that?

Welp, being as I have friends who live all over the country and many of them have had covid, and at least a dozen have continuing symptoms, three severe enough to be disabled... I have some concerns. I realize you don't.

Also, there is no conclusive test that can determine if an individual has ever had COVID. Or not. Full stop. So, there's no saying the control group didn't have it. Antibodies for COVID may or may not be present for a duration of time after an infection. Or they may not. So there's really no way of knowing what the control group had or did not have.

And while it's certainly true that *some* symptoms of covid are vague and nebulous to fall under the umbrella of things like "fibromyalgia" etc, others are not. I know six people last year who had random blood clots. Three years ago, that number was zero. Another three friends dropped dead from heart attacks. Again, three years ago, that number was zero.

None of this makes me "frightened" of the virus. There's no point. All of it makes me wear a mask and not eat in restaurants.

Why are you such a pathetic sociopath? Childhood trauma?

So, you realize as you get older you’re going to know more and more people with heart attacks, strokes, and clots, right? That’s one of many reasons why personal anecdotes isn’t meaningful data.

And if you read the studies about long Covid, they’re not finding large numbers of cases of heart attacks and clots. They’re finding large numbers of people reporting things like fatigue, congestion, cough, anxiety, and depression.

Obviously we're going to see higher rates of more unusual conditions, like heart attacks and strokes, in the first year after an infection. That's the case for things like influenza, too. But when people and news articles reference these large numbers of people with Covid, those aren't the problems they're talking about.

Let her be. Her MO is to spout scientifically unsound crap then throw in an insult at the end. She needs this. Let her be.

So, you are ok with your kids developing long term health issues from covid and having them suffer fro the rest of their lives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?

Then that suck for 20% of the children.

over 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors under the age of 65 could develop long COVID

coronavirus inoculation has only a "slight protective effect" against long COVID

long COVID might "affect a patient's ability to contribute to the work force and might have economic consequences for survivors and their dependents."

The study's results could "potentially translate into millions of people with new diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, neurologic problems"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-study-tells-us-long-095511394.html

What about the 1-in-6 people that study found had the same symptoms as long covid, but no evidence of a past infection?

Can you point to any results from that study that support the claim that long covid is preventing people from contributing to the work force, or that it is leading to serious, chronic conditions that don’t resolve with time? You’re not going to be able to, because the study didn’t (and couldn’t) look at that. You seem to be confusing what some people fear with what we actually know.

If you've been following the studies coming out on long covid, you should have already observed a pattern. The weaker the controls (or complete lack thereof), the higher the estimated rate of long covid. This obviously comes as no surprise, but it bears calling attention to. This was a good study, but it still had weak controls. Individuals implicitly self-selected, since it was based on people choosing to seek medical attention. Most of the conditions are subjectively assessed, usually through symptom reporting by patients, sometimes by assessments by the providers. The patients and doctors know which patients previously had covid, so many will be more inclined to be looking for (and seeking treatment for) symptoms believed to be associated with long covid.

Is there a higher-than-baseline risk of various medical conditions following recovery from a virus? Of course there is. That's not unique to covid. And that doesn't mean had it not been for covid they wouldn't develop those conditions following recovery from some other infection.

Quit being reasonable. That takes the fun out of posting a passage of an article/study without really understanding it. What is there left for PP to do if she doesn’t have that?

Welp, being as I have friends who live all over the country and many of them have had covid, and at least a dozen have continuing symptoms, three severe enough to be disabled... I have some concerns. I realize you don't.

Also, there is no conclusive test that can determine if an individual has ever had COVID. Or not. Full stop. So, there's no saying the control group didn't have it. Antibodies for COVID may or may not be present for a duration of time after an infection. Or they may not. So there's really no way of knowing what the control group had or did not have.

And while it's certainly true that *some* symptoms of covid are vague and nebulous to fall under the umbrella of things like "fibromyalgia" etc, others are not. I know six people last year who had random blood clots. Three years ago, that number was zero. Another three friends dropped dead from heart attacks. Again, three years ago, that number was zero.

None of this makes me "frightened" of the virus. There's no point. All of it makes me wear a mask and not eat in restaurants.

Why are you such a pathetic sociopath? Childhood trauma?

So, you realize as you get older you’re going to know more and more people with heart attacks, strokes, and clots, right? That’s one of many reasons why personal anecdotes isn’t meaningful data.

And if you read the studies about long Covid, they’re not finding large numbers of cases of heart attacks and clots. They’re finding large numbers of people reporting things like fatigue, congestion, cough, anxiety, and depression.

Obviously we're going to see higher rates of more unusual conditions, like heart attacks and strokes, in the first year after an infection. That's the case for things like influenza, too. But when people and news articles reference these large numbers of people with Covid, those aren't the problems they're talking about.

Let her be. Her MO is to spout scientifically unsound crap then throw in an insult at the end. She needs this. Let her be.

So, you are ok with your kids developing long term health issues from covid and having them suffer fro the rest of their lives?

The data doesn't bear that out to be a significant increased risk. Read the studies. The symptoms associated with "long Covid" occur at similar rates in kids that did and did not have Covid. They're typically mild and resolve on their own after a few weeks or months.

That's not to say there is zero risk, but there's no such thing as zero risk in life. And the risks of long Covid or other Covid-related complications are similar to other risks we've always implicitly or explicitly accepted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vaccines and prior infection provide protection against severe illness. No one claimed they provide durable, long-term protection against infection. But we don’t need them to as long as people are just having mild illnesses.

You really haven’t figured out that’s the endgame for Covid?

Then that suck for 20% of the children.

over 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors under the age of 65 could develop long COVID

coronavirus inoculation has only a "slight protective effect" against long COVID

long COVID might "affect a patient's ability to contribute to the work force and might have economic consequences for survivors and their dependents."

The study's results could "potentially translate into millions of people with new diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, neurologic problems"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-study-tells-us-long-095511394.html

What about the 1-in-6 people that study found had the same symptoms as long covid, but no evidence of a past infection?

Can you point to any results from that study that support the claim that long covid is preventing people from contributing to the work force, or that it is leading to serious, chronic conditions that don’t resolve with time? You’re not going to be able to, because the study didn’t (and couldn’t) look at that. You seem to be confusing what some people fear with what we actually know.

If you've been following the studies coming out on long covid, you should have already observed a pattern. The weaker the controls (or complete lack thereof), the higher the estimated rate of long covid. This obviously comes as no surprise, but it bears calling attention to. This was a good study, but it still had weak controls. Individuals implicitly self-selected, since it was based on people choosing to seek medical attention. Most of the conditions are subjectively assessed, usually through symptom reporting by patients, sometimes by assessments by the providers. The patients and doctors know which patients previously had covid, so many will be more inclined to be looking for (and seeking treatment for) symptoms believed to be associated with long covid.

Is there a higher-than-baseline risk of various medical conditions following recovery from a virus? Of course there is. That's not unique to covid. And that doesn't mean had it not been for covid they wouldn't develop those conditions following recovery from some other infection.

Quit being reasonable. That takes the fun out of posting a passage of an article/study without really understanding it. What is there left for PP to do if she doesn’t have that?

Welp, being as I have friends who live all over the country and many of them have had covid, and at least a dozen have continuing symptoms, three severe enough to be disabled... I have some concerns. I realize you don't.

Also, there is no conclusive test that can determine if an individual has ever had COVID. Or not. Full stop. So, there's no saying the control group didn't have it. Antibodies for COVID may or may not be present for a duration of time after an infection. Or they may not. So there's really no way of knowing what the control group had or did not have.

And while it's certainly true that *some* symptoms of covid are vague and nebulous to fall under the umbrella of things like "fibromyalgia" etc, others are not. I know six people last year who had random blood clots. Three years ago, that number was zero. Another three friends dropped dead from heart attacks. Again, three years ago, that number was zero.

None of this makes me "frightened" of the virus. There's no point. All of it makes me wear a mask and not eat in restaurants.

Why are you such a pathetic sociopath? Childhood trauma?

I thought you were the poster from the health forum that didn’t know what antibodies were. This response pretty much confirms it. You still don’t seem to know what antibodies are, and certainly haven’t bothered to look at the performance of serology tests.

Look at the nucleocapsid tests here:
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/eua-authorized-serology-test-performance