Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
Reply to "MCPS Covid Data Updated Daily (in a single thread)"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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?[/quote] Then that suck for 20% of the children. [b]over 1 in 5 COVID-19 survivors under the age of 65 could develop long COVID[/b] [b]coronavirus inoculation has only a "slight protective effect" against long COVID[/b] [b]long COVID might "affect a patient's ability to contribute to the work force and might have economic consequences for survivors and their dependents." [/b] [b]The study's results could "potentially translate into millions of people with new diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, neurologic problems"[/b] https://www.yahoo.com/news/cdcs-study-tells-us-long-095511394.html[/quote] 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. [/quote] 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?[/quote] 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? [/quote] 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[/quote] Antibodies wane over time. You can keep insulting me as much as you want. But your own *science* is about as logical as your *logic,* which tends to posit examples like, "covid is just like the flu!" Or, "why would they expect us to keep getting boosters? We don't have to do that with the flu!" Or, one of my favorites, your recent: "we can't ask people to wear masks now because we might need them to wear masks later!" Either you're paid, or you're just so far up some government-contracted K-hole that you can't wipe your own self. Either way, your continued attempts to pretend like you're being *scientific* are nothing more than amusing. Dance, monkey. Dance. [/quote] You previously claimed antibodies disappear 5 days after an infection, with a vague statement saying it was from the CDC website. Obviously you didn't read that on the CDC website since it doesn't make any sense given how antibodies are produced. You never explained where you got that idea, so I can only guess. You might have been confusing tests that look for antigens (basically, the virus) versus tests that look for antibodies produced by the immune system. Antibody levels wane over time, but serology testing is different than fighting off an infection. As the FDA’s page shows, serology tests for prior infections are certainly specific and sensitive enough to give good data for controlled covid studies. Your claim that we don't have reliable ways to test for prior infections is simply false.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics