What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (8 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Doug B said:
Doug B said:
I actually want to see if [Tufekci is] advocating anything beyond personal masking NOW. Is she in favor of wide public mask mandates TODAY? I actually have no idea.
Click to expand...

Didn't do a super-super deep dive ... but I gave this question 10 or so minutes of online searching. Gotta be something she's written recently ... nothing two years old or anything like that.

Preliminary verdict is that no -- Tufekci is not currently advocating a return to wide-spread 2020-style mask mandates. Defending past masking interventions IMHO is not equivalent to currently advocating mask mandates.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, it is weird for the NYT to give her space to argue with Cochrane. Almost nobody is masking anymore, voluntarily or otherwise, so it's not like this is a live issue or anything. It is very difficult to escape the conclusion that she wants to fight with the Cochrane folks because she has made "support for masking" part of her personal identity, as many others have.
 
IvanKaramazov said:
On the other hand, it is weird for the NYT to give her space to argue with Cochrane.
Click to expand...

Tufekci wasn't arguing with the Cochrane Review as an entity in that recent opinion piece. Conversely, Tufekci cited Cochrane's editor-in-chief (Karla Soares-Weiser) and tacitly supported Soares-Weiser's statement concerning what conclusions could be drawn from the mask-intervention data review. Tufekci did cite Cochrane Review's Tom Jefferson (lead author of the mask-intervention data review) and disagreed with his statements in her piece.

I think the NYT gave Tufekci the space simply as a way to publicly push back against what Dr. Jetelina (YLE) recently called "relitigating 2020" -- in this case, a recent rise on social media and blogs of posts/tweets invoking the Cochrane mask-intervention data review to "show once and for all" that "masking doesn't work, never worked, and was a bad idea from jump".
 
Doug B said:
IvanKaramazov said:
On the other hand, it is weird for the NYT to give her space to argue with Cochrane.
Click to expand...

Tufekci wasn't arguing with the Cochrane Review as an entity in that recent opinion piece. Conversely, Tufekci cited Cochrane's editor-in-chief (Karla Soares-Weiser) and tacitly supported Soares-Weiser's statement concerning what conclusions could be drawn from the mask-intervention data review. Tufekci did cite Cochrane Review's Tom Jefferson (lead author of the mask-intervention data review) and disagreed with his statements in her piece.

I think the NYT gave Tufekci the space simply as a way to publicly push back against what Dr. Jetelina (YLE) recently called "relitigating 2020" -- in this case, a recent rise on social media and blogs of posts/tweets invoking the Cochrane mask-intervention data review to "show once and for all" that "masking doesn't work, never worked, and was a bad idea from jump".
Click to expand...
I think you're probably right. If I were the NYT, I would not want to relitigate some of the decisions that we made earlier in the pandemic. That might imply the need for accountability.
 
The Strongest Evidence Yet That an Animal Started the Pandemic

certainly not a smoking gun by any means, but interesting to say the least...

tl;dr:

This week, an international team of virologists, genomicists, and evolutionary biologists may have finally found crucial data to help fill that knowledge gap. A new analysis of genetic sequences collected from the market shows that raccoon dogs being illegally sold at the venue could have been carrying and possibly shedding the virus at the end of 2019. It’s some of the strongest support yet, experts told me, that the pandemic began when SARS-CoV-2 hopped from animals into humans, rather than in an accident among scientists experimenting with viruses.​
​
“This really strengthens the case for a natural origin,” says Seema Lakdawala, a virologist at Emory University who wasn’t involved in the research. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist involved in the research, told me, “This is a really strong indication that animals at the market were infected. There’s really no other explanation that makes any sense.”​
 
For those still scoring at home, there are rumblings of a new recombinant variant (mostly in India at this point from what I can tell, and coming from wastewater data) XBB.1.16, not a child but a sibling of XBB.1.5 (both came from the XBB variant).
The good: none of India's XBB subvariants thus far have really been able to gain a foothold and have fizzled out :thumbup:
The potentially bad: 1.16 seems have an impressive growth %, even compared to 1.5. Also the region showing the majority of the growth of 1.16 is the same region that gifted Delta to the world.

Cobbled this together from several tweet threads. Will try to post some links when I get something that's more readable.
 
OK I will include one comment: based on how the methodology is described, it sounds like the researchers weren’t able to control for vaccination status or prior infection (in fact, they mention that all the subjects were vaccinated). I’d love to know whether people who had zero antibodies when they got Omicron had a different experience than those whose initial infection was a previous variant.

What’s worse, time is running out — if it hasn’t already — to conduct those studies. At this point, what percentage of people have zero infectious or vaccine-induced antibodies?
 
IC FBGCav said:
To do what is best for me.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand the question as phrased. What actions would have been optimal to prevent COVID? What actions would have been optimal, in terms of treatment, once you had COVID? What actions would have been optimal in terms of vaccination once available?
 
IC FBGCav said:
So, if I had covid before a vaccine was offered. In hindsight. What was the optimal course of action?
Click to expand...
Too many variables for a single answer.

Most importantly, we need to know your risk for serious complications of covid-19. What is your age? BMI? What medical problems do you have? Do you smoke?

What is your occupation and living situation? Are you frequently in contact with people at high risk for covid-19?

In a vacuum, the standard advice is to wait 3-6 months after infection, though the vaccine can be given as soon as symptoms abate.

Because natural immunity is less predictable than that induced by vaccination, higher risk groups should get vaccinated ASAP after recovering from covid-19, IMO.

ETA In your pre-vaccine scenario, you also may have benefited from a short course of remdesivir, if you're high risk (Paxlovid wasn't available at the time). You also could take the opportunity to improve your risk factor profile, for the next time you're exposed.
 
Last edited:
Can someone explain this to me like I'm five? I think it's saying there's evidence for getting boosted after you've been infected, but I'm not totally sure:

The magnitude and quality of a key immune cell’s response to vaccination with two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine were considerably lower in people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to people without prior infection, a study has found. In addition, the level of this key immune cell that targets the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was substantially lower in unvaccinated people with COVID-19 than in vaccinated people who had never been infected. Importantly, people who recover from SARS-CoV-2 infection and then get vaccinated are more protected than people who are unvaccinated. These findings, which suggest that the virus damages an important immune-cell response, were published in the journal Immunity.
Click to expand...
 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Can someone explain this to me like I'm five? I think it's saying there's evidence for getting boosted after you've been infected, but I'm not totally sure:

The magnitude and quality of a key immune cell’s response to vaccination with two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine were considerably lower in people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to people without prior infection, a study has found. In addition, the level of this key immune cell that targets the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was substantially lower in unvaccinated people with COVID-19 than in vaccinated people who had never been infected. Importantly, people who recover from SARS-CoV-2 infection and then get vaccinated are more protected than people who are unvaccinated. These findings, which suggest that the virus damages an important immune-cell response, were published in the journal Immunity.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This has been a hotly debated topic on immunology Twitter for a while now, whether or not getting infected destroys/damages T cells. That's what this study suggests. That the CD8+ T cells are getting destroyed or badly damaged by SARS-CoV-2 infection, and so immune response to vaccination is less robust as a result. Vaccinated people who had no previous infection had robust amounts of CD8+ T cells. And to answer the booster part: The new findings highlight the need to develop vaccination strategies to specifically boost antiviral CD8+ T cell responses in people previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, the researchers conclude

ETA: here's the study: https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(23)00125-5
 
The Commish said:
Nathan R. Jessep said:
older article, but had this in my bookmarks:

Science | AAAS

www.science.org www.science.org
Click to expand...
A pretty good history lesson, but not exactly what I was asking for. There is no meaningful study out there on this specific situation.
Click to expand...
Tossed it into ChatGPT since I had it pulled up:

I'm sorry, but as a language model, I do not have the ability to search the internet or access the latest news or research beyond my knowledge cutoff date of 2021. However, as of my knowledge cutoff date, there were no clinical studies available that specifically examined individuals who developed "long COVID" after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine but had never previously contracted the virus.​
​
 
So here's a thought experiment...
Why aren't there studies yet definitely proving that the 20% of the US population who did not receive a single Covid jab are just as likely (or more) to develop Long Covid or to Die Suddenly? We all know very well that the deep pockets of Big Pharma and Big Govt would want nothing more than to show that to be the case. So why haven't they?
 
Nathan R. Jessep said:
The Commish said:
Nathan R. Jessep said:
older article, but had this in my bookmarks:

Science | AAAS

www.science.org www.science.org
Click to expand...
A pretty good history lesson, but not exactly what I was asking for. There is no meaningful study out there on this specific situation.
Click to expand...
Tossed it into ChatGPT since I had it pulled up:

I'm sorry, but as a language model, I do not have the ability to search the internet or access the latest news or research beyond my knowledge cutoff date of 2021. However, as of my knowledge cutoff date, there were no clinical studies available that specifically examined individuals who developed "long COVID" after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine but had never previously contracted the virus.​
​
Click to expand...
Which is weird given the billions these companies stand to gain if they can prove their competion is giving people "long covid". Almost as if it really isnt a thing
 
LawFitz said:
So here's a thought experiment...
Why aren't there studies yet definitely proving that the 20% of the US population who did not receive a single Covid jab are just as likely (or more) to develop Long Covid or to Die Suddenly? We all know very well that the deep pockets of Big Pharma and Big Govt would want nothing more than to show that to be the case. So why haven't they?
Click to expand...
Seriously, my guess is that it's because neither of those are real. It would be like doing an academic study on how vaccination affects the likelihood that you'll be attacked by the boogieman.

I'm at about 65/35 that most of what we think of as "long covid" is really just psychosomatic. If you define "long covid" very broadly to include people who have a symptom or two that lingers for a while, that obviously exists in the real world. But it is pretty unlikely to be the case that a significant number of people suffer serious harm. We would be seeing them all over the place by now, and we just don't. I'm also heavily influenced here by the fact that a large number of people are just irrationally afraid of covid -- that type of person is going to be prone to making a mountain out of their infection molehill.

I don't follow the "die suddenly" thing very closely, so I could be getting my facts wrong. But my understanding is that (a) nobody disputes that some young men develop myocarditis as a result of mRNA vaccination and (b) even more people would develop myocarditis as a side-effect from covid. Nearly all medicines have side effects, and the mRNA vaccines are no exception. But they're +EV and it's not close.
 
IvanKaramazov said:
I don't follow the "die suddenly" thing very closely, so I could be getting my facts wrong. But my understanding is that (a) nobody disputes that some young men develop myocarditis as a result of mRNA vaccination and (b) even more people would develop myocarditis as a side-effect from covid. Nearly all medicines have side effects, and the mRNA vaccines are no exception. But they're +EV and it's not close.
Click to expand...
We have hundreds of thousands of people who die of heart conditions suddenly in this country every single year. That was true before covid. It will be true for the foreseeable future.
 
Nathan R. Jessep said:
ignatiusjreilly said:
Can someone explain this to me like I'm five? I think it's saying there's evidence for getting boosted after you've been infected, but I'm not totally sure:

The magnitude and quality of a key immune cell’s response to vaccination with two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine were considerably lower in people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to people without prior infection, a study has found. In addition, the level of this key immune cell that targets the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was substantially lower in unvaccinated people with COVID-19 than in vaccinated people who had never been infected. Importantly, people who recover from SARS-CoV-2 infection and then get vaccinated are more protected than people who are unvaccinated. These findings, which suggest that the virus damages an important immune-cell response, were published in the journal Immunity.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This has been a hotly debated topic on immunology Twitter for a while now, whether or not getting infected destroys/damages T cells. That's what this study suggests. That the CD8+ T cells are getting destroyed or badly damaged by SARS-CoV-2 infection, and so immune response to vaccination is less robust as a result. Vaccinated people who had no previous infection had robust amounts of CD8+ T cells. And to answer the booster part: The new findings highlight the need to develop vaccination strategies to specifically boost antiviral CD8+ T cell responses in people previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, the researchers conclude

ETA: here's the study: https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(23)00125-5
Click to expand...
So, assuming this finding is born out, any takeaways for us lay folks beyond "Stay up-to-date on boosters"? Or is that even relevant here? I couldn't tell if the study was talking specifically about people who got infected before they had had any vaccinations. If so, it could be an interesting study from a scientific perspective without much practical application going forward
 
IvanKaramazov said:
I'm at about 65/35 that most of what we think of as "long covid" is really just psychosomatic. If you define "long covid" very broadly to include people who have a symptom or two that lingers for a while, that obviously exists in the real world. But it is pretty unlikely to be the case that a significant number of people suffer serious harm. We would be seeing them all over the place by now, and we just don't. I'm also heavily influenced here by the fact that a large number of people are just irrationally afraid of covid -- that type of person is going to be prone to making a mountain out of their infection molehill.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's psychosomatic, but I also think that, at least so far, Long Covid is so vaguely defined that it's hard to conduct any meaningful studies on it. The symptoms vary so widely across different people AND there is no isolated physiological cause. If it were only one of those, maybe there'd be something to work with. I mean, a Covid infection itself has varying symptoms depending on the person, but you at least know that they all were caused by the same thing: the SARS-CoV2 virus colonizing their respiratory system. Similarly, if there were a percentage of Covid cases where people were all continuing to suffer, say, unusual levels of fatigue for months afterward, you could look for patterns among that population.

But if you're trying to study one person who has fatigue for a couple months and another who has brain fog for a year and a half, and you don't know physiologically what separates either of them from the person who had mild flu-like symptoms for 24 hours, what the hell are you supposed to analyze?

Maybe at some point we'll come up with a more precise definition, or maybe we'll discover the physiological differentiator in Long Covid cases, but until that point I'm setting my expectations low that we'll have any significant insights
 
ignatiusjreilly said:
IvanKaramazov said:
I'm at about 65/35 that most of what we think of as "long covid" is really just psychosomatic. If you define "long covid" very broadly to include people who have a symptom or two that lingers for a while, that obviously exists in the real world. But it is pretty unlikely to be the case that a significant number of people suffer serious harm. We would be seeing them all over the place by now, and we just don't. I'm also heavily influenced here by the fact that a large number of people are just irrationally afraid of covid -- that type of person is going to be prone to making a mountain out of their infection molehill.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's psychosomatic, but I also think that, at least so far, Long Covid is so vaguely defined that it's hard to conduct any meaningful studies on it. The symptoms vary so widely across different people AND there is no isolated physiological cause. If it were only one of those, maybe there'd be something to work with. I mean, a Covid infection itself has varying symptoms depending on the person, but you at least know that they all were caused by the same thing: the SARS-CoV2 virus colonizing their respiratory system. Similarly, if there were a percentage of Covid cases where people were all continuing to suffer, say, unusual levels of fatigue for months afterward, you could look for patterns among that population.

But if you're trying to study one person who has fatigue for a couple months and another who has brain fog for a year and a half, and you don't know physiologically what separates either of them from the person who had mild flu-like symptoms for 24 hours, what the hell are you supposed to analyze?

Maybe at some point we'll come up with a more precise definition, or maybe we'll discover the physiological differentiator in Long Covid cases, but until that point I'm setting my expectations low that we'll have any significant insights
Click to expand...
You're exactly right, especially the bolded.

It's not a unique problem in the infectious disease world. Chronic Lyme disease immediately comes to mind - an area where shysters have taken advantage of people suffering vague symptoms for decades, sometimes without clear evidence they were ever infected. And there are panels performed by unscrupulous labs, testing all sorts of bacteria/fungal/viral/parasitic exposures, just looking for a disease.

Don't get me wrong, I believe long covid (PASC) is a thing, with a physiologic basis. But absent objective diagnostic criteria/testing, it will be nearly impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff, and develop targeted treatments.
 
ignatiusjreilly said:
I don't think it's psychosomatic, but I also think that, at least so far, Long Covid is so vaguely defined that it's hard to conduct any meaningful studies on it. The symptoms vary so widely across different people AND there is no isolated physiological cause. If it were only one of those, maybe there'd be something to work with. I mean, a Covid infection itself has varying symptoms depending on the person, but you at least know that they all were caused by the same thing: the SARS-CoV2 virus colonizing their respiratory system. Similarly, if there were a percentage of Covid cases where people were all continuing to suffer, say, unusual levels of fatigue for months afterward, you could look for patterns among that population.

But if you're trying to study one person who has fatigue for a couple months and another who has brain fog for a year and a half, and you don't know physiologically what separates either of them from the person who had mild flu-like symptoms for 24 hours, what the hell are you supposed to analyze?

Maybe at some point we'll come up with a more precise definition, or maybe we'll discover the physiological differentiator in Long Covid cases, but until that point I'm setting my expectations low that we'll have any significant insights
Click to expand...
I don't recall if I posted it here in the Covid thread, but posted this a couple months ago in the Long Covid thread:

Nathan R. Jessep said:
www.futurity.org

There are just 7 long COVID symptoms

Out of the 47 top-reported "long-COVID" symptoms, researchers were surprised to find only seven that were directly related to the virus.
www.futurity.org www.futurity.org

"Despite an overwhelming number of long COVID symptoms previously reported by other studies, we only found a few symptoms specifically related to an infection from SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19," says Chi-Ren Shyu. "Before we examined the data, I thought we would find an ample amount of the symptoms to be specifically associated with long COVID, but that wasn't the case."​
​
tl;dr the 7 symptoms are: fast-beating heart, hair loss, fatigue, chest pain, shortness of breath, joint pain, and obesity.
Click to expand...
 
If Long Covid and Sudden Death Syndrome were as prevalent in the unvaxxed as they are in the vaxxed we would surely have heard that by now. 💯
 
Nathan R. Jessep said:
ignatiusjreilly said:
Can someone explain this to me like I'm five? I think it's saying there's evidence for getting boosted after you've been infected, but I'm not totally sure:

The magnitude and quality of a key immune cell’s response to vaccination with two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine were considerably lower in people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to people without prior infection, a study has found. In addition, the level of this key immune cell that targets the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was substantially lower in unvaccinated people with COVID-19 than in vaccinated people who had never been infected. Importantly, people who recover from SARS-CoV-2 infection and then get vaccinated are more protected than people who are unvaccinated. These findings, which suggest that the virus damages an important immune-cell response, were published in the journal Immunity.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This has been a hotly debated topic on immunology Twitter for a while now, whether or not getting infected destroys/damages T cells. That's what this study suggests. That the CD8+ T cells are getting destroyed or badly damaged by SARS-CoV-2 infection, and so immune response to vaccination is less robust as a result. Vaccinated people who had no previous infection had robust amounts of CD8+ T cells. And to answer the booster part: The new findings highlight the need to develop vaccination strategies to specifically boost antiviral CD8+ T cell responses in people previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, the researchers conclude

ETA: here's the study: https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(23)00125-5
Click to expand...
Here's another explanation:
threadreaderapp.com

Thread by @VirusesImmunity on Thread Reader App

@VirusesImmunity: A very interesting paper from Dr. Mark Davis’ group shows that in response to the mRNA vaccine, CD8 T cell responses are attenuated in people who had prior COVID compared to uninfected people. What...…
threadreaderapp.com threadreaderapp.com
 
Have a couple doctor’s appointments today at the hospital. First time I’ve been here in a few months, and mask usage inside the hospital seems to have lessened. For example, the technician who did my ultrasound wasn’t wearing one.

It didn’t bother me, but I’m most likely going to continue wearing mine. A random doctor’s office in an office park is one thing, but in an actual hospital there are too many germs floating around, and throwing on a mask for an hour isn’t much of an inconvenience. Still, interesting to note. I wonder if the hospital had any change in policy.

More broadly, I wonder if my assumption that masks in hospitals would be a permanent change was wrong
 
Nathan R. Jessep said:
Nathan R. Jessep said:
ignatiusjreilly said:
Can someone explain this to me like I'm five? I think it's saying there's evidence for getting boosted after you've been infected, but I'm not totally sure:

The magnitude and quality of a key immune cell’s response to vaccination with two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine were considerably lower in people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to people without prior infection, a study has found. In addition, the level of this key immune cell that targets the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was substantially lower in unvaccinated people with COVID-19 than in vaccinated people who had never been infected. Importantly, people who recover from SARS-CoV-2 infection and then get vaccinated are more protected than people who are unvaccinated. These findings, which suggest that the virus damages an important immune-cell response, were published in the journal Immunity.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This has been a hotly debated topic on immunology Twitter for a while now, whether or not getting infected destroys/damages T cells. That's what this study suggests. That the CD8+ T cells are getting destroyed or badly damaged by SARS-CoV-2 infection, and so immune response to vaccination is less robust as a result. Vaccinated people who had no previous infection had robust amounts of CD8+ T cells. And to answer the booster part: The new findings highlight the need to develop vaccination strategies to specifically boost antiviral CD8+ T cell responses in people previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, the researchers conclude

ETA: here's the study: https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(23)00125-5
Click to expand...
Here's another explanation:
threadreaderapp.com

Thread by @VirusesImmunity on Thread Reader App

@VirusesImmunity: A very interesting paper from Dr. Mark Davis’ group shows that in response to the mRNA vaccine, CD8 T cell responses are attenuated in people who had prior COVID compared to uninfected people. What...…
threadreaderapp.com threadreaderapp.com
Click to expand...
I said “explain it like I’m five”, not “like I have five PhDs” :lmao:

Seriously, I think I mostly get it at this point, but still don’t feel like there’s much practical advice out of this study at this point. More of an interesting academic subject
 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Nathan R. Jessep said:
Nathan R. Jessep said:
ignatiusjreilly said:
Can someone explain this to me like I'm five? I think it's saying there's evidence for getting boosted after you've been infected, but I'm not totally sure:

The magnitude and quality of a key immune cell’s response to vaccination with two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine were considerably lower in people with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to people without prior infection, a study has found. In addition, the level of this key immune cell that targets the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was substantially lower in unvaccinated people with COVID-19 than in vaccinated people who had never been infected. Importantly, people who recover from SARS-CoV-2 infection and then get vaccinated are more protected than people who are unvaccinated. These findings, which suggest that the virus damages an important immune-cell response, were published in the journal Immunity.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This has been a hotly debated topic on immunology Twitter for a while now, whether or not getting infected destroys/damages T cells. That's what this study suggests. That the CD8+ T cells are getting destroyed or badly damaged by SARS-CoV-2 infection, and so immune response to vaccination is less robust as a result. Vaccinated people who had no previous infection had robust amounts of CD8+ T cells. And to answer the booster part: The new findings highlight the need to develop vaccination strategies to specifically boost antiviral CD8+ T cell responses in people previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, the researchers conclude

ETA: here's the study: https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(23)00125-5
Click to expand...
Here's another explanation:
threadreaderapp.com

Thread by @VirusesImmunity on Thread Reader App

@VirusesImmunity: A very interesting paper from Dr. Mark Davis’ group shows that in response to the mRNA vaccine, CD8 T cell responses are attenuated in people who had prior COVID compared to uninfected people. What...…
threadreaderapp.com threadreaderapp.com
Click to expand...
I said “explain it like I’m five”, not “like I have five PhDs” :lmao:

Seriously, I think I mostly get it at this point, but still don’t feel like there’s much practical advice out of this study at this point. More of an interesting academic subject
Click to expand...
:lol: Pretty much. When the experts are arguing amongst themselves, "more research is needed" for sure
 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Have a couple doctor’s appointments today at the hospital. First time I’ve been here in a few months, and mask usage inside the hospital seems to have lessened. For example, the technician who did my ultrasound wasn’t wearing one.

It didn’t bother me, but I’m most likely going to continue wearing mine. A random doctor’s office in an office park is one thing, but in an actual hospital there are too many germs floating around, and throwing on a mask for an hour isn’t much of an inconvenience. Still, interesting to note. I wonder if the hospital had any change in policy.

More broadly, I wonder if my assumption that masks in hospitals would be a permanent change was wrong
Click to expand...
I have to goto hospital for colonoscopy in a month and need a rapid covid test to enter. Im curious about the mask thing too. I dont plan on wearing one if I dont have to.
 
Nathan R. Jessep said:
Here's another explanation:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1638153235981541376.html
Click to expand...

You wrote upthread that this has been an ongoing debate topic on "immunological Twitter" for a while. Does that imply that there have been other earlier studies showing more or less the same thing regarding T-cell damage and that the 3/15/2023 Davis et al paper was yet more corroboration? Or is the Davis study kind of the vanguard and more corroborating studies are needed?
 
ignatiusjreilly said:
Have a couple doctor’s appointments today at the hospital. First time I’ve been here in a few months, and mask usage inside the hospital seems to have lessened. For example, the technician who did my ultrasound wasn’t wearing one.

It didn’t bother me, but I’m most likely going to continue wearing mine. A random doctor’s office in an office park is one thing, but in an actual hospital there are too many germs floating around, and throwing on a mask for an hour isn’t much of an inconvenience. Still, interesting to note. I wonder if the hospital had any change in policy.

More broadly, I wonder if my assumption that masks in hospitals would be a permanent change was wrong
Click to expand...
I have always hated hospitals for this very reason. It's really my only major hang up outside of heights. I absolutely HATE going into hospitals and HATE high places.
 
Doug B said:
Nathan R. Jessep said:
Here's another explanation:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1638153235981541376.html
Click to expand...

You wrote upthread that this has been an ongoing debate topic on "immunological Twitter" for a while. Does that imply that there have been other earlier studies showing more or less the same thing regarding T-cell damage and that the 3/15/2023 Davis et al paper was yet more corroboration? Or is the Davis study kind of the vanguard and more corroborating studies are needed?
Click to expand...
The T-Cell damage was one of the first observations they focused on in late 2020. Not many viruses of this category have ever had that type of success against the immune system like this one. That was why people were so surprised by the success of the vaccines in the Alpha/Delta phases. They knew how destructive the virus could be so it was critical that they slow it down as they were able to. Fortunately, the variants went another way, but there was no question about how destructive the virus itself could be.
 
The Commish said:
ignatiusjreilly said:
Have a couple doctor’s appointments today at the hospital. First time I’ve been here in a few months, and mask usage inside the hospital seems to have lessened. For example, the technician who did my ultrasound wasn’t wearing one.

It didn’t bother me, but I’m most likely going to continue wearing mine. A random doctor’s office in an office park is one thing, but in an actual hospital there are too many germs floating around, and throwing on a mask for an hour isn’t much of an inconvenience. Still, interesting to note. I wonder if the hospital had any change in policy.

More broadly, I wonder if my assumption that masks in hospitals would be a permanent change was wrong
Click to expand...
I have always hated hospitals for this very reason. It's really my only major hang up outside of heights. I absolutely HATE going into hospitals and HATE high places.
Click to expand...
Way to crap on my “ER on the top floor of the Sears Tower” idea
 
Doug B said:
Nathan R. Jessep said:
Here's another explanation:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1638153235981541376.html
Click to expand...

You wrote upthread that this has been an ongoing debate topic on "immunological Twitter" for a while. Does that imply that there have been other earlier studies showing more or less the same thing regarding T-cell damage and that the 3/15/2023 Davis et al paper was yet more corroboration? Or is the Davis study kind of the vanguard and more corroborating studies are needed?
Click to expand...
It's complicated. lol But I think your final statement is true. There have been quite a few studies showing dampened immune response after infection. You have one side of the debate that is putting Covid somewhere near the level of HIV with the effect it is having on the immune system. Those claiming that seemingly get labeled as alarmists. And on the other side, you have (my best translation, some of the deep immunology talk goes way over my head) "while this is not a great thing, it's more or less on par with what other infections (that are not HIV) do. We should wait and see what further research shows." Those saying that seemingly get labeled as minimizers. It's wild. There are cliques and teammates. It's like junior high with advanced degrees. :lol: For example, the above that I posted this morning is basically refuting what the NIH press release said and saying NIH misinterpreted the data. Here is another refute of it also saying essentially the same thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
Coronavirus prevention
Replies
4
Views
658
JaxBill
JaxBill
nirad3
COVID-19 / CoronaVirus - terms/phrases
Replies
35
Views
2K
Galileo
Galileo
Joe Bryant
Scared to ask but don't have anywhere else - Clay Travis Article?
2
Replies
71
Views
5K
roadkill1292
roadkill1292

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top