*** OFFICIAL *** COVID-19 CoronaVirus Thread. Fresh epidemic fears as child pneumonia cases surge in Europe after China outbreak. NOW in USA (6 Viewers)

[jamny]

I always figured that the reason why no one went after China hard on this is because the US would be exposed as well. I never bought into the wet market theory.

 

[Max Power]

NIH finally admits taxpayers funded gain of function research in Wuhan.

On this one particular topic, I will absolutely never stop reminding people that I told them so three years ago. You didn't have to be a virologist to see this. You just needed a very basic understanding of how scientific funding agencies work and decent mental model of human behavior when people get caught with their pants down.

The paper trail was always there. I think the problem was that our leadership, media, whoever... wanted to elevate these same public health officials to guide our response. We pushed truth and accountability to the back burner and told ourselves it was better that way.

Gain of function needs to be a whole separate conversation. The US banned it from being done on US soil because it was too dangerous, but we continued to fund it in other countries with less security protocols. Both options suck, and I'm not sold the reward outweighs the risk here.

I don't think we ever talked about this topic before the pandemic, but if we had, I'm 100% sure I would have been on the pro-GOF side. I've always been an optimist when it comes to technology and scientific advancement, and I'm completely sure that my views on GOF research would have aligned with that general worldview. Obviously I have changed my mind on this one. I was previously operating under an assumption that the people in charge of this sort of stuff were basically competent, honest, and trustworthy, and that they were taking the same types of precautions that I would naturally undertake if I were funding this type of work. I was completely wrong to put any trust in these people, and I will never that mistake again, ever. This was definitely an area where I was making a mistake previously, and I've learned better in the meantime.

I'm right there with you. It sounds good in theory, but I'd need to learn more about the benefits.

Faith in the process is around zero right now.

 

[Max Power]

I'm curious why this is being discussed in the COVID thread. Seems like a good discussion to be had, but doesn't really have anything to do with COVID (that we know of). Why not its own thread? Apparently there are a lot out there that didn't know this sort of thing goes on and has been going on for a really long time.

The lab leak theory is 100 times more plausible than the wild origin theory.

The covid pandemic highlights the risk associated with this type of research.

That said, it could be it's own thread, but the reality is that from here on any conversation about gain of function is going remind people of covid.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I'm curious why this is being discussed in the COVID thread. Seems like a good discussion to be had, but doesn't really have anything to do with COVID (that we know of). Why not its own thread? Apparently there are a lot out there that didn't know this sort of thing goes on and has been going on for a really long time.

The lab leak theory is 100 times more plausible than the wild origin theory.

The covid pandemic highlights the risk associated with this type of research.

That said, it could be it's own thread, but the reality is that from here on any conversation about gain of function is going remind people of covid.

I dont see how any of this is relevent until its shown that the virus was created that way. Without that link, its a mass of conflated topics.

The only reason they are associated is because people were learning for the first time apparently, that gain of function was a thing during the pandemic.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

To put it differently, if one is associating gain of function with covid, its because they've fallen prey to bad information from bad sources.

None of this is to say that a serious conversation about gain of function shouldnt be had. We need not support groups who dont follow the best practices, period.

 

[Peggy]

I'm curious why this is being discussed in the COVID thread. Seems like a good discussion to be had, but doesn't really have anything to do with COVID (that we know of). Why not its own thread? Apparently there are a lot out there that didn't know this sort of thing goes on and has been going on for a really long time.

The lab leak theory is 100 times more plausible than the wild origin theory.

The covid pandemic highlights the risk associated with this type of research.

That said, it could be it's own thread, but the reality is that from here on any conversation about gain of function is going remind people of covid.

I dont see how any of this is relevent until its shown that the virus was created that way. Without that link, its a mass of conflated topics.

The only reason they are associated is because people were learning for the first time apparently, that gain of function was a thing during the pandemic.

Occams Razor. You've seen the John Stewart bit?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I'm curious why this is being discussed in the COVID thread. Seems like a good discussion to be had, but doesn't really have anything to do with COVID (that we know of). Why not its own thread? Apparently there are a lot out there that didn't know this sort of thing goes on and has been going on for a really long time.

The lab leak theory is 100 times more plausible than the wild origin theory.

The covid pandemic highlights the risk associated with this type of research.

That said, it could be it's own thread, but the reality is that from here on any conversation about gain of function is going remind people of covid.

I dont see how any of this is relevent until its shown that the virus was created that way. Without that link, its a mass of conflated topics.

The only reason they are associated is because people were learning for the first time apparently, that gain of function was a thing during the pandemic.

Occams Razor. You've seen the John Stewart bit?

I haven't. But if you're using OR as your method, animal to person jumps/transmissions fit that bill far better having just a few players involved rather than the lab leak having many players involved.

 

[Battersbox]

To put it differently, if one is associating gain of function with covid, its because they've fallen prey to bad information from bad sources.

None of this is to say that a serious conversation about gain of function shouldnt be had. We need not support groups who dont follow the best practices, period.

Welcome, newish member of Football guys. Thank you for policing a years-old thread and deciding what topics are relevant.

I guess if you say gain of function should not be associated with Covid, you must be right

 

[Sparky Polastri]

To put it differently, if one is associating gain of function with covid, its because they've fallen prey to bad information from bad sources.

None of this is to say that a serious conversation about gain of function shouldnt be had. We need not support groups who dont follow the best practices, period.

Welcome, newish member of Football guys. Thank you for policing a years-old thread and deciding what topics are relevant.

I guess if you say gain of function should not be associated with Covid, you must be right

It's not me. It's the data and the known facts. I try not to let emotions enter the equation. Thanks for the snark!

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This isn't difficult. People associate gain of function research with covid for the exact same reason why people associate nuclear energy with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

Is that entirely fair? No. Is it 100% rational? Nope. But a basic understanding of how human beings think about things really should be table stakes for this sort of conversation.

 

[Terminalxylem]

For what it's worth, I was prescribed Paxlovid by a PA last spring when I had covid, and a history of asthma was my only real risk factor. The virus hit me pretty good for whatever reason, so on day 4 when I went in (not knowing I had covid specifically), I had an elevated heart rate and depressed O2 levels and they suggested I take it. I started feeling better shortly after I started taking it, although I suppose I can't run the counterfactual of not taking it. I will say I didn't enjoy the side effects of a gasoline-like taste in the mouth and some gastrointestinal unhappiness. I ended up cutting it short for that reason. I didn't have any rebound effects.

Covid with decreased oxygen levels in an asthmatic isn’t good - surprised they didn’t give you dexamethasone.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Cuomo aside, there’s no legitimate evidence ivermectin helps PASC.

Until the research is done and results found to support the assertion, it's unwise to use anecdotes and/or perception as "evidence". The standard is (as it should be) much much much higher. This thread has been one of the more fascinating threads to follow on this site.

I mean it would be great if everything worked like that, but it doesn't and that the problem...

If someone takes a stance that Ivermectin works as a covid treatment method, it gets critiqued with a lot of scrutiny. The truth is it may or not help, but its safe to use as prescribed. There is no marketing campaign for it and no one makes money using it.

Now a drug like Paxlovid is marketed a covid "game changer" with a massive marketing campaign and it turns out to have little or no benefit to healthy adults and we still clap for it because the money says its a good treatment option.

The evidence that paxlovid wasn't a great treatment option was there when it was first released. There was no money in saying it doesn't work. Thats the problem.

Care to unpack that Paxlovid statement?

Clinical trials seemed to show it was pretty effective for those at risk in limiting hospitalization.

Or are you saying it wasn't effective for healthy adults? I mean, I guess that's true. But almost every drug isn't effective for a population that isn't at risk for the complications that the prescribed drug prevents.

To compare it to ivermectin from clinical trial perspective seems odd. But I haven't seen all the data. If you have some to share, I'll take it.

There was a study published earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medcine that showed minimal to no covid symptom relief from Paxlovid vs a Placebo. It also didn't reduce the duration of symptoms.

It did show a 50% reduction in hospitalization, which while nice, was at a very low risk to begin with. 2% In the placebo group and 1% in the paxlovid group.

I think even in the initial Pfizer data it showed little benefit to the vaccinated and was much better for the unvaccinated in preventing hospitalization.

Important caveat you left out - that study was in vaccinated individuals. I posted the study upthread.

But they are prescribing it to everyone regardless of status. $1,400 for a round of Paxlovid that costs $13 to manufacture and has little to nothing to show for it. The whole point I was getting at is the double standard of it all. We'll celebrate the one that makes money, demonize the one that doesn't.

I'm also not sure vaccine status even matters anymore. There are too many buckets people fall into now. 90% of America isn't up to date on their covid vaccine and they are doing fine. Natural immunity ended up being pretty good.

And no, Paxlovid isn’t being prescribed willy-nilly. At least where I live, clinicians are reluctant, mostly due to inexperience with the drug, and concerns for drug-drug interactions. YMMV, of course.

They show a commercial for it almost every break. My FIL simply asked for it and his doctor prescribed it. The drug has generated over $20 Billion in revenue.

Not sure what you’re watching, but I’m not really qualified to comment on commercial frequency anyway.

How does Paxlovid’s market share stack up to comparable drugs? A good comparator would be Tamiflu, though there’s still a heckuva lot more covid than flu.

Ignoring the recent NEJM article (since it’s too recent to reflect prescribing practices), how much Paxlovid do you think should have been used?

I'm only watching live sports on hulu. Those "If its covid... Paxlovid" commercials were huge during the football playoffs.

I can't say how it stacks up to other drugs, but it in my eyes $20 billion for a drug that was no better than a placebo doesn't make a ton of sense. Especially in an environment where we are going "shame" people for alternative treatment options.

I think Paxlovid should only be used for the unvaccinated high-risk community as those appear to be the ones who benefit the most. It was being prescribed pretty often until a long list of high profile covid rebound cases made everyone pause and see this "rare" outcome was actually closer to 20%.

But it wasn’t known to be no better than placebo, among vaccinated individuals, until that study. And it’s still the best data for any oral drug we have.

Also, don’t underestimate patient demand driving some of the prescriptions.

IMO, the rebound stuff is overblown, as when it occurs, it’s usually milder than initial symptomatic infection. Where’d you get that 20% number?

I remember Vinay Prasad doing a video when Pfizer first released its Paxlovid data that the treatment didn't work for vaccinated individuals. It was seemingly brushed off at the time.

I 100% agree with you on the patient demand for perception drugs aspect. That's another issue probably worth discussing.

Here is a link that showed the 20%. https://hms.harvard.edu/news/one-five-experience-rebound-covid-after-antiviral-drug-new-study-shows

Sorting participants by those who took a five-day Paxlovid regimen versus those who did not, the researchers closely tracked patients’ symptoms, analyzed viral loads, lab culture results, and viral samples and performed viral genome sequencing.

Patients who tested positive for COVID-19 after previously testing negative and those who exhibited two consecutive increases in viral loads — the amount of virus detected in nasal swabs — following an initial reduction were classified as experiencing virologic rebound.

The analysis showed that 20.8 percent of those who took Paxlovid experienced virologic rebound, while only 1.8 percent of those who did not take the drug had a rebound. Individuals with rebound also had prolonged viral shedding, for an average of 14 days compared with fewer than five days in those who did not experience rebound, indicating they may remain contagious for longer. Reassuringly, there was no evidence that the virus is developing resistance to the medication among patients with rebound.

What is the current best treatment plan for someone with covid or someone with long covid?

Mild covid: Symptom management with Tylenol, cough meds, etc.
Covid in high risk individual, caught early: remdesivir.
Covid with low oxygen: dexamethasone.
Covid on a ventilator : dex + IL-6 receptor blockers.
Long covid: ?Metformin. Getting vaccinated reduced the risk of it happening in the first place.

Serious question. How do you diagnose it as COVID early these days with the home tests not really being accurate until a few days into the infection? Have your doctor do a rapid test as soon as you get sick?

NAAT, like PCR, performed by a healthcare provider, especially in high risk individuals with known exposure.

But yeah, getting a positive test early is a problem. Remdesivir to prevent disease progression should be given within 7 days of symptom onset.

 

[Terminalxylem]

What we're seeing instead is that we now have a group of folks - most of whom were probably a little on the fragile side to start with - having adopted the covid mask as an identifier for their little hate rallies.

Wait -- are you talking about (a) college-kid protesters wearing masks, or (b) masked people going about their daily errands near where you live?

My first read was (b), and I was thinking masks in retail settings would be thin on the ground in your area.

(a). The only people who I see wearing covid masks these days are brown shirts.

It seems to me that that should be grounds for reflection.

Perhaps you should reflect upon the role your place of residence and work plays in the demographics of mask wearers?

I see people wearing masks every day, mostly middle aged and older, and Asian descent. I don’t think their motivation is political, but also recognize there’s a big world outside my island bubble.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Doctors definitely make good money off Ivermectin. You can easily find places offering expensive "consultations" (this just means a nurse calls you) specifically to get it. It's not cheap and not covered by insurance.

I don’t know how much is being bilked from ivermectin, but any therapy/consultation offered outside the confines of insurance payment should be approached with extreme caution. Though some of it may be legitimately helpful, a lot of quasi-medical practices are run by shysters.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

This isn't difficult. People associate gain of function research with covid for the exact same reason why people associate nuclear energy with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

Is that entirely fair? No. Is it 100% rational? Nope. But a basic understanding of how human beings think about things really should be table stakes for this sort of conversation.

Chernobyl and TMI were nuclear disasters. It's something to learn from when talking about nuclear energy solutions. That can't be said for gain of function research and covid. They aren't tied together in fact like the two nuclear plants, nuclear disaster, and nuclear energy discussions. In one instance you are talking about tangible things that happened and the consequences we suffered. In the other you're talking about what could happen or what might happen some day.

I'll say again, gain of function discussion is/should be a pretty important thing to be discussing. It stands on its own. There's absolutely no need to tie it to an event that, so far, has no factual relevance at all. As a post doc, it's absolutely amazing to me how many refuse to keep their emotions (and political leanings) out of these sorts of discussions and can't seem to keep from taking positions the facts/data don't require/support.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This isn't difficult. People associate gain of function research with covid for the exact same reason why people associate nuclear energy with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

Is that entirely fair? No. Is it 100% rational? Nope. But a basic understanding of how human beings think about things really should be table stakes for this sort of conversation.

Chernobyl and TMI were nuclear disasters. It's something to learn from when talking about nuclear energy solutions. That can't be said for gain of function research and covid. They aren't tied together in fact like the two nuclear plants, nuclear disaster, and nuclear energy discussions. In one instance you are talking about tangible things that happened and the consequences we suffered. In the other you're talking about what could happen or what might happen some day.

I'll say again, gain of function discussion is/should be a pretty important thing to be discussing. It stands on its own. There's absolutely no need to tie it to an event that, so far, has no factual relevance at all. As a post doc, it's absolutely amazing to me how many refuse to keep their emotions (and political leanings) out of these sorts of discussions and can't seem to keep from taking positions the facts/data don't require/support.

Okay.

 

[Whyatt]

This isn't difficult. People associate gain of function research with covid for the exact same reason why people associate nuclear energy with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

Is that entirely fair? No. Is it 100% rational? Nope. But a basic understanding of how human beings think about things really should be table stakes for this sort of conversation.

Chernobyl and TMI were nuclear disasters. It's something to learn from when talking about nuclear energy solutions. That can't be said for gain of function research and covid. They aren't tied together in fact like the two nuclear plants, nuclear disaster, and nuclear energy discussions. In one instance you are talking about tangible things that happened and the consequences we suffered. In the other you're talking about what could happen or what might happen some day.

I'll say again, gain of function discussion is/should be a pretty important thing to be discussing. It stands on its own. There's absolutely no need to tie it to an event that, so far, has no factual relevance at all. As a post doc, it's absolutely amazing to me how many refuse to keep their emotions (and political leanings) out of these sorts of discussions and can't seem to keep from taking positions the facts/data don't require/support.

I think anyone who might care to discuss Covid Origins now has formed a pretty strong opinion by now.

As far as I am aware, the best collection of science-based arguments presented to improve Biosafety with respect to GoF is located at the link: biosafetynow.org

Rather than simply state GoF has no connection to Covid (which I disagree), why don’t you refute some of the key claims of this essay.

 

[Peggy]

I'm curious why this is being discussed in the COVID thread. Seems like a good discussion to be had, but doesn't really have anything to do with COVID (that we know of). Why not its own thread? Apparently there are a lot out there that didn't know this sort of thing goes on and has been going on for a really long time.

The lab leak theory is 100 times more plausible than the wild origin theory.

The covid pandemic highlights the risk associated with this type of research.

That said, it could be it's own thread, but the reality is that from here on any conversation about gain of function is going remind people of covid.

I dont see how any of this is relevent until its shown that the virus was created that way. Without that link, its a mass of conflated topics.

The only reason they are associated is because people were learning for the first time apparently, that gain of function was a thing during the pandemic.

Occams Razor. You've seen the John Stewart bit?

I haven't. But if you're using OR as your method, animal to person jumps/transmissions fit that bill far better having just a few players involved rather than the lab leak having many players involved.

The Wuhan lab-leak theory by Jon Stewart

Throwback to the all-time greatest rant on the Wuhan lab-leak theory by Jon Stewart Remember when they ridiculed him over this? Now we know he was right and ...

youtu.be

lol

 

[Sand]

This isn't difficult. People associate gain of function research with covid for the exact same reason why people associate nuclear energy with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

Is that entirely fair? No. Is it 100% rational? Nope. But a basic understanding of how human beings think about things really should be table stakes for this sort of conversation.

Chernobyl and TMI were nuclear disasters. It's something to learn from when talking about nuclear energy solutions. That can't be said for gain of function research and covid. They aren't tied together in fact like the two nuclear plants, nuclear disaster, and nuclear energy discussions. In one instance you are talking about tangible things that happened and the consequences we suffered. In the other you're talking about what could happen or what might happen some day.

I'll say again, gain of function discussion is/should be a pretty important thing to be discussing. It stands on its own. There's absolutely no need to tie it to an event that, so far, has no factual relevance at all. As a post doc, it's absolutely amazing to me how many refuse to keep their emotions (and political leanings) out of these sorts of discussions and can't seem to keep from taking positions the facts/data don't require/support.

Go back and read up on what the Chinese government did in Wuhan right after the leak. It's damning and totally obvious.

There is a very good Senate report on it.

 

[belljr]

I thought I saw it all and now there is an "argument" that this covid thread shouldn't be the thread to discuss gain of function mutations..... Who gives a s*** where it's discussed

 

[Sparky Polastri]

It appears I have stepped into a wormhole and gone back to 2021/22 where people were conflating "escape from a lab" with some variation of "created in a lab" or "gain of function". What in the world is going on??

The essay above states, in the very first sentence, that their position is a belief. It also states that belief is that it originated in a lab. In science, that means, created there (bioengineered by man) not altered there (gain of function) and their evidence for that is a lack of evidence of that it came from animals. It shouldn't have to be pointed out, but the "essay" is not a study of any sort. It's an opinion piece devoid of any sort of scientific study data. You might as well be reading an opinion piece from one of the US media outlets.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I thought I saw it all and now there is an "argument" that this covid thread shouldn't be the thread to discuss gain of function mutations..... Who gives a s*** where it's discussed

All I suggested was that the gain of function topic is a good one and deserves its own thread. The discussion doesn't need to be buried in a thread fueled by incorrect terminology and/or bad science and opinion based on them. Others can disagree. No skin off my teeth.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Remember, guys. You don't have to take the bait.

 

[culdeus]

Still missing step two here. People do research on diseases. This research led to a pandemic. Therefore________

A) We shouldn't?
B) We should do it better?
C) We should do our own and send it in a flaming poop bag to China?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Still missing step two here. People do research on diseases. This research led to a pandemic. Therefore________

A) We shouldn't?
B) We should do it better?
C) We should do our own and send it in a flaming poop bag to China?

The best answer is (B), and that would have been my pre-pandemic position. But we learned during the pandemic that our scientific community is led by people who are technically competent but deeply unwise and mostly unethical. Those people can't be trusted with this technology. So I'm closer to camp (A) than I used to be.

Again, nuclear power is a good analogy IMO. I'm strongly in favor of nuclear energy. It bothers me a lot that a bunch of grossly incompetent Soviets set this industry back decades thanks to their ineptitude. I know that nuclear power is much less dangerous than burning coal, and we should be using that as one of our main sources of energy along with all the renewables we can get. But if the choice is between "no nuclear power at all" and "nuclear plants are all run by the same kind of person who ran the one at Chernobyl," my vote is going to be to pass. Certain types of technology require the right people to manage them, and the lack of good people is why we can't have nice things.

 

[Dr_Zaius]

For what it's worth, I was prescribed Paxlovid by a PA last spring when I had covid, and a history of asthma was my only real risk factor. The virus hit me pretty good for whatever reason, so on day 4 when I went in (not knowing I had covid specifically), I had an elevated heart rate and depressed O2 levels and they suggested I take it. I started feeling better shortly after I started taking it, although I suppose I can't run the counterfactual of not taking it. I will say I didn't enjoy the side effects of a gasoline-like taste in the mouth and some gastrointestinal unhappiness. I ended up cutting it short for that reason. I didn't have any rebound effects.

Covid with decreased oxygen levels in an asthmatic isn’t good - surprised they didn’t give you dexamethasone.

My asthma has been well-controlled for years, but as a layman I was still also a little surprised that the PA I saw didn't seem all that concerned about things. If I remember correctly O2 was 91%, and my pulse was around 80 (which is a good 30 points above what it would usually be just sitting around talking). To be fair, I didn't feel short of breath or confused or anything like that - my complaints were more centered around my sore throat and complete lack of energy and appetite. I did end up taking my albuterol inhaler later that day because my chest felt uncomfortably tight, which maybe helped a bit. Regardless, the 24 hours after my appointment I improved rapidly after a few days of feeling like total crap, whether from paxlovid or just things running their course who knows.

 

[Terminalxylem]

For what it's worth, I was prescribed Paxlovid by a PA last spring when I had covid, and a history of asthma was my only real risk factor. The virus hit me pretty good for whatever reason, so on day 4 when I went in (not knowing I had covid specifically), I had an elevated heart rate and depressed O2 levels and they suggested I take it. I started feeling better shortly after I started taking it, although I suppose I can't run the counterfactual of not taking it. I will say I didn't enjoy the side effects of a gasoline-like taste in the mouth and some gastrointestinal unhappiness. I ended up cutting it short for that reason. I didn't have any rebound effects.

Covid with decreased oxygen levels in an asthmatic isn’t good - surprised they didn’t give you dexamethasone.

My asthma has been well-controlled for years, but as a layman I was still also a little surprised that the PA I saw didn't seem all that concerned about things. If I remember correctly O2 was 91%, and my pulse was around 80 (which is a good 30 points above what it would usually be just sitting around talking). To be fair, I didn't feel short of breath or confused or anything like that - my complaints were more centered around my sore throat and complete lack of energy and appetite. I did end up taking my albuterol inhaler later that day because my chest felt uncomfortably tight, which maybe helped a bit. Regardless, the 24 hours after my appointment I improved rapidly after a few days of feeling like total crap, whether from paxlovid or just things running their course who knows.

With that clarification, it’s hard to imagine a scenario where dexamethasone wasn’t indicated.

It’s definitely the treatment of choice for hypoxia from covid, and 91% certainly is hypoxic. Moreover, an asthmatic with hypoxia also qualifies. And the “chest tightness” may have been bronchospasm from an asthmatic flare.

Heck, there’s a good argument you should have been hospitalized.

Thankfully, the body is resilient. Unclear if Paxlovid made a difference, but I’d use this experience to reconsider your health care provider.

 

[Dr_Zaius]

For what it's worth, I was prescribed Paxlovid by a PA last spring when I had covid, and a history of asthma was my only real risk factor. The virus hit me pretty good for whatever reason, so on day 4 when I went in (not knowing I had covid specifically), I had an elevated heart rate and depressed O2 levels and they suggested I take it. I started feeling better shortly after I started taking it, although I suppose I can't run the counterfactual of not taking it. I will say I didn't enjoy the side effects of a gasoline-like taste in the mouth and some gastrointestinal unhappiness. I ended up cutting it short for that reason. I didn't have any rebound effects.

Covid with decreased oxygen levels in an asthmatic isn’t good - surprised they didn’t give you dexamethasone.

My asthma has been well-controlled for years, but as a layman I was still also a little surprised that the PA I saw didn't seem all that concerned about things. If I remember correctly O2 was 91%, and my pulse was around 80 (which is a good 30 points above what it would usually be just sitting around talking). To be fair, I didn't feel short of breath or confused or anything like that - my complaints were more centered around my sore throat and complete lack of energy and appetite. I did end up taking my albuterol inhaler later that day because my chest felt uncomfortably tight, which maybe helped a bit. Regardless, the 24 hours after my appointment I improved rapidly after a few days of feeling like total crap, whether from paxlovid or just things running their course who knows.

With that clarification, it’s hard to imagine a scenario where dexamethasone wasn’t indicated.

It’s definitely the treatment of choice for hypoxia from covid, and 91% certainly is hypoxic. Moreover, an asthmatic with hypoxia also qualifies. And the “chest tightness” may have been bronchospasm from an asthmatic flare.

Heck, there’s a good argument you should have been hospitalized.

Thankfully, the body is resilient. Unclear if Paxlovid made a difference, but I’d use this experience to reconsider your health care provider.

Appreciate the insight, and I've been unhappy with my local provider for other reasons as well. Unfortunately nobody I talk to seems to give an endorsement of their own primary care doctor, so I've been sort of shuked when it comes to changing. I'm way overdue for a physical and bloodwork, so ideally I'd do that with a new office.

 

[Terminalxylem]

For what it's worth, I was prescribed Paxlovid by a PA last spring when I had covid, and a history of asthma was my only real risk factor. The virus hit me pretty good for whatever reason, so on day 4 when I went in (not knowing I had covid specifically), I had an elevated heart rate and depressed O2 levels and they suggested I take it. I started feeling better shortly after I started taking it, although I suppose I can't run the counterfactual of not taking it. I will say I didn't enjoy the side effects of a gasoline-like taste in the mouth and some gastrointestinal unhappiness. I ended up cutting it short for that reason. I didn't have any rebound effects.

Covid with decreased oxygen levels in an asthmatic isn’t good - surprised they didn’t give you dexamethasone.

My asthma has been well-controlled for years, but as a layman I was still also a little surprised that the PA I saw didn't seem all that concerned about things. If I remember correctly O2 was 91%, and my pulse was around 80 (which is a good 30 points above what it would usually be just sitting around talking). To be fair, I didn't feel short of breath or confused or anything like that - my complaints were more centered around my sore throat and complete lack of energy and appetite. I did end up taking my albuterol inhaler later that day because my chest felt uncomfortably tight, which maybe helped a bit. Regardless, the 24 hours after my appointment I improved rapidly after a few days of feeling like total crap, whether from paxlovid or just things running their course who knows.

With that clarification, it’s hard to imagine a scenario where dexamethasone wasn’t indicated.

It’s definitely the treatment of choice for hypoxia from covid, and 91% certainly is hypoxic. Moreover, an asthmatic with hypoxia also qualifies. And the “chest tightness” may have been bronchospasm from an asthmatic flare.

Heck, there’s a good argument you should have been hospitalized.

Thankfully, the body is resilient. Unclear if Paxlovid made a difference, but I’d use this experience to reconsider your health care provider.

Appreciate the insight, and I've been unhappy with my local provider for other reasons as well. Unfortunately nobody I talk to seems to give an endorsement of their own primary care doctor, so I've been sort of shuked when it comes to changing. I'm way overdue for a physical and bloodwork, so ideally I'd do that with a new office.

Yeah, I know good primary care physicians are tough to find. But unless I’m missing something, your current provider is potentially dabbling in malpractice.

 

[nirad3]

To put it differently, if one is associating gain of function with covid, its because they've fallen prey to bad information from bad sources.

None of this is to say that a serious conversation about gain of function shouldnt be had. We need not support groups who dont follow the best practices, period.

Welcome, newish member of Football guys. Thank you for policing a years-old thread and deciding what topics are relevant.

I guess if you say gain of function should not be associated with Covid, you must be right

You really think this user is a "newish member of FBG"?

 

[Battersbox]

To put it differently, if one is associating gain of function with covid, its because they've fallen prey to bad information from bad sources.

None of this is to say that a serious conversation about gain of function shouldnt be had. We need not support groups who dont follow the best practices, period.

Welcome, newish member of Football guys. Thank you for policing a years-old thread and deciding what topics are relevant.

I guess if you say gain of function should not be associated with Covid, you must be right

You really think this user is a "newish member of FBG"?

Well of course he is!

He said he has been watching us from afar for some time, and after rigorously going back and studying the Covid discourse we've had here for years, he has decided to join in and set us straight.

I for one welcome his objective perspective.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Right on cue with the personal focus when someone refuses to get emotionally tied up in the topic. You guys aren't anything if not predictable. Joe can verify who I am or who I am not (that seems more of a concern to you all than what I am actually saying for whatever reason). And it's rather clear already you don't like the objective approach. And I'll say again, I have interacted with several here off and on via a different account, but that person (my dad) doesn't come here anymore so I decided to create my own account. You want to get to know me? Great. You want to understand where I'm coming from? Awesome. I just don't suspect either of things are a desire to a lot of you.

 

[Dr_Zaius]

It appears I have stepped into a wormhole and gone back to 2021/22 where people were conflating "escape from a lab" with some variation of "created in a lab" or "gain of function".

As far as I can tell, there are three gradations of "escape from a lab":

1. Some researchers went around to remote caves and collected a bunch of bat viruses, brought them back to their lab in a populated area, and eventually somebody got infected and the virus spread through the populace
2. Same, but the researchers also tinkered with the virus through, e.g., serial passage and ended up with a much more dangerous virus through a somewhat natural, albeit forced, evolution, which then escaped
3. Instead of #2-style tinkering, the researchers directly modified the viral genome, and this artificial virus then escaped

If we're talking about conflating, it seems to me like the "nothing to see here folks" have a tendency to vigorously rebut #3, but I'm not sure why all three scenarios don't reflect badly on WIV and their funders. 3 is worse than 2 which is worse than 1, but all of them involve a pandemic being spawned by a mistake somebody made. Also, it's never been quite clear to me why some folks draw such a bright line between 2 and 3 with regards to the terminology "gain of function". I guess I can see how 3 is inherently more dangerous as you are potentially creating something that would not ever arise naturally and thus could have unexpected behavior patterns, but even with 2 you are making viruses more dangerous than the otherwise will be. Ancient maize looks nothing like modern day corn - does the fact that most of the changes were made by human selection rather than gene editing imply that human action wasn't key in the course its evolution took?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I like how the guy with 46 posts is attracting Likes from a guy with 25 posts. Seems legit.

 

[Battersbox]

I like how the guy with 46 posts is attracting Likes from a guy with 25 posts. Seems legit.

That guy was probably using his dog's log-in for years and he too has finally decided to join the conversation. The more the merrier, I say.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

It appears I have stepped into a wormhole and gone back to 2021/22 where people were conflating "escape from a lab" with some variation of "created in a lab" or "gain of function".

As far as I can tell, there are three gradations of "escape from a lab":

1. Some researchers went around to remote caves and collected a bunch of bat viruses, brought them back to their lab in a populated area, and eventually somebody got infected and the virus spread through the populace
2. Same, but the researchers also tinkered with the virus through, e.g., serial passage and ended up with a much more dangerous virus through a somewhat natural, albeit forced, evolution, which then escaped
3. Instead of #2-style tinkering, the researchers directly modified the viral genome, and this artificial virus then escaped

If we're talking about conflating, it seems to me like the "nothing to see here folks" have a tendency to vigorously rebut #3, but I'm not sure why all three scenarios don't reflect badly on WIV and their funders. 3 is worse than 2 which is worse than 1, but all of them involve a pandemic being spawned by a mistake somebody made. Also, it's never been quite clear to me why some folks draw such a bright line between 2 and 3 with regards to the terminology "gain of function". I guess I can see how 3 is inherently more dangerous as you are potentially creating something that would not ever arise naturally and thus could have unexpected behavior patterns, but even with 2 you are making viruses more dangerous than the otherwise will be. Ancient maize looks nothing like modern day corn - does the fact that most of the changes were made by human selection rather than gene editing imply that human action wasn't key in the course its evolution took?

There's a fourth and was the very first option presented to us when the pandemic started which was that the virus was completely created in a lab. To the bold, as a budding scientist (hopefully one day when I'm all grown), it's because they are significantly different in the science world. You likely see that distinction drawn by people in the scientific fields. I doubt your standard layman cares about the distinctions which provides for a pretty healthy environment for conspiracy theories, emotional "want it to be" positions and misinformation. It's really no different than when you're talking to a developer of some sort, say java and continually mislabel what a "bean" is vs a "jar" vs a "class" etc.

FWIW....I was just starting my research phase of education when the pandemic hit and I always felt that someone getting infected while studying it was a scenario that was one of the most likely. I still do. The reality is, we're never going to know for sure unless some whistleblower on their death bed confesses. The governments certainly aren't going to be honest with us.

 

[LawFitz]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380538521_Estimate_of_the_COVID-19_over-reporting_bias_as_underlying_cause_of_death_in_the_USA

Our results show that there is a systematic over-reporting of COVID-19 when reported as underlying cause of death, when compared to Influenza and Pneumonia during the same period. The average over-reporting factor is about 2.5 to 3 for all ages ... The over-reporting factors we compute only account for the relative over-reporting of COVID-19 as the underlying cause of disease as opposed to as a contributing cause, when compared with influenza and pneumonia. This work therefore contributes to the ongoing discussion of death "with" COVID-19 versus "from" COVID-19.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

I think you can say this is a decent sized study here...

Safety outcomes following COVID-19 vaccination and infection in 5.1 million children in England​

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47745-z

TL;DR:

The risk-benefit profile of COVID-19 vaccination in children remains uncertain. A self-controlled case-series study was conducted using linked data of 5.1 million children in England to compare risks of hospitalisation from vaccine safety outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination and infection. In 5-11-year-olds, we found no increased risks of adverse events 1–42 days following vaccination with BNT162b2, mRNA-1273 or ChAdOX1. In 12-17-year-olds, we estimated 3 (95%CI 0–5) and 5 (95%CI 3–6) additional cases of myocarditis per million following a first and second dose with BNT162b2, respectively. An additional 12 (95%CI 0–23) hospitalisations with epilepsy and 4 (95%CI 0–6) with demyelinating disease (in females only, mainly optic neuritis) were estimated per million following a second dose with BNT162b2. SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased risks of hospitalisation from seven outcomes including multisystem inflammatory syndrome and myocarditis, but these risks were largely absent in those vaccinated prior to infection. We report a favourable safety profile of COVID-19 vaccination in under-18s.

 

[Max Power]

Covid shot is recommended to everyone 6 month plus this fall.

There are zero safety or efficacy studies done, but you need it.

Once or twice a year. Yearly. I love how that idea was once "outlandish".

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Covid shot is recommended to everyone 6 month plus this fall.

There are zero safety or efficacy studies done, but you need it.

Once or twice a year. Yearly. I love how that idea was once "outlandish".

It was?

 

[Terminalxylem]

Covid shot is recommended to everyone 6 month plus this fall.

There are zero safety or efficacy studies done, but you need it.

Once or twice a year. Yearly. I love how that idea was once "outlandish".

It was?

Not in the scientific community.

 

[the moops]

Covid shot is recommended to everyone 6 month plus this fall.

There are zero safety or efficacy studies done, but you need it.

Once or twice a year. Yearly. I love how that idea was once "outlandish".

Love you max, but this is going to go deep into political talk if you continue down this path. At this point, do what you and your family want/need. A recommendation can be ignored if you disagree

 

[Dezbelief]

The latest variant has hit my town. I know two people who have tested positive. The usual symptoms fever, sore throat, cough, congestion, runny nose and one person said their taste was off a little.

 

[Max Power]

Covid shot is recommended to everyone 6 month plus this fall.

There are zero safety or efficacy studies done, but you need it.

Once or twice a year. Yearly. I love how that idea was once "outlandish".

It was?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is recommending that all Americans six months and older get an updated COVID-19 vaccine in the fall, regardless of whether they’ve been vaccinated against the virus in the past.

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Covid shot is recommended to everyone 6 month plus this fall.

There are zero safety or efficacy studies done, but you need it.

Once or twice a year. Yearly. I love how that idea was once "outlandish".

It was?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is recommending that all Americans six months and older get an updated COVID-19 vaccine in the fall, regardless of whether they’ve been vaccinated against the virus in the past.

MSN

www.msn.com

My comment was about how this was once considered outlandish. Medical folks have been talking about boosters 1-2x per year for what, 3 years now?

 

[Max Power]

Covid shot is recommended to everyone 6 month plus this fall.

There are zero safety or efficacy studies done, but you need it.

Once or twice a year. Yearly. I love how that idea was once "outlandish".

Love you max, but this is going to go deep into political talk if you continue down this path. At this point, do what you and your family want/need. A recommendation can be ignored if you disagree

I guess color me salty that I almost lost my job and was shunned and publicly shamed over the whole ordeal.

I may have been drunk posting in the heat a bit yesterday as well.

 

[Max Power]

Covid shot is recommended to everyone 6 month plus this fall.

There are zero safety or efficacy studies done, but you need it.

Once or twice a year. Yearly. I love how that idea was once "outlandish".

It was?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is recommending that all Americans six months and older get an updated COVID-19 vaccine in the fall, regardless of whether they’ve been vaccinated against the virus in the past.

MSN

www.msn.com

My comment was about how this was once considered outlandish. Medical folks have been talking about boosters 1-2x per year for what, 3 years now?

Id have to go back and look, but when they first started talking boosters there were a couple regulatory committees saying the MRNA shots aren't meant to be a yearly thing. But yes there was a time where yearly covid shots was a "conspiracy theory".

 

[culdeus]

I thought our DNA was going to explode before needing a booster?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

The latest variant has hit my town. I know two people who have tested positive. The usual symptoms fever, sore throat, cough, congestion, runny nose and one person said their taste was off a little.

My wife had it last week. I had symptoms too but never tested positive. Yet I essentially slept all day last Sunday and had a sore throat, headache and runny nose until Wednesday. Not terrible but pretty sure I “had” it too, but maybe my antibodies from march fought it off.

What I had in march was awful. Worst I felt in at least 10 years.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I thought our DNA was going to explode before needing a booster?

My kids were 11 when they got the 1st vaccine dose. After the nurse jabbed him, within 5 seconds, my son said “I can feel the Bill Gates microchip making its way through my body already…..”

The nurse chuckled out loud.