HN user
The irony of being confined to my house during one of the best summers my country has ever known, to "fight" a disease that is well-known to be worse for vit-D deficient people.....
That is basically what has happened anyway, at least to health services in the UK (and more specifically, in Wales where I live). Covid cases make up a very small proportion of total patients, total patient numbers are significantly lower than average for the time of year (and that has been true since March 2020), yet you cannot now get an ambulance unless you are essentially dying, and availability of routine healthcare (at least, what NHS normally offered) has nosedived.
A car crash has lots of nasty pointy bits.
What feature of the virus does the anitgen test detect? If this one has so many mutations, it's not a ridiculous question.
We don't even know what it does - bit early to say things like this.
FWIW, coronaviruses have been around for a very long time. 30% of common colds are coronaviruses.
Could not agree more. I also strongly disagree with the use of highly emotive words like "horrific" mutations. Exactly how are they horrific, given how little anyone knows about this variant? In my opinion, it's incredibly irresponsible public fearmongering.
FWIW my trust in academia, and specifically medical, will never return.
I particularly liked how the mutations were described as "horrific". How are they? Do they have terrible claws and sharp pointy teeth?
- Patches on patches and old bugs resurfacing with new ones will cause sysadmins to prematurely age and drop out of the profession
- Despite ever-more sophisticated designs and capabilities, machines will struggle to run the latest versions of applications that do the same thing as their predecessors decades ago
- Computing systems will feel more and more like houses of cards held together with string and tape, as "excess value" is aggressively engineered out
Oh wait. I was describing the Anti-Singularity (a pet theory of mine that all technological development inevitably outpaces our ability to maintain it, and that we will end our days desperately trying to get barely-functional systems that we have no hope of re-creating, to do something useful).
Odd timing for releasing stories like this, as the pressure is being put on the last few vaccine holdouts.
Or is it preparation for some other Covid precautions?
The age-related effects of Covid most definitely are significant. If we've decided Covid is worth curtailing the essential liberties of select groups of people, surely it would be much more effective to target those most at risk?
According to a recent UK Government report, cases are higher among many age groups of vaccinated people, than among unvaccinated people.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... (Table 6)
Yes, I am fully aware the table also shows that hospitalisations and death rates are lower amongst vaccinated people.
Indeed. I hear that over half of people have a cough for weeks afterwards.
So why are the unvaccinated having their liberties curtailed in several countries?
Only those who would benefit from systematic injustice, could possibly oppose this proposal.
/s, or is it??
they are also going to be affected negatively
No. "they" are going to lead fine lives, revered as warriors against social injustice, and living in the most exclusive corners of the state. As is typical, the next generation will pay the price.
For what it's worth, it drives me crazy too. The only reason we live such comfortable lives, that we can dedicate so much effort and money to such considerations, is due to the giants on whose shoulders we stand.
Interesting. Apparently Texas has some incredibly unhealthy people, as the unvaccinated death rate there is significantly higher than the unvaccinated death rate in the UK.
It's not much use if the data isn't broken down by age, as that is an enormous risk factor with Covid.
Here's some better data, from the UK:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
The relevant data is on Table 4, page 15. Eg: For the 30-39 age group, Covid death rate amongst the unvaccinated was 0.7 per 100,000, and it was 0.1 per 100,000 for the double vaccinated. For the over 80 age group, it was 117 per 100,000 for the unvaccinated, and 47 per 100,000 for the vaccinated.
If anything, it's more effective for young people...
What is a "blended household"? I was only allowed my regular household, so just the 3 (then 4) of us confined inside our own walls for months.
lockdowns prevented our healthcare systems being overwhelmed thus causing many more excess deaths
It is impossible to know if this is true. That is - if shutting healthy infants, children, young adults, and healthy adults in their own homes for months had any net gain. Personally, I've only seen downsides. Friends (also with kids) that have had latent mental health issues come to light, family losing their jobs and livelihoods, etc etc.
I feel sorry for those in the US. You have made a miserable new normal for yourselves (and, as you say, despite everyone dutifully wearing masks and getting vaccinated, and now having the option of an effective treatment).
It's been a year since that article, so I assume the "mounting evidence" didn't come to much.
On the other hand, recent reports show some much more disturbing possible side effects:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/10/01/restless-an...
Don't worry, I've read it. Staff at Johns Hopkins have also produced this summary:
https://ncrc.jhsph.edu/research/the-impact-of-community-mask...
The outcome measure– the proportion of individuals who reported symptoms and who tested positive for antibodies– is a poor proxy for actual SARS-CoV-2 infections during the study period. Moreover, only 40% of those reporting SARS-CoV-2 symptoms consented to providing a blood sample for antibody testing. If there were systematic differences between intervention and control villages in the proportion of antibody-positive individuals among the >60% of symptomatic individuals who were not tested, the results would be biased.
It is unclear whether the serological assay used to assess the primary outcome was validated in the population under study, or when serological measurements were taken relative to symptom onset. Furthermore, using symptomatic seroprevalence as an outcome means that authors could not distinguish between effects on infections and on symptom severity. Another key limitation is that the persons recording the behavior data could not be blinded to whether the village was a control or intervention arm, leaving open the possibility that data recorders could have been influenced by knowledge of the study arm.
You understand what ad hominem means, right? Don't worry, I've been around for many years. I just go through periods of not having an account, to control the time I waste online.
I've seen most of those studies before. Many of them are not even peer-reviewed papers, they all contain big caveats like "these results were not very conclusive and more research is needed", and many use very simple methodologies (eg, like assuming that some reduction in aerosol particles of a certain size will certainly result in a useful reduction in emitted viral particles). Research labs have access to viral samples (it doesn't have to be Covid). I am sure that no-one has measured how many aerosol-bourne viral particles are stopped by cloth masks, because the results would be quite damning.
Taking the results at face value, then we need about 40% of over 50s to wear masks, and no-one else needs to.
Saying that, it's very unclear if they are measuring "Covid cases by age group of people wearing masks" or "Covid cases by age group, with a certain percentage of overall people wearing masks".
the type of mask is irrelevant to the discussion
It absolutely is relevant. Rated masks (N95, etc) are designed and tested to achieve a particular level of particle filtration. If you want to avoid viral particles, find one that meets the specification you need and wear it.
The WaPo article was interesting - it seems that telling villagers in 3rd world countries how to act, "for their own good", is back in fashion. It's an article, not a paper, and the methodology is poorly described (particularly how and when they measured the incidences of symptomatic Covid cases), and the results are highly simplified.
Unfortunately, I cannot read the "49 studies", as I am in the EU.
None focus specifically on COVID
All I needed to know. Thank you for editing your previous comment. Even so, saying there is a "good chance" is still a massive over-statement of what is currently known.
The study on "long-haul" prevalence did not paint the same picture of a terrifying "Long Covid". The reported symptoms seemed quite mild - "fatigue and shortness of breath". Thanks to a combination of increased unhealthiness thanks to lockdowns, and the now endless cycles of diseases being passed around, that sound like my every day life. The published evidence around "Long Covid" certainly does not match the popular and widely-circulated (generally online) stories and dire admonitions.
not be rare at all (10-30%)
this virus is sowing the seeds of a massive wave of Parkinson's in the future
Do you have a source for any of this? On the face of it, this is outrageous fear-mongering.