Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Covid-19

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Maynerd
    replied
    Originally posted by philleotardo View Post

    No. Pick a lane. Are they a source or no?
    I'm not speaking for ClownPickle, but from my perspective, the NY Times is absolutely a source. It's a badly biased source, but if they choose to publish something as news (not opinion), odds are it's been properly vetted. My concern with the Times is the vast quantity of stories that get no mention (or are on page 47) if they don't fit the Times' bias.

    Leave a comment:


  • philleotardo
    replied
    Originally posted by ClownPickle View Post

    What an odd take. The fact it's coming from an organization like the NY Times who obviously has been on the side of the CDC/vaccinations gives more weight to the report. A head in the sand approach. I expect nothing less.
    No. Pick a lane. Are they a source or no? You’ve previously said they aren’t.

    And your links usually reflect the opposite of what you’re trying to claim, so spare humanity from whatever it is you’re trying to do.





    Please no kumbaya, False1

    Leave a comment:


  • ClownPickle
    replied
    Originally posted by philleotardo View Post
    On Thursdays, the New York Times ceases to be the dishonest media, have a well-known liberal bias or appear to be a dumpster fire. Tune in tomorrow for “which way does Clown Pickle want the wind to blow today?”.
    What an odd take. The fact it's coming from an organization like the NY Times who obviously has been on the side of the CDC/vaccinations gives more weight to the report. A head in the sand approach. I expect nothing less.

    Leave a comment:


  • jlw1980
    replied
    Originally posted by philleotardo View Post
    On Thursdays, the New York Times ceases to be the dishonest media, have a well-known liberal bias or appear to be a dumpster fire. Tune in tomorrow for “which way does Clown Pickle want the wind to blow today?”.
    😂😂😂

    Leave a comment:


  • philleotardo
    replied
    On Thursdays, the New York Times ceases to be the dishonest media, have a well-known liberal bias or appear to be a dumpster fire. Tune in tomorrow for “which way does Clown Pickle want the wind to blow today?”.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yankee Tripper
    replied
    Originally posted by ClownPickle View Post
    er
    8x Higher in Unvaccinated Adolescents
    Ages 12-17 Years


    12x Higher in Unvaccinated Adults
    Ages 18-49 years


    17x Higher in Unvaccinated Adults
    Ages 50-64 years


    17x Higher in Unvaccinated Adults
    Ages 65 Years and Older


    https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tra...ns-vaccination

    Every age band shows higher hospitilization rates in unvaccinated populations.

    Heck the one broken out by unvaxed, vaxed but not boosted, and boosted also shows predictible results by age band.

    Leave a comment:


  • ClownPickle
    replied
    Pretty alarming article.

    The C.D.C. also has multiple bureaucratic divisions that must sign off on important publications, and its officials must alert the Department of Health and Human Services — which oversees the agency — and the White House of their plans. The agency often shares data with states and partners before making data public. Those steps can add delays.

    “The C.D.C. is a political organization as much as it is a public health organization,” said Samuel Scarpino, managing director of pathogen surveillance at the Rockefeller Foundation’s Pandemic Prevention Institute. “The steps that it takes to get something like this released are often well outside of the control of many of the scientists that work at the C.D.C.”
    The performance of vaccines and boosters, particularly in younger adults, is among the most glaring omissions in data the C.D.C. has made public.

    Last year, the agency repeatedly came under fire for not tracking so-called breakthrough infections in vaccinated Americans, and focusing only on individuals who became ill enough to be hospitalized or die. The agency presented that information as risk comparisons with unvaccinated adults, rather than provide timely snapshots of hospitalized patients stratified by age, sex, race and vaccination status.

    But the C.D.C. has been routinely collecting information since the Covid vaccines were first rolled out last year, according to a federal official familiar with the effort. The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public, the official said, because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/h...-cdc-data.html

    Leave a comment:


  • jlw1980
    replied
    I worry about this a lot, since my kids had COVID last month. It's so scary. My friend is a pediatric unit social worker. Last month she sent a child, who was near in age to my kids, out of town for MIS-C. They died there. They had no previous health problems. None. And people think this doesn't hurt kids.

    It's terrifying and heartbreaking. 😞
    After the Omicron coronavirus variant made a record number of US children sick in January, children's hospitals across the United States braced for what has come with every other spike in the Covid-19 pandemic: cases of a rare but dangerous condition called multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, commonly known as MIS-C. But a number of hospitals say the expected surge in cases hasn't showed up -- at least not yet.

    Leave a comment:


  • jlw1980
    replied
    Tasha Nelson's 10-year-old son held back tears when he heard the news. The two were in the car when the announcement came through the radio: Virginia's freshly sworn-in governor had signed an order attempting to ban mask mandates in schools.

    Leave a comment:


  • False1
    replied
    Originally posted by ClownPickle View Post

    1. The article you stated still has not been peer reviewed at least according to your link, "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."

    2. Other inclusion criteria were individuals with at least a 5 year history within the University of California (UC) system, a confirmed positive RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, and only symptoms attributable to SARS-CoV-2 were included as symptoms that were reported within the year prior to testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 were excluded from the analysis, records of healthcare interaction following COVID-19 diagnosis, and individuals with reinfection. What??

    3. "Seems as though an EHR system cannot answer the question posed no matter the inclusion\exclusion criteria. EHRs can only see care within their walls and we know that patients move across providers frequently even in short windows. This means that the look-back period for continuity of care is incomplete and introduces bias, that the look-back for prior conditions is also incomplete, and the outcome data are incompletely captured. Patients often moving across health systems in large cities (example in LA: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go.... It is critical to match data to the question, I don't think EHR data can answer the important question posed."

    4. There is ZERO control group in this study against the backdrop of extremely elevated levels of anxiety and depression during the pandemic.
    Right. My stated concern wasn't the credibility of doctors, nor was that implied. I didn't get that from your posts either.

    In fact, that's the beef I have, and I think that you have. When you make headline claims like this, it SHOULD stem from doctors and from reliable studies. I thought at least one of the linked studies I looked at was completely driven by self-reported symptoms (i.e. NOT from doctors) and the methodology and self-selected population led to some rather outrageous claims that for me don't even nearly pass the sniff test.

    Framing this discussion as an attack on doctors is a strawman.

    Leave a comment:


  • ClownPickle
    replied
    Originally posted by trapper700 View Post

    It might surprise you to learn that doctors know how to diagnose long covid, even if you personally have no idea. Do you think doctors are just calling things long covid after seeing the symptoms without looking for any other causes? It's a diagnosis of exclusion, which means that for a doctor to call something long covid, it's the last option because of process of elimination.
    1. The article you stated still has not been peer reviewed at least according to your link, "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."

    2. Other inclusion criteria were individuals with at least a 5 year history within the University of California (UC) system, a confirmed positive RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, and only symptoms attributable to SARS-CoV-2 were included as symptoms that were reported within the year prior to testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 were excluded from the analysis, records of healthcare interaction following COVID-19 diagnosis, and individuals with reinfection. What??

    3. "Seems as though an EHR system cannot answer the question posed no matter the inclusion\exclusion criteria. EHRs can only see care within their walls and we know that patients move across providers frequently even in short windows. This means that the look-back period for continuity of care is incomplete and introduces bias, that the look-back for prior conditions is also incomplete, and the outcome data are incompletely captured. Patients often moving across health systems in large cities (example in LA: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go.... It is critical to match data to the question, I don't think EHR data can answer the important question posed."

    4. There is ZERO control group in this study against the backdrop of extremely elevated levels of anxiety and depression during the pandemic.

    Leave a comment:


  • trapper700
    replied
    Originally posted by ClownPickle View Post

    This isn't really going to cut it. Where in the study you quoted does it state it's following these guidelines? Who is making the determination in that study that "cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis." If you are going to say things like 30% of people who have contracted COVID, which is about 120 million people, have long COVID . You need to be exact here in your methodology.
    It might surprise you to learn that doctors know how to diagnose long covid, even if you personally have no idea. Do you think doctors are just calling things long covid after seeing the symptoms without looking for any other causes? It's a diagnosis of exclusion, which means that for a doctor to call something long covid, it's the last option because of process of elimination.

    Leave a comment:


  • jlw1980
    replied
    Interesting.
    Vitamin D helps bolster the immune system to tackle viruses that attack the lungs, the researchers said.

    Leave a comment:


  • jlw1980
    replied
    Originally posted by trapper700 View Post


    You are both right that the typical symptoms of long covid are very broad and can be caused by more common diseases/disorders. But, the textbook definition of long covid according to the WHO includes the line "cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis." Differentials are obviously checked for beforehand and it's not considered to be long covid unless it doesn't seem to be explained by anything else.

    To add to that, we more or less know about some of these typical symptoms already because of the other coronaviruses of the recent past. SARS and MERS both also caused very similar presentations in a patient long term as someone who has long covid.
    I always appreciate your informative posts. Just wanted to tell you that.

    Leave a comment:


  • ClownPickle
    replied
    Originally posted by trapper700 View Post


    You are both right that the typical symptoms of long covid are very broad and can be caused by more common diseases/disorders. But, the textbook definition of long covid according to the WHO includes the line "cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis." Differentials are obviously checked for beforehand and it's not considered to be long covid unless it doesn't seem to be explained by anything else.

    To add to that, we more or less know about some of these typical symptoms already because of the other coronaviruses of the recent past. SARS and MERS both also caused very similar presentations in a patient long term as someone who has long covid.
    This isn't really going to cut it. Where in the study you quoted does it state it's following these guidelines? Who is making the determination in that study that "cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis." If you are going to say things like 30% of people who have contracted COVID, which is about 120 million people, have long COVID . You need to be exact here in your methodology.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X