4 ms·

Do you (or anyone else) have scientific numbers, sources and/or comparisons for: a) quantification and definition of lasting cardiovascular/ nervous system da

Do you (or anyone else) have scientific numbers, sources and/or comparisons for: a) quantification and definition of lasting cardiovascular/ nervous system damage b) quantification of a significant number of people c) comparisons to rates comparable to other respiratory diseases (like influenza strains or the bird flu strains etc. ) Understand I ask this not as a coronavirus skeptic, but as a science-literacy proponent who hasn't yet read any reliable source or study for the claim you're making.

rusk 6y ago
I think the burden of proof is on you since you are the one contradicting the prevailing thought. You must “reject the bull hypothesis” as it were. Personally I have seen one case of a 17 y/o with lingering nerve damage covered on national news.
- ACow_Adonis 6y ago
  I fundamentally disagree that I'm conflicting with prevailing thought (at least of medical experts), both because I don't accept that it's prevailing thought, but also because I'm just being proactively and constructively sceptical. If someone proclaims to know the long term effects of a recent novel virus, that's an interesting claim. then they compare the outcomes to other viruses (or declare its fundamentally different), that's also interesting. I've seen news articles about specific cases, and alarmist tabloid-esque case studies, but as someone who actually reads medical studies, I don't let media or hand-picked cases set my opinion, because in a pandemic with countless millions infected, and with a disease that disproportionately affects co morbid patients, of course one will find individual reports of bad cases and complications. But the information I asked for is presumably the minimum required for your claim to be justified. And if it is so "prevailing", it would be widespread and easily findable, whereas I have yet to see a single source that has them.
- zaroth 6y ago
  It is logically impossible to prove a negative. The burden of proof can only possibly be on the people claiming there is an effect. To put it technically, it is "inappropriate to draw substantive conclusions on the basis of a lack of statistically significant effects." You are not proving the null-hypothesis, you are failing to demonstrate the alternative hypothesis. Or to put it another way, lack of evidence is not evidence that a thing doesn't exist.
  - rusk 6y ago
    Ehhh but there is evidence? There are plenty of cases. It’s not even reported any more it’s a given.
    - ACow_Adonis 6y ago
      Not even reported any more? My good man, i propose that outside of news stories focusing on relatively small samples and individual case studies, which generally make no comparison to other virus' comparative effects or mention of the biases inherent in their sample, it is no longer being reported because it has not yet been established. And the reason for this is nothing conspiratorial or denialist, but just due to the fundamentals of good science: that is to say, it's REALLY REALLY hard to accurately establish the long-term effects of a novel virus that has only been around in the human population for the short-term.
      - rusk 6y ago
        Nicely put. I appreciate you taking the time to be civil. Such a rareity these days. A nice change from being insulted for daring to think different. For what it's worth I have evaluated some of my premises based on our exchange here. Thank you.
ljf 6y ago
I'm putting the kids to bed so don't have time to dig out any figures of interest, but my wife caught covid back in March, was OK but pretty ill, but then moved into the long covid phase and was wiped out. Heart rate all over the place and terrible numbness and loads of other rubbish. A full body scan showed issues with her heart function back in August, which is only just starting to recover now, a 'low ejection fraction' and other bits I forget. Latest scans show improved function but nothing like she should see at her age or fitness. This time last year she was lifting 47kg in the gym and working out 4 days a week. The long term studies showing what you are asking are only just starting to show results - but everything we see so far shows that this is causing more issues, in more people than flu. Also of note, a partner of my wife's friend got covid (positive test) back in April with only light symptoms. Just got it again (tested again) and is very ill this time - had to go to hospital but wasn't kept in. So immunity might not be what we think.
- ACow_Adonis 6y ago
  I realise covid is highly politicised right now, but give me the benefit of the doubt. I said I'm not a covid skeptic and I meant it. In its current form it's more virulent than the flu (albeit with a different distribution of mortality outcomes). And of course we have to deal with the general additional affect of immunity (or lack thereof) in the general populace. But it's possible to seek out new information on covid, and also to seek to stop spreading disinformation on it, while still accepting its serious nature.
  - ljf 6y ago
    I've not yet seen a lot of good research released due to it being so new. It felt like we spent 3 months trying to convince doctors here that long covid was even a thing, then another couple helping them understand how they can help people like my wife and it is only that last couple of months that there has been a mobilisation of research and interest in this area, so good quality information is currently hard to find. CoverScan.com moved quite early - https://coverscan.com/news-%26-updates https://coverscan.com/news-%26-updates - have done some great work and are starting to release info - my wife was part of the trial. I'm sure there are others, but these things take time. I'm sure that we will have loads of useful data points next year, but right now even the collection of the data has been poor to understand anything other than just 'deaths' and in some countries 'recoveries' (which was generally just a measure of those that were ill enough to be hospitalised)

rusk 6y ago

I think the burden of proof is on you since you are the one contradicting the prevailing thought. You must “reject the bull hypothesis” as it were. Personally I have seen one case of a 17 y/o with lingering nerve damage covered on national news.

ACow_Adonis 6y ago
I fundamentally disagree that I'm conflicting with prevailing thought (at least of medical experts), both because I don't accept that it's prevailing thought, but also because I'm just being proactively and constructively sceptical. If someone proclaims to know the long term effects of a recent novel virus, that's an interesting claim. then they compare the outcomes to other viruses (or declare its fundamentally different), that's also interesting. I've seen news articles about specific cases, and alarmist tabloid-esque case studies, but as someone who actually reads medical studies, I don't let media or hand-picked cases set my opinion, because in a pandemic with countless millions infected, and with a disease that disproportionately affects co morbid patients, of course one will find individual reports of bad cases and complications. But the information I asked for is presumably the minimum required for your claim to be justified. And if it is so "prevailing", it would be widespread and easily findable, whereas I have yet to see a single source that has them.
zaroth 6y ago
It is logically impossible to prove a negative. The burden of proof can only possibly be on the people claiming there is an effect. To put it technically, it is "inappropriate to draw substantive conclusions on the basis of a lack of statistically significant effects." You are not proving the null-hypothesis, you are failing to demonstrate the alternative hypothesis. Or to put it another way, lack of evidence is not evidence that a thing doesn't exist.
- rusk 6y ago
  Ehhh but there is evidence? There are plenty of cases. It’s not even reported any more it’s a given.
  - ACow_Adonis 6y ago
    Not even reported any more? My good man, i propose that outside of news stories focusing on relatively small samples and individual case studies, which generally make no comparison to other virus' comparative effects or mention of the biases inherent in their sample, it is no longer being reported because it has not yet been established. And the reason for this is nothing conspiratorial or denialist, but just due to the fundamentals of good science: that is to say, it's REALLY REALLY hard to accurately establish the long-term effects of a novel virus that has only been around in the human population for the short-term.
    - rusk 6y ago
      Nicely put. I appreciate you taking the time to be civil. Such a rareity these days. A nice change from being insulted for daring to think different. For what it's worth I have evaluated some of my premises based on our exchange here. Thank you.

ljf 6y ago

I'm putting the kids to bed so don't have time to dig out any figures of interest, but my wife caught covid back in March, was OK but pretty ill, but then moved into the long covid phase and was wiped out. Heart rate all over the place and terrible numbness and loads of other rubbish. A full body scan showed issues with her heart function back in August, which is only just starting to recover now, a 'low ejection fraction' and other bits I forget. Latest scans show improved function but nothing like she should see at her age or fitness. This time last year she was lifting 47kg in the gym and working out 4 days a week. The long term studies showing what you are asking are only just starting to show results - but everything we see so far shows that this is causing more issues, in more people than flu. Also of note, a partner of my wife's friend got covid (positive test) back in April with only light symptoms. Just got it again (tested again) and is very ill this time - had to go to hospital but wasn't kept in. So immunity might not be what we think.

ACow_Adonis 6y ago
I realise covid is highly politicised right now, but give me the benefit of the doubt. I said I'm not a covid skeptic and I meant it. In its current form it's more virulent than the flu (albeit with a different distribution of mortality outcomes). And of course we have to deal with the general additional affect of immunity (or lack thereof) in the general populace. But it's possible to seek out new information on covid, and also to seek to stop spreading disinformation on it, while still accepting its serious nature.
- ljf 6y ago
  I've not yet seen a lot of good research released due to it being so new. It felt like we spent 3 months trying to convince doctors here that long covid was even a thing, then another couple helping them understand how they can help people like my wife and it is only that last couple of months that there has been a mobilisation of research and interest in this area, so good quality information is currently hard to find. CoverScan.com moved quite early - https://coverscan.com/news-%26-updates https://coverscan.com/news-%26-updates - have done some great work and are starting to release info - my wife was part of the trial. I'm sure there are others, but these things take time. I'm sure that we will have loads of useful data points next year, but right now even the collection of the data has been poor to understand anything other than just 'deaths' and in some countries 'recoveries' (which was generally just a measure of those that were ill enough to be hospitalised)