5 ms·

I had similar symptoms in January 2019, I went to Urgent Care and then the ER because of heart arrhythmia, I felt sick, but no major fever. I put it down to anx

I had similar symptoms in January 2019, I went to Urgent Care and then the ER because of heart arrhythmia, I felt sick, but no major fever. I put it down to anxiety (never suffered with before), but part of me wonders if it was COVID. Out of curiosity, where do you live? I too live next to a bunch of chemical/steel plants and have been tracking air quality, weather, traffic, etc. https://millerbeach.community https://millerbeach.community in Gary for a few years. Winds from North>South produce the best air quality, E>W or W>E produce worse, same with S>N.

runnerup 5y ago
Propublica has some excellent research published lately (it's an entire series of articles based on one primary analysis): https://www.propublica.org/article/toxmap-poison-in-the-air https://www.propublica.org/article/toxmap-poison-in-the-air It's based on somewhat-voluntarily reported data, rather than measured air samples. Mainly because we don't have effective air monitoring stations in anywhere near enough density to any kind of useful data science.
nradov 5y ago
There was no COVID in January 2019. However there are a zillion other infectious diseases and other medical conditions that can cause cardiac symptoms.
TechBro8615 5y ago
You might be interested in reading this (very long, amateur, pseudononymous, non-peer-reviewed) analysis theorizing "SARS-CoV-2 presence in China as far back as March 2018." [0] [0] https://theethicalskeptic.com/2021/11/15/chinas-ccp-concealed-sars-cov-2-presence-in-china-as-far-back-as-march-2018/ https://theethicalskeptic.com/2021/11/15/chinas-ccp-conceale...
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  You'd be more informed (less uninformed in reality) reading a tabloid about bigfoot on the moon than whatever the hell that is.
  - TechBro8615 5y ago
    Do you have any substantive critique to offer of the various lemmas established throughout the piece, which refers to itself as “an argument and petition for plurality under Ockham’s Razor?” Or do you rely solely on appeals to authority when filtering signal from noise? I’ve noticed throughout this pandemic that many arguments supported on such a weak basis have later been disproven or severely undercut by further evidence. Some examples: the virus likely leaked from a lab (at some time); masks reduce transmission; the virus is airborne; there is no sterilizing vaccine; vaccinated people can catch and transmit Covid; vaccines have waning efficacy; “fully vaccinated” will eventually turn to “recently vaccinated;” the mRNA vaccines can lead to myocarditis to such a degree that their risk may not outweigh their benefit for some age groups; a variant will eventually emerge with a high degree of immune escape… There are many examples of conspiracy theories becoming mainstream narrative months later. So while many of them remain conspiracy theories, and the information environment continues to be overwhelmingly noisy, it seems imprudent to discount a source based on appeal to an authority that has been so consistently wrong, sometimes even willfully so (like when CDC lied that “masks don’t work” in order to save them for healthcare workers).
    - mikeyouse 5y ago
      Are there any conspiracy theories you don't believe or do you just assume they're all equally plausible? It's a workday and I'm busy but I'll grant you one substantive critique; the OP heavily relies on "mutations per year" as a metric to derive how plausible it is that something like Omicron could have mutated in the timeframe necessary. Does it strike you as a bit suspect to rely on a mutations/time period, and completely ignore the number of infections? It should. The rate of mutations/year is a useful metric for determining the average mutation rate between two different viruses given certainty of their dates -- it's not at all useful for "aging" a specific variant because the calculation is independent of the number of infections. We're in the midst of a pandemic with hundreds of millions of infections, so the selection pressure for more "fit" viruses is immense. OP tries to get around this by claiming that the rate of mutation that we've actually measured (which is an order of magnitude higher than his assumption!) is suspect and would "extinguish SARS COV2 within a season" but that's just gibberish.
- Panther34543 5y ago
  For a very long time I've held a theory that the general pandemonium due to the mischaracterization of the media regarding the danger of the virus to the average person resulted in substantially more voluntary hospital admissions than would have otherwise occurred, thus reducing availability for those who actually needed to be hospitalized, thus increasing deaths. I, and nearly every colleague in the downtown San Francisco office I worked at, contracted Covid in early January 2020. There should be no doubt that there was already widespread community transmission in California in late 2019. Yet, strangely, "hospital capacity" did not become a concern until right after the U.S. declared a nationwide state of emergency in March. Why was it not a problem in the nearly 4 months prior? I believe many people were convinced that the virus was far more dangerous than it was, and voluntarily began seeking hospitalization when none was actually needed.

runnerup 5y ago

Propublica has some excellent research published lately (it's an entire series of articles based on one primary analysis): https://www.propublica.org/article/toxmap-poison-in-the-air https://www.propublica.org/article/toxmap-poison-in-the-air It's based on somewhat-voluntarily reported data, rather than measured air samples. Mainly because we don't have effective air monitoring stations in anywhere near enough density to any kind of useful data science.

nradov 5y ago

There was no COVID in January 2019. However there are a zillion other infectious diseases and other medical conditions that can cause cardiac symptoms.

TechBro8615 5y ago

You might be interested in reading this (very long, amateur, pseudononymous, non-peer-reviewed) analysis theorizing "SARS-CoV-2 presence in China as far back as March 2018." [0] [0] https://theethicalskeptic.com/2021/11/15/chinas-ccp-concealed-sars-cov-2-presence-in-china-as-far-back-as-march-2018/ https://theethicalskeptic.com/2021/11/15/chinas-ccp-conceale...

mikeyouse 5y ago
You'd be more informed (less uninformed in reality) reading a tabloid about bigfoot on the moon than whatever the hell that is.
- TechBro8615 5y ago
  Do you have any substantive critique to offer of the various lemmas established throughout the piece, which refers to itself as “an argument and petition for plurality under Ockham’s Razor?” Or do you rely solely on appeals to authority when filtering signal from noise? I’ve noticed throughout this pandemic that many arguments supported on such a weak basis have later been disproven or severely undercut by further evidence. Some examples: the virus likely leaked from a lab (at some time); masks reduce transmission; the virus is airborne; there is no sterilizing vaccine; vaccinated people can catch and transmit Covid; vaccines have waning efficacy; “fully vaccinated” will eventually turn to “recently vaccinated;” the mRNA vaccines can lead to myocarditis to such a degree that their risk may not outweigh their benefit for some age groups; a variant will eventually emerge with a high degree of immune escape… There are many examples of conspiracy theories becoming mainstream narrative months later. So while many of them remain conspiracy theories, and the information environment continues to be overwhelmingly noisy, it seems imprudent to discount a source based on appeal to an authority that has been so consistently wrong, sometimes even willfully so (like when CDC lied that “masks don’t work” in order to save them for healthcare workers).
  - mikeyouse 5y ago
    Are there any conspiracy theories you don't believe or do you just assume they're all equally plausible? It's a workday and I'm busy but I'll grant you one substantive critique; the OP heavily relies on "mutations per year" as a metric to derive how plausible it is that something like Omicron could have mutated in the timeframe necessary. Does it strike you as a bit suspect to rely on a mutations/time period, and completely ignore the number of infections? It should. The rate of mutations/year is a useful metric for determining the average mutation rate between two different viruses given certainty of their dates -- it's not at all useful for "aging" a specific variant because the calculation is independent of the number of infections. We're in the midst of a pandemic with hundreds of millions of infections, so the selection pressure for more "fit" viruses is immense. OP tries to get around this by claiming that the rate of mutation that we've actually measured (which is an order of magnitude higher than his assumption!) is suspect and would "extinguish SARS COV2 within a season" but that's just gibberish.
Panther34543 5y ago
For a very long time I've held a theory that the general pandemonium due to the mischaracterization of the media regarding the danger of the virus to the average person resulted in substantially more voluntary hospital admissions than would have otherwise occurred, thus reducing availability for those who actually needed to be hospitalized, thus increasing deaths. I, and nearly every colleague in the downtown San Francisco office I worked at, contracted Covid in early January 2020. There should be no doubt that there was already widespread community transmission in California in late 2019. Yet, strangely, "hospital capacity" did not become a concern until right after the U.S. declared a nationwide state of emergency in March. Why was it not a problem in the nearly 4 months prior? I believe many people were convinced that the virus was far more dangerous than it was, and voluntarily began seeking hospitalization when none was actually needed.