14 ms·

I don't see any citations in this write-up. Colds and flu also cause direct cell damage. I haven't seen any concept of "long flu" anywhere. The vaccines are no

by _yoqn 5y ago

I don't see any citations in this write-up. Colds and flu also cause direct cell damage. I haven't seen any concept of "long flu" anywhere. The vaccines are not going to prevent contraction or transmission anymore. And per this article, you can apparently be asymptomatic but still get long COVID? So why is "get you vaccine and booster" in the first sentence? It goes on to state that "10% to 30% of people might get long COVID." Not only is there no citation for that, what does that mean exactly? Isn't it 100% of people who get COVID may get long COVID? This piece isn't real science or medicine.

Nursie 5y ago
> So why is "get you vaccine and booster" in the first sentence? It's literally there in the second sentence - "The odds of illness severe enough to warrant hospitalization are dramatically lowered if you stay up to date on your COVID-19 vaccine, including a booster dose."
- svnt 5y ago
  That was true for delta. Omicron is completely different regarding hospitalization data.
  - boulos 5y ago
    The absolute rate is lower for Onicron, but vaccinations still drastically lower the relative rate of hospitalization even for BA.2 [1]. [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1505262670714322944?cxt=HHwWgICq2Y-b4uMpAAAA https://mobile.twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1505262670714322...
  - freyr 5y ago
    “Vaccine effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines to prevent COVID-19-associated hospitalizations included: 85% (95% CI: 82 to 88%) for 2 vaccine doses against Alpha; 85% (95% CI: 83 to 87%) for 2 doses against Delta; 94% (95% CI: 92 to 95%) for 3 doses against Delta; 65% (95% CI: 51 to 75%) for 2 doses against Omicron; and 86% (95% CI: 77 to 91%) for 3 doses against Omicron.” Less effective, but not ineffective, especially after a booster. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8845432/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8845432/
bigDinosaur 5y ago
The 10-30% is pure junk reporting and usually requires including people who have a cough that persists for a month after infection or non-specific symptoms like brain fog. I've had coughs that lasted two months after an infection from other diseases - it sucked, but in the long run I was fine. Now, a cough lasting a year would indeed be something else and far more terrible, but it sure as hell isn't 10-30% of people who have symptoms that last a year after covid.
- roflc0ptic 5y ago
  Coughs notably persist beyond the illness that causes them - they can become self perpetuating by causing inflammation that in turn makes you cough. I've found taking cough drops is a great way to break this cycle. So... yeah, persistent cough is a non-symptom, and I suspect a decent amount of long COVID research is a function of perverse incentives in medical research.
- iudqnolq 5y ago
  I don't know about everything else you mention, but dismissing brain fog is very dangerous. It can make you completely unable to think clearly for extended periods of time, and thus completely unable to work. In general it makes no sense to me we dismiss diseases that are "non-specific" (i.e. poorly understood) while ignoring the magnitude of the harms. I'm much more worried about getting something poorly understood.
  - bigDinosaur 5y ago
    Not dismissing it, I had brain fog for three months and it was terribly disconcerting. I say 'nonspecific' because it can be caused by a huge number of things, including extreme stress or burnout or anxiety, and because most people will still eventually recover with sufficient time. It's like fatigue after EBV - very few actually develop CFS. In other words, having symptoms for 3-6 months sucks, I don't deny it, but with the very likely prospect of recovery for most it's not the worst thing. Anecdotally though I don't know a single person who has had covid who is still reporting any symptoms after ~2 months (n=~20).
throwaway984393 5y ago
Every question you asked was answered in the article.
ornornor 5y ago
It says in the article that breakthrough cases have 50% less chances to get long Covid…
- svnt 5y ago
  How can they possibly have that data when we are talking about omicron? They have no idea whether it is omicron or vaccinations, and that distinction only comes into play if we even have measurable results for long covid from omicron, which has only been around for a few months.
- gnicholas 5y ago
  It also says that breakthrough cases are "rare". When I saw that I checked the date to see if it was a pre-omicron article. It isn't. This is either unbelievable ignorance or a flat-out lie. Either way, I wouldn't trust any of the non-footnoted assertions in this article.

by _yoqn 5y ago

Nursie 5y ago

> So why is "get you vaccine and booster" in the first sentence? It's literally there in the second sentence - "The odds of illness severe enough to warrant hospitalization are dramatically lowered if you stay up to date on your COVID-19 vaccine, including a booster dose."

svnt 5y ago
That was true for delta. Omicron is completely different regarding hospitalization data.
- boulos 5y ago
  The absolute rate is lower for Onicron, but vaccinations still drastically lower the relative rate of hospitalization even for BA.2 [1]. [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1505262670714322944?cxt=HHwWgICq2Y-b4uMpAAAA https://mobile.twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1505262670714322...
- freyr 5y ago
  “Vaccine effectiveness of the mRNA vaccines to prevent COVID-19-associated hospitalizations included: 85% (95% CI: 82 to 88%) for 2 vaccine doses against Alpha; 85% (95% CI: 83 to 87%) for 2 doses against Delta; 94% (95% CI: 92 to 95%) for 3 doses against Delta; 65% (95% CI: 51 to 75%) for 2 doses against Omicron; and 86% (95% CI: 77 to 91%) for 3 doses against Omicron.” Less effective, but not ineffective, especially after a booster. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8845432/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8845432/

bigDinosaur 5y ago

The 10-30% is pure junk reporting and usually requires including people who have a cough that persists for a month after infection or non-specific symptoms like brain fog. I've had coughs that lasted two months after an infection from other diseases - it sucked, but in the long run I was fine. Now, a cough lasting a year would indeed be something else and far more terrible, but it sure as hell isn't 10-30% of people who have symptoms that last a year after covid.

roflc0ptic 5y ago
Coughs notably persist beyond the illness that causes them - they can become self perpetuating by causing inflammation that in turn makes you cough. I've found taking cough drops is a great way to break this cycle. So... yeah, persistent cough is a non-symptom, and I suspect a decent amount of long COVID research is a function of perverse incentives in medical research.
iudqnolq 5y ago
I don't know about everything else you mention, but dismissing brain fog is very dangerous. It can make you completely unable to think clearly for extended periods of time, and thus completely unable to work. In general it makes no sense to me we dismiss diseases that are "non-specific" (i.e. poorly understood) while ignoring the magnitude of the harms. I'm much more worried about getting something poorly understood.
- bigDinosaur 5y ago
  Not dismissing it, I had brain fog for three months and it was terribly disconcerting. I say 'nonspecific' because it can be caused by a huge number of things, including extreme stress or burnout or anxiety, and because most people will still eventually recover with sufficient time. It's like fatigue after EBV - very few actually develop CFS. In other words, having symptoms for 3-6 months sucks, I don't deny it, but with the very likely prospect of recovery for most it's not the worst thing. Anecdotally though I don't know a single person who has had covid who is still reporting any symptoms after ~2 months (n=~20).

throwaway984393 5y ago

Every question you asked was answered in the article.

ornornor 5y ago

It says in the article that breakthrough cases have 50% less chances to get long Covid…

svnt 5y ago
How can they possibly have that data when we are talking about omicron? They have no idea whether it is omicron or vaccinations, and that distinction only comes into play if we even have measurable results for long covid from omicron, which has only been around for a few months.
gnicholas 5y ago
It also says that breakthrough cases are "rare". When I saw that I checked the date to see if it was a pre-omicron article. It isn't. This is either unbelievable ignorance or a flat-out lie. Either way, I wouldn't trust any of the non-footnoted assertions in this article.