4 ms·

Thanks for pointing me to that comment so I could upvote it. His comment is not accurate in that there are plenty of theories, but the general idea behind the c

Thanks for pointing me to that comment so I could upvote it. His comment is not accurate in that there are plenty of theories, but the general idea behind the claim is far more accurate than what probably many that frequent HN believe about long COVID. Long COVID is poorly understood and the research around it has overall been inconclusive, and much of it very low-quality: https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/long-covid-kills-sadly-thats-still https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/long-covid-kills-sad... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqAjrMNN-Vs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqAjrMNN-Vs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4NqsU-Dk9A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4NqsU-Dk9A https://www.dailywire.com/news/taxpayer-funded-1-billion-long-covid-research-has-been-a-total-failure-waste-of-time-report https://www.dailywire.com/news/taxpayer-funded-1-billion-lon... Even the linked article has a bunch of caveats like: Joanna Hellmuth, a cognitive neurologist and clinical researcher at UC, San Francisco, who has collaborated with some of the authors but was not involved in the current study, questions the paper’s focus on the hippocampus. She notes there’s currently little evidence the typical cognitive symptoms of Long Covid are linked to memory encoding in this brain region. Although the results are interesting, in her view, “the model they’re testing doesn’t reflect the clinical condition.”

thenerdhead 3y ago
> Long COVID is poorly understood and the research around it has overall been inconclusive This is far from the truth. Over 400 long covid publications a month for the last couple years. Science has pushed this forward to be more conclusive and defined. Covid contrarians like Vinay are nothing but minimizers with MDs. They cherry pick what serves their narrative while ignoring the rest.
- PathOfEclipse 3y ago
  I like how you couldn't be bothered to provide a single citation or reference to back up anything you just said. If I wanted to learn how I am wrong, you certainly failed to deliver. > Over 400 long covid publications a month for the last couple years. Let's just assume that statement is true. I said nothing about the quantity of research on long COVID; I said it was inconclusive and largely low-quality. If anything, your factoid could support my "low quality" assertion given how little benefit has been derived from said research.
  - thenerdhead 3y ago
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/docsum?filters=e_condition.LongCovid https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/docsum?fil... https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/51/D1/D1512/6814452 https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/51/D1/D1512/6814452 In his video on the paxlovid trials he doesn't even know what the arm sizes are. Let alone take a minute to read the trial designs: > The placebo includes ritonavir, which does not have an effect on the virus, but will help ensure people don’t know whether they are in the Paxlovid or placebo group. https://medicine.yale.edu/cii/research/paxlc-study/ https://medicine.yale.edu/cii/research/paxlc-study/ I don't care to further argue with you. I used to like Vinay, for what it is worth. But not anymore.
    - PathOfEclipse 3y ago
      > I don't care to further argue with you. If you can't be bothered to make a good argument, then why make one at all? Also, I want to know, what kind of religious world view leads people like yourself to make evidence-less statements with an air of authority and then dig in your heel no matter how much evidence contradicts you? > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/docsum?fil https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/docsum?fil... Sorry. Linking to 15,000 publications doesn't count as providing a reference. Did that work for you in school? >https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/51/D1/D1512/6814452 https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/51/D1/D1512/6814452 Linking to "300,000" articles also doesn't count as providing a reference, by the way. Let me know what school you went to so I can make sure my kids avoid that one. > The placebo includes ritonavir, which does not have an effect on the virus, but will help ensure people don’t know whether they are in the Paxlovid or placebo group. I think his point was that it was a poor choice of placebo. From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir "Ritonavir is not active against or thought to directly contribute to the antiviral activity of the medication against SARS-CoV-2." I'm sure you can pick up that there is a difference between "we know for sure it has no relevant impact to the study" and "we think it doesn't have any relevant impact to the study."
      - 3y ago
VikingCoder 3y ago
Can you help me understand your point of view better? Do you think: a) We do not have evidence that humans suffer from long-term consequences of COVID-19. b) We do not know why humans suffer long-term consequences of COVID-19. c) We have no evidence that COVID-19 could possibly cause long-term consequences. Because I think the answer you have... is different from the answer that [1] would have. I think [1] thinks c). And I think you think b) or possibly a). Or maybe I'm wrong - do you agree with c? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23875391 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23875391
VikingCoder 3y ago
Also, do you think that, in July 2020, that "most people [were] dramatically overestimating COVID-19 risk"? (As the comment I linked to stated.) On July 12 and 13th, 2020, my uncle emailed me, "For what it’s worth, I predict the COVID-19 death toll in the next 30 months will be 2.5-3 million Americans." I emailed him "I don't know what to predict.... By 2023, I'll go with 300,000." I'm pretty certain that my 300,000 Americans by 2023 was dramatically higher than what most people were estimating. And I was low. And at that point, July 2020, I was just barely beginning to be concerned about long-term health impacts of those who survive COVID.

thenerdhead 3y ago

> Long COVID is poorly understood and the research around it has overall been inconclusive This is far from the truth. Over 400 long covid publications a month for the last couple years. Science has pushed this forward to be more conclusive and defined. Covid contrarians like Vinay are nothing but minimizers with MDs. They cherry pick what serves their narrative while ignoring the rest.

PathOfEclipse 3y ago
I like how you couldn't be bothered to provide a single citation or reference to back up anything you just said. If I wanted to learn how I am wrong, you certainly failed to deliver. > Over 400 long covid publications a month for the last couple years. Let's just assume that statement is true. I said nothing about the quantity of research on long COVID; I said it was inconclusive and largely low-quality. If anything, your factoid could support my "low quality" assertion given how little benefit has been derived from said research.
- thenerdhead 3y ago
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/docsum?filters=e_condition.LongCovid https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/docsum?fil... https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/51/D1/D1512/6814452 https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/51/D1/D1512/6814452 In his video on the paxlovid trials he doesn't even know what the arm sizes are. Let alone take a minute to read the trial designs: > The placebo includes ritonavir, which does not have an effect on the virus, but will help ensure people don’t know whether they are in the Paxlovid or placebo group. https://medicine.yale.edu/cii/research/paxlc-study/ https://medicine.yale.edu/cii/research/paxlc-study/ I don't care to further argue with you. I used to like Vinay, for what it is worth. But not anymore.
  - PathOfEclipse 3y ago
    > I don't care to further argue with you. If you can't be bothered to make a good argument, then why make one at all? Also, I want to know, what kind of religious world view leads people like yourself to make evidence-less statements with an air of authority and then dig in your heel no matter how much evidence contradicts you? > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/docsum?fil https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/docsum?fil... Sorry. Linking to 15,000 publications doesn't count as providing a reference. Did that work for you in school? >https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/51/D1/D1512/6814452 https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/51/D1/D1512/6814452 Linking to "300,000" articles also doesn't count as providing a reference, by the way. Let me know what school you went to so I can make sure my kids avoid that one. > The placebo includes ritonavir, which does not have an effect on the virus, but will help ensure people don’t know whether they are in the Paxlovid or placebo group. I think his point was that it was a poor choice of placebo. From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir "Ritonavir is not active against or thought to directly contribute to the antiviral activity of the medication against SARS-CoV-2." I'm sure you can pick up that there is a difference between "we know for sure it has no relevant impact to the study" and "we think it doesn't have any relevant impact to the study."
    - 3y ago

VikingCoder 3y ago

Can you help me understand your point of view better? Do you think: a) We do not have evidence that humans suffer from long-term consequences of COVID-19. b) We do not know why humans suffer long-term consequences of COVID-19. c) We have no evidence that COVID-19 could possibly cause long-term consequences. Because I think the answer you have... is different from the answer that [1] would have. I think [1] thinks c). And I think you think b) or possibly a). Or maybe I'm wrong - do you agree with c? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23875391 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23875391

VikingCoder 3y ago

Also, do you think that, in July 2020, that "most people [were] dramatically overestimating COVID-19 risk"? (As the comment I linked to stated.) On July 12 and 13th, 2020, my uncle emailed me, "For what it’s worth, I predict the COVID-19 death toll in the next 30 months will be 2.5-3 million Americans." I emailed him "I don't know what to predict.... By 2023, I'll go with 300,000." I'm pretty certain that my 300,000 Americans by 2023 was dramatically higher than what most people were estimating. And I was low. And at that point, July 2020, I was just barely beginning to be concerned about long-term health impacts of those who survive COVID.