4 ms·

It sounds like you learned nothing from the pandemic. It is practically impossible to avoid catching covid in modern society. 'On a long enough timeline every

by Teever 3y ago

It sounds like you learned nothing from the pandemic. It is practically impossible to avoid catching covid in modern society. 'On a long enough timeline everyone's chance of survival drops to zero.'

BjoernKW 3y ago
> It is practically impossible to avoid catching covid in modern society. For the average human going about an ordinary and active life that statement is quite true. However, the person in question didn't lead an ordinary life. He was confined to a medical device and probably very rarely had in-person contact with random people. Besides, the people who met him personally all must have known about his condition. Under such circumstances avoiding COVID-19 is actually pretty easy: Have everyone in the room wear high-quality face masks. Even for the average person during the height of the pandemic, avoiding COVID-19 was still possible, but required significant effort (no lockdowns though, mind you): Basically, it meant wearing such a mask properly in public settings (and changing it at appropriate intervals) as well as frequent testing of everyone you were in touch with regularly.
- whelp_24 3y ago
  Masks are not 100% effective. Indeed, at it's height the hope was only to slow the spread to manageable levels, the spread was inevitable.
  - BjoernKW 3y ago
    N95 / FFP2 masks are sufficiently effective (if worn correctly) to reduce the likelihood of getting infected to the extent they effectively prevent infection on a personal level. There's of course still a small chance of contracting COVID-19 in spite of wearing a mask, which is why for society at large masks only slowed down the spread at best. For the individual person by and large the probability for getting infected is negligible, though. This precisely what those - quite heated - arguments (and pertinent studies) regarding masks being not effective at all were about: Masks are highly effective on a personal level; for preventing community spread their usefulness is limited.
asveikau 3y ago
I think for certain people with an extreme illness or vulnerability like this, it's reasonable to still be very cautious in 2024. You'd probably also be very cautious about cold and flu.
- dev_tty01 3y ago
  I imagine that many people's attitude about being careful to avoid covid would be much different if they had a daughter who was highly vulnerable.
_silicon 3y ago
Avoided it until Feb of this year. Frequent antibody and antigen testing. If you’re stationary and isolated like this someone around you failed you.
- Teever 3y ago
  It is possible for the support staff to follow all the rules that they were given and yet still unknowingly transmit COVID-19 to their vulnerable patient
blueflow 3y ago
I know someone who is medically confirmed to never had covid: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(24)00134-8/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... Here, we report on a 62-year-old male hypervaccinated individual from Magdeburg, Germany (HIM), who deliberately and for private reasons received 217 vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 within a period of 29 months (figure A; appendix 1 tab 1). [snip] Furthermore, HIM had no signs of a past SARS-CoV-2 infection, as indicated by repeatedly negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests, PCRs and nucleocapsid serology (figure A; appendix 1 tab 1).
- riffic 3y ago
  > 217 vaccinations that's wild.
- t0bia_s 3y ago
  This is anecdotal evidence on one individual. Data from 99,068,901 vaccinated individuals shows many adverse events. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X24001270 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X2...
  - strken 3y ago
    Most of those individuals are likely to be at least 213 doses short of HIM.
foofie 3y ago
[flagged]
- busterarm 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - mattkrause 3y ago
    You can't make a half-counterfactual comparison like that because the COVID rate may have been impacted by the lockdown. Assume, for the sake of argument, that lockdowns worked smashingly well. Then, you'd see a) very few COVID deaths and b) relatively more "side effects". That is exactly what you're using to argue that they didn't work.
- Teever 3y ago
  > Lockdowns were proven to reduce the spread, I agree 100% that lockdowns reduced the spread of covid-19 significantly and that they did not eliminate it. > They are 100% full proof specially I disagree strongly with this statement.
ParetoOptimal 3y ago
I have purposely avoided getting covid by being covid conscious in modern society despite having been exposed by using n99 masks, HEPA filters that circulate air 4x per hour, and only eating at resturaunt patios when they aren't busy.

by Teever 3y ago

It sounds like you learned nothing from the pandemic. It is practically impossible to avoid catching covid in modern society. 'On a long enough timeline everyone's chance of survival drops to zero.'

BjoernKW 3y ago

> It is practically impossible to avoid catching covid in modern society. For the average human going about an ordinary and active life that statement is quite true. However, the person in question didn't lead an ordinary life. He was confined to a medical device and probably very rarely had in-person contact with random people. Besides, the people who met him personally all must have known about his condition. Under such circumstances avoiding COVID-19 is actually pretty easy: Have everyone in the room wear high-quality face masks. Even for the average person during the height of the pandemic, avoiding COVID-19 was still possible, but required significant effort (no lockdowns though, mind you): Basically, it meant wearing such a mask properly in public settings (and changing it at appropriate intervals) as well as frequent testing of everyone you were in touch with regularly.

whelp_24 3y ago
Masks are not 100% effective. Indeed, at it's height the hope was only to slow the spread to manageable levels, the spread was inevitable.
- BjoernKW 3y ago
  N95 / FFP2 masks are sufficiently effective (if worn correctly) to reduce the likelihood of getting infected to the extent they effectively prevent infection on a personal level. There's of course still a small chance of contracting COVID-19 in spite of wearing a mask, which is why for society at large masks only slowed down the spread at best. For the individual person by and large the probability for getting infected is negligible, though. This precisely what those - quite heated - arguments (and pertinent studies) regarding masks being not effective at all were about: Masks are highly effective on a personal level; for preventing community spread their usefulness is limited.

asveikau 3y ago

I think for certain people with an extreme illness or vulnerability like this, it's reasonable to still be very cautious in 2024. You'd probably also be very cautious about cold and flu.

dev_tty01 3y ago
I imagine that many people's attitude about being careful to avoid covid would be much different if they had a daughter who was highly vulnerable.

_silicon 3y ago

Avoided it until Feb of this year. Frequent antibody and antigen testing. If you’re stationary and isolated like this someone around you failed you.

Teever 3y ago
It is possible for the support staff to follow all the rules that they were given and yet still unknowingly transmit COVID-19 to their vulnerable patient

blueflow 3y ago

I know someone who is medically confirmed to never had covid: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(24)00134-8/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... Here, we report on a 62-year-old male hypervaccinated individual from Magdeburg, Germany (HIM), who deliberately and for private reasons received 217 vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 within a period of 29 months (figure A; appendix 1 tab 1). [snip] Furthermore, HIM had no signs of a past SARS-CoV-2 infection, as indicated by repeatedly negative SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests, PCRs and nucleocapsid serology (figure A; appendix 1 tab 1).

riffic 3y ago
> 217 vaccinations that's wild.
t0bia_s 3y ago
This is anecdotal evidence on one individual. Data from 99,068,901 vaccinated individuals shows many adverse events. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X24001270 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X2...
- strken 3y ago
  Most of those individuals are likely to be at least 213 doses short of HIM.

foofie 3y ago

[flagged]

busterarm 3y ago
[flagged]
- mattkrause 3y ago
  You can't make a half-counterfactual comparison like that because the COVID rate may have been impacted by the lockdown. Assume, for the sake of argument, that lockdowns worked smashingly well. Then, you'd see a) very few COVID deaths and b) relatively more "side effects". That is exactly what you're using to argue that they didn't work.
Teever 3y ago
> Lockdowns were proven to reduce the spread, I agree 100% that lockdowns reduced the spread of covid-19 significantly and that they did not eliminate it. > They are 100% full proof specially I disagree strongly with this statement.

ParetoOptimal 3y ago

I have purposely avoided getting covid by being covid conscious in modern society despite having been exposed by using n99 masks, HEPA filters that circulate air 4x per hour, and only eating at resturaunt patios when they aren't busy.