To Vaccinate or Not---The Rat Flu Odyssey Continues

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennymac

Leroy you said that Cisco Kid “couldn’t say the vaccines were better than nothing” and any comments supporting the efficacy of vaccines was “smug bullshit without substance or basis in science.”

You also said “I'm really not aware of any good data on efficacy for the vax.” - so I’m not sure how you square that with the above comment from you - but I bet you’ll ignore it.

You said most people who were vaccinated and then caught covid shortly after should be blaming any symptoms on the vaccine side effects and not on covid (seriously WTF are you on?!)

You tried (poorly) to compare covid vaccines to SSRI (I suspect to steer the conversation away from your opinionated and unsupported vaccine ramblings) as just something being used because “it appears to do something”

And now as your bullshit starts to crumble you’re resorting to walls of text and pivoting to “I just have concerns why is everyone attacking poor me I’m just asking questions! Is it bad to ask questions?” Fuck off with that bullshit - don’t insult us - we can remember the shit you posted earlier in the same day you gaslighting asshole.

I’ll post the graph for you again. Try to respond without mentioning Biden or Fauci or masks or lockdowns. Or antidepressants or big pharma or the US for profit healthcare system. There’s no need to even mention vaccine side effects - that’s a different topic - we’re discussing efficacy. Vaccines have consequences - as does not taking a vaccine.

And there is certainly no need to comment on your own feelings, emotions, and preconceived notions. Nor your incessant desire to paint yourself as an intellectual by being contrarian and willfully ignorant of facts.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...e56e2d7b3d.jpg

---

Your first two sentences were in fact, not things I said, at all. I requested data, and have said the vax has some efficacy. However, its not based in real solid science, there are ways the data has been fucked up. Even in your guys own posts you're describing things exactly in the way I am critizing them for being described, as in, oh, it seems like the data suggests the vax having some efficacy, but that we are still not basing decisions in sound science in the way the scientific method is supposed to work. We have a very incomplete picture of the efficacy and risks especially long term.

There was some data supporting the use of SSRIs as well, but similarly, the older studies were compromised in various ways, and now, the new studies do not support the fundamental science of SSRIs. I doubt MRNA vax will see such a fundamental undercutting of their scientific foundation, but its a similar approach, in that eehh, look some efficacy, they work! isn't really, a scientific approach to anything, especially when ignoring other variables.

Again, this black and white deal seems unproductive. If you're going to argue me, at least argue shit I've actually said.

Again, I did not say MOST people who got covid recently after being vaxed should blame it on any one cause. Jesus fuck stop putting words in my mouth. Is it thatyou're dumb or just willfully doing this? I said, the data has been muddled by not keeping those groups separate, you know. SCIENCE!

What have I said thats crumbling in the least? When have I mentioned anyone 'attacking' me? Rather I remember someone saying i was 'railing' by simply asking if something was based in data.

Yea I see your graph, we could parse the data together, but like, maybe we work on just, actually replying to the things I've actually said first? If you can't do that there is no indivitation further takl about this graph is going to go anywhere other than an exercise in futility.

Peak irony you then end by preaching to me about keeping my emotions out of it when you seem incapable of saying anything I've said without inserting the version your emotions told you I was implying or some shit. Like the argument youve been conditioned to associate with similar phrases or something. i can't even figure it out, but it seems really obvious to me I did not in fact say ANY of this shit you said I have. I said things that talk about similar things, but in no way made those statements at all. They weren't implied. you should do some legit reflection to figure out where you're coming up with this shit.

Sweet blog. Good job still harping on SSRIs! Its really telling you still went back there. Not gonna take the bait to help you deflect from your bullshit illogical the graph has facts that don’t support my feelings so “maybe let’s talk about the other things I said instead of the graph please?”

This you though

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...e7a9ccf8b7.jpg

and this you though

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...b9eae68431.jpg

Bottom line: you can’t inflate your subjective feelings into objective facts and expect people to do anything but think of you as either a moron who can’t think critically, a thin ego low self esteemed person who wants to feel superior by being contrarian even though they are out of their league on the subject at hand, or a troll who is doing it all for attention. Vibes as you stare down this difficult moment of self reflection.

Do you have any idea how many people your supposed third category contained in the studies that established efficacy? The people who were given a vaccine and tested positive before they had a chance to join the "fully vaxed" population and got pulled out, is that the group?

Just from memory I think they could be counted on one hand. But you've probably read that stuff much more recently than me. What's the real number?

Leroy, and anyone needing help with vaccine/study skepticism, that was covered in this thread about 3 years ago. Go back and review. Several of us tackled different studies and different sources of data, considered various flaws, and tried to determine what it all meant. I believe most came to the conclusion that most likely the vaccines work very well.

If you need a hug or someone to split a six pack, I'm offering. Note I'm about 1000 miles away, so maybe a local mag will help you out if you ask.

My experience with being proven wrong is that is a personal experience. Proving to someone else they are wrong is often futile. Similar as no one can ski a run for you, no one can prove you wrong. Someone can lead you there, and argue the evidence shows it is good, but you must ski it yourself. You must prove yourself wrong.

FWIW the vaccine studies of 2020 are pretty meaningless today. For all intents and purposes the virus in those studies no longer exists. It has been replaced by a less virulent but more vaccine resistant virus. (According to the data posted a few pages back it seems the current vaccine is about 50% effective against the current virus, ) This is a constantly changing scenario, yesterday's truisms may be tomorrow's myths, and continued reevaluation is necessary.

Say it aint so Joe we need to know. Some people can not mentally cope with a lack of an ultimate one sentence answer. Remember the FOX "Is it a good thing or a bad thing?


Then there is the OCD thing we got going here. .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

FWIW the vaccine studies of 2020 are pretty meaningless today. For all intents and purposes the virus in those studies no longer exists. It has been replaced by a less virulent but more vaccine resistant virus. (According to the data posted a few pages back it seems the current vaccine is about 50% effective against the current virus, ) This is a constantly changing scenario, yesterday's truisms may be tomorrow's myths, and continued reevaluation is necessary.

---

Quibble on the less virulent statement:

There was a study out of China a few months back that said a recent strain (omicron?) produces more severe outcomes than the OG strain. China could study that because of their long lockdown and low vax rates. The reason all the talking heads get this wrong as they look at the effects of a new strain against a population that now has primed immune systems. The people change far more than the virus. The people have all seen the spike protein now and we're ready to rumble. The talking heads are mistaking improved human immunity for reduced virus virulence.

That also goes a long way to explain the drop in vaccine effectiveness. The original vaccine effectiveness was measured against a 99% naive population. The boosters are measured against the current 99% exposed population. (numbers approximate). Likely, if we could find a naive population to study, the boosters would be 95% effective just like in the original trials.

There was another common related mistake where talking heads would overestimate the R0 "R not" reproduction number for each new variant, even comparing some variants to measles. A new variant comes along and spreads twice as fast as the old variant, so clearly it has twice the R0. Nah, the old variant just spreads slower because most of our immune systems recognize it. The new variant has about the same R0 as the old variant did when it was new. Remember Spring 2020 with OG covid doubling prevalence twice in a week (sometime thrice), week after week? None of the variants have spread that fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cisco Kid

Say it aint so Joe we need to know. Some people can not mentally cope with a lack of an ultimate one sentence answer. Remember the FOX "Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

---

Covid was bad and the vaccine was good, survival worked well too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennymac

Sweet blog. Good job still harping on SSRIs! Its really telling you still went back there. Not gonna take the bait to help you deflect from your bullshit illogical the graph has facts that don’t support my feelings so “maybe let’s talk about the other things I said instead of the graph please?”

This you though

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...e7a9ccf8b7.jpg

and this you though

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...b9eae68431.jpg

Bottom line: you can’t inflate your subjective feelings into objective facts and expect people to do anything but think of you as either a moron who can’t think critically, a thin ego low self esteemed person who wants to feel superior by being contrarian even though they are out of their league on the subject at hand, or a troll who is doing it all for attention. Vibes as you stare down this difficult moment of self reflection.

---

Yep, those things I said still are not the things you said I said.

And yea, we don't have decent data for these things. THe best we have is 'the data suggests...' thats not good enough.

Sure, we could extrapolate some data from the graph. You're still incapable of talking without a strawman though so whats the point?

Yea the vax seems to havfe some efficacy, but the trial data got fucked up, on purpose. You won't respond to that.

Specifically, what feelings did I present as objective facts? Point out specific examples and explain how they are. Describing how the data got fucked up and including the word 'probably' isn't jumping to some conclusions. The 'probably' isn't the important part, its the uncertainty, which fucks the reliability of the data. I don't see that I've even exp[ressed ANY 'feelings'.

And factually, I still will say I don't think the science supports saying the vax is going to be better than nothing as objective fact. You could argue the data suggests it will be likely the vax will be better than nothing, but you CANNOT just say its better than nothing, doing so completely ignores any chance fo negative side effects, and doesn't use anything obejctive or quantifiable to determine that for one single person who got covid, they'll be better off with the vax than without. We have data that suggests some things.... but you cannot just say oh objectively you'll be better off with the avx than without like its just a fact thats true for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LongShortLong

Leroy, and anyone needing help with vaccine/study skepticism, that was covered in this thread about 3 years ago. Go back and review. Several of us tackled different studies and different sources of data, considered various flaws, and tried to determine what it all meant. I believe most came to the conclusion that most likely the vaccines work very well.

If you need a hug or someone to split a six pack, I'm offering. Note I'm about 1000 miles away, so maybe a local mag will help you out if you ask.

My experience with being proven wrong is that is a personal experience. Proving to someone else they are wrong is often futile. Similar as no one can ski a run for you, no one can prove you wrong. Someone can lead you there, and argue the evidence shows it is good, but you must ski it yourself. You must prove yourself wrong.

---

Hey thanks man.

You don't have a snout on your face do you? I love when people with snouts on their faces want to hug me.

I've heard it said debate is a spectator sport, you never convince the person you're debating, but you might convince some spectators. Probably not on tgr though. Its funny, this place used to seem basically representative of the kinds of people I would meet in real life, but honestly out of everyone i know, I know like two people who are stoked they are vaxxed. Most people took at least one dose and freely admit they are not super happy about it.

Yea, we should always be trying to prove ourselves wrong. Science is trying to disprove your hypothesis no trying to prove it. Which is precisely a problem I see with modern science, that this becomes less the case with corporate funding and influence over science.

I think its obvious the vax have some efficacy. I just think its super sus how the data got fucked up in the mass human trials, very avoidant that most people seem to not be able to address this fact, and really odd how people seem to get so triggered by others expressing doubts about various things related to the vax lockdowns etc. Like, theres this narrative that like, oooh be scared of the conspiracy theorists they're coming to get you oooooh. Idk man, objectively, it really seems like we have far more to worry about from the powerful lying to us, if you study history at all.

It is also just weird how unscientific science and the public discourse about it has become, trust the science is an anti science statement.

Its also weird to me that it being the first man made pandemic is a huge huge moment in history, and should be part of the public discourse more. It seems to methat the idea that it could be was widely dismissed mocked etc, but then eventually, when it starts seeming pretty true and the FBI starts supporting it, its pretty anticlimactic, it goes from a conspiracy theory to old news with nothing in between, mostly seemingly, because people are choosing to be avoidant related to things that complicate the narrative or something, and its weird to me how people really seem to feel this need to talk about the vax in very black and white ways that really aren't backed up by the science and data, and yes that was the message from the establishment as well, and there was tons of horrible miscommunication about it. Biden telling peopel if you get vaxxed you won't get sick simple as that.... sure he's the president not a doctor, why would we possibly expect to trust the president how silly right?


I'm sure I'm just yelling at clouds and making all this up though and the conspiracy theorists arecoming to get us all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

Do you have any idea how many people your supposed third category contained in the studies that established efficacy? The people who were given a vaccine and tested positive before they had a chance to join the "fully vaxed" population and got pulled out, is that the group?

Just from memory I think they could be counted on one hand. But you've probably read that stuff much more recently than me. What's the real number?

---

You think they could be counted on one hand? What does this even mean? Like in the world? The country? People you know?

OK, great, but why wasn't this category kept separate? You can dismiss it as oh probably not a significant number, but thats not how science works, thats some sloppy ass bullshit you cannot describe as good data. Why not do science right and create good data? What was the reason? There was literally no good honest reason. You should stop and give pause to that. Otherwise, why do you want to support corporatism and PR propaganda masquerading as hard science?


This is what I don't get, like be pro vax all you want, inject them in your dick for al I care, but ignoring this problem doesn't seem pro science. It seems avoidant, like something people only need to do to cope with cognitive dissonance or something. Its objectively bad science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

FWIW the vaccine studies of 2020 are pretty meaningless today. For all intents and purposes the virus in those studies no longer exists. It has been replaced by a less virulent but more vaccine resistant virus. (According to the data posted a few pages back it seems the current vaccine is about 50% effective against the current virus, ) This is a constantly changing scenario, yesterday's truisms may be tomorrow's myths, and continued reevaluation is necessary.

---

This is a good point.

And the vax hasn't gotten any safer.

As time goes on, less and less people have any interest in more boosters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LongShortLong

Quibble on the less virulent statement:

There was a study out of China a few months back that said a recent strain (omicron?) produces more severe outcomes than the OG strain. China could study that because of their long lockdown and low vax rates. The reason all the talking heads get this wrong as they look at the effects of a new strain against a population that now has primed immune systems. The people change far more than the virus. The people have all seen the spike protein now and we're ready to rumble. The talking heads are mistaking improved human immunity for reduced virus virulence.

That also goes a long way to explain the drop in vaccine effectiveness. The original vaccine effectiveness was measured against a 99% naive population. The boosters are measured against the current 99% exposed population. (numbers approximate). Likely, if we could find a naive population to study, the boosters would be 95% effective just like in the original trials.

There was another common related mistake where talking heads would overestimate the R0 "R not" reproduction number for each new variant, even comparing some variants to measles. A new variant comes along and spreads twice as fast as the old variant, so clearly it has twice the R0. Nah, the old variant just spreads slower because most of our immune systems recognize it. The new variant has about the same R0 as the old variant did when it was new. Remember Spring 2020 with OG covid doubling prevalence twice in a week (sometime thrice), week after week? None of the variants have spread that fast.

---

The effects that you're talking about were discussed a whole lot here as this was ongoing, as I'm sure you remember. There were cases of R0 going up despite the early upticks in immunity. Delta in Texas comes to mind. Just as missing that could explain some of the apparent effects you've discussed, overestimating prior immunity, or even just ignoring the imperfection and asymmetry of cross-immunity from different strains (and vaccines), will overstate such effects.

An example: omicron is immune-evasive. Apart from its apparent parent, alpha, none of the other widespread strains were. That fact alone should be expected to reduce vaccine efficacy and anyeffect of prior immunity. Omicron exposure has also been shown* to deliver quite strong cross immunity against delta, which was the prevalent strain when COVID-21 came out. Conversely, immune cells from those who had been infected with delta did not produce a strong response to Omicron*.

Further, at the height of the Delta wave (late '21) there were two studies done to look at mRNA booster effectiveness and they both came back a point or two higher than the original trials. This despite increased prior immunity, the measurably greater contagiousness of Delta and the differences in the spike vs. OG.

So COVID-19 was eradicated by a combination of vaccines and COVID-21. The story has been different in numerous ways since then. Luckily, we aren't taking about original vaccines anymore. Except when we are.

* At least, in a lab. I haven't kept track for a while but in early '22 when that was the only way to look at omicron, there was an in vitro study of cross immunities published. Going from memory. Feel free to search and correct me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LongShortLong

Quibble on the less virulent statement:

There was a study out of China a few months back that said a recent strain (omicron?) produces more severe outcomes than the OG strain. China could study that because of their long lockdown and low vax rates. The reason all the talking heads get this wrong as they look at the effects of a new strain against a population that now has primed immune systems. The people change far more than the virus. The people have all seen the spike protein now and we're ready to rumble. The talking heads are mistaking improved human immunity for reduced virus virulence.

That also goes a long way to explain the drop in vaccine effectiveness. The original vaccine effectiveness was measured against a 99% naive population. The boosters are measured against the current 99% exposed population. (numbers approximate). Likely, if we could find a naive population to study, the boosters would be 95% effective just like in the original trials.

There was another common related mistake where talking heads would overestimate the R0 "R not" reproduction number for each new variant, even comparing some variants to measles. A new variant comes along and spreads twice as fast as the old variant, so clearly it has twice the R0. Nah, the old variant just spreads slower because most of our immune systems recognize it. The new variant has about the same R0 as the old variant did when it was new. Remember Spring 2020 with OG covid doubling prevalence twice in a week (sometime thrice), week after week? None of the variants have spread that fast.



Covid was bad and the vaccine was good, survival worked well too.

---

Good points. More likely it's a combination of changed virus and changed population.
"You will never run the same river twice. It will not be the same river and you will not be the same person."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

Good points. More likely it's a combination of changed virus and changed population.
"You will never run the same river twice. It will not be the same river and you will not be the same person."

---

Whoa. That's deep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by riser4

Whoa. That's deep.

---

Heraclitus apparently. He said "step in", not "run". I don't think the ancient Greeks did a lot of river running.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

I requested data, and have said the vax has some efficacy. However, its not based in real solid science, there are ways the data has been fucked up..

---

Leroy, I'm trying really hard to parse this argument across the last few pages, so maybe I'm missing a post or two.

What data specifically has been fucked up? By specifically, I mean: which vaccine, which trial, which data set and how is it corrupted?

Taking at face value the data is corrupted - what assumptions would need to be made to reduce the efficacy from 99% to say 95%, 75% or 50%?

Do you have any sources that have done a critical analysis of these data and methodologies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

FWIW the vaccine studies of 2020 are pretty meaningless today. For all intents and purposes the virus in those studies no longer exists. It has been replaced by a less virulent but more vaccine resistant virus. (According to the data posted a few pages back it seems the current vaccine is about 50% effective against the current virus, ) This is a constantly changing scenario, yesterday's truisms may be tomorrow's myths, and continued reevaluation is necessary.

---

thats ^^ pretty much what I think

instead people wana say the vax was never needed

IMO it could change again so I get all the needles

I'm so magnetic I can't use a credit card without erasing it

Hey if you can’t beat em then just post walls and walls of rambling text about things you feel are weird and anecdotal stories about your friends - just bore em to death with unrelated bullshit.

Flood the forum with shit and hopefully the fools that don’t have you on ignore will be overwhelmed with it all and will give up. You’re employing the same tactic in the gun control thread.

Just try to keep your bullshit consistent ok? Some of us are cursed with the ability to remember what was said in a conversation earlier - even if you’re not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

Plus, I'm really not aware of any good data on efficacy for the vax.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

I think it’s obvious the vax have some efficacy.

---

Y’all got some free time….

I think, but am not sure, the point was made earlier that there was an academic argument a while back about whether to consider omicron a new virus rather than a variant. Officials stuck with the concept of calling omicron a variant. In hindsight, that may have resulted in different approach to future vaccination.

Also, I’m not noticing peeps parsing that there are currently two types of vax available in at least the us and Canada, the mrna ones and the one developed by novavax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

* At least, in a lab. I haven't kept track for a while but in early '22 when that was the only way to look at omicron, there was an in vitro study of cross immunities published. Going from memory. Feel free to search and correct me.

---

Those slipped past me so I won't argue the results. I didn't see real world evidence that any variants spread faster than OG covid.

I think Leroy's main concern is that there were three types of people (unvaxxed, vaxxed but only 1 shot or two shots less than 2 weeks ago, and vaxxed 2 shots > 2 weeks ago), and the FDA studies in the US presented the results with only two groups - the first two types called unvaxxed, and the third type called vaxxed. (That's the jist of it, some numbers may be wrong). He ignores that there were earlier studies and other studies to assess vaccine safety, and those would have caught any issues caused by the vaccine. He ignores or isn't aware that there were other studies and other data sources that did sort out the three groups. E.g. NHS published this type of data weekly for a year or more. He also ignores that numerous scientists and statisticians had access to the raw data. These are curious and detail oriented people. If there were something else important in the data, we'd know about it.

Most of the controversy Leroy is concerned about is produced and distributed by unserious people. Usually people who base their entire argument on one study (often small) or one criticism. They are usually non-experts or bad at math or both. Some controversy also comes when two experts disagree, or one is shown to be misinformed about some detail, or to have changed their opinion.

Did the FDA ignore bad data from the recently vaccinated people to make the results look good?* I doubt it, but theoretically it could have happened if you assume enough bad actors. Probably the data was sliced several different ways during analysis to look for these kinds of issues, and only the salient groupings were included in the published results. Nothing nefarious here. It's the same as when someone writes a TR, and doesn't tell us about the drive to the resort or the weather. They gave all the pertinent info, found the stoke and told us about it.

* and if so, that conflicts with many other sources of data that indicated a vaccine efficacy around 90%. Data included in other studies, data from health agencies around the world, etc. I rejected the conclusion of a vast worldwide conspiracy, and accepted overwhelming evidence that vaccines were highly effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennymac

Hey if you can’t beat em then just post walls and walls of rambling text about things you feel are weird and anecdotal stories about your friends - just bore em to death with unrelated bullshit.

Flood the forum with shit and hopefully the fools that don’t have you on ignore will be overwhelmed with it all and will give up. You’re employing the same tactic in the gun control thread.

Just try to keep your bullshit consistent ok? Some of us are cursed with the ability to remember what was said in a conversation earlier - even if you’re not.

---

Are these two statements of mine supposed to be contradictory somehow? They are not. There is evidence to suggest the vax is at least somewhat effective. The data is not really good data, with many variables obscured, and especially, irrefutably, we do not have long term data on any of it.

Help me form a diagnosis. Your father. Was he kind and gentle towards you or a loud tyrant?
Do you remember your mother ever saying "I love you"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LongShortLong

Those slipped past me so I won't argue the results. I didn't see real world evidence that any variants spread faster than OG covid.

I think Leroy's main concern is that there were three types of people (unvaxxed, vaxxed but only 1 shot or two shots less than 2 weeks ago, and vaxxed 2 shots > 2 weeks ago), and the FDA studies in the US presented the results with only two groups - the first two types called unvaxxed, and the third type called vaxxed. (That's the jist of it, some numbers may be wrong). He ignores that there were earlier studies and other studies to assess vaccine safety, and those would have caught any issues caused by the vaccine. He ignores or isn't aware that there were other studies and other data sources that did sort out the three groups. E.g. NHS published this type of data weekly for a year or more. He also ignores that numerous scientists and statisticians had access to the raw data. These are curious and detail oriented people. If there were something else important in the data, we'd know about it.

Most of the controversy Leroy is concerned about is produced and distributed by unserious people. Usually people who base their entire argument on one study (often small) or one criticism. They are usually non-experts or bad at math or both. Some controversy also comes when two experts disagree, or one is shown to be misinformed about some detail, or to have changed their opinion.

Did the FDA ignore bad data from the recently vaccinated people to make the results look good?* I doubt it, but theoretically it could have happened if you assume enough bad actors. Probably the data was sliced several different ways during analysis to look for these kinds of issues, and only the salient groupings were included in the published results. Nothing nefarious here. It's the same as when someone writes a TR, and doesn't tell us about the drive to the resort or the weather. They gave all the pertinent info, found the stoke and told us about it.

* and if so, that conflicts with many other sources of data that indicated a vaccine efficacy around 90%. Data included in other studies, data from health agencies around the world, etc. I rejected the conclusion of a vast worldwide conspiracy, and accepted overwhelming evidence that vaccines were highly effective.

---

No, no, I'm going to be a pedant here. You are talking about analysis of the data. Leroy is saying the data itself is fucked up. So again, see my post above Leroy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cisco Kid

Help me form a diagnosis. Your father. Was he kind and gentle towards you or a loud tyrant?
Do you remember your mother ever saying "I love you"?

---

Finally, someone who is on the right track. He is not well. I occasionally make the same mistake as others, engaging... but eventually circle back being reminded that a lot of what I'm reading stems from someone who needs aid from a MHP.

New long covid “perspective” publication.
“Each reinfection contributes additional risk of Long Covid: Cumulatively, two infections yield a higher risk of Long Covid than one infection, and three infections yield a higher risk than two infections (8). Whether different SARS-CoV-2 variants alter the risk of developing Long Covid should be investigated. Regardless, efforts to prevent reinfection are important and may reduce the risk of long-term population health loss (8).”

Attachment 487836

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adl0867