Wuhan Coronavirus: Megathread - Got too big

[NoReturn]

When a woman's body is under an unnecessary amount of stress, your period can become irregular and sometimes stop altogether. Your body can also attack a fetus if you are under an unnecessary amount of stress when pregnant as well (which leads to a bunch of other issues). Plus, some medications can fuck with BC (like antibiotics).

That being said, why the fuck would anyone willingly take the covid jab

What I was getting at is that all the above is known. By the time they're an adult, most women have experienced a few fucky periods and know the limits of what's "normal" even when they're stressed. This isn't that.

 

[General Disarray]

I've been going back and forth with my governor's office trying to get them on record about why they are keeping the mask mandate going in spite of evidence to the contrary. My request is simple; provide the source of the science you are using to take the opposite approach.

Unsurprisingly I just get form emails back. Something about they are too busy due to COVID. They always have this one smarmy line at the end:

"Please stay healthy at home"

I got the most recent one yesterday. On the SAME DAY, they announced that they will now be requiring those on unemployment to start looking for jobs again.

So which is it? Go get a job or stay healthy at home? Those are two clearly conflicting messages.

I've asked for clarification. I won't get it.

I was going to go through the appeals process for UI because I took 2 buses to my new job when Covid hit, and I wasn't eligible for insurance yet, and I have a born-with-but-fixed thing that I don't have medical records to prove... I mean, come on, I'm freaking poor/old and you think I can get that shit on paper?

Got a new job now and just said fuck it. Pisses me off that they want piles of documentation when they're all like, "stay home" ESPECIALLY in the beginning. Hell, even my roommate took a week off and we were using iso alc to spray down packages, I wore plastic gloves to the ATM, the works. We were legit freaked the fuck out! And then they have the nerve to say you don't need proof you're high risk to get the jab (back when it first came out). So, you trust people in only certain instances, you know, the ones that DON'T involve money.

Then I hear about Evers getting a buttload (like 3B) of federal monies (AGAIN) and OMG how are we going to spend this influx!?!? Give homeowners a property tax refund? NO! Small businesses yo. If you didn't set up an LLC right as Covid was hitting, you missed out big time because the level of fraud involved with these "small business' schemes is horrific.

Forgive my rant, it's the weekend and I had a little nip already.

 

[Terrifik]

 

[Super-Chevy454]

View attachment 2113133

Am I the only one who's a bit sceptical about the "rare blood clots"?

 

[Autopsy]

Am I the only one who's a bit sceptical about the "rare blood clots"?

No, this will likely cause doctors to recommend vaccines other than JnJ (and probably AZ too obviously) out of abundance of caution. As it should, if these concerns are further verified.

 

[NoReturn]

Well GREAT. As of this morning I now know someone who got Moderna and now can't move one of their limbs because it got fucked up, and someone who is sick from the second shot and has stopped responding to my texts (I hope she's just napping). That's on top of all my other friends I know wo already got poked.
I've only been able to stop one person, and the rest either got it before I spoke to them or didn't care. One of them even sent me this: Among COVID-19 survivors, an increased risk of death, serious illness
Full text:

A new study from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis shows that even mild cases of COVID-19 increase the risk of death in the six months following diagnosis and that this risk increases with disease severity. The comprehensive study also catalogues the wide-ranging and long-term health problems often triggered by the infection, even among those not hospitalized.

As the COVID-19 pandemic has progressed, it has become clear that many survivors — even those who had mild cases — continue to manage a variety of health problems long after the initial infection should have resolved. In what is believed to be the largest comprehensive study of long COVID-19 to date, researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis showed that COVID-19 survivors — including those not sick enough to be hospitalized — have an increased risk of death in the six months following diagnosis with the virus.

The researchers also have catalogued the numerous diseases associated with COVID-19, providing a big-picture overview of the long-term complications of COVID-19 and revealing the massive burden this disease is likely to place on the world’s population in the coming years.

The study, involving more than 87,000 COVID-19 patients and nearly 5 million control patients in a federal database, appears online April 22 in the journal Nature.

“Our study demonstrates that up to six months after diagnosis, the risk of death following even a mild case of COVID-19 is not trivial and increases with disease severity,” said senior author Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, an assistant professor of medicine. “It is not an exaggeration to say that long COVID-19 — the long-term health consequences of COVID-19 — is America’s next big health crisis. Given that more than 30 million Americans have been infected with this virus, and given that the burden of long COVID-19 is substantial, the lingering effects of this disease will reverberate for many years and even decades. Physicians must be vigilant in evaluating people who have had COVID-19. These patients will need integrated, multidisciplinary care.”

In the new study, the researchers were able to calculate the potential scale of the problems first glimpsed from anecdotal accounts and smaller studies that hinted at the wide-ranging side effects of surviving COVID-19, from breathing problems and irregular heart rhythms to mental health issues and hair loss.

“This study differs from others that have looked at long COVID-19 because, rather than focusing on just the neurologic or cardiovascular complications, for example, we took a broad view and used the vast databases of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to comprehensively catalog all diseases that may be attributable to COVID-19,” said Al-Aly, also director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center and chief of the Research and Education Service at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

The investigators showed that, after surviving the initial infection (beyond the first 30 days of illness), COVID-19 survivors had an almost 60% increased risk of death over the following six months compared with the general population. At the six-month mark, excess deaths among all COVID-19 survivors were estimated at eight people per 1,000 patients. Among patients who were ill enough to be hospitalized with COVID-19 and who survived beyond the first 30 days of illness, there were 29 excess deaths per 1,000 patients over the following six months.

“These later deaths due to long-term complications of the infection are not necessarily recorded as deaths due to COVID-19,” Al-Aly said. “As far as total pandemic death toll, these numbers suggest that the deaths we’re counting due to the immediate viral infection are only the tip of the iceberg.”

The researchers analyzed data from the national health-care databases of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The dataset included 73,435 VHA patients with confirmed COVID-19 but who were not hospitalized and, for comparison, almost 5 million VHA patients who did not have a COVID-19 diagnosis and were not hospitalized during this time frame. The veterans in the study were primarily men (almost 88%), but the large sample size meant that the study still included 8,880 women with confirmed cases.

To help understand the long-term effects of more severe COVID-19, the researchers harnessed VHA data to conduct a separate analysis of 13,654 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with 13,997 patients hospitalized with seasonal flu. All patients survived at least 30 days after hospital admission, and the analysis included six months of follow-up data.

The researchers confirmed that, despite being initially a respiratory virus, long COVID-19 can affect nearly every organ system in the body. Evaluating 379 diagnoses of diseases possibly related to COVID-19, 380 classes of medications prescribed and 62 laboratory tests administered, the researchers identified newly diagnosed major health issues that persisted in COVID-19 patients over at least six months and that affected nearly every organ and regulatory system in the body, including:

• Respiratory system: persistent cough, shortness of breath and low oxygen levels in the blood.
• Nervous system: stroke, headaches, memory problems and problems with senses of taste and smell.
• Mental health: anxiety, depression, sleep problems and substance abuse.
• Metabolism: new onset of diabetes, obesity and high cholesterol.
• Cardiovascular system: acute coronary disease, heart failure, heart palpitations and irregular heart rhythms.
• Gastrointestinal system: constipation, diarrhea and acid reflux.
• Kidney: acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease that can, in severe cases, require dialysis.
• Coagulation regulation: blood clots in the legs and lungs.
• Skin: rash and hair loss.
• Musculoskeletal system: joint pain and muscle weakness.
• General health: malaise, fatigue and anemia.

While no survivor suffered from all of these problems, many developed a cluster of several issues that have a significant impact on health and quality of life.

Among hospitalized patients, those who had COVID-19 fared considerably worse than those who had influenza, according to the analysis. COVID-19 survivors had a 50% increased risk of death compared with flu survivors, with about 29 excess deaths per 1,000 patients at six months. Survivors of COVID-19 also had a substantially higher risk of long-term medical problems.

“Compared with flu, COVID-19 showed remarkably higher burden of disease, both in the magnitude of risk and the breadth of organ system involvement,” Al-Aly said. “Long COVID-19 is more than a typical postviral syndrome. The size of the risk of disease and death and the extent of organ system involvement is far higher than what we see with other respiratory viruses, such as influenza.”

In addition, the researchers found that the health risks from surviving COVID-19 increased with the severity of disease, with hospitalized patients who required intensive care being at highest risk of long COVID-19 complications and death.

“Some of these problems may improve with time — for example, shortness of breath and cough may get better — and some problems may get worse,” Al-Aly added. “We will continue following these patients to help us understand the ongoing impacts of the virus beyond the first six months after infection. We’re only a little over a year into this pandemic, so there may be consequences of long COVID-19 that are not yet visible.”

In future analyses of these same datasets, Al-Aly and his colleagues also plan to look at whether patients fared differently based on age, race and gender to gain a deeper understanding of the risk of death in people with long COVID-19.

 

[Car Won't Crank]

Warp Speed was also Trump's baggage by the by, even though he took very little credit. It was his crowning achievement on his deregulation & dealmaking platform, which he never talked about after 2016 (it hurt him electorally IMO). Normally I'd expect predominately far-left types to be skeptical of the vaccines as a result, but no, they seem fine with it.
I agree with the caution regarding unanticipated disasters, which is why the healthcare community at large and the feds are monitoring this stuff all the time (as evidenced by catching Emergent at its shit, the repeated halts on launching JnJ, etc), and to state again I find the cause to be vaccinated much less compelling in young & healthy people.

Masks have a tremendous amount of data after 2020. Before 2020, masks were primarily a feature for Asians and healthcare professionals, who agreed on the basic mechanisms of mask use and universally agreed on its efficacy. That was in fact a bad thing. No longer do you have to assume masks are effective, public scrutiny last year finally forced healthcare to justify this basic concept. It wouldn't be the first time "common sense in medicine" was wrong, but in this case it had been right after all.*
Typing "mask data" into a search engine of your choice is good enough to justify mask use, but I find this article to be a compelling and straightforward explanation of the data collected last year. The CDC cites its sources for claims (a rare thing for media equivalents) and you can read those individually as well.

*(indoor) Social distancing is mostly bullshit, though, and studies are in for that as well. The virus is aerosolized, as doctors knew and demonstrated ages ago. Masks work, standing further away in a room sharing a poorly ventilated air system barely does anything, if at all.

Trump's baggage or not, you are incorrect in stating the vaccine was a result of the govt getting out of the way and doing nothing. The govt absolutely helped facilitate the development of the jabs even if it meant being lax on existing rules. As for masks, yes we have a full year's of data and as expected, the CDC will want to show masks as necessary because that's their political stance. Can't disrespect Charlatan Fauci amirite. However, in the CDC March - Dec study, their own data shows how useless masks really are in a restaurant setting. The % delta on all comparisons is ridiculously small to continue going mental over wanting masks. Given how Florida and Texas are doing absolutely fine without masks, it's plainly obvious they don't work. It is also naive to think simply querying mask related data into major search engines will give you unbiased studies, given how politically charged the whole fiasco is. There's also that November Stanford study that goes into more detail on the efficacy of the masks that supports the low numbers in the CDC study. In practice people constantly touch their masks, adjust them, reuse them without cleaning, etc. In the end it's not that sanitary and the numbers show.

 

[Marchesa of the Vast]

No, this will likely cause doctors to recommend vaccines other than JnJ (and probably AZ too obviously) out of abundance of caution. As it should, if these concerns are further verified.

Ah hah! Fatal flaw! You didn't put a wall of text for me to skip over and instead made a single statement! The great weakness of any troll who is making shit up.

 

[Vecr]

Is that blood clots in general, or the HIT-like reaction specifically? That's the one that's the major problem in young people. Edit: is this that study that I looked at before? I can't really tell, but with J&J and AZ, they can actually find a causal link and mechanism between the vaccine and the clotting, and the distribution does not match the natural occurrences regarding age at all.

 

[Autopsy]

Trump's baggage or not, you are incorrect in stating the vaccine was a result of the govt getting out of the way and doing nothing. The govt absolutely helped facilitate the development of the jabs even if it meant being lax on existing rules. As for masks, yes we have a full year's of data and as expected, the CDC will want to show masks as necessary because that's their political stance. Can't disrespect Charlatan Fauci amirite. However, in the CDC March - Dec study, their own data shows how useless masks really are in a restaurant setting. The % delta on all comparisons is ridiculously small to continue going mental over wanting masks. Given how Florida and Texas are doing absolutely fine without masks, it's plainly obvious they don't work. It is also naive to think simply querying mask related data into major search engines will give you unbiased studies, given how politically charged the whole fiasco is.

Operation Warp Speed's only additive contribution to the vaccination effort was agreeing to purchase, vials, if the vaccines worked, and to cover some of the loss if not. It wasn't even a huge contribution relative to any other part of. Warp Speed had no unique guidance, coordination efforts, or other "facilitation" or "laxing of rules." The EUA is wholly unrelated to Warp Speed and has been in place for 8+ years now. Aside from the modest funding, all it really did was establish a prerogative for the FDA to fuck off, honest to God, and it worked.
No one would claim that NASA is suspect because the government had something it wanted done, and contracted free market companies to do it fast. Except maybe moon landing truthers, but I refuse to believe that's how far gone things are. Contracting private entities when central planning fails and humiliating every other country on the planet by the audacity of doing so is one of the US' oldest pastimes, owing back to before even the revolutionary war.

The CDC is already embarrassed because Fauci claimed masks didn't work and was "proven wrong." (The CDC stance was to hoard, because people feared for the worse & PPE was low. It was a retarded policy with ongoing consequences.) The CDC also didn't conduct the studies they cite, but the study you are citing was conducted by the CDC. If the CDC is suspect, that's in favor of masks, not against it.
Addressing this study, voluntary mask usage is a likely contributing factor for why the delta was going down already before implementation. I'm not defending mask mandates, I'm defending masks. That requires a different set of data and a different mindset.

There's also that November Stanford study that goes into more detail on the efficacy of the masks that supports the low numbers in the CDC study. In practice people constantly touch their masks, adjust them, reuse them without cleaning, etc. In the end it's not that sanitary and the numbers show.

This was the preconceived opinion (the plebians will waste masks, docs need it more).
Addressing this study, I'm honestly kind of baffled at some of the claims and citations. One example is this paragraph:

Using separate analysis of 23 observational studies, this meta-analysis found no protective effect of medical mask or N95 respirators against SARS virus [28]

Actually reading the study (even the abstract) demonstrates that is wrong, if not outright a lie. The study was asking if medical masks or N95 are better in the wild, not if masks work at all. The abstract says "no, N95s are not better," though the odds ratios are actually in the N95's favor pretty heavily, it's not a huge difference in effect size. At no point does the study claim that there is no protective effects from either. That isn't how non-inferiority works. Not a single analyzed study it had a "no mask" control, because why would they? In 2015 it was common knowledge that "masks work," so avoiding them for no reason would be unethical.
Back to the Stanford study, it also says things like "Although the overall findings showed reduced risk of virus transmission with facemasks, the analysis had severe limitations to draw conclusions."
Not very compelling.

Ah hah! Fatal flaw! You didn't put a wall of text for me to skip over and instead made a single statement! The great weakness of any troll who is making shit up.

Is that blood clots in general, or the HIT-like reaction specifically? That's the one that's the major problem in young people.

Here is a link to the oxford study file cited. It's generalized clotting, not HIT-like, and not at any rate that would imply causality. That article is patently incorrect, 4/1,000,000 is considerably lower than 5/1,000,000 because the number of times even generalized clotting occurs potentially correlated to these vaccines is so small as to be hard to track, and even a shift by one completely changes the confidence interval.

The current risk with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is estimated at approximately 5 per million vaccinated individuals. Emerging data suggest that the association reflects a ‘vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopaenia’ (VITT) (Greinacher et al, 2021; Schultz et al, 2021).

In summary, COVID-19 is associated with a markedly increased incidence of CVT compared to the general population, patients with influenza, and people who have received BNT162b2 [Pfizer] or mRNA-1273 [Moderna] vaccines. The risk with COVID-19 also appears greater than with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 [AZ], although as noted this conclusion is tentative.

In other words, Pfizer and Moderna are clean, by these authors' reckoning, and the gap between AZ (4 per mil) and Pfizer/Moderna (5 per mil) is reflective of the new risk of "VITT" (the extra 1 per mil extra over genpop rate of PVT) being identified in Europe.
Also, read more, holy shit. You're on the internet, there's programs that can read out webpages to you if you need them. How did you even read that article, or the study, if you can't handle a paragraph or two?

 

[Marchesa of the Vast]

Is that blood clots in general, or the HIT-like reaction specifically? That's the one that's the major problem in young people. Edit: is this that study that I looked at before? I can't really tell, but with J&J and AZ, they can actually find a causal link and mechanism between the vaccine and the clotting, and the distribution does not match the natural occurrences regarding age at all.

Source is Norwegian but the doctor who did the initial study has taken six figures from Pfizer. I's sure totally unrelated. Just complete coincidence that this massive one sided media blitz is attacking the conventional vaccine options instead of the mRNA therapies.

Also, read more, holy shit. You're on the internet, there's programs that can read out webpages to you if you need them. How did you even read that article, or the study, if you can't handle a paragraph or two?

lolno
Stay mad nigger

 

[Vecr]

Ah hah! Fatal flaw! You didn't put a wall of text for me to skip over and instead made a single statement! The great weakness of any troll who is making shit up.

Read this, I'm pretty sure you are wrong, at least on VSD data: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-04-23/03-COVID-Shimabukuro-508.pdf

 

[Autopsy]

Source is Norwegian but the doctor who did the initial study has taken six figures from Pfizer. I's sure totally unrelated. Just complete coincidence that this massive one sided media blitz is attacking the conventional vaccine options instead of the mRNA therapies.

AZ/JnJ are not conventional vaccines and their technology is far more controversial than mRNA. I don't know why antivaxfags don't key in on this, honestly.
The source is not the random ass Norwegian who reported the first HIT-like cases in his country, the article you linked cites the study it's referring to in the first fucking line. I'll screenshot it for you, even.

Click the link and see where it takes you.

Edit:

lolno
Stay mad nigger

You pwned me by linking (((Steve Goldstein)))'s hot take on a study you (and he) clearly didn't read. Why would I even be mad? I'm just blown away by some of the hilariously bad faith shitposting I'm getting today between genuine questions and people with two brain cells to rub together.
e2: name echoed more than I thought

 

[Marchesa of the Vast]

AZ/JnJ are not conventional vaccines and their technology is far more controversial than mRNA. I don't know why antivaxfags don't key in on this, honestly.
The source is not the random ass Norwegian who reported the first HIT-like cases in his country, the article you linked cites the study it's referring to in the first fucking line. I'll screenshot it for you, even.
View attachment 2113267
Click the link and see where it takes you.

Edit:

You pwned me by linking Steven Goldstein's hot take on a study you clearly didn't read. Why would I even be mad? I'm just blown away by some of the hilariously bad faith shitposting I'm getting today between genuine questions and people with two brain cells to rub together.

TIL that Viral Vector vaccines are new fangled and completely reckless.

The study in that article is the study that article cited, not the initial one that various EU countries used to halt AZ distribution. How do you read this badly? Get your reply chains fixed.

Stay mad nigger.

 

[Marchesa of the Vast]

Read this, I'm pretty sure you are wrong, at least on VSD data: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-04-23/03-COVID-Shimabukuro-508.pdf

I mean, it's two conflicting studies, one from the CDC and one from Oxford arguing about instances in the single digits per million. Welcome to science.

 

[Autopsy]

The study in that article is the study that article cited, not the initial one that various EU countries used to halt AZ distribution. How do you read this badly? Get your reply chains fixed.

The dude was asking you whether the article was comparing HIT-like clots (it wasn't) or all cause clotting (it was). You sperged about about the conspiracy against AZ instead, because you either can't read or don't know the difference.
Usable viral vector treatments (1999) are newer than mRNA vaccines (1989) and completely reckless as a primary mode of therapy without strict monitoring. These viral vector vaccines are safe and designed for reasonable purposes (people reconstructed the fragments of JnJ from a vial just to be sure, along with Pfizer/Moderna), but you can in fact use them to manipulate genes, the charge that retards keep laying at mRNA's feet. I would not trust a Chinese VVV anywhere near my body.
By the way, I actually agree the push against AZ is mostly politically motivated. Halts on a vaccine for 1 extra clot of a strange etiology per million makes no sense in the EU, which doesn't have ready access to mRNA vaccines. More sense restricting access for the young & healthy or requiring shared decisionmaking ("here are your risks, here's what you gain") first.

 

[NyQuilninja]

Well, I traveled out of state via airplane...not dead.

I've gone to a hotel...not dead.

I've gone to the movie theater...not dead.

I went to a restaurant where nobody was wearing a mask...not dead.

When are people going to admit that we've been had?

I have been exposed to 3 people the have tested positive for COVID-19. All 3 survived to live another day no worse off then before. They did complain about the lack of smell taste thing in time though that returned to normal. As for myself no coof tested 3 times.
I haven't been wearing a face diaper nor social distancing.

 

[Autopsy]

I have been exposed to 3 people the have tested positive for COVID-19. All 3 survived to live another day no worse off then before. They did complain about the lack of smell taste thing in time though that returned to normal. As for myself no coof tested 3 times.
I haven't been wearing a face diaper nor social distancing.

What was the age-group? Despite how dramatic it seems, loss of smell is being correlated with more mild disease progression, so a younger (20-40) person who loses smell temporarily would be unlikely to even be hospitalized, and may not shed very much particulate.

 

[4AMPudding]

I agree with this in principle, of course. COVID's transmissibility is one of the standout things about it. Yet I expect countries that did shut out the disease entirely will be 100% free of COVID after they vaccinate, acknowledging the risk of mild spread from tourists.

How can you both be 100% free of covid but also say that person's vaccinated from covid can still get it and spread it? Will vaccines allow us to go back to normal or are we supposed to mask up forver because fauci say so?

 

[wry wrangler]

Well they've finally done it: https://bc.ctvnews.ca/travel-restri...to-help-curb-the-spread-of-covid-19-1.5399408

VANCOUVER -- New measures are now in place to limit travel in B.C. for the next several weeks in an effort to curb the spread of COVID-19.

Solicitor General Mike Farnworth outlined the latest restrictions Friday morning, explaining they'll be in place through the May long weekend and expire on May 25.

***

For all regions, people can travel within the area, but not outside of them. As well, essential travel like going to work, going to school, returning to a principle residence and getting health care is exempt from these rules. The focus of the order, Farnworth explained, is to target recreational travel.

• Read more: What counts as 'essential' travel in B.C.?

"This order is to ensure people stop traversing large parts of the province, for example going from Kamloops to Whistler or from Vancouver to Tofino," he said. "It will not apply to travel within the defined region."

But Farnworth said there is still a distinction between these legal orders and the current public health guidelines. In other words, even though someone won't be fined under the order for travelling a long distance in their region, like from Abbotsford to Squamish, "that doesn't mean these trips should be happening," he explained.

Still going camping in June, even if the order is extended into then (which I am certain it will be). If they think they can stop me because a flu is going around, then they can eat shit and die.