I thought I knew, but now I'm not sure.

[hadit]

The TRUTH is ALWAYS highly nuanced.
It has a lot of variables. It takes time to digest all the possibilities to make an INFORMED CONSENT CHOICE.

When someone says "there's nothing to look at" or "it's harmless" it's never true. They are always lying. There's risks with everything....there's nuances to the truth.

Many people recover from Covid-19 and have no lasting effects from a single infection. That doesn't hold true with multiple infections. Then there's those with underlying health conditions. (Most people) of allergies, kidney disease, arthritis, or liver disease from a previous hepatitis infection. High blood pressure is treatable....just like Celiac. But it's still an underlying condition that can cause catastrophic results from a Covid-19 infection.

Some say 30% and others trying to minimize say 10%.....but in truth it's about demographics, cultural norms and behaviors. In Denmark of course they are going to be healthier (lifestyle and diet) but in America? Nope, higher numbers of underlying factors.

Now that is a reasoned argument. Instead of trying to put a number on it that is very difficult if not impossible to defend, you make the solid point that individuals need to get all the information about COVID, its effects and potential harms, and compare those to the potential risks of a vaccine that has not had a long track record of success and for which the side effects are not well understood. I commend this post.

 

[JohnDB]

Okay, I'm quoting the abstract of the paper here:

Although yet to be clearly identified as a clinical condition, there is immense concern at the health and wellbeing consequences of long COVID. Using data collected from nearly half a million Americans in the period June 2022-December 2022 in the US Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey (HPS), we find 14 percent reported suffering long COVID at some point, half of whom reported it at the time of the survey. Its incidence varies markedly across the United States–from 11 percent in Hawaii to 18 percent in West Virginia–and is higher for women than men, among Whites compared with Blacks and Asians, and declines with rising education and income. It is at its highest in midlife in the same way as negative affect. Ever having had long COVID is strongly associated with negative affect (anxiety, depression, worry and a lack of interest in things), with the correlation being strongest among those who currently report long COVID, especially if they report severe symptoms. In contrast, those who report having had short COVID report higher wellbeing than those who report never having had COVID. Long COVID is also strongly associated with physical mobility problems, and with problems dressing and bathing. It is also associated with mental problems as indicated by recall and understanding difficulties. Again, the associations are strongest among those who currently report long COVID, while those who said they had had short COVID have fewer physical and mental problems than those who report never having had COVID. Vaccination is associated with lower negative affect, including among those who reported having had long COVID.

Several things stand out:

1. Long COVID, though apparently a very real phenomenon, is not yet "clearly identified as a clinical condition", so it's a little early to be making claims that 25% of sufferers are permanently disabled.
2. The article does not mention permanent disability, and nowhere in it can I find reference to a 25% figure.

That does not negate the seriousness of COVID, nor does it address the long-term implications or even disability of those who suffer from it. It does, though, point out that less than 20% of COVID sufferers end up with long COVID.

Again.....demographics because it's a nuance AND trying to minimize "long covid".

Politics has really screwed up health care. That and some REAL ISSUES with how the NIH is checking the science behind some studies that are politically charged in some fashion.

My "guess" from all the long covid studies tobdate is that roughly 1 in 4 will have some sort of long term disability/damage after an infection. It could be something simple like no longer able to smell rotten eggs to an auto-immune disorder causing extreme reactions to sunlight and other symptoms.

And as far an not recovering?
It depends upon the exact symptom which has an underlying condition that generally speaking will not heal. Auto-immune disorders are, generally speaking, lifetime disorders that people do not recover from. But loss of a sense of smell can often recover slowly in roughly 5 years or so. (Chefs can be out of work for such things)

Viruses such as this class (endocrine) also have demonstrated a high likelihood of causing birth defects (zitka) in children born to those either currently infected or post infection.
BUT
We don't know that yet either because not enough time has passed for us to really know.

We also do not really know the long term effects from these mRNA vaccines either because no studies have been made. And politics keeps us from making a study of this nature. (Despite what antivaxxers claim)

What I keep saying is that we do need to know to create "INFORMED CONSENT". And that's what I am advocating for. Not blanket simple statements that have no real relationship with the truth.

Sure....on the very surface for many people the vaccines are a good option. But for some a very bad one. They will have better odds getting the virus than taking a vaccine. For others not taking the vaccine is a disability program that will make them disabled for the rest of their lives.

What is so wrong with INFORMED CONSENT?

 

[JohnDB]

That does not negate the seriousness of COVID, nor does it address the long-term implications or even disability of those who suffer from it. It does, though, point out that less than 20% of COVID sufferers end up with long COVID.

That number of 20% is the entire population....not everyone has gotten covid. There exists a good, high percentage of people at the time of the survey that had not gotten Covid-19 yet. (Immunized, or isolated)

And it's also unqualified as well. (See what I mean about generalizations being manipulated?)
Demographics of results from infections are highly regional. Some locations have higher children population than others. (They are people too....I'm not one of them)
On average the USA has a live birth rate for 2nd generation of 1.6 instead of a 2.7 for stasis. Meaning low child numbers for population. (Best chance of recovery from infection with no long lasting effects but higher incidents of vaccine injuries)

Again....I'm hoping for sweeping changes at the NIH, USDA, FDA and etc. We can have absolute miracles for Healthcare choices. But....not if someone in the government is not looking out for us.

 

[CowboyTed]

It was oversold by the same people who claimed that Corona Virus came from Chinese bats who happened to live near the Wuhan Institute of Virology. They lied about the effectiveness and we knew it. So, why should we trust their claims of no harmful effects?

Such people could not credibly sell blankets to Eskimos.

The vaccine worked and all you have to see is the CDC data...

This is why you are stupid... You perfer to believe a RFK jr than actual real facts..

Political party affiliation linked to excess COVID deaths

www.cidrap.umn.edu

Get this real the MAGA leaders are willing to kill there own supporters rather than admit their mistakes... That is a 100,000 dead republicans, killed by misinformation....
And you still follow him rather than admit you are wrong...

To the rest of the world this is complete stupidity, ye are considered the stupidest fuckers in the first world...

 

[lafayette]

You ignore facts, JohnDB. You think your beliefs and feelings are facts, and that is not so.

 

[JohnDB]

You ignore facts, JohnDB. You think your beliefs and feelings are facts, and that is not so.

Informed consent is a feeling?
Since when?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Informed consent is a feeling?
Since when?

your link doesn't support your claim for one.

 

[JohnDB]

your link doesn't support your claim for one.

I don't think you read any of the discussions.

I'm advocating for "INFORMED CONSENT". Which includes such things as extended consequences for choices made. The vaccines have chances of causing long term injury and the types of injuries they can cause, the virus contagion level, the long term consequences resulting from infection....all sorts of information so that people can make "INFORMED CONSENT" to the options they have available.

And exactly how is this not supported?

Long Covid is a reality. The numbers in that report are blatantly fudged to minimize the dangers of long covid.

10% of the total population is not relevant. 25% of all those once infected is a more relevant number.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't think you read any of the discussions.

I'm advocating for "INFORMED CONSENT". Which includes such things as extended consequences for choices made. The vaccines have chances of causing long term injury and the types of injuries they can cause, the virus contagion level, the long term consequences resulting from infection....all sorts of information so that people can make "INFORMED CONSENT" to the options they have available.

And exactly how is this not supported?

Long Covid is a reality. The numbers in that report are blatantly fudged to minimize the dangers of long covid.

10% of the total population is not relevant. 25% of all those once infected is a more relevant number.

so you get to male up numbers and declare them fact? There is no study or research that supports your 25 percent figure and your link doesnt support it either. Informed choice does not include creating from whole cloth stats not in evidence.

 

[JohnDB]

so you get to male up numbers and declare them fact? There is no study or research that supports your 25 percent figure and your link doesnt support it either. Informed choice does not include creating from whole cloth stats not in evidence.

Because the report actually does. When it states 10% its referring to total population and not those once Infected. That's why the reports conclusions are somewhat whacked. If you actually read the entire report you can see that the conclusions are erroneous. The raw data shows a completely different perspective.

From 57%-35% having Long term illness after the infection has gone. That's not a "nothing". That's indicative of organ damage of various types. Some organs heal better than others. Some do not heal at all.

That's why I state that roughly 25% of those once infected will sustain lifetime disability (damages) from the infection. It's a rough guess based upon the raw data in the report. The report could have been a lot more clear about where it was drawing its 10% number from. Once vaccinated but not boosted, never vaccinated, or something....but they didn't. Just general population numbers.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Stopped reading right there....If you can't even start a thread without insulting half of the country, you're not worth reading.....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Because the report actually does. When it states 10% its referring to total population and not those once Infected. That's why the reports conclusions are somewhat whacked. If you actually read the entire report you can see that the conclusions are erroneous. The raw data shows a completely different perspective.

From 57%-35% having Long term illness after the infection has gone. That's not a "nothing". That's indicative of organ damage of various types. Some organs heal better than others. Some do not heal at all.

That's why I state that roughly 25% of those once infected will sustain lifetime disability (damages) from the infection. It's a rough guess based upon the raw data in the report. The report could have been a lot more clear about where it was drawing its 10% number from. Once vaccinated but not boosted, never vaccinated, or something....but they didn't. Just general population numbers.

sorry you don't get to make up numbers and claim them as fact and then cite a study that doesn't say what you said as proof,

 

[JohnDB]

sorry you don't get to make up numbers and claim them as fact and then cite a study that doesn't say what you said as proof,

So....other than the obvious erroneous conclusions made in the paper what conclusion can you make from the data contained within? (You have to read the entire report to be able to make one)

 

[lafayette]

Informed consent is a feeling?
Since when?

You have not shown how that is relevant. Do so. Now.

 

[JohnDB]

You have not shown how that is relevant. Do so. Now.

I'm not repeating the same thing a dozen times when it's literally almost in every post I've made.

 

[lafayette]

You are unable to show any relevenance.

 

[JohnDB]

You are unable to show any relevenance.

You are trolling. Because I have many times in many ways. You just have to go back and READ....trolls don't read. It's too much work for them.

The point is discussion to lay out facts. Not just to argue.

Your objective is argument. I'm uninterested in that.

 

[j-mac]

 

[lafayette]

J-MAC said and was answered