this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
152 points (99.4% liked)

chapotraphouse

13528 readers
1013 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 55 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Was supposed to video chat with my friend the other day.

he hits me up and goes "sorry man I can't talk today. I'm sick and can't get out of bed."

With a cold? A cold has so knocked you on your ass that you haven't been able to get out of bed for days? Of course he won't actually test so to him he just has a cold.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 2 months ago (3 children)

To be fair, I recently had an illness of some sort that fatigued the absolute fuck out of me. I tested 6 times for COVID and all of them came up negative. Still have no idea wtf it was.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

the BEST covid tests have 80% accuracy on the BEST day to test

your shitty rapid test prob has 60% accuracy on that day, and declining every day afterwards

alternatively your immune system is fucked from covid and now colds and flus fuck you up

the best way to test for covid is stool tests but crackers are dumb so this doesn't happen

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 months ago

Or it could be the chronic fatigue I've been dealing with for almost 15 years now. I just haven't dealt with it in about a year so I had forgotten about it.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago

A "common cold" can still knock you on your ass for sure

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

I had a bacterial infection of the tonsils but my throat didn't even hurt. Symptoms were basically flu-like with fever, chills, and headache. It was my first time having such a thing, no idea how I contracted it.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

The last couple of time I’ve thought I’ve been sick I used the tests I got from Biden but they always come back negative and so has my partners. I feel like/assume the tests don’t do a great job with the new strains

E: not saying people shouldn’t test this just reminded me about my frustration around testing

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago

Yeah the rapid tests can only really tell you if you have it, they can't really confirm a negative. The CDC recommendation is to test twice within 48 hours, thrice in 72 if you're having symptoms. Which sort of negates the usefulness of the free tests when you're only giving out like a couple per household. We need free and abundant PCR testing.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago

They also might have expired, and have a pretty bad false-negative rate.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago (3 children)

This actually is what happens to me every time I get a cold, the flu, RSV, anything other than just seasonal allergies.

A few years back I had a cold for like 6 weeks. Tested negative for Covid, Influenza, and RSV multiple times each during the illness but could barely even make it to the bathroom, drink, or eat.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago

rat-salute-2 as someone whose body also goes "you must sleep for 18 hours straight anytime you feel bad" I get it.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

huh maybe it's a similar thing for him then. I still think he should test, but of course he's more concerned with convincing me that covid is over than in taking care of himself.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Yeah, he absolutely should test.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Was it like that for you in 2018 and prior though?

If you test negative for COVID, you often still have COVID. the PCR tests are only 80% accurate in optimal scenario (only 80% of infected people actually test positive, on the peak viral count day of infection, so the practical accuracy is more like 60%)

so the rapid tests are prob 50% accurate if we're very generous

covid also destroys your immune system so even if you're getting knocked out by colds, as long as that reaction was post-2019, then it's still caused by covid

not trying to dismiss your experiences, you may just have something else that was already there. But if colds and flus began knocking you out in the last 5 years, then yea that's either literal covid or covid-induced

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

If you test negative for COVID, you often still have COVID. the PCR tests are only 80% accurate in optimal scenario (only 80% of infected people actually test positive, on the peak viral count day of infection, so the practical accuracy is more like 60%)

source on this? especially the numbers. My understanding was PCRs are typically very sensitive, and tend to stay positive for far longer than people are actively experiencing symptoms or contagious, which doesn't line up with you saying "80%" on the peak viral count day of infection.

What I'm seeing is confirmed false negative rates somewhere below like 5%, though mostly studies from earlier in the pandemic.

Rapid tests are straight trash though

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

source on this? especially the numbers. My understanding was PCRs are typically very sensitive, and tend to stay positive for far longer than people are actively experiencing symptoms or contagious, which doesn't line up with you saying "80%" on the peak viral count day of infection.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect they are citing this link, which says "... In these studies, clinical performance ranges and approaches 80% sensitivity and 98-99% specificity when using a good comparator..."

An 80% sensitivity means that if you have COVID, you have a 20% chance of a false negative (i.e., testing negative despite being positive). Let's say you test everyday for 4 days; the odds of getting all false negatives is 1/(5^4), or 1/625, or 0.16%.

A 98% specificity means that someone without COVID has a 2% chance of a false positive (i.e., testing positive despite not being sick). PCR's are imperfect, but afaik they are the gold-standard test. They are widely available, and have the most science backing their use.

They also suggested that tests completed at-home are 50% accurate, which doesn't seem like it's based on any scientific findings I can find. For example, this study found that tests completed at home are equally as sensitive (>83%) and specific (>99.5%) as tests completed by doctors. But I could be wrong.

That person also mentioned stool tests are the best for screening for COVID-19, but I'm not sure what that is all about, and research comparing stool tests to other measures doesn't seem to support the accuracy of stool tests over others... I understand much of their concern and skepticism - I don't take people in my life saying things like "Sure I'm sick but I tested negative so it's just a cold" seriously. I get very frustrated when I hear that shit. That being said, I am a bit sus about the specific things they are recommending or saying in this thread.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Yep, it's been like that ever since I was born. I just have a poor immune system.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

covid also destroys your immune system so even if you're getting knocked out by colds, as long as that reaction was post-2019, then it's still caused by covid

Source for the "destroys immune system" claim? This isn't something I've heard before. Anecdotally, I'm not getting sick nearly as often as I did before COVID.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Thank you!

The first link says there are "changes" to the immune system, but doesn't seem to suggest that the immune system is actually weakened.

I might have missed something, but I'm not seeing anything suggesting that we are more prone to viral or bacterial infection due to COVID. It seems to be saying that immune response is heightened, not weakened. That's not necessarily a good thing either, as an overly aggressive immune system carries its own problems. They seem to suggest that "Long COVID" could be some sort of an autoimmune issue.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Thank you for that as well, but again: I'm not seeing support for a claim that COVID trashes the immune aysyem. In that link, like the earlier one, there are observations that suggest both weakened immune response and excessive immune response, both having potentially harmful effects.

It's one thing to point out that COVID affects the immune system. All three of the above links go well above and beyond my own understanding and comprehension to demonstrate that certain changes to the immune system are occurring. But, what isn't so clear is the actual effects of these changes. They are saying, for example, that they have observed COVID reducing CD8+ T-Cell response, which sounds really bad. But does that reduced response actually translate into a greater susceptibility to infection?

I guess what I'm asking for is less focus on the tree,.and a broader view of the forest. For example, are there any studies showing the prevalence and severity of non-COVID infections, before and after COVID? What transmissible diseases, if any, have surged concomitant with COVID? Are the micro-scale observations documented in the above links correlated with macro-scale effects?

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to push an agenda here; I honestly do not know the answers, and the underlying biology is well over my head. When I start repeating the claim that COVID trashes the immune system, I want to know what I mean.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Just Google Covid immune Dysregulation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I have. I've seen a number of sources all pointing to the same micro-scale observations. What I haven't found is anything showing the macro-scale effects.

I understand that the trees are changing. Are these changes having a tangible, measurable effect on the forests? Or are these changes just a bit of interesting trivia?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Your first and third links have some of the information I am looking for. Thank you very much.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Exactly what I'm looking for. Thank you very much.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Welcome. Basically what you wanna look for is historical data on opportunistic infections; Strep, shingles, hepatitis, that sort of stuff. I had a Twitter screenshot showing elevated levels of like 8 of them but can't find the dang thing. As that third link points out Tuberculosis is a good indicator of overall immune health and is heading towards shaky ground.