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

chapotraphouse

13533 readers
999 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] 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] 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.