Coronavirus: How dangerous a threat?

[Ultrairon]

That's funny since you posted Dr. Topol one time (then realized he wasn't supporting what you were saying). Doctor Crotty was one of your favorites, he posts and reposts links to research on Twitter all of the time.

When a respected scientist posts links to solid/peer reviewed research, it doesn't matter if its on twitter, follow the link to the research. Many scientist and doctors have used social media to get information out to people who don't read journals.

You didn't even look at the links, you just wanted to make a snarky post.

I don't trust anything from twitter for covid or any other serious subject. I may have posted a twitter link and I should have been better and done better.

 

[movingtarget]

Agree re omicron and aged care. But if there was a single factor that contributed more than any other to Australia avoiding the carnage of Europe and America it was quickly stopping incoming flights from China and Iran. At this time in early 2020 the virus was spreading through Europe and the US. In fact, it had already arrived in these places before the WHO declared a pandemic but that has been discussed here long ago.

What happened in the Australian states of Victoria in 2020 and NSW in 2021 shows that geographical isolation and population density are not the primary determining factors. Covid can still quickly get out of control. Inner city Sydney is equally as dense as Melbourne yet Sydney didn't see anything like Victoria's 800 deaths. So I don't give any credence to claims that population density is a major factor.

Agree America's 50 (52?) states makes it impossible to set uniform policies. Australia experienced similar but of course on a lessor scale - example Western Australia and Queensland. NSW also kept international borders open and was processing hundreds of returning travelers bound for Queensland and Victoria. But the small village mentality highlighted by Yaco here has been alive and well in some states and is behind the different approaches of the states.

Victoria will be an interesting one at the next state election as most of them will. Their response to the pandemic went off the rails for a while there and yes the early nation wide lockdown no doubt saved lives, calling the pandemic early and being absurdly criticized in some quarters for doing so.

 

[movingtarget]

To answer your question, yes they did. Actually the models (e.g. Doherty) said it would be much worse than double. People are simply fed up. But also Australia never saw the carnage of America or Europe hence the different public attitudes.

But the lower deaths were primarily due to our geographic isolation and quickly closing the international borders rather than lockdowns or vaccines. It still got out of control in the state of Victoria in 2020 then again in NSW in late 2021.

But glad you mentioned the flu. Australia still hasn’t approached the deaths in the 1999 flu season which relates to my point on it becoming endemic.

No they didn't. No government in the world would dare to speak that bluntly about death. They were making comments like "expect difficult days ahead." The Doherty Institute is not a government department even though the government has used their forecasting when it suited them. The language of politics is always fairly vague and of course its meant to be because it gives politicians wriggle room. The Doherty Institute also comes under fire sometimes for its outlook and predictions and that's from other scientists as well. But there is nothing wrong with a healthy debate as no one has been 100% right about the pandemic so far except in the most general way. Hardly anyone predicted the issues with Omicron and the relative ineffectiveness of the vaccines against it over time, at least from an infection standpoint. Depending on who you believe, the research is still ongoing about how effective the vaccines were and are with keeping people from getting seriously ill albeit with a less deadly strain of the virus. And yes the death rates are down but it is still fatal to many people and hospitals are still struggling.

At this stage governments are selling the falling death rates message while not saying too much about everything else around the pandemic. The effects from long covid are only now really being discussed as more research and information is forthcoming but not much is being said about it officially. More is being said about isolation and mental health than long covid and governments are back to talking about the economy, jobs and tourism as another phase of the pandemic has been reached.

 

[Cookster15]

No they didn't. No government in the world would dare to speak that bluntly about death. They were making comments like "expect difficult days ahead." The Doherty Institute is not a government department even though the government has used their forecasting when it suited them. The language of politics is always fairly vague and of course its meant to be because it gives politicians wriggle room. The Doherty Institute also comes under fire sometimes for its outlook and predictions and that's from other scientists as well. But there is nothing wrong with a healthy debate as no one has been 100% right about the pandemic so far except in the most general way. Hardly anyone predicted the issues with Omicron and the relative ineffectiveness of the vaccines against it over time, at least from an infection standpoint. Depending on who you believe, the research is still ongoing about how effective the vaccines were and are with keeping people from getting seriously ill albeit with a less deadly strain of the virus. And yes the death rates are down but it is still fatal to many people and hospitals are still struggling.

At this stage governments are selling the falling death rates message while not saying too much about everything else around the pandemic. The effects from long covid are only now really being discussed as more research and information is forthcoming but not much is being said about it officially. More is being said about isolation and mental health than long covid and governments are back to talking about the economy, jobs and tourism as another phase of the pandemic has been reached.

Well every elected official covers their backsides by deferring to “experts” and models. Plenty were warning of big case jumps and I presume deaths upon relaxation of restrictions. When I get time I will post an example.

On modelling there is a general bias which is exceedingly pessimistic- Doherty included. Models are the output of research scientists. Models were predicting much larger increases in deaths in Australia than what have eventuated thankfully.

 

[jmdirt]

I don't trust anything from twitter for covid or any other serious subject. I may have posted a twitter link and I should have been better and done better.

So you are standing by your assertion that Nature is not worth reading? You have to be kidding! What would be a better source?

Twitter is as valuable as you make it. I posted from Dr. Eric Topol (you would be hard pressed to find a more reliable source), who was sharing links to published finding in Nature (You would be hard pressed to find a more reliable peer reviewed source).

EDIT: You don't read MSM (no biggy there), you don't read scientists, you don't read scientific journals, what do you read for your information?

 

[jmdirt]

How Long Covid Exhausts the Body (Published 2022)

A picture is emerging of the toll long Covid takes inside the body and why it can be so debilitating.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Ultrairon]

So you are standing by your assertion that Nature is not worth reading? You have to be kidding! What would be a better source?

Twitter is as valuable as you make it. I posted from Dr. Eric Topol (you would be hard pressed to find a more reliable source), who was sharing links to published finding in Nature (You would be hard pressed to find a more reliable peer reviewed source).

EDIT: You don't read MSM (no biggy there), you don't read scientists, you don't read scientific journals, what do you read for your information?

You made that assertion. I made a statement that twitter is not reliable source of information. I also admitted that I should not have used it. My statement did not single out any specific source I found fault with. However twitter as a platform is extremely suspect. Therefore I will refrain from using it and stand by my statement that it is not a reliable location for information.

With Respect to what I read and do not read your edited post is inaccurate.



These numbers are still trending in the right direction.

CDT Redirect Page

 

[Cookster15]

Covid: England ending isolation laws and mass free testing

All restrictions will end on Thursday and free mass testing will stop from 1 April, the prime minister says.

www.bbc.com

 

[jmdirt]

You made that assertion. I made a statement that twitter is not reliable source of information. I also admitted that I should not have used it. My statement did not single out any specific source I found fault with. However twitter as a platform is extremely suspect. Therefore I will refrain from using it and stand by my statement that it is not a reliable location for information.

With Respect to what I read and do not read your edited post is inaccurate.



These numbers are still trending in the right direction.

CDT Redirect Page

Disingenuous as always. Don't answer or address the actual questions or statements, just slide around.

Nature is not suspect.

I posted a tweet from Dr. Topol, that linked Nature, and you stated that you don't trust it. You made the assertion, own it, don't shift it.

Correct my inaccuracy, don't just state that it is inaccurate. You have stated ad nauseam that you don't trust MSM, you don't trust Dr. Topol, you don't trust Nature. Who do you trust? You have also stated that you don't trust the government yet you just posed from the CDC.

Twitter can absolutely be a good source of information. Follow the scientists, and science journals. Let me restate that all sources are only as good as you make them. Stating that Twitter is not reliable location for information is simply ignorant, and speaks to your inability to examine information.

EDIT: Answer one simple question: Is Nature a reliable sources of information?

 

[jmdirt]

Heart Disease After COVID

Long-term Cardiovascular Outcomes of COVID-19

 

[Cookster15]

Heart Disease After COVID

Long-term Cardiovascular Outcomes of COVID-19

I am very sceptical of these studies. For example, Tadej Pogacar shows no adverse effects on his cardiovascular capacity as recently as yesterday. I have personally suffered pneumonia 5 years ago and it hasn't affected my cardio output. Yes I know pneumonia isn't Covid but the reason people end up on ventilators and dying with Covid are basically that they succumb to pneumonia symptoms.

 

[Cookster15]

Nature is not suspect.

EDIT: Answer one simple question: Is Nature a reliable sources of information?

I agree generally. But I would suggest scientists disseminate information by other mediums. Twitter is mostly trash as far as I am concerned so I completely understand why people wouldn't trust anything posted there.

 

[jmdirt]

I am very sceptical of these studies. For example, Tadej Pogacar shows no adverse effects on his cardiovascular capacity as recently as yesterday. I have personally suffered pneumonia 5 years ago and it hasn't affected my cardio output. Yes I know pneumonia isn't Covid but the reason people end up on ventilators and dying with Covid are basically that they succumb to pneumonia symptoms.

No study is claiming that 100% of people have long SC2 affects. As you pointed out, TP clearly isn't suffering. If everyone had serious adverse effects, the world would be a really ugly place right now. But if even 10% of people have have long term issues, that is a lot of people.

 

[Cookster15]

No study is claiming that 100% of people have long SC2 affects. As you pointed out, TP clearly isn't suffering. If everyone had serious adverse effects, the world would be a really ugly place right now. But if even 10% of people have have long term issues, that is a lot of people.

Sure. But is it even 10%? I'd be very surprised.

 

[yaco]

It's far less than 10% if we accept that reported infections are five times less than actual infections - Viruses can cause medium and long term health for a very small number of sufferers - This is nothing new !

 

[jmdirt]

Sure. But is it even 10%? I'd be very surprised.

Its a hard number to pin down. I have seen ~50% of people who were hospitalized having long COVID issues. I think that a lot of it has to do with severity so that makes an overall number even that much harder to pin down. People who have asymptomatic or mild SC2 probably have much less chance of long term issues, but that obviously has a lot to do with how each individuals' body reacts.

A couple of sources saying 10-30% (that likely includes the 50% from hospitalized people).

Science Daily (haven't read SD for SC2, but they've been around for 30ish years) says that more than half of SC2 patients will suffer some long COVID.

I'm not sure if there is a medical definition established yet either so that might make it hard(er) to say "this_______ is long COVID".

 

[jmdirt]

I agree generally. But I would suggest scientists disseminate information by other mediums. Twitter is mostly trash as far as I am concerned so I completely understand why people wouldn't trust anything posted there.

Scientists share their information on social media because they know that it reaches a large audience. I follow three scientists, and two peer reviewed journals on twitter. Does it matter if I get the link on Twitter or actually go to their site directly?

Simply dismissing something because it was shared on Twitter is silly IMO. Are libraries not trustworthy because they have fiction along with non fiction?

I won't disagree that there is a lot of trash on social media, but its easy to eliminate most of the trash based on who you follow.

 

[jmdirt]

I am very sceptical of these studies. For example, Tadej Pogacar shows no adverse effects on his cardiovascular capacity as recently as yesterday. I have personally suffered pneumonia 5 years ago and it hasn't affected my cardio output. Yes I know pneumonia isn't Covid but the reason people end up on ventilators and dying with Covid are basically that they succumb to pneumonia symptoms.

All/most of these studies will be scrutinized many times until we come to solid conclusions. Many of the scientists doing the research talk about their limitations at this point. For example, the study done by the VA, has several things that give me pause, like the subjects being predominately older, white, men.

The cardio stuff isn't anything to scoff at, but some of the neurological effects that have been identified are scary!

FYI: There is pre SC2 research about the effect of virus and bacteria on the human body (including pneumonia) so this isn't new, but it was never 'focus' research.

 

[Ultrairon]

Disingenuous as always. Don't answer or address the actual questions or statements, just slide around.

Nature is not suspect.

I posted a tweet from Dr. Topol, that linked Nature, and you stated that you don't trust it. You made the assertion, own it, don't shift it.

Correct my inaccuracy, don't just state that it is inaccurate. You have stated ad nauseam that you don't trust MSM, you don't trust Dr. Topol, you don't trust Nature. Who do you trust? You have also stated that you don't trust the government yet you just posed from the CDC.

Twitter can absolutely be a good source of information. Follow the scientists, and science journals. Let me restate that all sources are only as good as you make them. Stating that Twitter is not reliable location for information is simply ignorant, and speaks to your inability to examine information.

EDIT: Answer one simple question: Is Nature a reliable sources of information?

Actual real life Nature yes.
Last time I checked Nature does not operate a twitter account.
Someone claiming to represent Nature on twitter? I can't confirm they are who they say they are and no one can. I do not trust twitter the company to actually verify either.
Twitter is absolutely just like any other social media location. There is no reason to trust anything from any of them.

 

[jmdirt]

Actual real life Nature yes.
Last time I checked Nature does not operate a twitter account.
Someone claiming to represent Nature on twitter? I can't confirm they are who they say they are and no one can. I do not trust twitter the company to actually verify either.
Twitter is absolutely just like any other social media location. There is no reason to trust anything from any of them.

Disappointing that you are this fake. Not one real answer from you.

 

[Cookster15]

Scientists share their information on social media because they know that it reaches a large audience. I follow three scientists, and two peer reviewed journals on twitter. Does it matter if I get the link on Twitter or actually go to their site directly?

Simply dismissing something because it was shared on Twitter is silly IMO. Are libraries not trustworthy because they have fiction along with non fiction?

I won't disagree that there is a lot of trash on social media, but its easy to eliminate most of the trash based on who you follow.

As I mentioned we should not dismiss something. But they would do belter to choose a medium other than Twitter. Its audience is rather limited and actually not representative of wider society. The library analogy isn't relevant. This is about facts people need to know not fiction people can choose to read.

 

[Unchained]

Ultra stands out here,but overall in the United States,his views are widely held and observed,acted upon to a degree. The issue going forward through Covid and the next few health and public safety crisis is a point that Ultrairon repeats often, w conviction..he says he doesn't trust information,information sources. This is widespread and now worldwide..often to the degree of debate and disagreement about time of day,if the sky is blue or night or day degree.
When the federal government adopted a completely new,never before seen or tested technique of information accumulation and distribution at the town level,during declared war..this was bound to happen ..in the past newspaper,magazine,TV,radio allowed some control of information quality,but w 100's of thousands of sources for data..the future surely looks bleak in the US for things as basic as tornado,storm,fire early warnings..w millions in the population hearing "wolf" being cried at some level. More amazing still, in a show me the money moment,even when shown dead bodies they deny their existence..don't even know where public health officials begin with this population that basically are saying I don't,will never believe anything you say or do.
I don't know a solution for this
Where do people go for accurate information?

 

[jmdirt]

As I mentioned we should not dismiss something. But they would do belter to choose a medium other than Twitter. Its audience is rather limited and actually not representative of wider society. The library analogy isn't relevant. This is about facts people need to know not fiction people can choose to read.

Their medium is their published work. Twitter is just one of many ways to direct people to their work. I check Nature at least once per week (not just for SC2 info.), but see their worked linked by scientist via several platforms including twitter.

My point with the library analogy is:
Twitter= a lot of fiction, but plenty of non fiction as well.
Library=a lot of fiction, but plenty of non fiction as well.
Do I dismiss the library because there is fiction there?
Do I dismiss twitter because there in fiction there?
I say no to both. Find the non fiction that you want/need, and do what you want with the fiction (enjoy it for entertainment, dismiss it, etc.).

 

[djpbaltimore]

Actual real life Nature yes.
Last time I checked Nature does not operate a twitter account.
Someone claiming to represent Nature on twitter? I can't confirm they are who they say they are and no one can. I do not trust twitter the company to actually verify either.
Twitter is absolutely just like any other social media location. There is no reason to trust anything from any of them.

The journal Nature absolutely does run a Twitter account. As does every single scientific journal. The blue check is how you can tell official accounts from troll accounts.

https://mobile.twitter.com/nature

I am very sceptical of these studies. For example, Tadej Pogacar shows no adverse effects on his cardiovascular capacity as recently as yesterday. I have personally suffered pneumonia 5 years ago and it hasn't affected my cardio output. Yes I know pneumonia isn't Covid but the reason people end up on ventilators and dying with Covid are basically that they succumb to pneumonia symptoms.

It really isn't the pneumonia that causes the longer term problem. It is the ability of the virus to infect cells of the blood vessels and to effect coagulation pathways in the blood. As Yaco noted, it isn't going to be the norm, but I don't think anyone is surprised about the longer term cardiovascular risks.

 

[Ultrairon]

The journal Nature absolutely does run a Twitter account. As does every single scientific journal. The blue check is how you can tell official accounts from troll accounts.

https://mobile.twitter.com/nature

It really isn't the pneumonia that causes the longer term problem. It is the ability of the virus to infect cells of the blood vessels and to effect coagulation pathways in the blood. As Yaco noted, it isn't going to be the norm, but I don't think anyone is surprised about the longer term cardiovascular risks.

Not a Journal. I am talking about Nature out in the real world. Mother Nature. Not humans but the freaking earth around us.

Blue check is subjective to the platform correct. Anyone can decide that garbage. Twitter is a crap-shoot same as facebook myspace take your pick.
Silly to say twitter is a undisputed source. To believe everything one reads on the internet.

Those South African case numbers still trending down. No bump.

Long covid almost has a made up disability angle built into it. How do you really disprove or prove it. Its like back pain.