Coronavirus 12: Don't Abandon Hope

[EnglishEdward]

Consulting a dictionary:

https://www.wordnik.com/words/extravagant

• adjective Exceeding reasonable bounds: synonym: excessive.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, just take it as a synecdoche. I mean if you can accept "literally" as meaning "metaphorically", "extravagant" can far more reasonably acquire a loose other meaning as alluding to rarity; after all, excess is by definition rarer

 

[Zelig]

Pretty much all viral infections can cause long-term symptoms, so it isn't credible to claim that "long covid" doesn't exist, but it also similarly isn't credible to believe that some instances of "long covid" aren't actually caused by other viruses (since the same symptoms are caused by many viruses) and that some instances aren't psychosomatic (since we know that psychosomatic disorders are a real thing, and they're going to be exacerbated by the media hype around long covid).

 

[Narz]

Perhaps you should go back and actually read the article. It is not about a single anecdote and the study involved was described. There were even names and institutions given, so we we know by whom and on what. Reading past the headline is often useful.

How old were these patients studied?

40% of patients who were hospitalized having long covid symptoms speaks nothing of covid patients generally (the majority of which of course are not hospitalized).

 

[Narz]

Pretty much all viral infections can cause long-term symptoms, so it isn't credible to claim that "long covid" doesn't exist, but it also similarly isn't credible to believe that some instances of "long covid" aren't actually caused by other viruses (since the same symptoms are caused by many viruses) and that some instances aren't psychosomatic (since we know that psychosomatic disorders are a real thing, and they're going to be exacerbated by the media hype around long covid).

A couple studies quoted w no context or further digging is enough for most people. Study involved, conclusions drawn = science is the formula and all the average viewer needs.

 

[Gorbles]

My post was the usual "that sounds terrible;

Hard to swallow when these words or any equivalent phrase were completely missing.

It ain't talking past each other. It's me taking the time to explain why your post came off the wrong way, and you choosing to completely ignore that. It's your life man, you do what you want. Next time I just won't bother, and it'll save us both a headache.

EDIT

but it also similarly isn't credible to believe that some instances of "long covid" aren't actually caused by other viruses (since the same symptoms are caused by many viruses) and that some instances aren't psychosomatic (since we know that psychosomatic disorders are a real thing, and they're going to be exacerbated by the media hype around long covid).

Sure, I agree completely. Never said otherwise.

A couple studies quoted w no context or further digging is enough for most people.

Which is still more support than any claims of psychological trauma presenting as symptoms that are conflated with that of a virus. Specifically with regards to the study provided. Nobody's saying psychological trauma doesn't exist. Nobody's saying it won't be impacting people throughout this pandemic and beyond.

It's one thing to be understandably cautious of any study. If you don't necessarily take it at face value, sure, okay.

However, if you want to invest time and energy promoting an alternative explanation to the results of any specific study, a moderate expectation would be to actually use that time and energy to evidence it contextually. Otherwise why bother complaining that "a couple of studies with no context" is enough for most people? Zero studies is enough for you on the alternative explanation, it seems. Why?

 

[Birdjaguar]

How old were these patients studied?

40% of patients who were hospitalized having long covid symptoms speaks nothing of covid patients generally (the majority of which of course are not hospitalized).

Go find the studies and read more. You can call it more "man stream media fake news" and move on; fine with me. But if you are going to call the published information into question, you should give it the respect of educating yourself on what it says. If you cannot be bothered with such an effort, why should I be? Find one of the studies, post a link, and we can read it together and discuss it.

 

[Narz]

Go find the studies and read more. You can call it more "man stream media fake news" and move on; fine with me. But if you are going to call the published information into question, you should give it the respect of educating yourself on what it says. If you cannot be bothered with such an effort, why should I be? Find one of the studies, post a link, and we can read it together and discuss it.

You're hilarious bro.

You posted it, maybe you should educate yourself on what it say.s

 

[Birdjaguar]

You're hilarious bro.

You posted it, maybe you should educate yourself on what it say.s

I posted the news and do not question its validity or usefulness to the general public. You are the one who has questions. When you failed to read the news and remarked it was just some one off anecdote, I did point you to the words posted. Your welcome. Now you want more details about the ages of study participants that are not in the article. Only one age 50 person is mentioned. I know googling stuff is hard and you cannot be bothered, so you want others to do your work and answer your questions.

 

[Narz]

I posted the news and do not question its validity or usefulness to the general public.

Of course not. Thats how most people are, very shallow look, barely know seems to confirm some strong emotion, repost. I get it.

I know googling stuff is hard and you cannot be bothered, so you want others to do your work and answer your questions.

You posted some wild statistic, based on a study you know nothing about, maybe if you're actually curious you should look into it. You could actually have some knowledge to contribute instead of just the appearance of knowledge.

If you're not even up to understand what you're posting why should anyone else be interested. I'll assume it's clickbate because that's what you're treating it as.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I posted the news and do not question its validity or usefulness to the general public. You are the one who has questions. When you failed to read the news and remarked it was just some one off anecdote, I did point you to the words posted. Your welcome. Now you want more details about the ages of study participants that are not in the article. Only one age 50 person is mentioned. I know googling stuff is hard and you cannot be bothered, so you want others to do your work and answer your questions.

Of course not. Thats how most people are, very shallow look, seems to confirm some strong emotion, repost. I get it.

And the rest of my post? Posting news is not shallow. Being critical of that news, wanting to know more but too lazy to look for answers is shallow. If you recall, I offered to discuss the study with you if you found it.

 

[Takhisis]

You know what; they could both be right.

Both can be right when they have explicitly opposed and mutually exclusive positions?

 

[Narz]

Clearly you don't really care, so why should I? If it's actually interesting to you you'd find it but it's not. I'm more interested in the psychology of why you decided to post it and are so resistant to any criticism of it despite even knowing what you're defending.

 

[Gorbles]

Clearly you don't really care, so why should I? If it's actually interesting to you you'd find it but it's not. I'm more interested in the psychology of why you decided to post it and are so resistant to any criticism of it despite even knowing what you're defending.

What criticism, lol.

 

[The_J]

No idea really, but would this method risk the formation of antibodies to ferritin itself?

Also a thought I had, but from the size measures it would seem to be too tightly packed to be unreachable.
I guess that animal studies will need to bring the ultimate proof though.

 

[Kyriakos]

Hard to swallow when these words or any equivalent phrase were completely missing.

It ain't talking past each other. It's me taking the time to explain why your post came off the wrong way, and you choosing to completely ignore that. It's your life man, you do what you want. Next time I just won't bother, and it'll save us both a headache.

Ok, how about this, imagine me taking your post in a similar way to the one you took mine, and posting stuff about you supposedly trying to cancel psychosomatic illnesses and the triggers this might cause. Wouldn't it be quite missing the point? :/
My intention 1000000% was a "this is terrible", post. It's entirely talking past each other.
But if this helps you move past it (since I sincerely care, and like you), fine, let me apologize for any harm my post might have caused (to use Tory language)

 

[Birdjaguar]

Clearly you don't really care, so why should I? If it's actually interesting to you you'd find it but it's not. I'm more interested in the psychology of why you decided to post it and are so resistant to any criticism of it despite even knowing what you're defending.

Ok.

1. I posted a news story of perhaps general interest.
2. You responded such that it was clear that you did not actually read the article
3. I noted this in my reply and pointed to where the information was in the article.
4. You then asked a question about the study.
5. I said you should look it up yourself
6. You then blame me for being defensiveness and being uninterested in my own post
7. And now you change the subject as to why I would post it and be defensive when you criticize the article

I have only called you out on being too lazy to find your own answers about things not in the article. You were critical of the article in your first post and my response was to point out where you could find your answer in the article. Then you asked a question and I told you where to find the answer: google.

I guess now I am interested you motivation as to why you are so defensive about being told to do your own research and when told you are lazy, you try to turn that back on me. Hmmmm....

If you want to continue with this, please have your last say and take it to pm. Thanks.

 

[Narz]

I have only called you out on being too lazy to find your own answers about things not in the article.

If I post a picture & you're like "what's it of?" & I'm like "it's a bird" & you're like "oh I know,, what kind of bird?" and I'm like "f-off got figure it out yourself" who's the lazy one.

You post an article w some sensationalst "data". It's based on a study which you have no interest in the particulars of. I could look it up, but why? You didn't provide any proof it was worth investigating. In a few years time they'll probably estimate long covid is more like 1% of general population, who knows? In the meanwhile wsj will have made their ad money.

Without more data on the population studied one can make an reasoned decision.

If you're gonna post something go all the way, go to bat for it otherwise you may well just be a bot spamming us.

 

[Narz]

Holy **** bro your "study" is an online survery, and you wonder why I didn't want to waste my time. I thought all this fuss and you were a least talking about a small scale medical study.

 

[Berzerker]

I'm not up for a possible booster for 2-4 months so if Omicron replaces Delta I might skip the booster