Tanagashi t1_iqn71gg wrote
Long story short - they did an analysis of papers published on the topic, and found that people with double vaccination, or vaccination plus infection (but not single vaccination) had an 19% lower risk of getting long covid, as well as overall lower rate of complications like organ damage. Thus they recommend increasing the vaccination rates.
Parafault t1_iqo0wnm wrote
Aren’t long covid rates like 20% total? So even if you’re vaccinated/boosted you still have a 16% chance of getting long covid? If so that sounds awfully high, and I’m surprised more people aren’t talking about it. 16% of the population having a debilitating and incurable medical condition sounds insane - and it gets even worse if you think about repeat COVID infections potentially increasing the risk. I wonder if that means the entire world will eventually develop long covid via repeat infections over several years?
itsastickup t1_iqoa97w wrote
Depends on how you define it. In the UK's official definition:
...it's ANY symptom beyond 12 weeks. But peopled being crippled was only at 2% and targeted the same vulnerable people who were liable to die, the old and those with co-morbidities. Again, very very rare for younger healthy people.
My brother has had long-covid for a year because his sense of smell is compromised.
Sure_arlo t1_iqr1um3 wrote
I wish there was a way to get true data. I am a pre op nurse and call/converse with about 20 ppls per day. Anecdotally, about 90% of patients tell me they’ve had covid, most in the last 10 months. I’ve never heard a single person tell me they have lingering symptoms. I believe long Covid exists, 100%, but I’d venture to guess that the rates are quite low.
[deleted] t1_iqsujq6 wrote
[removed]
rubberchain t1_iqonlws wrote
Hey, the science is still new. Things will change as the research accumulates. Look at us 2 years ago. People were straight up dead, unable to breath, crawling outside hospital doors because they were full. Thousands of people died every single day in the beginning, well over 1 million dead in the USA. I'd say 16% dealing with long covid is a bazillion times better..
jlambvo t1_iqpe7fr wrote
I've been curious to find any long Covid studies that focus on measurable, physiological symptoms.
I don't necessarily doubt that it's a real issue, but pretty much all the larger scale studies I've seen on long Covid rely on self-reported symptoms that are fairly vague or general, and don't appear to have high quality (or any) attempt to control for hypervigilance among the convalescent groups.
throwaway477638 t1_iqpzyee wrote
First, we need to clearly separate long covid from post covid or chronic covid more strictly. In reality, almost nobody is really interested in long covid. If we do so, we see that only 5-10 percent of people are really affected long term.
Second, most of these post covid issues are hard to detect as our medicinal expertise is not advanced enough. There are research groups that try reliable immune marker profiling but this only works for some portion of the post covid group. Other people try specific MRIs or PET scans. In general, if we look long enough, we find damage in any of the post covid patients but that is incredibly costly and not a viable long term strategy. But currently there is no single test (and maybe there never will be) that reliably detects post covid. The issue is that we don’t understand the original damaging process at all and even this process might not be unique. We just see a plethora of different symptoms that we cannot really make sense of.
[deleted] t1_iqpgkl5 wrote
[removed]
anttirt t1_iqq3zwp wrote
The entire world except for China.
sloopslarp t1_iqn929t wrote
Thanks for the summary. Much appreciated.
VespiWalsh t1_iqnvp71 wrote
Damn only a 19% reduction in risk from long covid? That is not that impressive. The dream of a post-covid era seems almost unattainable at this point, the N95s are never coming off. I can't even imagine how bad the public will handle transmission reduction measures when an even worse pandemic comes along, like H7N9 if it makes the jump to human to human transmission. Humans are too selfish of a species to survive any major existential threat to civilization or life on this planet, most of them couldn't even wear a mask in the grocery store to protect their communities.
ApizzaApizza t1_iqo7nuj wrote
For double vaccination…
I’ve gotten like 5 vaccinations. I’m curious what the rate would be for someone who’s kept up on all the recommended ones
justgetoffmylawn t1_iqocxtl wrote
Will be interesting to see if additional boosters are helpful and to what degree. Unfortunately since long Covid is sometimes symptoms beyond six months or a year, it obviously takes a long time to collect robust data. We won't know how the bivalent affects long Covid rates until well into 2023 at best.
VespiWalsh t1_iqo7weh wrote
I got 4 and I am scheduling the 5th one next week. I too am also curious how or if being fully boosted would make a difference.
LittleFigureheads t1_iqob3yn wrote
Could I ask what country you're in/got your vaccinations? I only got my fourth one (bivariant strain) a week ago and didn't know a fifth one was already available.
ApizzaApizza t1_iqocqj7 wrote
USA. I’m +1 because I forgot to bring my vaccination card but they gave the shot to me anyway, but I needed to have it on my card for a trip so I got the omnicron boostie twice.
LittleFigureheads t1_iqondom wrote
Thank you! I was all ready to go get another round. Haha. (Note: I did not grow up in the States, but rather in a separate countries where there were national government drives for vaccination, as well as a science kid, so I understand the role of vaccinations against hospitalisation and severity, and advocate for choosing to be vaccinated.)
day7seven t1_iqoti65 wrote
And is it like Russian Roulette where there is the same chance each time so if you get COVID a bunch of times you will most likely eventually get LONG COVID?
tooth_mascarpone t1_iqohudg wrote
>Humans are too selfish of a species
Not human species, some human cultures. Regarding masks, you can see what happens in Japan. You can also see what they are doing about earthquakes, tsunamis and typhoons
VespiWalsh t1_iqoszd8 wrote
I am very familiar with the wonderful masking protocol compliance in East Asian countries, have used Japan as an example of why masks and social distancing work while trying to supress the transmission of respiratory viruses while arguing with idiots.
Is it possible for humans to put aside their selfish natures with extensive cultural conditioning? Most likely yes. Unfortunately that doesn't change the fact that humans are a selfish, short sighted species that are rarely capable of seeing beyond their noses, without extensive cultural conditioning to make them put the collective above the individual. Nurture may trump nature, but it will never be enough to completely elude its grotesque specter.
tooth_mascarpone t1_iqoxugt wrote
>selfish natures
According way back to Freud we can have both selfish and altruistic impulses. "Human nature" is not a well stablished concept. There might exist multiple "human natures". What we now know, scientificaly, is that our personal experiences can exert more influence in our behaviour than previously thought. If there is some common denominator in humans (and we share that with most species) is that we try to adapt. If we have stability and peace, outside and inside, our behaviours tend to move towards helping others. If we have a culture that tells "you must compete with everyone, you must be the most, bigger, better" then we tend to compete.
VespiWalsh t1_iqp17ep wrote
Many of Freud's theories have been disproven, but he might have been right on that one, but I don't think you need to be a scholar to come to that conclusion. Human nature wouldn't be identical for each individual, but would draw from a pool of established traits that make up the essence of what traits a human being can possess. Even if we have the potential for both, selfishness occurs in higher frequency and intensity.
>If we have stability and peace, outside and inside, our behaviours tend to move towards helping others.
The existence of mostly selfish billionaires disproves your point. They have stability and peace, but most of them pillage as much as they can. I've seen more generosity and altruism from those who have little to give.
>If there is some common denominator in humans (and we share that with most species) is that we try to adapt.
Proper adaptation would be dependant on the situation. Selfishness and altruism would be useful in different situation. In a small, subsistence village where everyone knows each other and the consequences for antisocial behavior are greater, altruism would be more valuable. In modern consumption driven society, selfishness will be more valuable.
Unfortunately I don't see any possible way to scientifically test human nature in an accurate manner without the experiment being unethical. So this issue can only be truly debated via philosophical methods.
tooth_mascarpone t1_iqp8c4n wrote
>selfishness occurs in higher frequency and intensity
Maybe because that's an adaptation to current environment. As an example, propaganda is a mechanism to induce colective beliefs of the current state of something, the country, the world, etc. There are lots of data showing that some crucial social agreements that allowed the socio economic boom of the 60's untill the 90's are now outdated by the political decisions to cut economic balancing measures, starting in the 70's. That's one the reasons we believe in scarcity, violence, etc. Because those stats are regressing. You can also as an example easily see the differences between movies and series in the 1980's and 2010's regarding those themes. And the evolution in media consumption. And the advantages for polarized speech in politics in order to preserve power. Etc. This ends up becoming part of the current culture.
>The existence of mostly selfish billionaires disproves your point
I was expecting this to come up. It's not as you said: they do not have stability and peace, not inside. Most of them only have material peace, and it's frequently argued that the need to accumulate wealth is a way to compensate the lack of other things.
>In modern consumption driven society, selfishness will be more valuable.
This is of course very questionable and debatable.
>scientifically test human nature in an accurate manner
Observing babies has been tried. Of course there's lots of limitations there. What we can say is, then, that it is quite "irresponsible" to jump into conclusions regarding what "human nature" is or is not. Maybe we can just keep doing something very human: observe.
VespiWalsh t1_iqpadfd wrote
You make some very solid points, and that we should continue to observe human nature before jumping to any conclusions about it and taking it as absolute, unshakable fact.
Crash0vrRide t1_iqorx88 wrote
You can also see that masks did not prevent covid increases from happening. More masking did not help covid numbers decline
tehDustyWizard t1_iqovpvj wrote
Where did you hear that?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments