[Pestilence] https://youhavetoliveyour.life/

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Pestilence] https://youhavetoliveyour.life/

«‹›643 »

(Thread IKs: PoundSand)

Shiroc: May 16, 2009; Sorry I'm late

Splatoon, a game already full of masks and respirators is adding a plague doctor mask

# ? Oct 20, 2023 00:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 23:16

uber_stoat: Jan 21, 2001; Pillbug

feelin' sassy after getting the jab, so i took a pic.

# ? Oct 20, 2023 00:26

Steve Yun: Aug 7, 2003; I'm a parasitic landlord that needs to get a job instead of stealing worker's money. Make sure to remind me when I post.; Soiled Meat

I�m the Moth Man
Ski-bi dibby dib yo da dub dub
Yo da dub dub
Ski-bi dibby dib yo da dub dub
Yo da dub dub
Ski-bi dibby dib yo da dub dub
Yo da dub dub
Ski-bi dibby dib yo da dub dub
Yo da dub dub

(not me, I got Pfizer

)

# ? Oct 20, 2023 00:32

Rochallor: Apr 23, 2010; ふっっっっっっっっっっっっｃｋ

uber_stoat posted:

feelin' sassy after getting the jab, so i took a pic.

Hell yeah, I'm going to be headed through Point Pleasant in a couple days on my way to New River Gorge for autumn.

This story got posted in the Doomsday Economics thread, but I was pleasantly surprised to see two dudes rocking my go-to masks:

https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1714661415678615872

# ? Oct 20, 2023 00:34

Animal-Mother: Feb 14, 2012; RABBIT RABBIT
RABBIT RABBIT

Pingui posted:

_{Unrelated Guardian cartoon, that I found fitting.}

dicknosing

# ? Oct 20, 2023 01:35

Petey: Nov 26, 2005; For who knows what is good for a person in life, during the few and meaningless days they pass through like a shadow? Who can tell them what will happen under the sun after they are gone?

has this been posted yet https://news.mit.edu/2023/germicidal-uv-lights-could-be-producing-indoor-air-pollutants-1017

# ? Oct 20, 2023 01:36

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

Petey posted:

has this been posted yet https://news.mit.edu/2023/germicidal-uv-lights-could-be-producing-indoor-air-pollutants-1017

quote:

These 222-nanometer radiation devices are being deployed in bathrooms, classrooms, and conference rooms

lol I wish.

quote:

without a full accounting of the potential benefits and/or harm associate with their operation,� says Dustin Poppendieck, a research scientist at the National Institute for Standards and Technology, who was not associated with this study. �This work lays the foundation for a proper quantification of potential negative health impacts of these devices. It is important this process is completed prior to relying on the technology to help prevent the next pandemic.�

It�s important to characterize these things, but I hate that it instantly becomes fodder for Just Asking Questions.

With masks it was �but what about CO2/fungal growth/bacterial growth/heat stress/speech development/smiles�? Or Corsi Cubes and microplastics.

MIT wants to draw buzz for their research, but maybe it�s a little early to bring in the guys with the hot takes. Does anyone really suspect that germicidal far UV is a net negative, or are we just quibbling over how perfect we can make it?

Platystemon has issued a correction as of 04:24 on Oct 20, 2023

# ? Oct 20, 2023 04:17

Zugzwang: Jan 2, 2005; You have a kind of sick desperation in your laugh.; Ramrod XTreme

Steve Yun posted:

Kaiser is a nonprofit and as such Has a reputation for being the cost reduction insurance company

sometimes I marvel at their efficiency. Sometimes I recoil at their efficiency

We had Kidzwang at a Kaiser hospital and were amazed how little it cost. They seem to have a bad rep for lots of other stuff though :shrug:

PoundSand posted:

lmao doing the exact same thing. Been getting depressed for a week on I/P news, was falling behind on getting depressed by Covid news.

Joementum posted:

thanks for trying. i appreciate the feedback. i've taken an antigen test every morning this week, plus monday and tuesday evening, all of which were negative. i took lucira tests mon-weds which all reported negative, though i do see the boxes say they expired at the end of last month, so probably not reliable.

There isn't a hard transition point when they go from good to bad. The limit of detection just gets worse over time as reagents decay. This manifests, broadly speaking, as longer and longer times required for detecting the same sample concentration (ie amount of SARS-CoV-2 RNA), until eventually you can't say with confidence that you've detected it at all. Lucira's test uses a conserved site on human RNA as a control, which is the best way to go about things; if you can't detect *that*, then you know that either the test is busted or the sample isn't good enough. They have requirements about the signal strength from the control built into their devices, and if there isn't enough signal, then you'd test Invalid, not Negative. So this is probably the best kind of expired test to take, IMO.

tl; dr: If you're testing Negative on Lucira rather than Invalid, the worst case scenario is that the test isn't as sensitive as it once was, but it's still within some performance specs, and it's still capable of amplifying RNA from the sample. I don't know what those specs are but they are going to be within some reasonable margin of the original detection limit.

OTOH, many antigen tests don't even use human material as part of their control (just "did sample buffer make it to the readout portion of the strip?"), so negatives on expired tests are much dodgier. A friend of mine was the main scientist behind one of the EUA'd antigen tests and says many of the ones on the market are complete dogshit, especially because a whole bunch got authorized early in the pandemic when the FDA's EUA requirements were much more lax than they are now. He thinks negatives on expired ones are not at all trustworthy (negative antigen trustworthiness already being poor of course), even if you see a control line.

# ? Oct 20, 2023 04:26

Zantie: Mar 30, 2003; Death. The capricious dance of Now You Stop Moving Forever.

Zantie posted:

[snip]

Northwest Washington

pre:

Northwest Washington
County:		ID:	Date:	Trend:	Service Area:
Island		COUP	Oct-13	UP	Coupeville
Island		OH	Oct-13	STEADY	Oak Harbor
Jefferson	PT	Oct-11	DOWN	Port Townsend
Mason		n/a	Sep-27	n/a	n/a
Skagit		n/a	Oct-12	UP	Mount Vernon?
Whatcom		LYN	Oct-12	UP	Lynden

King + Snohomish

pre:

King + Snohomish
County:		ID:	Date:	Trend:	Service Area:
King		BWT	Sep-12	n/a	Bothell, Mill Creek, Redmond, Woodinville, Overflow from King County South and West Point Treatment Plants
King		KCS	Oct-11	UP	Auburn, Bellevue, Issaquah, Kent, Renton, Sammamish
King		WSPT	Oct-10	UP	Seattle, Shoreline, north King County, north Lake Wash., parts of south Snohomish
Snohomish	APP	Sep-13	n/a	Lynnwood
Snohomish	ARL	Oct-12	UP	Arlington
Snohomish	EVR	Sep-12	n/a	Everett
Snohomish	STAN	Sep-12	n/a	Stanwood

Southwest Washington

pre:

Southwest Washington
County:		ID:	Date:	Trend:	Service Area:
Clark		MRPK	Sep-13	STEADY	Vancouver
Clark		SNCK	Sep-13	STEADY	Battle Ground, Ridgefield
Clark		VWS	Sep-13	STEADY	Vancouver Westside
Pierce		CC	Oct-13	STEADY	Browns Point, Dash Point, Dupont, Fife, Fife Heights, Frederickson, Graham, Lakewood, Milton, Orting, Parkland, South Hill, Spanaway, University Place
Pierce		PUY	Oct-12	STEADY	Puyallup
Thurston	LOTT	Oct-11	DOWN	Lacey, Olympia, Tumwater

[snip]

Quick note, there was a random Thursday evening NWSS update for resuming sites in King, Skagit, and Snohomish counties. It also looks like two of the sites in Clark county will be resuming again soon.

# ? Oct 20, 2023 07:27

Steve Yun: Aug 7, 2003; I'm a parasitic landlord that needs to get a job instead of stealing worker's money. Make sure to remind me when I post.; Soiled Meat

https://twitter.com/meetjess/status/1714993016031560051?s=46

# ? Oct 20, 2023 07:56

Snowglobe of Doom: Mar 30, 2012; sucks to be right

Weekly Australia update: reported hospitalizations crept up a little yet again, not much more to report

Twitter link

# ? Oct 20, 2023 08:08

Snowglobe of Doom: Mar 30, 2012; sucks to be right

Snowglobe of Doom posted:

Also I mentioned recently that a friend caught covid while holidaying around Europe and the UK, turns out it was his 3rd (identified) bout of covid and it looks like he's been left with post-acute fatigue and possibly some other sequelae, he's struggling to get stuff done now.

He went to see his GP today and the doc sent him straight to hospital, things are pretty bad.

It turns out he was already dangerously anemic and then he caught covid on top of that which was a real bad combo

# ? Oct 20, 2023 10:25

Rick: Feb 23, 2004; When I was 17, my father was so stupid, I didn't want to be seen with him in public. When I was 24, I was amazed at how much the old man had learned in just 7 years.

Bummer, I hope they are okay.

I am anecdotally hearing about a lot more rougher COVID experiences lately.

# ? Oct 20, 2023 11:05

WrasslorMonkey: Mar 5, 2012

bedpan posted:

first two pages as a teaser

bedpan posted:

Uploaded the rest of the first section.

"Having been drugged by the police is my issue"

So uh, we gettin the rest of this? Haven�t had my fill of crazy.

# ? Oct 20, 2023 11:11

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

What Went Wrong with a Highly Publicized COVID Mask Analysis?

The Cochrane Library, a trusted source of health information, misled the public by prioritizing rigor over reality

[Ed.: I disagree with the subhead. The studies by Loeb and others were not rigorous. What happened at Cochrane was a laundering of rigor, where studies that were deeply methodologically flawed were given undue authority because they were ostensibly �peer‐reviewed RCTs� and improperly combined in metaanalysis.

I present the article in full. The links in the text are stripped but may be found at Archive.ph if you are paywalled, as Scientific American is wont to do.]

quote:

The COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing, but in May officials ended its designation as a public health emergency. So it's now fair to ask if all our efforts to slow the spread of the disease�from masking, to hand washing, to working from home�were worth it. One group of scientists has seriously muddied the waters with a report that gave the false impression that masking didn't help.

The group's report was published by Cochrane, an organization that collects databases and periodically issues �systematic� reviews of scientific evidence relevant to health care. This year it published a paper addressing the efficacy of physical interventions to slow the spread of respiratory illness such as COVID. The authors determined that wearing surgical masks �probably makes little or no difference� and that the value of N95 masks is �very uncertain.�

The media reduced these statements to the claim that masks did not work. Under a headline proclaiming �The Mask Mandates Did Nothing,� New York Times columnist Bret Stephens wrote that �the mainstream experts and pundits ... were wrong� and demanded that they apologize for the unnecessary bother they had caused. Other headlines and comments declared that �Masks Still Don't Work,� that the evidence for masks was �Approximately Zero,� that �Face Masks Made �Little to No Difference,�� and even that �12 Research Studies Prove Masks Didn't Work.�

Karla Soares-Weiser, the Cochrane Library's editor in chief, objected to such characterizations of the review. The report had not concluded that �masks don't work,� she insisted. Rather the review of studies of masking concluded that the �results were inconclusive.�

In fairness to the Cochrane Library, the report did make clear that its conclusions were about the quality and capaciousness of available evidence, which the authors felt were insufficient to prove that masking was effective. It was �uncertain whether wearing [surgical] masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.� Still, the authors were also uncertain about that uncertainty, stating that their confidence in their conclusion was �low to moderate.� You can see why the average person could be confused.

This was not just a failure to communicate. Problems with Cochrane's approach to these reviews run much deeper.

A closer look at how the mask report confused matters is revealing. The study's lead author, Tom Jefferson of the University of Oxford, promoted the misleading interpretation. When asked about different kinds of masks, including N95s, he declared, �Makes no difference�none of it.� In another interview, he called mask mandates scientifically baseless.

Recently Jefferson has claimed that COVID policies were �evidence-free,� which highlights a second problem: the classic error of conflating absence of evidence with evidence of absence. The Cochrane finding was not that masking didn't work but that scientists lacked sufficient evidence of sufficient quality to conclude that they worked. Jefferson erased that distinction, in effect arguing that because the authors couldn't prove that masks did work, one could say that they didn't work. That's just wrong.

Cochrane has made this mistake before. In 2016 a flurry of media reports declared that flossing your teeth was a waste of time. �Feeling Guilty about Not Flossing?� the New York Times asked. No need to worry, Newsweek reassured us, because the �flossing myth� had �been shattered.� But the American Academy of Periodontology, dental professors, deans of dental schools and clinical dentists (including mine) all affirmed that clinical practice reveals clear differences in tooth and gum health between those who floss and those who don't. What was going on?

The answer demonstrates a third issue with the Cochrane approach: how it defines evidence. The organization states that its reviews �identify, appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria.� The problem is what those eligibility criteria are.

Cochrane Reviews base their findings on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), often called the �gold standard� of scientific evidence. But many questions can't be answered well with RCTs, and some can't be answered at all. Nutrition is a case in point. It's almost impossible to study nutrition with RCTs because you can't control what people eat, and when you ask them what they have eaten, many people lie. Flossing is similar. One survey concluded that one in four Americans who claimed to floss regularly was fibbing.

In fact, there is strong evidence that masks do work to prevent the spread of respiratory illness. It just doesn't come from RCTs. It comes from Kansas. In July 2020 the governor of Kansas issued an executive order requiring masks in public places. Just a few weeks earlier, however, the legislature had passed a bill authorizing counties to opt out of any statewide provision. In the months that followed, COVID rates decreased in all 24 counties with mask mandates and continued to increase in 81 other counties that opted out of them.

Another study found that states with mask mandates saw a significant decline in the rate of COVID spread within just days of mandate orders being signed. The authors concluded that in the study period�March 31 to May 22, 2020�more than 200,000 cases were avoided, saving money, suffering and lives.

Cochrane ignored this epidemiological evidence because it didn't meet its rigid standard. I have called this approach �methodological fetishism,� when scientists fixate on a preferred methodology and dismiss studies that don't follow it. Sadly, it's not unique to Cochrane. By dogmatically insisting on a particular definition of rigor, scientists in the past have landed on wrong answers more than once.

We often think of proof as a yes-or-no proposition, but in science, proof is a matter of discernment. Many studies are not as rigorous as we would like, because the messiness of the real world prevents it. But that does not mean they tell us nothing. It does not mean, as Jefferson insisted, that masks make �no difference.�

The mask report�like the dental floss report before it�used �standard Cochrane methodological procedures.� It's time those standard procedures were changed.

The flossing thing is excoriating by itself, but author gives Cochrane too much cover on masks with the �reality is messy� narrative. The truth is that some of these RCTs are trash because they were designed as trash, by trash investigators, and it doesn�t take a rocket scientist to identify their problems.

Some RCTs were actually rigorously constructed and run, e.g. by Raina MacIntyre.

The observational evidence from Kansas and Bangladesh and whatever that masks work is nice and all, but a point ought also to be made that respirators work in industry and in the laboratory, independently of any effect that exists when the general population is asked nicely to don �cloth face coverings�.

# ? Oct 20, 2023 11:29

Pingui: Jun 4, 2006; WTF?

Platystemon posted:

(..)
In fairness to the Cochrane Library, the report did make clear that its conclusions were about the quality and capaciousness of available evidence, which the authors felt were insufficient to prove that masking was effective. It was �uncertain whether wearing [surgical] masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses.� Still, the authors were also uncertain about that uncertainty, stating that their confidence in their conclusion was �low to moderate.� You can see why the average person could be confused.

This was not just a failure to communicate. Problems with Cochrane's approach to these reviews run much deeper.

A closer look at how the mask report confused matters is revealing. The study's lead author, Tom Jefferson of the University of Oxford, promoted the misleading interpretation. When asked about different kinds of masks, including N95s, he declared, �Makes no difference�none of it.� In another interview, he called mask mandates scientifically baseless.

Recently Jefferson has claimed that COVID policies were �evidence-free,� which highlights a second problem: the classic error of conflating absence of evidence with evidence of absence. The Cochrane finding was not that masking didn't work but that scientists lacked sufficient evidence of sufficient quality to conclude that they worked. Jefferson erased that distinction, in effect arguing that because the authors couldn't prove that masks did work, one could say that they didn't work. That's just wrong.
(..)

Yeah, the article is overly reluctant to explicitly state the obvious: the lead author is not and was not working in good faith. It was obvious that the intended reading of the study was exactly how it was communicated by media, it wasn't an honest mistake due to too much rigor or whatever the gently caress. Get out of here with this "classic error" bullshit.

Cochrane itself should be lambasted for this turd of a report.

# ? Oct 20, 2023 12:02

Zugzwang: Jan 2, 2005; You have a kind of sick desperation in your laugh.; Ramrod XTreme

Pingui posted:

Yeah, the article is overly reluctant to explicitly state the obvious: the lead author is not and was not working in good faith. It was obvious that the intended reading of the study was exactly how it was communicated by media, it wasn't an honest mistake due to too much rigor or whatever the gently caress. Get out of here with this "classic error" bullshit.

Cochrane itself should be lambasted for this turd of a report.

I wonder how much of that is scientific understatement and how much is editorial. Like, is SciAm the sort of publication that's willing to say "this person is a charlatan pushing a think tank's ideology and the review should be retracted"? (I honestly don't know; does anyone else?)

# ? Oct 20, 2023 12:26

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

Zugzwang posted:

Like, is SciAm the sort of publication that's willing to say "this person is a charlatan pushing a think tank's ideology and the review should be retracted"?

I suspect that the author didn�t think about that much because she has an axe to grind re the worship of �the evidence hierarchy� and its capstone of RCTs at Cochrane.

And yeah that�s a real problem, but Tom Jefferson is an malicious elephant in the room, and Cochrane fell flat even within their flawed, self-constructed framework of evidence.

# ? Oct 20, 2023 12:43

Gildiss: Aug 24, 2010; Grimey Drawer

So there haven't been any new updates from Korea, because they just don't post numbers anymore.

The korean and english versions of the dashboard used to match, but now the english version is just basically frozen at the last data report on August 31st 2023.
Korean: https://ncov.kdca.go.kr/
English: https://ncov.kdca.go.kr/en/

The old dashboard was only OK at obscuring the data, and did not really show the waves in terms of time spans larger than a week.
https://ncov.kdca.go.kr/en/bdBoardList.do?brdId=16&brdGubun=161&dataGubun=&ncvContSeq=&contSeq=&board_id=

To do that, you would need to compare previous updates but I only really started doing wayback machine backups sporadically in late 2022, so it doesn't really allow you to see the horrific waves during delta and omicron.
For instance, the last recorded numbers are 36k daily average positive cases. Before delta, that was an ungodly high number.
https://web.archive.org/web/2022060...tSeq=&board_id=

The newly updated korean landing page is something to behold in terms of worthlessness.
Weekly Positive (specimen) surveilance
2023 Oct 8-14
7483 people
Cumulative 77,120 people (since start of this new form of counting, Sept 1st 2023)

How much was it last week? The week before that? Trending up or down?
Who knows!

At the bottom of the page, more wonderful graphs.
The weekly number of cases from the first image, divided up by city/region.

And the cherry on top, the newly updated XBB vaccine booster rates for the population divided by age groups.
65+ cohort: 4.5%
12-64 cohort: 0%

Now it is just myself and a few random people, mostly elderly that mask at all.
And a lot of coughing.

# ? Oct 20, 2023 16:03

Pingui: Jun 4, 2006; WTF?

That is funny!

https://www.healio.com/news/ophthalmology/20231016/healio-osn-pediatrics-board-discusses-covid19-conjunctivitis-reports posted:

OSN Pediatrics Board discusses COVID-19 conjunctivitis reports
(..)
I think it is funny � and you both hit the nail on the head � that we would direct pediatricians to treat this like they would normally treat adenovirus, which is to not treat adenovirus.
(..)

# ? Oct 20, 2023 16:34

Pingui: Jun 4, 2006; WTF?

Cool tech, which might give some substantial insight at a later date (their test data here is very limited):

https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/novel-dynamic-imaging-technology-captures-bodys-immune-response-covid-19 posted:

Novel Dynamic Imaging Technology Captures the Body�s Immune Response to COVID-19
Total-Body PET Scan Uses Less Radiation and Gives Better Imaging of Immune T Cell Distribution

A team of UC Davis scientists used dynamic total-body positron emission tomography (PET) to provide the first imaging of the human body�s immune response to COVID-19 infection in recovering patients. Their work, published in Science Advances, could lead to a better understanding of how the body�s immune system responds to viral infections and develops long-term protection against re-infection.
(..)
�There has been a growing interest in studying the critical role of CD8+ T cells in immune response and memory. However, evaluating immunological changes in non-blood tissue is challenging due to the invasive nature of biopsies. In some cases, it is not even practical in certain anatomical regions of living participants, such as the brain, spinal cord, cardiopulmonary tissue and vascular tissue,� Omidvari said. �So, the challenge was to find noninvasive quantitative methods for measuring CD8+ T cell distribution and trafficking in the body that are safe to also use in healthy people.�

For the study, the researchers enrolled three healthy individuals and five patients recovering from COVID-19 infection. The recovering
(..)
Main findings
With the total-body PET, the researchers could do a noninvasive measurement of the T cell distribution with remarkable image quality throughout the whole body, in all tissue types. Their study showed a high uptake of CD8+ T cells in the lymphoid organs of all participants. The highest uptake was in the spleen, followed by the bone marrow, liver, tonsils and lymph nodes.

_{Whole-body PET scan shows CD8 immune cells clustering in body organs of people recovering from COVID-19.}

The most significant finding was the increased concentrations of CD8+ T cells in the bone marrow of recovering COVID patients compared to the healthy controls. In the follow-up imaging (acquired at 6 months post infection), these concentrations in recovering patients were slightly higher than those acquired at around 2 months post infection (baseline) in all bone marrow regions.

�Bone marrow has been identified as a major pool and the preferred site for proliferation of memory CD8+ T cells following a viral infection. This trafficking of memory T cells to certain tissues like the bone marrow is critical to developing immune memory after viral infection,� Omidvari explained.
(..)

# ? Oct 20, 2023 16:41

NeonPunk: Dec 21, 2020

Rick posted:

Bummer, I hope they are okay.

I am anecdotally hearing about a lot more rougher COVID experiences lately.

Same. Whole lot more people getting much more severe experience nowadays.

Although I don't think it's because of whatever variant is out there, but rather because of repeated infection.

# ? Oct 20, 2023 16:43

Pingui: Jun 4, 2006; WTF?

The kids are not alright.
"Youth experiences with and perspectives on long covid"

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-023-16899-8 posted:

Abstract
Background
Research on the long-term effects of COVID-19 infection is ongoing, and the psychological and physical impacts of Long Covid on youth is poorly understood. To assess these impacts, we surveyed youth regarding their experiences with, and perspectives on, the long-term effects of COVID-19.

Methods
We conducted a nationwide text message survey of youth ages 14�24 years in the United States. The survey asked four open ended questions regarding their experiences and perceptions regarding the long-term effects of COVID-19. Qualitative data was analyzed independently by three investigators using thematic analysis. Prevalence of codes were summarized using descriptive statistics.

Results
Among 1150 participants, 991 responded to at least one survey question (response rate 86.1%). The vast majority of our sample had COVID-19 or knew someone who did (75%), and approximately one third (32%) of youth indicated that they knew someone who had experienced symptoms consistent with Long Covid. Many youth (50%) reported worry and concern about Long Covid even if they, or someone they knew, did not have Long Covid. Among youth who were not concerned about Long Covid, the most commonly reported reasons were having received the vaccine (29%) and not having a prior COVID-19 infection (24%).

Conclusions
Our findings suggest that among younger populations, there is significant concern regarding the long-term effects of COVID-19. Vaccination campaigns and youth-centered public health communication about Long Covid may not only reduce COVID-19 transmission, but also alleviate worries and concerns about Long Covid among youth.

lmao gently caress you on that last sentence.

# ? Oct 20, 2023 16:45

Pittsburgh Fentanyl Cloud: Apr 7, 2003

NeonPunk posted:

Same. Whole lot more people getting much more severe experience nowadays.

Although I don't think it's because of whatever variant is out there, but rather because of repeated infection.

Pretty sure the CDC outright admitted early on that successive covid infections would be more severe. One of those things that everyone completely glossed over and ignored in favor of "common sense" that the more you got sick the more immune you'd be.

# ? Oct 20, 2023 16:46

Pingui: Jun 4, 2006; WTF?

Pittsburgh Fentanyl Cloud posted:

Pretty sure the CDC outright admitted early on that successive covid infections would be more severe. One of those things that everyone completely glossed over and ignored in favor of "common sense" that the more you got sick the more immune you'd be.

"Managers are reading this and freaking out.�

# ? Oct 20, 2023 16:49

an owls casket: Jun 4, 2001; Pillbug

Two things that crossed my mind today:

1) remember early on how people were like "hey, you should keep a journal about your experiences during the pandemic so that people can look back on it decades from now and remember what it was like"? How's that going for everyone? Good? I bet it's going good.

2) UW Medicine sure does seem to be sending a lot of emails to people about how to recognize the signs of a stroke. I'm sure that isn't anything that warrants any further thought whatsoever.

# ? Oct 20, 2023 18:13

dxt: Mar 27, 2004; METAL DISCHARGE

an owls casket posted:

Two things that crossed my mind today:

1) remember early on how people were like "hey, you should keep a journal about your experiences during the pandemic so that people can look back on it decades from now and remember what it was like"? How's that going for everyone? Good? I bet it's going good.

2) UW Medicine sure does seem to be sending a lot of emails to people about how to recognize the signs of a stroke. I'm sure that isn't anything that warrants any further thought whatsoever.

no need for people in future decades to look back on what it's like to live during a pandemic if that pandemic never ends

# ? Oct 20, 2023 18:35

shazbot: Sep 20, 2004; Ah, hon, ya got arby's all over my acoustic wave machine.

dxt posted:

no need for people in future decades to look back on what it's like to live during a pandemic if that pandemic never ends

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6gMgpbZXr4

One of the only good bits from new Futurama

# ? Oct 20, 2023 18:38

Zantie: Mar 30, 2003; Death. The capricious dance of Now You Stop Moving Forever.

Does anyone have an issue number or link to a Private Eye article about CoVID not being over?

# ? Oct 20, 2023 18:52

SardonicTyrant: Feb 26, 2016; BTICH IM A NEWT
熱くなれ夢みた明日を
必ずいつかつかまえる
走り出せ振り向くことなく
&

an owls casket posted:

Two things that crossed my mind today:

1) remember early on how people were like "hey, you should keep a journal about your experiences during the pandemic so that people can look back on it decades from now and remember what it was like"? How's that going for everyone? Good? I bet it's going good.

I remember watching a video very early on explaining that you how to cope with the lockdown, how to set aside spaces for work, rest, and leisure or something. Lols and lmaos aside, I'm not so much keeping a journal as writing the next barefoot gen in my head.

# ? Oct 20, 2023 18:57

Gunshow Poophole: Sep 14, 2008; OMBUDSMAN
POSTERS LOCAL 42069; Clapping Larry

Pingui posted:

The kids are not alright.
"Youth experiences with and perspectives on long covid"

lmao gently caress you on that last sentence.

there is so much of this that's tainted by government messaging which is not, in my opinion, acknowledged or accounted for sufficiently.

like, "we find that teens repeat our own propaganda back to us" is not a useful conclusion other than like, hey wow we can continue to mislead people! they obliquely mention the "youth-centric health communication" thing but jeez

# ? Oct 20, 2023 19:01

Bruce Hussein Daddy: Dec 26, 2005; I testify that there is none worthy of worship except God and I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of God

an owls casket posted:

Two things that crossed my mind today:

1) remember early on how people were like "hey, you should keep a journal about your experiences during the pandemic so that people can look back on it decades from now and remember what it was like"? How's that going for everyone? Good? I bet it's going good.

https://pandemic-journaling-project.chip.uconn.edu/

quote:

In Summer 2022, we launched our second phase, PJP-2. In PJP-2, we will continue recording the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic in our lives�but instead of weekly journaling, we�ll reach out just 4 times a year.

# ? Oct 20, 2023 19:12

Animal-Mother: Feb 14, 2012; RABBIT RABBIT
RABBIT RABBIT

an owls casket posted:

remember early on how people were like "hey, you should keep a journal about your experiences during the pandemic so that people can look back on it decades from now and remember what it was like"? How's that going for everyone? Good? I bet it's going good.

I'm on page 853. Most of it is just notes and summaries of the daily crack-pings of our era. Flipping to a random page... Hey, remember the MERS outbreak at the World Cup that might have happened because of the next door camel pageant? That was a good episode.

# ? Oct 20, 2023 19:13

Zantie: Mar 30, 2003; Death. The capricious dance of Now You Stop Moving Forever.

In other news it's been 24 hours since my Novavax shot and I'm happy to report the worst symptom was arm pain! I definitely recommend trying it over Moderna if you are the type to have a rough time with it.

# ? Oct 20, 2023 19:55

shazbot: Sep 20, 2004; Ah, hon, ya got arby's all over my acoustic wave machine.

I tried to get novavax but the pharmacy bait and switched so I just got Moderna.

the unmasked lady doing the injections was very excited to tell me this wasn�t a booster and it�s just 1 shot a year now like the flu shot, no more boosters!

# ? Oct 20, 2023 19:57

Fuck You And Diebold: Sep 15, 2004; by Athanatos

https://twitter.com/luckytran/status/1715433437161558495?s=20
:patriot:

# ? Oct 20, 2023 20:10

Hungry Squirrel: Jun 30, 2008; You gonna eat that?

The good news is that I'm getting Moth Juice two weeks from Monday.

The poor-planning news is that I'm closing on a house three weeks from Monday.

It's sounding like the worst-case poor response is about 48 hours of feeling like death. Is that accurate? I can plan ahead so that I don't need to be packing or anything that week, but I need to not be half-dead for the closing. Should I reschedule the shot?

# ? Oct 20, 2023 20:33

Real Mean Queen: Jun 2, 2004; Zesty.

We have the tools

# ? Oct 20, 2023 20:41

dxt: Mar 27, 2004; METAL DISCHARGE

Hungry Squirrel posted:

The good news is that I'm getting Moth Juice two weeks from Monday.

The poor-planning news is that I'm closing on a house three weeks from Monday.

It's sounding like the worst-case poor response is about 48 hours of feeling like death. Is that accurate? I can plan ahead so that I don't need to be packing or anything that week, but I need to not be half-dead for the closing. Should I reschedule the shot?

Should be fine within a day or two, unless you've had really bad reactions to vaccines in the past I wouldn't worry about it.

# ? Oct 20, 2023 21:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 23:16

Bruce Hussein Daddy: Dec 26, 2005; I testify that there is none worthy of worship except God and I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of God

Hungry Squirrel posted:

The good news is that I'm getting Moth Juice two weeks from Monday.

The poor-planning news is that I'm closing on a house three weeks from Monday.

It's sounding like the worst-case poor response is about 48 hours of feeling like death. Is that accurate? I can plan ahead so that I don't need to be packing or anything that week, but I need to not be half-dead for the closing. Should I reschedule the shot?

I haven't heard of anyone having those kinds of issues with Novavax. Most of us have the shoulder pain, and I really felt like I should lay down for a couple of hours 18-20 hours later. That was it.

# ? Oct 20, 2023 21:04

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Pestilence] https://youhavetoliveyour.life/

«‹›643 »