I think this article, and the other "background noise", are evidence that it is a severe disease with lifelong consequences. Maybe the flu is as well! But these measures work for both.

This article tells you nothing useful in terms of evaluating your own personal risk. They recruited people with symptoms, in order to see if they could explain the symptoms. It tells you nothing about the risk to any random person of experiencing the same symptoms.

For all you know, you could have faced the exact same risk from myriad other viruses every year of your life before 2020; we simply never looked.

Regardless, you're going to get Covid. It is inevitable. It isn't going away. You can get it when you're younger and healthier, or you can get it when you're older and sicker. The only truly tragic difference is how many years of your life you might give up trying to hide from it in the meantime.

>Regardless, you're going to get Covid. It is inevitable. It isn't going away. You can get it when you're younger and healthier, or you can get it when you're older and sicker.

You know you're full of sh*t when you still treat covid as a one-time infection when it's perfectly clear that it will reinfect you at best on a biyearly basis.

I said nothing about reinfection, but you're right: you're going to get it multiple times in your life, just like any other circulating coronavirus, the risk of which you've completely neglected in every prior year you have been alive.

You can't do anything about it. You have a choice: you can lock yourself indoors, keep your face hidden, and live in perpetual anxiety -- in a futile attempt to stave off the inevitable -- based on questionable research. Alternatively, you can accept that life comes with some level of risk.

What you can't do, no matter how much you hide and curse at others, is avoid a respiratory virus.

The fact that you are going to get reinfected has a significant bearing on your ridiculous implicit claim made here:

> You can get it when you're younger and healthier, or you can get it when you're older and sicker.

that you are better off getting infected sooner rather than later and that there is only negative value to be had in postponing infection.

>What you can't do, no matter how much you hide and curse at others, is avoid a respiratory virus.

You may want to keep that sentiment for when a 30+% IFR respiratory virus like MERS causes a pandemic which, given the law of large numbers, will absolutely happen. Then, the attitude "you can do nothing" leads to only one thing - total civilizational collapse. (BTW, measles and rubella are both respiratory viruses that I have avoided and will continue to avoid but thanks for again proving the point that you have no idea what you are talking about.)

But looking at your submission history, I don't intend to lose any more time with the definition of covidiotism.

Most of us are able to avoid measles and rubella because the vaccines are highly effective at preventing infection and transmission. By contrast, the COVID-19 vaccines are pretty good at preventing severe symptoms but do little to prevent infection and transmission. Attempting to avoid SARS-CoV-2 is utterly pointless; unless you live like a hermit, you're going to be occasionally exposed no matter what.

>attempting to avoid SARS-CoV-2 is utterly pointless

Maybe you should start by learning about cumulative probability and hence why n/2 infections carry less risk than n infections.

Biology can seldom be reduced to such simplistic calculations. Do you have any actual evidence for that claim? Please provide a quantitative estimate of the relative risk reduction for a serious adverse cardiac event under your proposed course of action, and show your work.

It is axiomatically true that a repeated event that carries non-zero probability for an adverse effect increases the cumulative probability of said adverse effect when it recurs.

I don't need to show any work since covid infection AND reinfection has already been proven beyond any doubt to have non-zero risk of adverse effects on those that don't die from the infection. So either provide proof that covid reinfection carries 0 risk of permanent sequelae or stop wasting my time with the ridiculous claim that reducing the number of times someone is getting reinfected has no health benefit.

There is no such axiomatic truth. You are making things up and posting medical misinformation. Please provide peer reviewed citations for your claims.

This:

>a repeated event that carries non-zero probability for an adverse effect increases the cumulative probability of said adverse effect when it recurs.

is true by logical necessity. It doesn't need peer-review citation because is it's a synthetic apriori proposition (and also straight out of Probability 101, which unsurprisingly you haven't attended/understood), it's not an empirical claim depending on data.

I would say "learn to read with comprehension" but I fear it's not possible.

>posting medical misinformation

Very rich coming from a person literally reposting conspiracy talking points off from antivax twitter.

Stop lying. I haven't posted anything from "antivax twitter".

You are making things up without scientific basis.

trention,

you need to provide some evidence instead of endlessly misusing some heuristic, or principle like Occam's Razor.

trention has no evidence.

He also misapplies principles like Occam's Razor, in Latin ""Numquam ponenda est pluritas sine necessitate" (Multiples should not be posited without necessity) and cumulative probabilities, despite not knowing the science on infection seropositivity, and having a situation that literally demands multiples.

In a complex situation where there are multiple causes, and multiple effects simultaneously due to multiple agents taking action, he refuses to provide evidence and then blames it all on covid deaths, even when the deaths are happening among working age individuals which by their very nature, are less likely to have multiple comorbidities or the advanced age which are more likely to be associated with Covid fatalities.

He does not accept that the governors that sequestered covid patients in nursing homes with highly vulnerable residents have any culpability for the wildfire infections that killed many of our most vulnerable. Nope, he brushes all that away too.

i’ve noticed the same about their comments. and i didn’t even have to look at their history, because their batshit opinions, downplaying covid and long covid, have been obvious in every thread about covid i’ve seen on this site.

Idk, I have a brother that was double jabbed and boosted and he still got it. Granted most of my family with similar vaccination records never got it at all. Meanwhile an aunt who never vaccinated never got it either while other family members (many with pre-existong conditions) pre-vaccine passed away from it early on. Not sure if its worth worrying about to the extent that it seems out of our hands but still worth keeping tabs on in case something changes. Seems a little random sometimes but mostly consistent with the idea that people with pre-existing conditions are the most at risk but there could be other reasons why some that dont vaccinate dont get sick. If its diet related for example that would be very useful to know.

> double jabbed and boosted and he still got it.

Thats not how vaccines work. They don't protect you from getting it, they protect you IF you get it!

Actually, that is how most vaccines work. Just not these vaccines.

A lot of us enjoy life better this way. I realized through COVID that I fuckin hate people.