News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Long-term cardiac pathology in individuals with mild init... by nradov on Tuesday September 06, 2022 @03:39PM (#32742199)
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.
Re:Long-term cardiac pathology in individuals with mild init... by trention on Tuesday September 06, 2022 @04:52PM (#32743046)
>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.

Re:Long-term cardiac pathology in individuals with mild init... by nradov on Tuesday September 06, 2022 @06:39PM (#32744106)
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.
Re:Long-term cardiac pathology in individuals with mild init... by trention on Wednesday September 07, 2022 @07:41AM (#32749300)
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.

Re:Long-term cardiac pathology in individuals with mild init... by nradov on Thursday September 08, 2022 @08:29AM (#32764534)
There is no such axiomatic truth. You are making things up and posting medical misinformation. Please provide peer reviewed citations for your claims.
Re:Long-term cardiac pathology in individuals with mild init... by trention on Thursday September 08, 2022 @11:14AM (#32766785)
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.

Re:Long-term cardiac pathology in individuals with mild init... by nradov on Thursday September 08, 2022 @12:19PM (#32767770)
Stop lying. I haven't posted anything from "antivax twitter".

You are making things up without scientific basis.

Re:Long-term cardiac pathology in individuals with mild init... by OrvalWintermute on Wednesday September 07, 2022 @12:09PM (#32752490)
trention,

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

Re:Long-term cardiac pathology in individuals with mild init... by OrvalWintermute on Wednesday September 07, 2022 @12:07PM (#32752468)
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.