Senior Thai doctor says COVID-19 could lead to long-term side effects

[skorp13]

Great i'm still dealing with those types of side effects since my 2nd jab back in May, now i've had covid, double whammy LOL

[jacko45k]

2 hours ago, SiSePuede419 said:

They're both viruses

That must be the dumbest thing I read this week... so is rabies, malaria, hepatitis, herpes., dengue, HIV.....

Again, flu virus and Covid virus are completely different types. 

All the rest is just waffling off topic.. As to your apples reference... no, it is more like comparing apples to oranges.

 

Edited January 21, 2022 by jacko45k

[Mr Derek]

On 1/19/2022 at 7:09 AM, ozimoron said:

Indeed. The previous and outdated theory as proposed by the anti vaxers who think that variants naturally mutate into a more infectious but less virulent form is called Lamark's Theory, a long since disproved theory which holds that mutations occur will fit the need. As you state, mutations in all species are random and the best adapted survive. The others don't.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not a scientist but I do have an honorary degree in common sense) - but the process cannot be entirely random because if that were the case, over a sufficient length of time a variant would inevitably appear so virulent that it would wipe out the host completely. We don't see that happening. Humans have survived and thrived over the ages.

The best adapted are the ones that transmit easily without disabling the host, therefore adaptation in viruses demonstrably tends towards the less lethal. QED?

[ozimoron]

3 hours ago, Mr Derek said:

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not a scientist but I do have an honorary degree in common sense) - but the process cannot be entirely random because if that were the case, over a sufficient length of time a variant would inevitably appear so virulent that it would wipe out the host completely. We don't see that happening. Humans have survived and thrived over the ages.

The best adapted are the ones that transmit easily without disabling the host, therefore adaptation in viruses demonstrably tends towards the less lethal. QED?

You're confusing infectious with virulent. Ebola is extremely virulent and kills before it can spread far The same was the case for MERS. Omicron  is extremely infectious but less virulent. A mutation which is both would be a catastrophe. It remains a possibility. The process is entirely random. This is why we need to vaccinate as many as possible. Vaccines are known to reduce viral load even in omicron and therefore reduce transmission. It is also why big pharma are working on new vaccines.

Edited January 21, 2022 by ozimoron

[Mr Derek]

18 hours ago, ozimoron said:

You're confusing infectious with virulent. Ebola is extremely virulent and kills before it can spread far The same was the case for MERS. Omicron  is extremely infectious but less virulent. A mutation which is both would be a catastrophe. It remains a possibility. The process is entirely random. This is why we need to vaccinate as many as possible. Vaccines are known to reduce viral load even in omicron and therefore reduce transmission. It is also why big pharma are working on new vaccines.

Mere logic refutes this, according to my rationale. DNA 'knows' what it's doing in the long term, though it makes short-term experiments and miscalculations along the way. A virus can increase in lethality temporarily, of course, but will eventually mutate to something more sustainable, as we always observe, because that increases transmission. The logic in that is inescapable. I can't see any evidence that any virus has ever become progressively more lethal until a healthy population is wiped out. They always get less lethal overtime and ebola is another example.

 

Your claims are baseless. You're plucking assumptions out of the air to confirm your own sense of insecurity. That kind of mindset has been a big part of the problem over the last two years.

 

[ozimoron]

8 hours ago, Mr Derek said:

Mere logic refutes this, according to my rationale. DNA 'knows' what it's doing in the long term, though it makes short-term experiments and miscalculations along the way. A virus can increase in lethality temporarily, of course, but will eventually mutate to something more sustainable, as we always observe, because that increases transmission. The logic in that is inescapable. I can't see any evidence that any virus has ever become progressively more lethal until a healthy population is wiped out. They always get less lethal overtime and ebola is another example.

 

Your claims are baseless. You're plucking assumptions out of the air to confirm your own sense of insecurity. That kind of mindset has been a big part of the problem over the last two years.

 

This post demonstrates that you know zero about Darwin's theory of evolution.

Edited January 22, 2022 by ozimoron

[metisdead]

A post with unattributed content has been removed as well as the related replies. 

[Farank]

On 1/17/2022 at 1:28 PM, realfunster said:

Cutting-edge research, the good doctor should inform the global medical community of this development.

 

I am not a medical professional but I would propose ‘long COVID’ as a catchy name that gets the message across to the general public.

In other news, a Thai doctor also found that Covid causes some people to cough. Breakthrough science! 

[jacko45k]

19 hours ago, Mr Derek said:

DNA 'knows' what it's doing in the long term, though it makes short-term experiments and miscalculations along the way.

Odd way to put it....... nonsense too. 

[Mr Derek]

15 hours ago, ozimoron said:

This post demonstrates that you know zero about Darwin's theory of evolution.

Funny that, because my argument is entirely predicated on Darwin (plus Dawkins' selfish gene theory for good measure) - and I have actually read every word of On the Origin of Species (yes, I did put in those hours and now I want some credit for it). Feel free to explain where I've been going wrong.

 

This is what is what it all comes down to though: why are you in favour of continued lockdowns, mask wearing, covid passports and all the other economy/society/general healthcare-wrecking restrictions on civil liberty that the evidence now squarely proves is more destructive than covid itself?

 

 

Edited January 23, 2022 by Mr Derek

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Mr Derek said:

Funny that, because my argument is entirely predicated on Darwin (plus Dawkin's selfish gene theory for good measure) - and I have actually read every word of On the Origin of Species (yes, I did put in those hours and now I want some credit for it). Feel free to explain where I've been going wrong.

 

This is what is what it all comes down to though: why are you in favour of continued lockdowns, mask wearing, covid passports and all the other economy/society/general healthcare-wrecking restrictions on civil liberty that the evidence now squarely proves is more destructive than covid itself?

 

Darwin's theory clearly states that variation occurred randomly in a species.

 

I'm not in favour of continued lock downs after the rate of infections drops to a steady level. I'm in favour of mandatory vaccines and restricting the movements of the unvaccinated.

 

Restrictions on civil liberty, of which we have many right now, never killed anybody.

[jacko45k]

3 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Also stress, debt, alcoholism and serious respiratory problems from mask wearing.

I heard a rumour the serious respiratory problems from not mask wearing are far worse....and more common. 

[placeholder]

On 1/22/2022 at 11:55 AM, Mr Derek said:

Mere logic refutes this, according to my rationale. DNA 'knows' what it's doing in the long term, though it makes short-term experiments and miscalculations along the way. A virus can increase in lethality temporarily, of course, but will eventually mutate to something more sustainable, as we always observe, because that increases transmission. The logic in that is inescapable. I can't see any evidence that any virus has ever become progressively more lethal until a healthy population is wiped out. They always get less lethal overtime and ebola is another example.

 

Your claims are baseless. You're plucking assumptions out of the air to confirm your own sense of insecurity. That kind of mindset has been a big part of the problem over the last two years.

 

Whose kind of mindset is the problem? Maybe that of people who think it's unnecessary to see what actual experts think.

 

Do Bad Viruses Always Become Good Guys in the End?

It may seem cruel to snatch one of the few hopeful mantras we still have in this incessant pandemic, but the record must be corrected. The idea that disease-causing organisms always become benign—a hypothesis known as the avirulence theory—was debunked.

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19/do-bad-viruses-always-become-good-guys-end

 

Will the Coronavirus Evolve to Be Less Deadly?

History and science suggest many possible pathways for pandemics, but questions remain about how this one will end

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/will-coronavirus-evolve-be-less-deadly-180976288/

 

Pathogens can evolve to be more virulent over time, contrary to nutritionist’s claim

Pathogens don’t inevitably evolve to become less virulent over time. There are indeed some pathogens that evolved to become less virulent, but there are also other pathogens that have retained their virulence over time, like HIV, or even evolved to become more virulent over time, like the strain of flu virus that caused the 1918 flu pandemic.

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/pathogens-can-evolve-more-virulent-contrary-to-nutritionists-claim-mike-mutzel/

[placeholder]

On 1/22/2022 at 11:55 AM, Mr Derek said:

Mere logic refutes this, according to my rationale. DNA 'knows' what it's doing in the long term, though it makes short-term experiments and miscalculations along the way. A virus can increase in lethality temporarily, of course, but will eventually mutate to something more sustainable, as we always observe, because that increases transmission. The logic in that is inescapable. I can't see any evidence that any virus has ever become progressively more lethal until a healthy population is wiped out. They always get less lethal overtime and ebola is another example.

 

Your claims are baseless. You're plucking assumptions out of the air to confirm your own sense of insecurity. That kind of mindset has been a big part of the problem over the last two years.

 

Highly Virulent and Transmissible Variant of HIV Discovered in the Netherlands

A highly virulent variant of HIV-1 has been circulating in the Netherlands for the past few decades, researchers report.

According to the new study, a cluster of more than 100 individuals infected with the subtype showed exceptionally high viral loads, rapid CD4 T cell decline, and increased infectivity. While the findings show that the HIV lineage likely arose de novo around the turn of the millennium, extensive changes in its genome make it hard to discern the mechanisms that underlie its elevated virulence.

https://scitechdaily.com/highly-virulent-and-transmissible-variant-of-hiv-discovered-in-the-netherlands/

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Feb. 17 Update from Johns Hopkins:

 

"Studies differ on how many people experience long COVID symptoms, with one US CDC study estimating 1 in 10 will develop symptoms more than a month after acute infection and another from Oxford University estimating 1 in 3 individuals.

 

While some see their symptoms resolve within weeks or months, others are experiencing nagging symptoms that have lasted a year or more. Additionally, evidence is emerging that people who have had COVID-19—including those with mild cases and who do not have typical long COVID symptoms—have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and mental health conditions when compared with individuals who have never had the disease. Therefore, millions of people worldwide could experience long COVID or future health implications, with lasting societal and economic impacts.

...

In the UK, 1.3 million people—2% of the population—reported experiencing long COVID symptoms for more than 4 weeks after their initial infection."

 

https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/resources/COVID-19/COVID-19-SituationReports.html

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/18/2022 at 2:51 PM, Lacessit said:

I know someone, unvaccinated, who got COVID the day before I came out of quarantine. 7 years younger than me, still has problems with fatigue and ability to concentrate.

I had problems with fatigue long before covid was even mentioned, and also had a problem with concentration as long ago as school days.

 

Anyway, what are the chances as a %, which never seems to get mentioned. Lots of anecdotal evidence being talked about, but out of the millions of those infected and recovered, how many have any long term effects?

 

[thaibeachlovers]

23 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Feb. 17 Update from Johns Hopkins:

 

"Studies differ on how many people experience long COVID symptoms, with one US CDC study estimating 1 in 10 will develop symptoms more than a month after acute infection and another from Oxford University estimating 1 in 3 individuals.

 

While some see their symptoms resolve within weeks or months, others are experiencing nagging symptoms that have lasted a year or more. Additionally, evidence is emerging that people who have had COVID-19—including those with mild cases and who do not have typical long COVID symptoms—have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and mental health conditions when compared with individuals who have never had the disease. Therefore, millions of people worldwide could experience long COVID or future health implications, with lasting societal and economic impacts.

...

In the UK, 1.3 million people—2% of the population—reported experiencing long COVID symptoms for more than 4 weeks after their initial infection."

 

https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/resources/COVID-19/COVID-19-SituationReports.html

 

 

Estimating, evidence is emerging, increased risk, could, experiencing. 

IMO an article long on supposition and short on facts.

 

Out of the millions that have been infected with covid and recovered, how many have medically verifiable long term adverse effects?

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/23/2022 at 2:25 AM, ozimoron said:

This post demonstrates that you know zero about Darwin's theory of evolution.

and you do?

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I had problems with fatigue long before covid was even mentioned, and also had a problem with concentration as long ago as school days.

 

Anyway, what are the chances as a %, which never seems to get mentioned. Lots of anecdotal evidence being talked about, but out of the millions of those infected and recovered, how many have any long term effects?

 

It's not a high percentage, although the percentages were reportedly higher before Australia ramped up vaccination. The link I am posting is December 15, 2021, so it covers the Delta mutant.

I've never had fatigue or concentration problems. I certainly don't want them at this late stage of my life.

https://theconversation.com/we-calculated-the-impact-of-long-covid-as-australia-opens-up-even-without-omicron-were-worried-168662

[ozimoron]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and you do?

yes, of course. Year 12 biology.