-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Cont: The One Covid-19 Science and Medicine Thread Part 5
- Thread starter Skeptic Ginger
- Start date
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
I for one, would be happier if more health professionals, and patients, wore masks all the time in clinical settings.
People catching covid while attending medical services for some other reason, is very much a thing.
People catching covid while attending medical services for some other reason, is very much a thing.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,958
MedPage Today reported, "Official U.S. counts of COVID-19 deaths likely missed over 150,000 unrecognized mortalities during the pandemic's first 2 years, a machine learning model study suggested...Study limitations include the assumption that the machine learning model's training data set of inpatient deaths assigned to COVID-19 was correct." I don't have any opinion on the correctness of this study.
Last edited:
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
In addition, tracking I did during the pandemic showed that due to Trump's inept response compared to Canada's, the US had over 570,000 excess deaths to the end of December 2021. This article adds to that count.
marting
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 4,311
Yeah, this undercount is an issue. What's worse is that it hasn't been getting any better from 2023 onward.
Here's a paper discussing the impact of C19 for the next decade:
A PNAS paper on excess deaths. Based on current CDC data it's optimistic.
Perhaps the CDC's C19 and excess mortality page is the most disturbing:
Check the tables and then go down to Figure 1 which shows death rates from 2015. One can clearly see the effect of C19 waves from 2020 to the fir 3 months of 2022. After that they are blended in with flu and other winter seasonal increases in mortality. HOWEVER, look at the yearly excess deaths during the months after that. Pretty consistent excess death rates of just under 10% and they don't have much peaking during the C19 waves. In the tables, which show annual, monthly or weekly details, C19 deaths are a small percentage of the excess deaths and less than 10% of the excess in the last 12 months.
:Long COVID:
About RFK Jr.'s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and its false claims:
CIDRAP Op-Ed: The report that proves the point—ACIP, COVID vaccines, and predetermined conclusions (CIDRAP, Mar 19, 2026)
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 37,886
You are using the identical tactics as RFK.
RFK uses incorrect, biased or outright fabricated "evidence", and you link to a study on long covid that is badly constructed, unscientific and doesn't even support your idiotic claim.
From YOUR link:
From 2022 to 2024, the team tracked 24 COVID-19 symptoms among 456 HCWs who self-reported infection with the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and 571 uninfected controls at 14 centers.
571 uninfected health workers? I call utter BS on that. I doubt there are 571 health workers on the planet who haven't had covid at least once. Serological testing for asymptomatic infection was carried out, but it doesn't appear that people were tested for past infection, with the 571 being self-reportedly free of previous infection. Given the high chance of asypmtomatic infections, that number is fantasy.
A total of 72.0% of participants lacked complete data or were lost to follow-up during the study.
Reaching conclusions based on a measly 28% of the original group? That ain't science, it's it barely qualifies as guesswork. Spock would be disgusted.
And the final nail in the coffin:
At the final follow-up, only 18 of the remaining 70 participants remained, with 14 (78%) indicating ongoing subjective long COVID. Scores on the Post-COVID Functional Status scale showed slight impairment in most participants, but moderate to severe limitations often lingered.
"Subjective". Even with only those kidding themselves they're sick, the numbers are negligible.
You do science no favours by passing off studies like that as scientific, relevant, or useful in any form. The very best way to not counter misinformation is to post equally-stupid misinformation.
Good work!
Quite a good study looking in detail at the spread of respiratory viruses in families with children, from 2020 to 2022; the study reports on SARS CoV 2 infection / covid.
1) Adults were more infectious than children. If the primary case in a family was an adult then there were more secondary cases than if the primary case were a child (this is the opposite of what is seen with flu).
2) Vaccination didn't affect infectiousness. A vaccinated primary case spread the infection to the same extent as an unvaccinated primary case.
3) Unvaccinated people had a higher risk of being infected by a family member than unvaccinated.
Infectious Diseases 2026 March 29
1) Adults were more infectious than children. If the primary case in a family was an adult then there were more secondary cases than if the primary case were a child (this is the opposite of what is seen with flu).
2) Vaccination didn't affect infectiousness. A vaccinated primary case spread the infection to the same extent as an unvaccinated primary case.
3) Unvaccinated people had a higher risk of being infected by a family member than unvaccinated.
SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and seroconversion in Finnish households with school-aged children between June 2020 and April 2022.
Jaakko Ahti, Helena Ollila, Laura Toivonen, Krista Salo-Tuominen, Lauri Ivaska, Ilkka Julkunen, Ville PeltolaInfectious Diseases 2026 March 29
A The-Atheist fantasy:
Unlike RFK Jr., I link to a study that isn't badly constructed, unscientific or doesn't support my claim. It would be interesting to hear what exactly my alleged claim is supposed to be since I made no claims, which makes the claim that I did make a claim perfectly idiotic and entirely made up. However, this is the kind of argumentation that we have come to expect from The Atheist.
As for MY link: Yes, unlike The Atheist, I usually include not only links but also quotations from those links, which is what I did in this case, too!
And unlike The Atheist, I don't rely on calling "utter BS" on things that I "doubt." Nor do I make up predictions base on what I would like to be true but with no documentation or facts to back them up.
The Atheist's argumentative tactics in this case is to sow doubt about a study while pretending that the study makes claims that aren't warranted.
He does so by pretending that I "do science no favours by passing off studies like that as scientific, relevant, or useful in any form."
However, the study doesn't make any claims that are misinformation. In order to show this were the case, The Atheist would have to show it to be the case, i.e. that the study were misinformation, but he doesn't. Instead, he does the exact opposite: He quotes sentences from the article that show awareness of the limitations of that study, i.e.
"From 2022 to 2024, the team tracked 24 COVID-19 symptoms among 456 HCWs who self-reported infection with the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and 571 uninfected controls at 14 centers."
(...)
A total of 72.0% of participants lacked complete data or were lost to follow-up during the study.
(...)
"At the final follow-up, only 18 of the remaining 70 participants remained, with 14 (78%) indicating ongoing subjective long COVID. Scores on the Post-COVID Functional Status scale showed slight impairment in most participants, but moderate to severe limitations often lingered." And he adds: ""Subjective". Even with only those kidding themselves they're sick, the numbers are negligible."
The Atheist's trick is to pretend that an article that actually points out the limitations of the study it presents can be used as a gotcha exactly because it presents those limitations. In this respect, the article is very open and honest, something that The Atheist has never been when he presents his fever fantasies about the pandemic or, in this case, about claims that neither the article, the study it's based on nor I, when I linked to the article, ever made.
If the article and the study had left out the limitations and pretended that it was rock-hard evidence of something, it could have been blamed for being "equally-stupid misinformation." As it is, The Atheist is the one who continues to use "the identical tactics as RFK."
No, I'm obviously not "using the identical tactics as RFK." The Atheist is!
Unlike RFK Jr., I link to a study that isn't badly constructed, unscientific or doesn't support my claim. It would be interesting to hear what exactly my alleged claim is supposed to be since I made no claims, which makes the claim that I did make a claim perfectly idiotic and entirely made up. However, this is the kind of argumentation that we have come to expect from The Atheist.
As for MY link: Yes, unlike The Atheist, I usually include not only links but also quotations from those links, which is what I did in this case, too!
And unlike The Atheist, I don't rely on calling "utter BS" on things that I "doubt." Nor do I make up predictions base on what I would like to be true but with no documentation or facts to back them up.
The Atheist's argumentative tactics in this case is to sow doubt about a study while pretending that the study makes claims that aren't warranted.
He does so by pretending that I "do science no favours by passing off studies like that as scientific, relevant, or useful in any form."
However, the study doesn't make any claims that are misinformation. In order to show this were the case, The Atheist would have to show it to be the case, i.e. that the study were misinformation, but he doesn't. Instead, he does the exact opposite: He quotes sentences from the article that show awareness of the limitations of that study, i.e.
"From 2022 to 2024, the team tracked 24 COVID-19 symptoms among 456 HCWs who self-reported infection with the original SARS-CoV-2 strain and 571 uninfected controls at 14 centers."
(...)
A total of 72.0% of participants lacked complete data or were lost to follow-up during the study.
(...)
"At the final follow-up, only 18 of the remaining 70 participants remained, with 14 (78%) indicating ongoing subjective long COVID. Scores on the Post-COVID Functional Status scale showed slight impairment in most participants, but moderate to severe limitations often lingered." And he adds: ""Subjective". Even with only those kidding themselves they're sick, the numbers are negligible."
The Atheist's trick is to pretend that an article that actually points out the limitations of the study it presents can be used as a gotcha exactly because it presents those limitations. In this respect, the article is very open and honest, something that The Atheist has never been when he presents his fever fantasies about the pandemic or, in this case, about claims that neither the article, the study it's based on nor I, when I linked to the article, ever made.
If the article and the study had left out the limitations and pretended that it was rock-hard evidence of something, it could have been blamed for being "equally-stupid misinformation." As it is, The Atheist is the one who continues to use "the identical tactics as RFK."
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 37,886
Defensive much?
gabeygoat
Master Poster
It's going to take so long for this country to reccuperate from this administration.
Jonathan Howard on bsky, April 10, 2026
As our Mad King spirals further, MAHA doctors are there to support him with declarations of love.
My thoughts on what this means for them and their sycophants.
sciencebasedmedicine.org/maha-doctors...
marting
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 4,311
This is consistent with the excess death CDC data:
Provisional COVID-19 Mortality Surveillance
www.cdc.gov
See
Table 1. Provisional death counts by time period and jurisdiction, United States.
Since the end of Dec., there is a consistent excess death rate of around 5% while less than 1% of these deaths are flagged on death certs. as Covid. This is the long term effect of 6 years of Covid infections on general mortality.
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,958
About two years ago Paul Offit had a long retrospective discussion with Doctor Mike. Speaking about the development of the mRNA vaccines against Covid-19 (the period from about January 2020 to July 2021, Paul Offit said, “I think that that year and a half was the greatest medical or scientific achievement of my lifetime.” This is similar to what Eric Topol said.
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 37,886
Given that we know the vaccines work and protect from severe illness it's a shame the chief medical voice in USA is a lying antivax scumbag, or more people would get the vaccine.
I'm constantly amazed that people I know over 60 don't get vaccinated, but they don't care. People prefer YouTube to medical science. The reach of Kennedy, Trump* et al extends a long way.
Ho hum.
*I bet he quietly gets the vaccine, because he thought he was a dead man walking when he got in the chopper.