This actually is what happens to me every time I get a cold, the flu, RSV, anything other than just seasonal allergies.
A few years back I had a cold for like 6 weeks. Tested negative for Covid, Influenza, and RSV multiple times each during the illness but could barely even make it to the bathroom, drink, or eat.
huh maybe it’s a similar thing for him then. I still think he should test, but of course he’s more concerned with convincing me that covid is over than in taking care of himself.
Was it like that for you in 2018 and prior though?
If you test negative for COVID, you often still have COVID. the PCR tests are only 80% accurate in optimal scenario (only 80% of infected people actually test positive, on the peak viral count day of infection, so the practical accuracy is more like 60%)
so the rapid tests are prob 50% accurate if we’re very generous
covid also destroys your immune system so even if you’re getting knocked out by colds, as long as that reaction was post-2019, then it’s still caused by covid
not trying to dismiss your experiences, you may just have something else that was already there. But if colds and flus began knocking you out in the last 5 years, then yea that’s either literal covid or covid-induced
If you test negative for COVID, you often still have COVID. the PCR tests are only 80% accurate in optimal scenario (only 80% of infected people actually test positive, on the peak viral count day of infection, so the practical accuracy is more like 60%)
source on this? especially the numbers. My understanding was PCRs are typically very sensitive, and tend to stay positive for far longer than people are actively experiencing symptoms or contagious, which doesn’t line up with you saying “80%” on the peak viral count day of infection.
What I’m seeing is confirmed false negative rates somewhere below like 5%, though mostly studies from earlier in the pandemic.
source on this? especially the numbers. My understanding was PCRs are typically very sensitive, and tend to stay positive for far longer than people are actively experiencing symptoms or contagious, which doesn’t line up with you saying “80%” on the peak viral count day of infection.
I don’t know for sure, but I suspect they are citing this link, which says “… In these studies, clinical performance ranges and approaches 80% sensitivity and 98-99% specificity when using a good comparator…”
An 80% sensitivity means that if you have COVID, you have a 20% chance of a false negative (i.e., testing negative despite being positive). Let’s say you test everyday for 4 days; the odds of getting all false negatives is 1/(5^4), or 1/625, or 0.16%.
A 98% specificity means that someone without COVID has a 2% chance of a false positive (i.e., testing positive despite not being sick). PCR’s are imperfect, but afaik they are the gold-standard test. They are widely available, and have the most science backing their use.
They also suggested that tests completed at-home are 50% accurate, which doesn’t seem like it’s based on any scientific findings I can find. For example, this study found that tests completed at home are equally as sensitive (>83%) and specific (>99.5%) as tests completed by doctors. But I could be wrong.
That person also mentioned stool tests are the best for screening for COVID-19, but I’m not sure what that is all about, and research comparing stool tests to other measures doesn’t seem to support the accuracy of stool tests over others… I understand much of their concern and skepticism - I don’t take people in my life saying things like “Sure I’m sick but I tested negative so it’s just a cold” seriously. I get very frustrated when I hear that shit. That being said, I am a bit sus about the specific things they are recommending or saying in this thread.
covid also destroys your immune system so even if you’re getting knocked out by colds, as long as that reaction was post-2019, then it’s still caused by covid
Source for the “destroys immune system” claim? This isn’t something I’ve heard before. Anecdotally, I’m not getting sick nearly as often as I did before COVID.
The first link says there are “changes” to the immune system, but doesn’t seem to suggest that the immune system is actually weakened.
I might have missed something, but I’m not seeing anything suggesting that we are more prone to viral or bacterial infection due to COVID. It seems to be saying that immune response is heightened, not weakened. That’s not necessarily a good thing either, as an overly aggressive immune system carries its own problems. They seem to suggest that “Long COVID” could be some sort of an autoimmune issue.
Thank you for that as well, but again: I’m not seeing support for a claim that COVID trashes the immune aysyem. In that link, like the earlier one, there are observations that suggest both weakened immune response and excessive immune response, both having potentially harmful effects.
It’s one thing to point out that COVID affects the immune system. All three of the above links go well above and beyond my own understanding and comprehension to demonstrate that certain changes to the immune system are occurring. But, what isn’t so clear is the actual effects of these changes. They are saying, for example, that they have observed COVID reducing CD8+ T-Cell response, which sounds really bad. But does that reduced response actually translate into a greater susceptibility to infection?
I guess what I’m asking for is less focus on the tree,.and a broader view of the forest. For example, are there any studies showing the prevalence and severity of non-COVID infections, before and after COVID? What transmissible diseases, if any, have surged concomitant with COVID? Are the micro-scale observations documented in the above links correlated with macro-scale effects?
Just to be clear, I’m not trying to push an agenda here; I honestly do not know the answers, and the underlying biology is well over my head. When I start repeating the claim that COVID trashes the immune system, I want to know what I mean.
I have. I’ve seen a number of sources all pointing to the same micro-scale observations. What I haven’t found is anything showing the macro-scale effects.
I understand that the trees are changing. Are these changes having a tangible, measurable effect on the forests? Or are these changes just a bit of interesting trivia?
This actually is what happens to me every time I get a cold, the flu, RSV, anything other than just seasonal allergies.
A few years back I had a cold for like 6 weeks. Tested negative for Covid, Influenza, and RSV multiple times each during the illness but could barely even make it to the bathroom, drink, or eat.
huh maybe it’s a similar thing for him then. I still think he should test, but of course he’s more concerned with convincing me that covid is over than in taking care of himself.
Yeah, he absolutely should test.
Was it like that for you in 2018 and prior though?
If you test negative for COVID, you often still have COVID. the PCR tests are only 80% accurate in optimal scenario (only 80% of infected people actually test positive, on the peak viral count day of infection, so the practical accuracy is more like 60%)
so the rapid tests are prob 50% accurate if we’re very generous
covid also destroys your immune system so even if you’re getting knocked out by colds, as long as that reaction was post-2019, then it’s still caused by covid
not trying to dismiss your experiences, you may just have something else that was already there. But if colds and flus began knocking you out in the last 5 years, then yea that’s either literal covid or covid-induced
source on this? especially the numbers. My understanding was PCRs are typically very sensitive, and tend to stay positive for far longer than people are actively experiencing symptoms or contagious, which doesn’t line up with you saying “80%” on the peak viral count day of infection.
What I’m seeing is confirmed false negative rates somewhere below like 5%, though mostly studies from earlier in the pandemic.
Rapid tests are straight trash though
I don’t know for sure, but I suspect they are citing this link, which says “… In these studies, clinical performance ranges and approaches 80% sensitivity and 98-99% specificity when using a good comparator…”
An 80% sensitivity means that if you have COVID, you have a 20% chance of a false negative (i.e., testing negative despite being positive). Let’s say you test everyday for 4 days; the odds of getting all false negatives is 1/(5^4), or 1/625, or 0.16%.
A 98% specificity means that someone without COVID has a 2% chance of a false positive (i.e., testing positive despite not being sick). PCR’s are imperfect, but afaik they are the gold-standard test. They are widely available, and have the most science backing their use.
They also suggested that tests completed at-home are 50% accurate, which doesn’t seem like it’s based on any scientific findings I can find. For example, this study found that tests completed at home are equally as sensitive (>83%) and specific (>99.5%) as tests completed by doctors. But I could be wrong.
That person also mentioned stool tests are the best for screening for COVID-19, but I’m not sure what that is all about, and research comparing stool tests to other measures doesn’t seem to support the accuracy of stool tests over others… I understand much of their concern and skepticism - I don’t take people in my life saying things like “Sure I’m sick but I tested negative so it’s just a cold” seriously. I get very frustrated when I hear that shit. That being said, I am a bit sus about the specific things they are recommending or saying in this thread.
speaking from my experience in canada, so my bad haha. at least in my area, anyone can take a pack from any pharmacy whenever they want
Talking about PCR tests here
Yep, it’s been like that ever since I was born. I just have a poor immune system.
Source for the “destroys immune system” claim? This isn’t something I’ve heard before. Anecdotally, I’m not getting sick nearly as often as I did before COVID.
https://time.com/6306361/covid-19-immune-system/
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(23)00796-1
Thank you!
The first link says there are “changes” to the immune system, but doesn’t seem to suggest that the immune system is actually weakened.
I might have missed something, but I’m not seeing anything suggesting that we are more prone to viral or bacterial infection due to COVID. It seems to be saying that immune response is heightened, not weakened. That’s not necessarily a good thing either, as an overly aggressive immune system carries its own problems. They seem to suggest that “Long COVID” could be some sort of an autoimmune issue.
https://libguides.mskcc.org/CovidImpacts/Immune
Thank you for that as well, but again: I’m not seeing support for a claim that COVID trashes the immune aysyem. In that link, like the earlier one, there are observations that suggest both weakened immune response and excessive immune response, both having potentially harmful effects.
It’s one thing to point out that COVID affects the immune system. All three of the above links go well above and beyond my own understanding and comprehension to demonstrate that certain changes to the immune system are occurring. But, what isn’t so clear is the actual effects of these changes. They are saying, for example, that they have observed COVID reducing CD8+ T-Cell response, which sounds really bad. But does that reduced response actually translate into a greater susceptibility to infection?
I guess what I’m asking for is less focus on the tree,.and a broader view of the forest. For example, are there any studies showing the prevalence and severity of non-COVID infections, before and after COVID? What transmissible diseases, if any, have surged concomitant with COVID? Are the micro-scale observations documented in the above links correlated with macro-scale effects?
Just to be clear, I’m not trying to push an agenda here; I honestly do not know the answers, and the underlying biology is well over my head. When I start repeating the claim that COVID trashes the immune system, I want to know what I mean.
Just Google Covid immune Dysregulation.
I have. I’ve seen a number of sources all pointing to the same micro-scale observations. What I haven’t found is anything showing the macro-scale effects.
I understand that the trees are changing. Are these changes having a tangible, measurable effect on the forests? Or are these changes just a bit of interesting trivia?