CharonY

Also the cohort has more men, IIRC. That part also means that in the FAIR study the symptoms are those that are bad enough to warrant a claim (i.e. severe symptoms). I.e. one could say that about 23% of all COVID cases (including folks initially without symptoms) had issues that were severe enough to warrant a claim. The study in OP was looking for typically COVID-19 associated symptoms, such as loss of smell/taste, which won't typically appear on claims, but can still affect quality of life. But there were also other symptoms in lower proportions such as dyspnea as well as neurological symptoms other than loss of smell. It should be noted that post-viral syndromes are not new or unique to COVID-19. But often general malaise and other quite possibly crippling long-term effects are often not recognized as folks may not associate them with a prior infection. Many folks are not getting tested when they have flu-like symptoms, for example.

Not sure what you mean. We have plenty of diseases that have a significant burden on public health. Influenza is responsible for 10k deaths in France. Covid is likely to add to it but it is not the first nor will be the last.

Actually I don't think we can easily establish that either. The FAIR study does not have a control group to establish how many of such claims are made by COVID-negative populations. However, the veteran's study for example looked especially add the increased odds of such symptoms in negative vs positive groups (with the caveat that veterans are not a truly representative group for the broader population).

If vaccination is the only measure then SARS-CoV-2 is likely to stick around (we have got another thread about that here somewhere). Fundamentally our most likeliest point of stamping out the disease was early in the pandemic, or around the summer time when we had a reduction in many areas to more manageable levels. Of course we decided to open up at that point... Now, the hope is that with vaccination the virus will be more manageable like other disease outbreaks that we deal with. What we do not know yet are things like overall health burden, especially if we take long-haul symptoms into account.

Note that the data in OP looks specifically at a particular age group, whereas the values that I (and you) have indicated are for the whole study group, separated by symptoms. As such the data is actually very worrisome, as the age group was assumed to be least affected, but shows above average risk with regard to long-term COVID. I have not looked at the other data in an age-distributed way, but I would be curious to see how that looks like.

There is another study using large number using large number of insurance claims showing that ca. 23 % of all; 19% of asymptomatic, 27.5% of symptomatic but not hospitalized and 50% of hospitalized patients show long-covid symptoms (I remembered the numbers wrong, my apologies. LINK Another study using data from the veteran's health affair to come to similar conclusions: High-dimensional characterization of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 | Nature Post-viral syndromes are insidious as they were often not recognized (there is more recognition now) but there are limited treatment options. Especially in this case it appears that it is unclear in some cases whether the symptoms actually eve go away (especially the neurological issues). With increasing vaccinations and decreasing active cases there is an increasing worry about these issues. While one might hope that the vaccines may also be protective against long-haul issue, but I have not seen data on that yet.

Yes, that is basically the most likely scenario.

I think the odds that we mess up the planet to such a degree that only a fairly small human population survives and where much of the effort is focused on sustenance (albeit in a high-tech version) is also not completely off the table.

LNPs were in use before that. See Anselmo and Mirtagotri Bioeng Transl Med. 2016 Mar; 1(1): 10–29.

We have to separate the issues. If we talk about the current vaccine, there are two factors that are relevant. The first is the availability of other vaccines and the respective countries seem to have sufficient access to cover their population with these vaccines. And the second is that currently B.1.617.2 (delta) is becoming dominant in many areas and AZ seems to perform worse than the others. Given the overall risk data, if there was no other vaccine, I would still take the AZ, even if I was in a risk group. Going to adenovirus-based vaccines and therapeutics, I should add that, again, almost everything we put in our bodies does something to it and especially when applied to a large population it is almost inevitable that there will be rare harmful interactions. The goal is therefore not zero events, but to ensure that the overall benefits outweigh the risks for a given population. Moreover, it is important to note that interactions that can lead to harmful events are not the same thing as the harmful event itself, there are mitigation strategies, dosage effects and so on. For example aspirin, causes blood thinning and in theory that could lead to internal bleeding. However, at recommended dosages it is considered to be safe, except for certain folks. In the past some studies indicate that certain adenovirus-based vectors might bind to circulating platelets and getting sequestered. That actually leads to reduced platelet count but not necessarily to clots alone. For that, it has been suggested that the vaccine might form an antigenic complex with platelet factors, resulting in the formation of antibodies against that complex. These antibodies than activate the platelets and initiate a pro-thrombotic response. It is not really my field so I do not know who would be at higher risk for this event and why.

Most of the things in the post have been debunked in the past. There is only a small group of researchers (Lynn, Rushton and similar folks) who are still in the camp of strong gender differences. However, most other groups have failed to reproduce such results. What folks have found instead is that for the most part brain dimorphisms do not exist. If one takes a random brain, no one can really predict with any accuracy whether that brain is male or female. The last bastion of these studies are MRI-based, which generates high-dimensional data and allows the distinction of even miniscule differences. On the flip-side we run into statistical issues such as overfitting, which are a common problem with using this kind of data to identify differences (and note, even if we find statistically significant differences in certain areas, it does not necessarily allows us to accurately predict whether a given brain is male or female, the difference would also need to be large enough to make that distinction). However, even MRI fails to be reliable indicator (see David et al. Scientific Reports volume 8, Article number: 6082 (2018) for a discussion on reporting bias). A recent meta-analysis ( Eliot et al., Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews Volume 125, June 2021, Pages 667-697), the largest of its kind, failed to identified the dimorphisms speculated to exist. In other words, even if the most sensitive means to look at the brain fails to see clear differences, all the wild speculations in the post about these presumably huge gender dimorphisms and then the wild extrapolation regarding to performance are pretty much moot.

This is true for most medications that are not taken long-term.

Before I talk a bit more on the study itself I want to take a step back and talk a bit how risks in medical interventions are generally evaluated. The key element here is monitoring certain clinical endpoints, including efficacy of the drugs but also specific indicators of morbidity, for example. In a more general sense, there are no "no effect" endpoints. If you eat a cheeseburger, for example, I could monitor increases in negative biomarkers in your blood, there could be short term shifts in the gene expression of you gut microbiota and so on. However, that tells us little about the risks. As such it would be better to use endpoints such as heart attack and stroke rates and so on. The big issue with long-term effects is that it becomes very difficult to figure out what the causes for a given hard endpoint are, which is why for example nutritional studies, which often are long-term, often do not have clear outcomes. Trials are looking at such outcomes and from that viewpoint the current the current vaccines are no different from other vaccines or therapeutics. You look at endpoints within a given time frame for a given sample size. The SARS-CoV-2 vaccines all fulfil pretty much the same requirements as you typically do not monitor individuals indefinitely after taking a medication. So as such, we can be fairly certain that the the the mRNA vaccines do not seem to have any acute effects and we know roughly as much about long-term issues as for other medication. So what is new regarding our knowledge about concerns regarding this specific vaccine? One risk that folks were concerned years back is the risk that the LNP could distribute their payload throughout the body and enrich in the liver. If the spike protein is formed there, it could result in local inflammation of the organ and liver damage. However, this does not happen. In fact, the Japanese report indicates why, within a relatively short time frame all the mRNA expression is basically gone. So what about the LNP alone? Again, you get a dose, the lipids move through your body and get metabolized. Typically they accumulate in adipose tissue or liver (which for some reason is not plotted, it is higher there than in ovaries, for example). So does this cause harm? The cited study on direct injection of pure LNP indicate that yes, if given in high concentrations they can cause inflammatory responses. However, this itself is not an indicator for adverse health effects. In fact, the paper argues that these inflammatory responses might be why the current mRNA vaccines are so effective (which was a big worry before, the fact that mRNAs are generally not very immunogenic). I.e. the local inflammation caused by LNPs could have been beneficial for efficacy reasons. We do see lower efficacy in the other vaccines, for example. While the study is helpful to highlight the potential to elicit inflammatory responses from LNPs alone, (and therefore nasal delivery is not a good idea) it does not actually suggest health issues. Again, it is about endpoints and what the study measured is not helpful to provide evidence of harm in humans. First, mice are not a a great model for immune responses in humans (which is a common issue with animal models) and second, they injected a very high amount- 10 ug, IIRC which is a huge amount compared to their body weight relative to the amount found in vaccines and the body weight in humans (we are talking over a thousand fold at least if I got my numbers right). Moreover, as you know you only get two injections, so there is no chance for long-term accumulation (as opposed to many of the chemicals we use in personal care products, for example). Thus, if inflammation caused by LNPs resulted in adverse effects you would expect to see most the effects fairly soon (within days) of injection, as the levels after that will gradually decline (rather than increase). The precise rate is not known as they only monitored for two days, but it won't be years. What we do know and expect are inflammation, which are common with most vaccines (as inflammation is the result of the immune system reacting). Mild myocardial inflammation has also been recorded which could be related to LNPs (or the vaccine in general). But again, the endpoints do not suggest significant adverse health effects. Blood clots do not seem to be different between unvaccinated and Pfizer/Moderna vaccinated folks, but seem elevated in certain population subsets in AstraZeneca vaccines, which is likely to related to the adenovirus used (there have been reports in the past for issues with certain adenovirus-based vaccines, but I am not sure what they were in detail and in any case, they are not related to mRNA-based vaccines such as Pfizer/BioNTech. Meanwhile, there are studies (e.g. https://s3.amazonaws.com/media2.fairhealth.org/whitepaper/asset/A Detailed Study of Patients with Long-Haul COVID--An Analysis of Private Healthcare Claims--A FAIR Health White Paper.pdf) showing that even asymptomatic patients might be at risk of having long COVID symptoms, though it is still about double as high in symptomatic patients. So again, we have a vaccine that might cause issues in some folks, but protects them from much bigger harm. And on top, they also protect those that are too stubborn to protect themselves.

4 pages and 10 years. If anything it shows how persistent stereotypes are.

I think to some degree the points are valid, but may also somewhat overplay the uniqueness of humans. While we often describe a given species to behave in a monolithic way, many folks interacting a lot with higher animals report a huge range of behavioural differences. Of course there is more behavioural modulation (learning/training) going on in humans but I would almost make the reverse argument, that we simplify animal behaviour too much.

As I and other have said, the premise is clearly wrong. There is a huge disparity between rich and poor Muslim countries as there are between Christian countries. Trying to find a singular explanation for someone that does not exist in the presented form is a fool's errand.

Yes, if you ignore age-related issues, there are no age-related issues. There is also a range of increased risk (in terms of morbidity and mortality) for the mothers starting around age 35.

That is a) not true and b) is moving the goal post. But overall acknowledging that there are more factors is what my basic comment alluded to. Wealth of a country is not based on singular factors, but depends on many aspects. Including access (but also sovereignty over resources). The simplified narratives as used in the original OP do not do the complexity of the region. This was mostly true in Germany until rather suddenly it wasn't, for example. And again, your comments are also factually wrong, considering that the country you outlined have lower health indicators than many Arabic speaking countries. Edit: Crossposted with other with similar comments.

I think folks in the first page of this thread have already highlighted that this not true. In terms of GDP per capita some of the richest countries in the world are Arab countries.

I am really sorry for being that pedantic, but I would like to point out that "three" in German is "drei". It is one of the weird differences between English and German and a bit of a pet peeve of mine (same with "stein" vs "stien"). I can live with the umlaut thingy but the the other thing just scratches at my soul (which basically means I spent too much time in Germany).

Yes, that is the overall point, the nationalist (-right) groups used the Dolchstosslegende and the Treaty of Versailles as a means to bolster nationalist agenda, even if there were plans and means to address the economic strains (starting with the Dawes plan). It is the danger of taking one narrative and try to make everything fit that box. So to summarize the points again: - the Dolchstosslegende was a conspiracy theory created by the Oberste Heeresleitung to excuse their military failures and at the same time blame social democrats, moderates as well as Jews. While the loss of WWI precipitated it, it was clearly used as a propaganda tool - while reparations were a burden, economic and foreign policy successes have significantly stabilized the economic situation and promised easing of reparations. - many areas of industry saw massive growth between 1924 and 1929, the situation was fundamentally different than in the post-war years - however, there economic success and benefits were distributed uneven and especially agriculture was suffering. The Kaiserreich had a strong hierarchical structure, however some of these structure were breaking up with e.g. the working class trying to assert their rights which resulted in gains from the KPD, for example. - as mentioned, between 1924-1929 even with reparations and the Dolchstosslegende, the society had a stable phase. The KPD was focusing on parliamentary work rather than incitement, the NDSDAP and other radicals were not influential anymore. - on the other hand another factor was challenging political stability: the lack of democratic and parliamentary experience. The democracy was always under stress and parliamentary coalitions were constantly shifting and repeatedly minority cabinets were formed. This created a bit of a chaotic situation which shows the vulnerable underbelly of the Republic. - in 1928 the SPD had a big win and it seemed that the right-wing nationalist were diminished. Subsequently the nationalist right unleashed their mentioned Anti-Young campaign which had a lasting impact on society. The interesting bit from that time is that prior to the campaign, the German population as a whole was not too worried about reparations because of the years of economic successes. While the campaign ultimately failed, it elevated the weak NSDAP to a mainstream party again. - if we talk about external influence, because of the situation mentioned above, at that point the financial crisis of 1929 and resulting mass loss of employment probably had a much higher impact than either loss of WWI or reparations per se - at that point the parliament mostly stopped working resulting using presidential ruling instead (not sure how that is translated properly) What I am trying with this wild collection of thoughts is that as a whole, internal happenings are likely more critical than the overarching narrative of external pressures leading the the fall of the Weimar Republic. Considering the overall tendencies, without the economic crisis of 1929, the Republic had a good shot at stabilizing. If DNVP and other right-wing nationalists did not decide to use the DNVP as a bulwark to weaken the communists, they may never have gotten that popular. If the Dolchstosslegend was not fabricated, something else might have been. Again, I think the fairly common narrative of Reparations -> Struggles in Weimar Republic -> WWII is omitting far more compelling (but complex) happenings within the society and actually does not line up the actual happenings within the Republic.

Yet by 1924 the Weimar Republic made a staggering recovery effectively ending hyperinflation in record time. By 1928 the stabilization of the Republic was also reflected politically with the extremist parties only getting a small fraction of the votes (communists around 10, Nazis less than 3). By 1929 the standing of the Republic improved to a degree that the Young plan initiated relief and the end of the occupation of the Rhineland. I.e. there is not a direct line from the post-war woes to the rise of the NSDAP and WWII, unless one cuts out close of a decade of development. Aside from the looming stock market crash, much of the destabilization of the Weimar Republic actually came from the inside, with the nationalist DNVP opposing the economically successful government and seizing on an anti-Young plan movement to bolster nationalist and populist tendencies. Hugenberg, the head of the DNVP was an industrialist and had one of the most widely read newspaper at the time and used it to fan the flames and also bolstered Hitler's (and the NSDAP's) reputation among the working class, to gain broader support.

This sounds a bit like the Dunning-Kruger effect. I am not entirely sure what OP in this split is really about, however it occurred to me that using a framework like Bloom's taxonomy could help guide the discussion a bit, assuming it is not all hippopotamuses all the way down. In the this system, knowledge is the lowest cognitive effort and is based on memorization of information. The next step up is comprehension, which includes the ability to restate information and so on. In this framework, it could mean that folks with the lowest level of understanding are also more likely to dismiss contradicting information as they have not reached the higher levels of learning, which would allow them to contextualize and evaluate new information. If you allow a small rant from my side, I think the rise of youtube level education is a great example of low-level learning. Many that I have seen are created with entertainment in mind and giving viewer the impression of having learned something, but often they are vacuous strings of facts and factoids without any of the hallmark of higher understanding (and I think it is at least part of the reason why the recent generations of students feel that they know more than they really do).

Also, it is quite disingenuous to equate the probably strongest hyperbole of one member of a party to a the long-standing attack on science and scientists of a major party. This includes denial of evolution and the insistence to elevate creationism to an alternative explanation, dismantling, marginalizing and dismantling institutions responsible for evidence-based protection of public health which directly resulted in a massive number of preventable deaths in the US (in fact, there was only one party which decided to play "identity politics" with simple health measures...). The GOP decided at some point go over the cliff completely, McCain, in a bid for presidency had highlighted the importance of reacting to client change and now the party has decided that instead, that is a hoax. And consistent with this belief, obvious scientists are frauds. Heck, the whole right-wing ecosystem has untied in claiming that climate science is a fraud, and directly attack scientists like Mann. If you have a whole community ranging from voters, media to lawmakers being united in the belief that science is a scam and not to be trusted, I think it is fair to say that one is not like the other. And if the only means of equating these things is by pointing out an individual vs the history of a whole ideology, it does not seem that a good faith discussion is to be had. I may have mentioned it before, but politicians in general are typically not allies of scientists. However, while currently the left tends to ignore inconvenient findings (or in this case, overstating findings), it is the right that has gone on the attack on facts. And it is not a new thing. It is not specific to the US (anymore), the recent rise of right-wing populism through much of Europe has intensified attacks on the perceived "elites" and have put ideology before science.

So I feel weird keeping asking that, but remember the virus outbreak and how the party in charge of dealing with it kept pretending it was harmless? I mean, come on, it is not an niche event and it is frigging still ongoing.