Coronavirus Thread: Worldwide Pandemic

DjMe

Pro
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
845
Reputation
243
Daps
2,360
Reppin
NULL
How about you eat a bag of covid infested dikks. Fukk you, your family and your kids(they should've been swallowed). Your illiterate ass needs hooked on phonics

Aziz Sheikh, professor of primary care research & development at the University of Edinburgh, drove home the point in a briefing that the risk is considerably higher if someone contracted the virus. For example, the risk of low platelets (thrombocytopenia) is nearly nine times higher with a COVID-19 infection than with the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine in the eight to 28 days post-vaccination. That's comparable to the risk from a flu vaccine, he said.
In cases of ischemic stroke, the risk is nearly 12 times higher after a COVID-19 infection than after the BioNTech/Pfizer jab.
This effort is the largest study to look at this question, and unlike other studies that often look at only one vaccine, these researchers compared two jabs side by side. Peter English, a retired consultant in communicable disease control and former editor of Vaccines in Practice, described the study as “very important.”
The report comes on the heels of a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine this week using Israeli data on the rollout of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine. It found that while the vaccine increased the risk of heart inflammation, the risk was higher among those infected with the virus.
MORE FROM ... ASHLEIGH FURLONG



Directly above the paragraph you are quoting was this paragraph:
The results of the study, published in the British Medical Journal Friday, found that the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is tied to an increased risk of low platelets and blood clots in veins. For the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine, there’s an increased risk of an ischaemic stroke and blood clots in arteries.
If you follow the link, it will take you to the actual study itself.
Once there, you can read it for yourself.
This graph shows the population of the study:
F1.medium.jpg

As you can clearly see, the study was only conducted on people who had received the vaccine.
That's what "Population: 29.1 million people vaccinated with first doses in England" means.
It means that for this study, the authors looked at 29.1 million people in England who had received the first dose of the vaccine.
Every finding from this study could (for people who are slow on the uptake, such as yourself) be preceded by that statement.

So when you quoted some big block of text from the article interpreting the study for you, you'll see statements like this:
For example, the risk of low platelets (thrombocytopenia) is nearly nine times higher with a COVID-19 infection than with the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine in the eight to 28 days post-vaccination.
What that means is that the risk of thrombocytopenia is nine times higher for the vaccinated when they get COVID than it is for the vaccinated in the period 28 days post-vaccination.
What this study really shows is: for the vaccinated, there is a 900% increase in the likelihood of developing thrombocytopenia following a COVID infection.
The likelihood of this happening for the unvaccinated is as it has always been--extremely low, and extremely rare. They don't need to study my risk of thrombocytopenia, because I have done nothing to change my risk factors for thrombocytopenia. I am the control group, and my risk for thrombocytopenia is exactly as it has always been.
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
55,695
Reputation
8,224
Daps
157,203

Lung damage found in 11% of severe COVID survivors​

By Frank DiamondDec 6, 2022 10:55am

A doctor with a graphic representation of the lungs

A new study says that 11% of patients who'd been hospitalized with COVID-19 develop interstitial lung disease. (iStock / Getty Images Plus)


About 11% of people who’ve been hospitalized for COVID-19 develop interstitial lung disease (ILD), according to a study in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, which concludes that “health services should monitor at-risk individuals to elucidate long-term functional implications.”

The American Lung Association (ALA) described ILD as “an umbrella term used for a large group of diseases that cause scarring (fibrosis) of the lungs. The scarring causes stiffness in the lungs which makes it difficult to breathe and get oxygen to the bloodstream. Lung damage from ILDs is often irreversible and gets worse over time.”

Researchers with the Imperial College of London collected the data through CT scans of 209 COVID-19 patients 240 days after discharge from the hospital. The patients were chosen because they exhibited symptoms of lung problems, and the findings about them were then applied to a cohort of nearly 3,500 individuals who didn’t have a CT scan to measure the risk of lung abnormalities.

Corresponding author Iain Stewart, Ph.D., said in a press release that “the major implication of these findings is that a substantial number of people discharged from a COVID hospitalization may also have fibrotic abnormalities in their lungs. These results should help concentrate efforts to closely follow at-risk patients. This follow-up should include repeat radiological imaging and lung function testing.”

The most common symptom of ILD is shortness of breath, but symptoms can also include chest discomfort, a dry cough, fatigue and weight loss. The ALA said that “in most cases, by the time the symptoms appear lung damage has already been done so it is important to see your doctor immediately. Severe cases that are left untreated can develop life-threatening complications including high blood pressure, heart or respiratory failure.”

The damage to lungs as a result of COVID-19 touches on how society will come to terms with long COVID, a condition that’s still not clearly understood and for which there are no generally accepted best practices for diagnosis and treatment, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Stewart stated that “for some people, these fibrotic patterns may be stable or resolve, while for others they may lead to longer term lung fibrosis progression, worse quality of life and decreased life expectancy. Earlier detection of progression is essential to improving outcomes.”

Unfortunately, evidence mounts that even children can develop long COVID, which involves the lungs. A study in Radiology in September used MRIs to study lung damage in children because CT scans use ionized radiation and cannot pinpoint lung damage in youngsters all that well since such changes are less pronounced.

In the Radiology study, researchers University Hospital Erlangen in Germany looked at the lung function of 53 children and adolescents who’d been infected with COVID-19. Twenty-nine of the patients had recovered, while 25 had long COVID.


The researchers found persistent pulmonary dysfunction in the youngsters using MRI in children recovered from COVID-19 and who have long COVID. “The further course and outcome of the observed changes currently remains unclear,” the study states. “Our results warrant further surveillance of persistent pulmonary damage in pediatrics and adolescents after SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
 

Payday23

Superstar
Joined
Nov 20, 2014
Messages
14,940
Reputation
1,546
Daps
55,873
Directly above the paragraph you are quoting was this paragraph:

If you follow the link, it will take you to the actual study itself.
Once there, you can read it for yourself.
This graph shows the population of the study:
F1.medium.jpg

As you can clearly see, the study was only conducted on people who had received the vaccine.
That's what "Population: 29.1 million people vaccinated with first doses in England" means.
It means that for this study, the authors looked at 29.1 million people in England who had received the first dose of the vaccine.
Every finding from this study could (for people who are slow on the uptake, such as yourself) be preceded by that statement.

So when you quoted some big block of text from the article interpreting the study for you, you'll see statements like this:
For example, the risk of low platelets (thrombocytopenia) is nearly nine times higher with a COVID-19 infection than with the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine in the eight to 28 days post-vaccination.
What that means is that the risk of thrombocytopenia is nine times higher for the vaccinated when they get COVID than it is for the vaccinated in the period 28 days post-vaccination.
What this study really shows is: for the vaccinated, there is a 900% increase in the likelihood of developing thrombocytopenia following a COVID infection.
The likelihood of this happening for the unvaccinated is as it has always been--extremely low, and extremely rare. They don't need to study my risk of thrombocytopenia, because I have done nothing to change my risk factors for thrombocytopenia. I am the control group, and my risk for thrombocytopenia is exactly as it has always been.
I read the study they clearly stated:

Conclusion Increased risks of haematological and vascular events that led to hospital admission or death were observed for short time intervals after first doses of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines. The risks of most of these events were substantially higher and more prolonged after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination in the same population.
 

DjMe

Pro
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
845
Reputation
243
Daps
2,360
Reppin
NULL
I read the study they clearly stated:

Conclusion Increased risks of haematological and vascular events that led to hospital admission or death were observed for short time intervals after first doses of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines. The risks of most of these events were substantially higher and more prolonged after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination in the same population.

:deadrose:
My man can't read but his trust in the science is unwavering.
 
Last edited:

Payday23

Superstar
Joined
Nov 20, 2014
Messages
14,940
Reputation
1,546
Daps
55,873
:deadrose:
My man can't read but his trust in the science is unwavering.
It clearly states there's a small risk of complications yet those risks aren't as bad as those without the vaccine. You clearly can't comprehend what is being put before you.
 

DjMe

Pro
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
845
Reputation
243
Daps
2,360
Reppin
NULL
It clearly states there's a small risk of complications yet those risks aren't as bad as those without the vaccine. You clearly can't comprehend what is being put before you.

You are in no position to say what this study clearly states until you can say back to me that the study only looked at the vaccinated.
Can you accept that this was a study of 29 million people who had been vaccinated against COVID?
Yes or no?
Because nowhere, absolutely nowhere, in that study does it say that those risks arent as bad as those without the vaccine, because the study did not look at people who did not receive the vaccine.
I need to know, with 100% certainty, that you understand this point.
For real man--do you understand that this study only looked at vaccinated individuals?
Yes or no?
 

Payday23

Superstar
Joined
Nov 20, 2014
Messages
14,940
Reputation
1,546
Daps
55,873
You are in no position to say what this study clearly states until you can say back to me that the study only looked at the vaccinated.
Can you accept that this was a study of 29 million people who had been vaccinated against COVID?
Yes or no?
Because nowhere, absolutely nowhere, in that study does it say that those risks arent as bad as those without the vaccine, because the study did not look at people who did not receive the vaccine.
I need to know, with 100% certainty, that you understand this point.
For real man--do you understand that this study only looked at vaccinated individuals?
Yes or no?
You should call the researchers and tell them their conclusions and the statement made to the media I've linked are wrong
 

DjMe

Pro
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
845
Reputation
243
Daps
2,360
Reppin
NULL
You should call the researchers and tell them their conclusions and the statement made to the media I've linked are wrong
My man--
there is no need to discuss this with the researchers.
They state very, very, very clearly in the conclusion that the study only involved the vaccinated:
Conclusion Increased risks of haematological and vascular events that led to hospital admission or death were observed for short time intervals after first doses of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines. The risks of most of these events were substantially higher and more prolonged after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination in the same population.

You're able to read this right?
You're able to comprehend what that means, yeah?

It's saying that the risks of (events) were observed after people received a vaccine. Yeah? Do we agree on that? Would you agree that this sentence:
Increased risks of haematological and vascular events that led to hospital admission or death were observed for short time intervals after first doses of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines.
Means that there is an increased risk of events after a shot?
Ok.
Good.
We're on the same page there.
Now, let's look at the next piece:
The risks of most of these events were substantially higher and more prolonged after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination in the same population.
What this is saying, is that the risk for those (events) is higher after infection with COVID in the same population. What is that population? We have to go BACK a sentence, and see that the population is what?
People who received:
first doses of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines.
Right?
So the conclusion for the study you are posting is that
The vaccinated are suffering complications at a higher rate after catching COVID than they did after their first dose.

You gotta be the dumbest motherfukker I've ever interacted with on this site.
You got kids?
 

Payday23

Superstar
Joined
Nov 20, 2014
Messages
14,940
Reputation
1,546
Daps
55,873
My man--
there is no need to discuss this with the researchers.
They state very, very, very clearly in the conclusion that the study only involved the vaccinated:


You're able to read this right?
You're able to comprehend what that means, yeah?

It's saying that the risks of (events) were observed after people received a vaccine. Yeah? Do we agree on that? Would you agree that this sentence:

Means that there is an increased risk of events after a shot?
Ok.
Good.
We're on the same page there.
Now, let's look at the next piece:

What this is saying, is that the risk for those (events) is higher after infection with COVID in the same population. What is that population? We have to go BACK a sentence, and see that the population is what?
People who received:

Right?
So the conclusion for the study you are posting is that
The vaccinated are suffering complications at a higher rate after catching COVID than they did after their first dose.

You gotta be the dumbest motherfukker I've ever interacted with on this site.
You got kids?
You clearly know more than the people running the study so go call them and tell them they're wrong while sucking that covid infested dikk
 

DjMe

Pro
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
845
Reputation
243
Daps
2,360
Reppin
NULL
You clearly know more than the people running the study so go call them and tell them they're wrong while sucking that covid infested dikk

:russ:

I don't claim to know more than the people running the study--just more than you.
Are you trying to refute that the study didn't look at only vaccinated people?
@Rhakim --you're poster of the year, boosted, and have supported government overreach in this event since the beginning. Come back up your mans here, tell me I'm wrong. We need mediation in this debate.
 
Top