Corona Virus: It's a Marathon, Not a Sprint

[Smoove_B]

Funny story about those articles - there's quite a few - and it almost feels like a new coordinated effort to try and suggest masks don't work. Masks absolutely work - when used correctly. The parallels to when we tried to get people to wear seat belts or use condoms is really starting to get overwhelming. Literally the exact same things were being said by people and groups that were against them, despite overwhelming evidence they worked.

Here's a substack on what is happening.

[Max Peck]

A New Turn in the Fight Over Masks

On Twitter, longtime critics of masking and mandates held this up as the proof they’d long waited for. The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative outlet, quoted a researcher who has called the analysis the “scientific nail in the coffin for mask mandates.” The vaccine skeptic Robert Malone used it to refute what he called “self-appointed ‘experts’” on masking. Some researchers weighed in with more nuanced interpretations, pointing out limitations in the review’s methods that made it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Even the CDC director, Rochelle Walensky, pushed back against the paper in congressional testimony this week, citing its small sample size of COVID-specific studies. The argument is heated and technical, and probably won’t be resolved anytime soon. But the fact that the fight is ongoing makes clear that there still isn’t a firm answer to among the most crucial of pandemic questions: Just how effective are masks at stopping COVID?

An important feature of Cochrane reviews is that they look only at “randomized controlled trials,” considered the gold standard for certain types of research because they compare the impact of one intervention with another while tightly controlling for biases and confounding variables. The trials considered in the review compared groups of people who masked with those who didn’t in an effort to estimate how effective masking is at blunting the spread of COVID in a general population. The population-level detail is important: It indicates uncertainty about whether requiring everyone to wear a mask makes a difference in viral spread. This is different from the impact of individual masking, which has been better researched. Doctors, after all, routinely mask when they’re around sick patients and do not seem to be infected more often than anyone else. “We have fairly decent evidence that masks can protect the wearer,” Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist at Brown University, told me. “Where I think it sort of falls apart is relating that to the population level.”

There's a subtle difference between whether mask mandates were effective at the population level and whether a properly fitted N95 respirator will reduce the amount of viral particles that an individual inhales. Well, maybe it's not all that subtle, but whatever. I continue to wear one in circumstances where it makes sense.

They're also great for keeping pollen out of my nose in the spring.

[hitbyambulance]

No need

i was out in public often the last two years, wearing N95s (or an elastomer respirator in large crowds) - didn't catch Covid at all. i didn't even catch any upper respiratory infections - without mask wearing, i would have come down with a cold at least twice a year.

[LordMortis]

They're also great for keeping pollen out of my nose in the spring.

I learned they are handy when mowing the lawn during dry summer season. Heck they are handy during dry summer season, generally, but soooo much more so when mowing the lawn.

Also, while mask may somehow only work on the "individual level" whatever that means. This individual is among the only one he knows who hasn't had COVID yet. Though, I may go out for the first time this weekend in a social situation, indoors, around strangers drinking this weekend. If we're collectively done with vaccinating then three years may be long enough to lower my tolerance for risk.

[Zaxxon]

Also, while mask may somehow only work on the "individual level" whatever that means.

Essentially, it means that if you're not a child or a dumbass and you actually wear your mask properly and consistently, it will have a benefit. At the population level, most people absolutely do not, and so the net benefit is much lower there than on the individual level.

[Max Peck]

Think about how a large portion of people actually conducted themselves while mask mandates were in place. Inferior cloth masks, poorly fitting disposable masks, masks that were worn improperly (under the nose, under the chin, etc). Or not at all, because Freedom!

There is no paradox in poorly implemented mask mandates not working well to limit the spread of the disease while, for individuals, properly fitted respirators with good filtering properties reduce the likelihood of transmission to or from the wearer.

And then there is the whole "immunity debt" argument the same anti-maskers make that claim that masks work too well. Saying that they don't work at all while simultaneously saying they work too well is some sweet plusgood doublethink.

[GreenGoo]

I continue to wear one in circumstances where it makes sense.

ditto. I find there is roughly a mix of about 50/50 in Ottawa, of mask wearers to no mask wearers. Doesn't appear to be animosity between the two groups, which is nice.

[Victoria Raverna]

If it works in individual level, isn't it logical that it'll also work at the population level?

If a person wear mask have less chance of getting COVID-19. A masked population is also going to have less chance of spreading COVID-19.

Is it not as if mask cancel each other. A masked person isn't going to be easier to get COVID-19 from another masked person than a non masked one.

[Pyperkub]

Think about how a large portion of people actually conducted themselves while mask mandates were in place. Inferior cloth masks, poorly fitting disposable masks, masks that were worn improperly (under the nose, under the chin, etc). Or not at all, because Freedom!

There is no paradox in poorly implemented mask mandates not working well to limit the spread of the disease while, for individuals, properly fitted respirators with good filtering properties reduce the likelihood of transmission to or from the wearer.

And then there is the whole "immunity debt" argument the same anti-maskers make that claim that masks work too well. Saying that they don't work at all while simultaneously saying they work too well is some sweet plusgood doublethink.

100% this. I remember watching sports and EVERY SINGLE COACH on the sidelines had their mask down around their chin so they could yell.

Also, at Costco I even admonished someone (mildly - by miming pulling up his mask) when he had his mask on below his nose).

[ImLawBoy]

If it works in individual level, isn't it logical that it'll also work at the population level?

It only has an impact at a population level if all/most individuals are doing it. If 2 out of 10 people are masking, those 2 might have some increased protection, but the group of 10 at large is still largely unprotected.

[Pyperkub]

Hmm. Link between Covid and diabetes?

A person's odds of getting a new diabetes diagnosis were 58 percent higher in the months following a COVID-19 infection compared with prior to infection, even amid the era of omicron, researchers reported Wednesday in the journal JAMA Network Open.

The study is just the latest to link the development of diabetes to COVID-19, which pandemic data suggests increases the risk of a range of cardiometabolic conditions, including blood clots, myocarditis, stroke, and diabetes. A study published early last year in Nature Medicine tapped into the medical records of more than 11 million veterans and found that people who had recovered from COVID-19 had a 63 percent higher risk of developing any of 20 cardiovascular diseases, including a 55 percent higher risk of heart attack, stroke, and death.

Vaxxed v Unvaxxed data still being investigated, but potential link:

Unvaccinated people did appear to have higher odds of developing diabetes in the post-COVID window than vaccinated people, but the link was not statistically significant due to wide confidence intervals of the odds estimates. Studies overall have been mixed on how vaccination status impacts the risk of long-term COVID-19-associated conditions—such as diabetes—given differences in definitions of long COVID and in the time since vaccination. Some studies have found no difference in risk, while others have found that vaccination reduces the risk of long-term conditions by as much as 41 percent.

[LordMortis]

For Smoove, where I may find her.

Even NPR says we're on our own

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/10/11555165 ... s-weigh-in

Keep assessing your own risk and comfort level

All three experts agree it's a matter of weighing personal risks.

[Blackhawk]

Weighing them based on what information, exactly?

Part of the recent movement has been to eliminate the tools necessary to judge personal risk. You either blindly do, or you blindly do not.

(...there is no blindly try.)

[Smoove_B]

Even NPR says we're on our own

Well, when they're using Dr. Wachter and Dr. Gandhi as resources, it's no wonder. The amount of press coverage these two have somehow earned over the last 2+ years is mind blowing. Neither has any business speaking about masking or public health policy; they're clinicians. But hey, they spout the narrative people want to hear so let's feature them in a national news article.

[naednek]

Hope I'm not being redundant sharing this. But wtf

https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local ... be10300075

Idaho lawmakers introduce legislation to criminalize those who administer COVID vaccines

[Victoria Raverna]

If it works in individual level, isn't it logical that it'll also work at the population level?

It only has an impact at a population level if all/most individuals are doing it. If 2 out of 10 people are masking, those 2 might have some increased protection, but the group of 10 at large is still largely unprotected.

But still better than 0 out of 10 people are masking.

[Smoove_B]

Hope I'm not being redundant sharing this. But wtf

https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local ... be10300075

Idaho lawmakers introduce legislation to criminalize those who administer COVID vaccines

I...had not seen this. There was legislation that was being floated in TN earlier this week that was going to prohibit mRNA vaccines in food, but this is something else.

[LawBeefaroni]

Hope I'm not being redundant sharing this. But wtf

https://www.ktvb.com/article/news/local ... be10300075

Idaho lawmakers introduce legislation to criminalize those who administer COVID vaccines

I...had not seen this. There was legislation that was being floated in TN earlier this week that was going to prohibit mRNA vaccines in food, but this is something else.

Our state lawmakers are even more off the rails than our federal ones. Odds are that this never passes, it's just another PR move.

[Unagi]

prohibit mRNA vaccines in food

What? I mean, that's weird - right? What's this even about? Is this about something like a medical 'gummy bear' for kids, or something else?

[ImLawBoy]

If it works in individual level, isn't it logical that it'll also work at the population level?

It only has an impact at a population level if all/most individuals are doing it. If 2 out of 10 people are masking, those 2 might have some increased protection, but the group of 10 at large is still largely unprotected.

But still better than 0 out of 10 people are masking.

Yes, but minimal effect at a population level.

[Unagi]

If it works in individual level, isn't it logical that it'll also work at the population level?

If a person wear mask have less chance of getting COVID-19. A masked population is also going to have less chance of spreading COVID-19.

Is it not as if mask cancel each other. A masked person isn't going to be easier to get COVID-19 from another masked person than a non masked one.

Here we are in Feb of 2023. Are you saying something profound here? I am not following your point, beyond what we all basically have known for almost three years now.

Masked is better than not masked, with regard to catching and passing COVID-19.

[stessier]

If it works in individual level, isn't it logical that it'll also work at the population level?

If a person wear mask have less chance of getting COVID-19. A masked population is also going to have less chance of spreading COVID-19.

Is it not as if mask cancel each other. A masked person isn't going to be easier to get COVID-19 from another masked person than a non masked one.

Here we are in Feb of 2023. Are you saying something profound here? I am not following your point, beyond what we all basically have known for almost three years now.

Masked is better than not masked, with regard to catching and passing COVID-19.

I think the point is that masks should work at the population level, but the original link suggests they do not. So why should we believe masks work at all? Everyone else is explaining why the original link has issues in its analysis.

[LordMortis]

I think the point is that masks should work at the population level, but the original link suggests they do not. So why should we believe masks work at all? Everyone else is explaining why the original link has issues in its analysis.

That's how I took it but then that's how I took reading the original piece.

[Victoria Raverna]

If it works in individual level, isn't it logical that it'll also work at the population level?

If a person wear mask have less chance of getting COVID-19. A masked population is also going to have less chance of spreading COVID-19.

Is it not as if mask cancel each other. A masked person isn't going to be easier to get COVID-19 from another masked person than a non masked one.

Here we are in Feb of 2023. Are you saying something profound here? I am not following your point, beyond what we all basically have known for almost three years now.

Masked is better than not masked, with regard to catching and passing COVID-19.

My point is that if it is working on individual level, then it is also work at population level. So there is no individual vs population level. If it works for individual, it works for population. If it doesn't work for population then it doesn't works for individual.

[Max Peck]

If it works in individual level, isn't it logical that it'll also work at the population level?

If a person wear mask have less chance of getting COVID-19. A masked population is also going to have less chance of spreading COVID-19.

Is it not as if mask cancel each other. A masked person isn't going to be easier to get COVID-19 from another masked person than a non masked one.

Here we are in Feb of 2023. Are you saying something profound here? I am not following your point, beyond what we all basically have known for almost three years now.

Masked is better than not masked, with regard to catching and passing COVID-19.

My point is that if it is working on individual level, then it is also work at population level. So there is no individiual vs population level. If it works for individual, it works for population. If it doesn't work for population then it doesn't works for individual.

Why would it work at the population level if most people don't bother wearing masks? Not doing something does not prove that doing that something doesn't work.

[Victoria Raverna]

If it works in individual level, isn't it logical that it'll also work at the population level?

If a person wear mask have less chance of getting COVID-19. A masked population is also going to have less chance of spreading COVID-19.

Is it not as if mask cancel each other. A masked person isn't going to be easier to get COVID-19 from another masked person than a non masked one.

Here we are in Feb of 2023. Are you saying something profound here? I am not following your point, beyond what we all basically have known for almost three years now.

Masked is better than not masked, with regard to catching and passing COVID-19.

My point is that if it is working on individual level, then it is also work at population level. So there is no individiual vs population level. If it works for individual, it works for population. If it doesn't work for population then it doesn't works for individual.

Why would it work at the population level if most people don't bother wearing masks? Not doing something does not prove that doing that something doesn't work.

Most people doesn't mean all people. So it works in individual level then it'll still work at population level. Maybe not as effective because not everyone wear masks, but still have significant effect.

Maybe you misunderstood me. I'm on the side that it has effect on population level. I don't need any study to know that. Just common sense. If it has effect on individual effect then it has effect on population level. As long as there are some people wear masks, it is going to be better than no one wear masks.

[Max Peck]

Significantly, the metastudy that is being touted on the right as showing that "masking doesn't work" did not actually conclude that masking doesn't work, it said that mask mandates hadn't been effective in controlling the spread of the disease. The reason that the mandates weren't effective is that there never was a mandate anywhere that was universally applied and that the entire population actually followed. The real take-away is that half-assed measures applied in a patchwork manner were not effective.

[Blackhawk]

Of course it has an effect on the population level. Without heavy buy-in, however, it's a statistically irrelevant effect.

Around here I probably see one person in 200 in a mask. That provides such a small benefit to the population that it falls within the margin of error. The impact wouldn't even be measurable.

[LawBeefaroni]

Last week the wife tested positive (we were prepping for, and had to cancel, yet another make-up trip to the in-laws). She had what she thought was a mild cold. Once again, despite several days of close proximity before testing, none of us tested positive. I took 2 PCRs at work, the last one yesterday. Kid have been rapid testing every 2 days.


What strikes me is that I was cleared for work the day of my first negative PCR and the kids were cleared for school immediately. I'm fortunate enough to be able to work from home and did. Kids went to school masked.

Much different than even a year ago.

[Zaxxon]

[What I thought was a g]ood article in The Atlantic today:

The Other Long COVID
The pandemic took young people’s present. What will it do to their future?

It's not the typical 'post-COVID' (sorry, Smoove) tripe arguing that closing schools was bad, so we shouldn't have done it--though there's a bit of reflection on how kids were not as at-risk as initially postulated. Rather, he's looking at the measured impacts of what closing schools cost kids, and how we might address those going forward (spoiler: we can't have nice things, so it's exceedingly unlikely we'll actually address them. But one can dream, no?).

According to nationwide test scores of 9-year-olds released this fall as part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Long-Term Trends report — which has tracked educational progress in the US going back to the 1970s — the rough equivalent of two decades of advancement for American students in reading and math was erased in just two years of deeply disrupted pandemic-era schooling.

In surveys, school guidance counselors from around the country were united in reporting that their students were showing more signs of depression and anxiety than before the pandemic. A new survey from the Pew Research Center at the end of January found that the mental health of their children is now the top concern of parents, with four in 10 saying that they are extremely or very worried that their children might struggle with anxiety or depression.

This pandemic will end eventually, but its effects on young people will last far longer. Lost education doesn’t slow down children, but permanently sets many of them back — fewer will go to college, while more may have ended up dropping out before high school graduation. One study found that the average American student could lose the equivalent of $70,000 in lifetime earnings if nothing was done to stem the effects of learning loss.

That may not sound like a lot over the course of an entire working life, but the average hides those who will be put permanently off track because of the pandemic. And it’s set to be especially damaging for poor students of color who have suffered disproportionately from learning loss, just as many of their family members did from Covid.

What this means is that paradoxically, the age group that was most resistant to the virus itself may be the group that pays the biggest price over the longest term. Call it the “other long Covid” — and it’s something the US is only beginning to grapple with.

A takeaway for me, which I already had awareness of but was still struck by, is how inequitable the impact has been.

In theory, of course, students who were out of school from the first panicked days of the pandemic to the endless weeks of omicron were still supposed to be in school — just remotely. And it’s worth remembering just how heroic an effort this was, as teachers and principals with little support and less training tried to figure out how to translate their pedagogical efforts to the age of Zoom.

But for the vast majority of students, remote schooling was a pale substitute for the real thing.

Let’s return to NAEP scores, this time for separate assessments that have tested a wide sample of the country’s fourth and eighth graders since the early 1990s. When the assessment test scores were released last October for the first time since 2019, average math scores for eighth graders had fallen by eight points, the steepest decline ever recorded. Thirty-eight percent of eighth graders were rated below “NAEP Basic” level in math — the most rudimentary level of mastery — up from 31 percent in 2019; 25 percent of fourth graders fell below basic in 2022, up from 19 percent in 2019.

Reading proficiency, which had been on the decline even before the pandemic, wasn’t any better, and not a single state showed meaningful improvement from before the pandemic. The declines were, as Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said, “appalling and unacceptable.”

Test scores, though, are raw figures; a better way to think of what happened to America’s students during the pandemic is time lost as a learner due to time lost in education. According to Georgetown University’s Edunomics Lab, which calculated the results based on a mix of how long a district operated in remote or hybrid and prior student performance, students in Los Angeles lost the equivalent of 22 weeks of learning in math and 18 weeks of learning in reading. In New York City, it was 16 weeks in math and 13 weeks in reading. In Miami-Dade, it was 10 weeks in math and eight weeks in reading.

To which you might say, as some critics did, so what? If students in 2022 were judged to be roughly as proficient in math and reading as their counterparts two decades ago, well, it’s not as if American kids in 2002 couldn’t read or write (though not as well as the students of 2019). If students had lost the equivalent of multiple weeks or even months of math and reading ability, well, there was surely time to make that up. The young, after all, have nothing but time.

But that attitude fails to appreciate what students really lost when they lost school. “Learning loss” may be the term experts agreed on when describing the effect of pandemic school disruptions, but for the most part, students didn’t suddenly lose what they had already achieved before the pandemic.

Rather, they lost the opportunity and the time to build on what they knew. And while that may have been a temporary hindrance for high-achieving students who had the support at home to catch up, it was nothing short of catastrophic for marginalized students of color who before the pandemic might have had the resources of their school, and little else.

In the NAEP data, students who were already in the bottom quartile lost more ground than top students, meaning the pandemic widened an already yawning gap in American educational achievement and performance.

For fourth graders, while the average reading score fell by three points, students in the top 90th percentile didn’t fall at all, while those in the bottom 10th percentile fell by six points. Black and Hispanic students, who were already behind white and Asian students on average, fell behind even further.

And that’s where the issue of progress really matters. Based on test scores, American students really had improved over the past two decades — and much of that improvement came from progress among Black, Hispanic, and low-income students. The pandemic didn’t just set back America’s students as a whole; it particularly set back those who had made, as a group, the most comparative progress in recent decades, and who could least afford to lose that progress.

As bad as these numbers are, they obscure some of the factors behind that damage that go beyond the facts of epidemiology or the scores on an assessment test — especially for students of color. While more than 200,000 Americans under the age of 18 had lost a caregiver to Covid by the end of February 2022, Black and Hispanic children experienced that loss at nearly twice the rate of white children. Just as American students experienced Covid education disruptions very differently based on who they were and where they lived, the same was just as true for the pandemic as a whole — and that clearly influenced remote schooling decisions as much as any teachers’ union or city politician.

What to do from here?

The good news is that evidence suggests that with remote classes behind us, learning has largely picked up its pre-pandemic pace again. But remember that education isn’t a conveyor belt; it’s a building, and many students who lost the opportunity to lay vital pieces of groundwork will remain behind unless we can help them build faster.

Just as the cause of pandemic-era learning loss was, in essence, not enough school, the remedy will likely be more — think double shifts to catch up on a construction project that has fallen behind schedule. But notions to extend the school year, perhaps through additional summer classes, would be costly, and have run into opposition from parents and teachers.

A better option, one increasingly borne out by research, would be a truly nationwide tutoring effort, with high doses of in-school, small-group learning. Such individualized, intensive tutoring programs have been shown to double or triple the amount of math high school students learn each year — precisely the kind of accelerated education needed to close the gap of learning loss.

Matthew Kraft, a professor of education and economics at Brown University, estimated that creating and running a universal K-12 tutoring program would cost about $50 billion a year. That’s far more, and over a far longer time frame, than Congress has allocated for schools in the aftermath of Covid. But given the kind of economic and social pain it might help avert, it seems more than worth it.

America’s kids, if given the support they need, can bounce back from this experience. After Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, many of the city’s public schools were closed for months, with the median student forced to evacuate losing about five weeks of instruction on average and on top of the hellish experience of the storm itself. When New Orleans schools reopened in fall 2006, kids came back with significant learning loss, especially in math.

But thanks in part to a sustained, targeted tutoring program, students were able not just to make up for much of what they lost, but to even improve. High school graduation rates increased, as did college attendance. The trauma of Katrina couldn’t be erased, any more than these hellish last three years. But the experience showed that what was lost can be regained.

As a country, the US is slowly coming to grips with the need to spend now to tackle challenges that threaten to darken the future tomorrow. That’s why Congress allocated hundreds of billions of dollars last year to the climate change-focused Inflation Reduction Act. What the country faces now with the tens of millions of young people suffering through the long knock-on effects of the Covid pandemic is every bit as meaningful, for the nation’s future, and for those who are meant to be that future.

$50B is a pittance, but I'm sure we won't do it.

[Zaxxon]

Last week the wife tested positive (we were prepping for, and had to cancel, yet another make-up trip to the in-laws). She had what she thought was a mild cold. Once again, despite several days of close proximity before testing, none of us tested positive. I took 2 PCRs at work, the last one yesterday. Kid have been rapid testing every 2 days.


What strikes me is that I was cleared for work the day of my first negative PCR and the kids were cleared for school immediately. I'm fortunate enough to work from home and did. Kids went to school masked.

Much different than even a year ago.

You snuck in while I was composing my post. Best of luck avoiding any follow-on infections. Similar situation to us at the start of this month: Daughter #1 caught COVID, had minor symptoms, and the rest of us kept distance/ventilation/protection up and all avoided getting it. Came close to missing a trip by the in-laws to us, though.

[Smoove_B]

$50B is a pittance, but I'm sure we won't do it.

Yeah, why should kids be any different than anything else? Lessons learned on remote work or remote meetings? No, they aren't important anymore - must return to 2019. Kids are behind and we have an opportunity to overhaul / boost / adjust the American education system? No, we just need to go back to 2019.

What's really bad is that the federal government actually provided schools with access to additional money for tutoring - money that could be spent on anything and everything related to catching kids up. I don't know when access to that pool of money ends, but I'm guessing somewhere around...5/11.

I'd seen another article over the weekend related to the state of mental health in kids and the suggestion that a reason (especially in girls) for the dramatic increase in mental health services over the last ~3 years was the realization kids were having that adults and the adult world doesn't give a crap about them. In other words, coming to the realization that words don't match actions is causing anxiety and stress - especially in school environments where typically they'd feel like they could trust teachers and school officials.

[LawBeefaroni]

My son tested at the 96th national %ile in MAP for math but the note below said "performing at grade level." I suspect I'm not understanding something there but if it is as it says, oh boy.

[Blackhawk]

Them's some good mathin' right there.

[Pyperkub]

$50B is a pittance, but I'm sure we won't do it.

There's also the 100% probability of another Pandemic, which we will be unprepared and stupid about again.

[Alefroth]

Even more so, I would have to think.

[Smoove_B]

Exhibit A:

Taxpayers paid $12 million for the devices. The city Economic Development Corporation awarded Spiro Wave LLC, the group that built the devices, $100,000 in “seed money” and secured the rights to buy 70% of whatever was produced going forward.

...

A junk dealer from Long Island picked up the entire $12 million, 500,000-pound kit and kaboodle — for only $24,600. It took the dealer 28 truckloads to cart the stuff away, auction records state.

And:

An investigation by THE CITY has determined that since last summer, the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) has systematically tried to auction off millions of dollars worth of COVID-related personal protective equipment (PPE) and medical supplies — gowns, face shields, hand sanitizer, KN95 masks, N95 masks — that the department decided are no longer needed. Many of these supplies remain in their original packaging and are brand-new.

THE CITY was able to connect specific auctions to 20 COVID-related medical supply contracts and confirmed the sales with a source familiar with the agency’s auction efforts who spoke to THE CITY on the condition of anonymity. About 9.5 million items purchased by the city government from $224 million in COVID-related contracts at the pandemic’s 2020 peak have been auctioned so far, garnering about $500,000.

But giving people masks for free? No, we can't do that.

[Defiant]

Just Published: 2 papers
A new study and a systematic review
The up-to-date body of evidence that supports Covid vaccination reduces the likelihood, severity, and duration of #LongCovid
https://bmjmedicine.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000385
https://bmjmedicine.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000229

[Smoove_B]

Dr. Topol has been a treasure for sharing reliable, useful information.

Heart attacks, strokes and other major adverse outcomes doubled in people post-Covid at 1 year compared with matched uninfected controls #LongCovid, replicating previous reports

Just to maybe clarify the language, the study found that for people that had COVID-19 and experienced some type of post covid condition (i.e. "Long Covid"), they were observed to have 2x rate of heart attacks, strokes and other major adverse health outcomes during the year following in comparison to people that didn't have a covid-19 infection during that same 1 year period of time.

Link to study for those inclined to read it.

[malchior]

Wait. The right has stamped their feet about the unequivocally superior benefits of natural immunity! Now we find beyond the deaths that there are more downsides?