• rootsbreadandmakka [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    57·
    11 days ago

    Was supposed to video chat with my friend the other day.

    he hits me up and goes “sorry man I can’t talk today. I’m sick and can’t get out of bed.”

    With a cold? A cold has so knocked you on your ass that you haven’t been able to get out of bed for days? Of course he won’t actually test so to him he just has a cold.

    • SnowySkyes [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
      38·
      11 days ago

      To be fair, I recently had an illness of some sort that fatigued the absolute fuck out of me. I tested 6 times for COVID and all of them came up negative. Still have no idea wtf it was.

      • Hello_Kitty_enjoyer [none/use name]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
        321·
        11 days ago

        the BEST covid tests have 80% accuracy on the BEST day to test

        your shitty rapid test prob has 60% accuracy on that day, and declining every day afterwards

        alternatively your immune system is fucked from covid and now colds and flus fuck you up

        the best way to test for covid is stool tests but crackers are dumb so this doesn’t happen

      • coolusername@lemmy.mlEnglish
        5·
        11 days ago

        I had a bacterial infection of the tonsils but my throat didn’t even hurt. Symptoms were basically flu-like with fever, chills, and headache. It was my first time having such a thing, no idea how I contracted it.

    • viva_la_juche [they/them, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
      31·
      11 days ago

      The last couple of time I’ve thought I’ve been sick I used the tests I got from Biden but they always come back negative and so has my partners. I feel like/assume the tests don’t do a great job with the new strains

      E: not saying people shouldn’t test this just reminded me about my frustration around testing

      • rootsbreadandmakka [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        27·
        11 days ago

        Yeah the rapid tests can only really tell you if you have it, they can’t really confirm a negative. The CDC recommendation is to test twice within 48 hours, thrice in 72 if you’re having symptoms. Which sort of negates the usefulness of the free tests when you’re only giving out like a couple per household. We need free and abundant PCR testing.

    • EmmaGoldman [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.netMEnglish
      27·
      11 days ago

      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.

      • rootsbreadandmakka [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        9·
        11 days ago

        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.

      • Hello_Kitty_enjoyer [none/use name]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
        81·
        11 days ago

        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

        • Chronicon [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
          12·
          11 days ago

          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.

          Rapid tests are straight trash though

          • very_poggers_gay [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
            5·
            11 days ago

            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.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
          1·
          11 days ago

          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.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
              2·
              11 days ago

              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.

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.todayEnglish
                  1·
                  10 days ago

                  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.

  • QueerCommie [comrade/them, she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
    37·
    11 days ago

    Source so I can dunk on libs?

    I’ve been diligently masking and handwashing and I feel a tingle in my throat like there’s an illness coming on :/. I’ve seen exactly two masked people in the entirety of the last year.

  • abc [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    20·
    11 days ago

    REAL. I’m still testing negative on the covid tests I am still going through from the last time I got some free ones (and thus I am pretty sure they don’t detect the new strain) but I am convinced this is what I have because charles-agony my entire body is sore, my throat is still raw from vomiting every other hour Tuesday night after bed, and I keep coughing.

  • TankieTanuki [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    20·
    11 days ago

    I was just in a stuffy auditorium with 1000 other students for an hour (I did not know in advance that I was going to be there), so I’m pretty sure I’ll get sick. meow-tableflip

    I need to start bringing a mask in my book bag, even if nobody else on campus wears one. I managed to make it all these years without the rona (until now?)

  • vovchik_ilich [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    13·
    11 days ago

    Ok, seriously, what should be the approach on a societal level? The whole point of masks and isolation was to prevent spreading not in general for the sake of preventing it, but as a way to “flatten the curve” as a way to make people get vaccinated hopefully before catching it for the first time, and to prevent the overload and collapse of the sanitary system.

    I’m asking from ignorance because I’m not an epidemiologist, whether it makes sense for individuals to wear masks to slow the spread during normal periods of healthcare not collapsing, and in a scenario where already the overwhelming majority of the population has been exposed to the virus and to vaccines; or whether it’s best to let people get immunity through normal exposure to the virus as we’ve been doing with basically every other seasonal virus in existence (with vaccinations available for at-risk individuals)

    • Owl [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      20·
      11 days ago

      Quarantines based on contact tracing, ample sick leave, culture of wearing a mask when feeling sick, easy access to tests, vaccines.

      If every country did it, covid would still be around, but getting stuck in quarantine would become a less and less frequent annoyance. Eventually the spread would be low enough that the mutation rate would settle down, and vaccines would start being more effective.

      • vovchik_ilich [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        7·
        11 days ago

        As a non-epidemiologist, this sounds extremely sensible to me. Public campaigns to make people agree to voluntarily use open source, verifiably anonymous contact apps for quarantining, would be very welcome; face masks when having COVID symptoms, ample sick leave, and free access to facemasks, tests and vaccines, sounds amazing. Thank you for your input

      • vovchik_ilich [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        61·
        11 days ago

        It does grant a certain degree of immunity, especially in terms of reduced symptoms and effects upon following sickness, the main thing afaik is that the virus mutates as the flu or the common cold do, so that you don’t get full immunity to the newly appearing variants (remember the stuff with Omicron and so on?). Death rates now are much lower than they were at first

        • EelBolshevikism [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
          151·
          11 days ago

          well, no, because Covid is a virus which harms the immune system. you would maybe be correct otherwise, but Covid is an entirely different horrific beast of our own creation

        • Hello_Kitty_enjoyer [none/use name]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
          8·
          11 days ago

          It does grant a certain degree of immunity, especially in terms of reduced symptoms and effects upon following sickness

          yea, instead of dying you now develop AIDS and cancer and can’t walk 10 yards and lose your sense of taste for 3 years straight

          it grants a degree of immunity that is so small in comparison to the virus’ effects that it doesn’t matter in absolute terms

          • vovchik_ilich [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            5·
            11 days ago

            I’m sorry, but saying that “the degree of immunity doesn’t matter in absolute terms” when talking about infection-acquired immunity doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. A 2021 study in children and adolescents says explicitly “the effectiveness of naturally acquired immunity against a recurrent infection reached 89% at 3-6 months after the first infection, and declined slightly to 82% by 9-12 months after infection, with a slight nonsignificant waning trend seen up to 18 months after infection”. A 2022 study comparing the immunity of non-previously-infected vaccinees with that of non-previously-vaccinated but previously infected people, showed that there’s at least 5 times more odds to be infected if you were vaccinated only than if you were previously infected only. With equal sample sizes, 484 of the vaccinated individuals got infected in the study, whereas 68 got infected in the previously infected group.

            I say all of this as a 3x vaccinated person who acknowledges the great effectiveness of vaccines, but the studies show that exposure to the virus is in any case even more effective at generating natural immunity. This isn’t an argument for not doing anything and becoming spreaders, it’s not an argument for stopping facemasks, or for stopping vaccines, I support wearing facemasks when symptoms appear, quarantining when exposed to the virus, ample sick leave, and vaccine availability for everyone at no cost. I just want to be realistic about the science when we talk about these things, and saying that “the degree of immunity is so small as to not matter in absolute terms” simply doesn’t match the reality.

            • ryepunk [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
              5·
              11 days ago

              If your definition of immunity is “doesn’t kill you”, sure it doesn’t kill you. Usually.

              But if you take the typical idea of immunity as “immune to this disease once you’ve had it” then catching covid does not make you immune at all. With some people catching it within 3 months or less of a previous infection. And given the rising evidence we’ve seen of how long covid occurs at startlingly higher rates from subsequent reinfections, it’s laughable that you would even consider the notion of immunity to covid at all. It has proven to move faster than we can adapt to it naturally or with science.

              • vovchik_ilich [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
                5·
                11 days ago

                But if you take the typical idea of immunity as “immune to this disease once you’ve had it” then catching covid does not make you immune at all. With some people catching it within 3 months or less of a previous infection

                It’s literally the same as with the common cold or with the flu. I’m not claiming that reinfections can’t have bad consequences, I’m claiming reinfections are less common if you’ve been infected recently, which is kinda the definition of immunity (reduced likelihood of being infected after overcoming a previous infection). “Completely immune to the disease once you had it” works for some diseases like measles, but it doesn’t for others like flu or common cold, or COVID, that doesn’t mean there isn’t an immunity boost after infection.

                • Hello_Kitty_enjoyer [none/use name]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
                  5·
                  11 days ago

                  It’s literally the same as with the common cold or with the flu

                  no it isn’t please stop concern trolling with technical truths

                  I support wearing facemasks when symptoms appear

                  it spreads asymptomatically, this does nothing and is libshit

    • AmericaDelendaEst [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
      6·
      11 days ago

      Honestly idfk at this point because the numerous mammalian wildlife reservoirs means that even strict quarantine procedures for whatever length of time necessary to stamp it out in human populations means it will inevitably resurface anyway, at some point, somewhere, when bat coughs on a dude or something.

    • emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      1·
      10 days ago

      People dont ‘get immunity’ to seasonal viruses, thats why theres constantly updated flu shot every year. Not enough people get the shot, kncluding me sometimes, but with the flu its mostly just a mild irritation for a few days with minimal lasting effects. Still, less people would get it if everyone would mask up and get vaccinated, as we saw during covid when barely anyone got the flu due to wearing masks. This isnt a complicated social problem, masks protect people from germs of all kinds, and the more people wearing them, especially when theyre feeling sick, the better off the rest of the population will be. Especially since covid can have such lasting effects.

  • ashinadash [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
    121·
    11 days ago

    Never understood that. Since covid hit I have tested obsessively every time I get a stomach ache, a cough, clogged sinuses, anything that’s even one covid symptom. Never had it (all tests returned negative) and am an N95 enjoyer, and I’m still worried as fuck.

  • Hestia [comrade/them, she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
    6·
    11 days ago

    My sense of smell has been weaker for a few years now.

    I don’t think it’s covid in my case though… Probably the vinyl and shit I breathed in during my foray into manufacturing. I probably have 10x the microplastics in my body than most people…

    It did fuck up my sister’s sniffer though.