Reddit moderators deleting posts of people claiming they developed long covid from vaccine

[hapl808]

the daily news in the US is filled with stories of unvaccinated, non-obese, not high risk, healthy pros in their 20s, 30s, and 40s are filling up hospital beds

I have read these news reports, but I have not seen convincing data on that. Our death rate has been relatively flat for several months. Delta itself is causing an explosion of infections and you would presume deaths will follow to some degree eventually, but most of the media reports I've seen are still anecdotal. You can always find one healthy college age person who died from COVID. You can find deaths in breakthroughs as well. That doesn't mean that vaccines aren't working, but it also doesn't mean that ALL people in hospitals are unvaccinated. I know what the news is reporting, but it's peculiar because other countries are finding vaccines effective, but only the USA is claiming near perfection.

 

[Learner1]

I have read these news reports, but I have not seen convincing data on that.

There is a lot of distrust of the media being fomented. The data is there if you dig for it.

Our death rate has been relatively flat for several months

Deaths in the US are up 65% in the last 2 weeks and hospitalizations are up 87% according to today's NY Times. Just in case you haven't seen it, here's today's map of where cases are high in the US.

You can always find one healthy college age person who died from COVID.

It's more than one. And a couple have also had double lung transplants.

That doesn't mean that vaccines aren't working, but it also doesn't mean that ALL people in hospitals are unvaccinated.

98-99% of patients in states with lower vaccination rates seem to be unvaccinated. The breakthrough rate of the vaccinated is under .1, but if you're one of them, it can be a problem - there were 5 of the 600 or so vaccinated people in the Provincetown MA outbreak who were hospitalized.

In general, being vaccinated does seem to be protecting most people from serious infection, which is what they were intended to do.

I know what the news is reporting, but it's peculiar because other countries are finding vaccines effective, but only the USA is claiming near perfection.

No one seems to be claiming perfection for anything related to COVID. There are over 4500 breakthrough infections in my state. That doesn't sound like perfection. However, most do not seem to be too sick, again, falling in line with what we were told about the. Vaccine, that it prevents serious cases.

However, as an immunocompromised patient, I find I can't rely on generalities, but should be aware of what's going on, and wear a mask where rates are higher and where there are unvaccinated people (including children under 12), even though I'm vaccinated.

 

[IThinkImTurningJapanese]

Not sure what's happening in Japan, but the daily news in the US is filled with stories of unvaccinated, non-obese, not high risk, healthy pros in their 20s, 30s, and 40s are filling up hospital beds at scarily in reading rates. What do they have in common?

Obesity.

Americans are, in general, severely in denial about what constitutes obesity. It's a very unhealthy situation.

Of course, 40's involve lower NAD+ levels.

COVID-19: NAD+ deficiency may predispose the aged, obese and type2 diabetics to mortality through its effect on SIRT1 activity

The SARS-CoV-2 hyperinflammatory response is associated with high mortality. This hypothesis suggests that a deficiency of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+) may be the primary factor related to the SARS-Cov-2 disease spectrum and the risk for mortality, as subclinical nutritional deficiencies may be unmasked by any significant increase in oxidative stress.
NAD+ levels decline with age and are also reduced in conditions associated with oxidative stress as occurs with hypertension, diabetes and obesity. These groups have also been observed to have high mortality following infection with COVID-19. Further consumption of NAD+ in a pre-existent depleted state is more likely to cause progression to the hyperinflammatory stage of the disease through its limiting effects on the production of SIRT1.
This provides a unifying hypothesis as to why these groups are at high risk of mortality and suggests that nutritional support with NAD+ and SIRT1 activators, could minimise disease severity if administered prophylactically and or therapeutically. The significance of this, if proven, has far-reaching consequences in the management of COVID-19 especially in third world countries, where resources and finances are limited.

 

[Learner1]

@hapl808

There are some numbers for you in this article

https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_27d70fae-f0b0-11eb-a532-4fba452ecc7e.html

@IThinkImTurningJapanese

Your article says "may" and "could." It is not proven. While it is known that obesity does seem to have made hospitalizations and deaths more likely, people who are not obese or diabetic are having these happen too. Not everyone in the US is obese, though some states have much higher rates than others

 

[IThinkImTurningJapanese]

@Learner1

Conclusion
The SARS-CoV-2 hyperinflammatory response is associated with high mortality. A deficiency of NAD+, in the context of an elevated CD38, may be the primary factor related to the SARS-Cov-2 disease spectrum and the risk of mortality, as subclinical nutritional deficiencies may be unmasked by any significant increase in oxidative stress.
NAD+ levels decline with age and are also reduced in conditions associated with oxidative stress as occurs with hypertension, diabetes and obesity. These same groups have also been observed to have high mortality following infection with COVID-19. Further consumption of NAD+ in a pre-existent depleted state is more likely to cause progression to the hyperinflammatory stage of the disease through its limiting effects on the production of SIRT1.
Given that activation of SIRT1 is dependent on the availability of NAD+ and zinc and that high levels of oxidative stress deplete NAD+, thereby decreasing SIRT1 activity, nutritional support with NAD+ precursors and SIRT1 activators, could minimise disease severity if administered prophylactically and or therapeutically. The significance of this hypothesis, if proven, has far-reaching consequences in the management of COVID-19 especially in third world countries, where resources and finances are limited.

 

[drob31]

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081v1

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

 

[HowToEscape?]

Bret Weinstein is quite intelligent and has some very valid criticisms of much of the mainstream research. Unfortunately, his incisive criticism loses that edge when pointed at his own ideas. Like many in the mainstream, he's not consistent in the rigor of his criticism or data. For instance, some of Bret and Heather's extreme anti-mask criticism is based on their 'feelings' seeing kids and vague thoughts of devastating 'evolutionary' effects of masking (even though there are many cultures where masking is not new and they are basing this on PhD feelings, not published research or even well formed hypotheses).

In short, I like to hear his opinion and like that he has his own views. I think his ostracism and censorship is unfair and a sign of the rot in our systems.

I think his criticism of the 'certainty' of mainstream medicine when the data is not supportive is very fair. I think his touting of his own certainty (on Ivermectin, the dangers of mRNA, who really invented mRNA vaccines, masks are destroying children's emotional development) could use some of the trademark Weinstein skepticism.

Ivermectin, for instance, is not new to the ME/CFS community. Some have had decent results, some have not. It seems relatively safe, but no one seems to know why people without positive parasite tests seem to benefit, and others with the same symptoms don't. So we are familiar with that uncertainty, and my first spider tingle that something is amiss is when I hear certainty in others when it shouldn't be there.

Hip, that was a very thoughtful post.

 

[bensmith]

I guess we are going to have to sign waivers for boosters, because of heart inflammation. Thats what my loca pharmacist said, her son is in trials for booster.

This shows they know vax are at least dangerous for some. I’m sad they are censoring some of the dangerous of vac for me.

I am very pro vax, but i still think facts should be available.

 

[drob31]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext?s=09

@Hip


I'm reading this as the vaccines having a overall risk reduction of 1.3% or less.

 

[bensmith]

You are saying that vax are not effective?

 

[hapl808]

I'm reading this as the vaccines having a overall risk reduction of 1.3% or less.

This is the difference between ARR and RRR. Both are important and neither should be looked at in a vacuum.

Let's say there's a supplement you can take which gives you a 75% less likelihood of dying from leukemia. Both ARR and RRR are important. If your chance is 1%, then a 75% reduction is now a 0.25% chance. At a population level, that's a lot less deaths. Your individual risk may still be low, because it would go from 1% to 0.25%, an ARR of 0.75%. Still could save maybe 15k lives per year?

Within higher risk populations, the calculations change significantly. For COVID (and the vaccines) there are many risk factors for many different groups adding to the complexity.

I support vaccination, but some groups tend to be ignored in the risk calculations (like us).

 

[andyguitar]

You are saying that vax are not effective?

It's research from April. Out of date.

 

[Hip]

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext?s=09

@Hip


I'm reading this as the vaccines having a overall risk reduction of 1.3% or less.

In addition to @hapl808 's explanation, another explanation of ARR is here:

You could also, of course, calculate the absolute risk reduction. That’s simply the difference in risk for someone in the treatment group versus someone in the control group.

Here’s an example: Say you have 100 people who don’t get a vaccine, and you find that 10 of them catch the disease. So the baseline risk of getting it is 10%.

And suppose that 100 other people get the vaccine, and only one of these gets sick. Their risk is 1%.

The absolute risk reduction (ARR) is then just 9% (10% minus 1%), because the risk was already pretty low. But the relative risk reduction (RRR) is 90%—that reduction of 9% divided by the baseline risk of 10%.

 

[drob31]

In addition to @hapl808 's explanation, another explanation of ARR is here:

So are you saying it's not a useful study?

 

[drob31]

One of the issues I have the the drive to push vaccines for children when it doesnt maken sense from a statistical perspective.

Heres an example:

 

[bensmith]

I’m in the survival pool if you switch to oklahoma. I firmly believe a vax would have saved me from me/cfs. Covid fucked me up real bad.

surely there are less vax complications as compared to post viral disease hospitlization and death.(for adults anyway, death)

 

[JES]

So are you saying it's not a useful study?

No, you are just looking at the wrong numbers. They clearly state in the study that relative risk reductions are 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 94% for the Moderna–NIH, 91% for the Gamaleya, 67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines.

The absolute risk reduction measures change in percentage points, whereas relative risk reduction is the percentage of change. To give an example, if the inflation rate goes up from 1 to 2%, it would be just a 1 percentage point change. In percentage, it's a 100% or twice-fold increase, which is why you shouldn't use percentage points for measuring change.

 

[andyguitar]

One of the issues I have the the drive to push vaccines for children when it doesnt maken sense from a statistical perspective.

How many got long covid? How many passed the virus to someone who became very ill or died?

 

[IThinkImTurningJapanese]

How many got long covid? How many passed the virus to someone who became very ill or died?

Vaccinated people are passing the virus on to others.

Study: Vaccinated people can carry as much virus as others

In another dispiriting setback for the nation’s efforts to stamp out the coronavirus, scientists who studied a big COVID-19 outbreak in Massachusetts concluded that vaccinated people who got so-called breakthrough infections carried about the same amount of the coronavirus as those who did not get the shots.
Health officials on Friday released details of that research, which was key in this week’s decision by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to recommend that vaccinated people return to wearing masks indoors in parts of the U.S. where the delta variant is fueling infection surges. The authors said the findings suggest that the CDC’s mask guidance should be expanded to include the entire country, even outside of hot spots.
The findings have the potential to upend past thinking about how the disease is spread. Previously, vaccinated people who got infected were thought to have low levels of virus and to be unlikely to pass it to others. But the new data shows that is not the case with the delta variant.

 

[drob31]

I’m in the survival pool if you switch to oklahoma. I firmly believe a vax would have saved me from me/cfs. Covid fucked me up real bad.

surely there are less vax complications as compared to post viral disease hospitlization and death.(for adults anyway, death)

There are also many reports of long haul covid from the vaccine itself.