SubJeff on 1/1/2021 at 12:11
You appear to have misread or misinterpreted what you've read then, because that isn't what any of that means.
faetal on 2/1/2021 at 01:20
Yes, remove the first sentence for the actual opinion on long COVID.
SubJeff on 2/1/2021 at 15:16
It goes further than that though.
When you read a scientific take on something be aware of the multitude of non-committal terms used; "linked to", "suggested", "may" and "may" in that excerpt.
You will find this is masses of articles and even papers on Covid. It is because something has been seen but the data is not robust enough to have a definitive conclusion on the real effect of factor x, y or z.
Since Covid is new there is a lot of this. An awful lot. And because it is actually a complex disease process this is doubly true. There are few things we can say with absolute certainty about this virus and its effects.
zombe on 3/1/2021 at 01:12
What the actual fuck ...
I first dismissed it as a weird outlier i probably misunderstood when i saw it in news, but ... it seems to be something real. Well, it still does not compute in my head ... i am totally baffled. Why are there LINES for vaccination is US? Lines of PEOPLE. Physically. Outside. How is this possible? Serious question. Not throwing shit or anything. HOW!?
Should not the vast-vast majority (/ all at this point) go the usual electronic/wire/doc -> vetting/registration -> show up at your allotted time? I mean, all this shit needs to happen anyway (for medical history and followups) - what the fuck for would you not bother setting a time for it also. None of this makes any sense.
Is it still some weird outlier? What am i missing?
Starker on 3/1/2021 at 01:21
At this point, nothing really surprises me, but I think they might be just vaccinating random people on a first come first served basis or something.
faetal on 3/1/2021 at 02:59
Quote Posted by SubJeff
It goes further than that though.
When you read a scientific take on something be aware of the multitude of non-committal terms used; "linked to", "suggested", "may" and "may" in that excerpt.
You will find this is masses of articles and even papers on Covid. It is because something has been seen but the data is not robust enough to have a definitive conclusion on the real effect of factor x, y or z.
Since Covid is new there is a lot of this. An awful lot. And because it is actually a complex disease process this is doubly true. There are few things we can say with absolute certainty about this virus and its effects.
Yes, but that's standard. I was just pointing out that the first sentence was not linked to the mechanism in the third.
Cipheron on 3/1/2021 at 20:24
Quote Posted by faetal
Yes, but that's standard. I was just pointing out that the first sentence was not linked to the mechanism in the third.
it was actually linked. The first line mentions increased risk of inflammation due to vitamin D deficiency, and the second and third lines mention an inflammatory response being possibly linked to 'long Covid'. The link is in the word inflammation / inflammatory.
Mind you this is just them theorizing, but that's the inferred link in the article.
SubJeff on 3/1/2021 at 20:57
Quote Posted by faetal
Yes, but that's standard. I was just pointing out that the first sentence was not linked to the mechanism in the third.
I know YOU know it's standard!
I know what you were pointing out!
I'm talking to the other guy.
faetal on 4/1/2021 at 01:42
Quote Posted by Cipheron
it was actually linked. The first line mentions increased risk of inflammation due to vitamin D deficiency, and the second and third lines mention an inflammatory response being possibly linked to 'long Covid'. The link is in the word inflammation / inflammatory.
I'll re-paste since it is on the last page:
Quote:
Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to an increased risk of viral respiratory infections in general, as well as inflammation.
It has been suggested severe coronavirus complications may come about when the immune system over-reacts to the infection, triggering a widespread inflammatory response that damages vital organs.
This may also be responsible for long COVID, where complications linger after a former coronavirus patient tests negative for the infection.
Both vitamin D deficiency and immune over-reaction are linked to inflammation (broad term). However the latter causes an
acute widespread inflammatory response which damages organs, which may be linked to long COVID.
There is no suggestion in those sentences that vitamin D deficiency causes anything in particular which is related to long COVID.
It might be surmised that higher background inflammation from vit D deficiency puts one at elevated risk of developing long COVID, but that isn't what the text says. Individual people have such widely varied immune responses (I would say that immunology is second only to maybe neuroscience in terms of permutational complexity), that it's not really a safe bet without direct evidence.
(I have a PhD & several years postdoc experience in immunology, specifically related to inflammation / tolerance, so I know a fair bit about this)
hopper on 4/1/2021 at 10:11
Quote Posted by faetal
There is no suggestion in those sentences that vitamin D deficiency causes anything in particular which is related to long COVID.
Yes there is, unless you know more about the issue, which isn't in the article:
Quote Posted by faetal
Both vitamin D deficiency and immune over-reaction are linked to inflammation (broad term). However the latter causes an
acute widespread inflammatory response which damages organs, which may be linked to long COVID.
Without this additional info, the article does seem to suggest a link between vitamin D deficiency and long COVID (due to a higher risk of an inflammatory response).
Moreover, the article is not about long COVID, but about taking vitamin D to reduce complications from COVID. Why would the author even mention long COVID, if she didn't see a link?
