“ The lowest rate of long Covid in the study, 3.5 percent, was among vaccinated people who were infected during the latest period in the study, between mid-December 2021 and January 2022.
That compares with a rate of 7.8 percent for unvaccinated patients in the study who were infected during the same period.”
I recall the incredible relief I felt after getting my first vaccine shot.
And I actually feel sorry for the vaccine refuseniks who never got that sense of relief.
The mass hysteria churned up by the anti-vax movement, and the amount of suffering it caused, is going to keep historians busy for a long time.
I guess they have a continuous feeling of relief to have „jumped the gun“ of getting that dangerous vaccine. So feeling wise, they might even be better off than you.
As a primary care physician I have seen a huge number of long cover cases in the last 6 months.
The people I see, of ages from 18 to elderly, are not having a continuous feeling of any sort of relief when I tell them their symptoms are likely attributable to long covid.
This study is still using definitions of Long COVID that encompass just about anything. I do think there’s such a thing as a post viral effect, and it could be that COVID is worse than the norm. But I’m sorry — 5-10% of the population are impacted? It simply doesn’t match my day to day experience.
As a vaccine refusenik I felt a great sense of relief when, after choosing not to have the jab, I realised I had made the correct decison.
At nearly 70 years old I have had a life full of experience that told me something was serverely wrong with the roll out of the jab.
The experimental drug, which is not a vaccine, meerly reduces the symptoms of so called covid. Stop calling it a vaccine!
I have had all my childhood vaccines and have been protected from the entire range of diseases.
I have also been a methadone dispenser, and drug worker working in detox wards in the national health service for 15 years and had my Hep "B" vaccine to protect me from needle stick injury.
Now! the Hep "b" vaccines work like this: You have an injection once a month for three months. during this period you have blood tests to check the development of anti-bodies.
After the three month period I had all the Anti-bodies needed to protect me from Hep "B".
Now that is a proper vaccine!
whereas you do not develop anti-bodies after you have the jab, you have to have an annual top up to protect you from the symptoms of flu.
The COVID JAB IS NOT A VACCINE!!!!
People seem to have forgotten that life is about making informed choices and being autonomous.
We are not conspiracy therorists, refuseniks or anti-vaxers. We are ordinary people who made a choice not to have a jab.
By this token, the flu vaccine is not a vaccine either. You have to have a new one each year and it doesn't confer 100% protection.
It seems pointless to argue about the definition of the word vaccine though. Let's call them "shields" instead. The issue is whether the shield provides useful protection, not whether it is perfect.
It's perfectly sensible to evaluate the risk of a given shield versus the protection it offers. I was happy to have it, others were nervous because this was a new form of shield which had not been tried before.
Well, as long as one evaluates the risk to oneself and to others, ok, but most people I met which were refusing vaccines (yes it’s a vaccine, they have different level of success, but they all train your body to fight a virus basically) only look at their own risk and do not give a shit about others – and then hide the egoism behind whataboutism, factually wrong statements, etc.
It’s ok to be scared, but let’s at least be honest about it and not make fun of the ones who got the vaccine.
As a primary care physician (and previous ED doctor) I don't think I'm qualified to go deep into the details of the vaccines - I trust my many more specialised colleagues around the world who unanimously support the vaccines and the data coming out strengthens this.
You saying that you are making an "informed choice" is, I'm sorry to say, laughable. Unless you are experienced in reading the many pubmed studies and interpreting them, you are likely basing your decisions on others' interpretations, and, I doubt you are reading the neutral interpretations.
Anyone, it's your life, your health, and your death, as we saw many times throughout the ongoing pandemic.
Ironically, the republican outlook to shit on vaccines leads to more deaths of republicans. And , then trump came out for vaccines. Not that you can trust anything that narcissist criminal says, and treat everything he says as in his own interest.
So it’s no vaccine, by your standards, but isn’t it still useful when it reduces probabilities of infections and long term adverse effects? However the label you attach to it?
> The researchers analyzed the health records to estimate the percentage of Covid patients who had long Covid one year after being infected. The lowest rate of long Covid in the study, 3.5 percent, was among vaccinated people who were infected during the latest period in the study, between mid-December 2021 and January 2022.
> That compares with a rate of 7.8 percent for unvaccinated patients in the study who were infected during the same period.
> “We found that much of the decline is attributable to vaccination,” said the study’s lead author, Dr. Ziyad Al-Aly, the chief of research and development at the V.A. St. Louis Health Care System and a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis.
...
> Among vaccinated people who had been infected, the rates of long Covid were markedly lower. Differences in variants and other aspects of the Delta and Omicron periods played a role, the authors said, but they attributed about 72 percent of the decrease to vaccines.
What is your understanding of the word "attributed"? Why does it not imply "proven"?
To me, the word falls in the same category as "linked." It is usually used when a regression analysis has been performed, and some independent variable has been shown to have a statistically significant impact on the dependent variable.
I.e. it's an interpretation of evidence in a statistical framework. Nothing can ever be proven outside a robust theory; only made more or less likely, so I don't see why you'd reach for that word.
> Decomposition analyses showed 5.23 (95% CI, 4.97 to 5.47) fewer PASC events per 100 persons at 1 year during the omicron era than during the pre-delta and delta eras combined; 28.11% of the decrease (95% CI, 25.57 to 30.50) was attributable to era-related effects (changes in the virus and other temporal effects), and 71.89% (95% CI, 69.50 to 74.43) was attributable to vaccines.
Whether this study was good or bad, I don't know. But I think you're misunderstanding or misrepresenting the word "attributable."
As someone suffering from Long Covid, I was hoping that my symptoms would improve after getting vaccinated, as had happened to others before me, but alas that wasn't the case.
Then I learned that the vaccine wasn't a traditional one, and that it reprograms the cells to express the markers for the immune system to respond to. If the dose happens to hit a vein, and thus ends up reprogramming heart tissue, the consequences can be horrible disability ,or a quick death, even in a previously fit and healthy person.
No more Covid boosters or anything MRNA based for me. I've barely made it through this.
Vaccines are injected into muscle as a buffer but the vaccine certainly spreads throughout the body including the blood vessels. Unless you can point to a specific mechanism whereby a heart would be particularly vulnerable, this does not seem like a sound hypothesis.
Some people worried that people getting the vaccine would suffer from Myocarditis, but it turns out that people getting covid were several times more likely to get Myocarditis than people with the mRNA vaccines. In either case, it is a rare and reversible condition.
the fact that a later vaccination didn’t change your long covid suggests that the condition was established during the infection when you had active virus. The later vaccine would only protect against subsequent infections, not reverse the effects of the original infection. I’m sorry.
> mRNA-based therapy is the only type which is based on triggering synthesis of proteins within cells, making it particularly useful in vaccine development.[1]
> in vitro evidence suggests that spike protein could impair pericyte and endothelial cell function via ACE2 and thus contribute to myocarditis.[2]
I recall the incredible relief I felt after getting my first vaccine shot.
And I actually feel sorry for the vaccine refuseniks who never got that sense of relief.
The mass hysteria churned up by the anti-vax movement, and the amount of suffering it caused, is going to keep historians busy for a long time.