When you say the risk of long COVID is 'low' & we don't need to worry, what you really mean is that it's 'lower' than before but still too high for something that's infecting everyone again & again & that you don't care about the clinically vulnerable who are at much higher risk.
From a population perspective, if in the current era even if the incidence of long COVID is 1%, for an infection that affects a whole population multiple times, that's high. Because that's millions of people, given the numbers that get infected each year.
And remember for those who are clinically vulnerable, disabled, have pre-existing conditions, the risk is *much* higher. So saying we don't need to care about it, isn't just inaccurate, it's also deeply abelist, and testament to not caring about the most vulnerable in society.
And please don't encourage people to get infected again & again to develop 'natural immunity'- that's how people develop long COVID. Many of us developed long COVID getting infected in the omicron era after multiple vaccinations. Each infection is a risk no one should take.
Long COVID changes your life- often permanently. Don't ask people to take that risk. I'd do anything to be able to go back and not be infected. As I'm sure many people who are suffering with chronic illness and disability would.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm not even going to bother with the Ladhani + Hoeg paper except to say that they actually quoted the infamous DfE study of mask use *only in communal areas* against no mask use for just *2 wks* which found a diff that just wasn't statistically significant.
They didn't even wear masks in classrooms! I couldn't bother to read the rest, but assume it's of similar quality, given they actually included that study... yup, masks don't work if you don't wear. Already knew that... moving on...
I find the biggest predictor of the results of 'systematic reviews' on mask efficacy is who the authors are. It's physics- if you find actually physical laws don't hold- hint: the problem might be your methodology....
Imagine the level of dehumanisation that has been reached when newspapers publish articles saying that young children killed by Israeli bombardment are dolls. >6000 children have been killed in the most brutal manner imaginable. Even more are injured & many disabled for life.
Yet, it's normalised to jeer at this saying these aren't pictures of dead children, but dolls. It's beyond disgusting. Everyday we see pictures of injured, bloodied, dead children. Intubated children. Floppy unconscious children. The cruelty to suggest this suffering is made up.
These are children ffs. Children in shrouds. Their lives ended so young. Leaving behind parents and siblings with unimaginable grief. Yet, the denial, gaslighting, sneering at reality and war-mongering continues.
I'm so tired of seeing women of colour bear huge personal costs for speaking out against the mass killing of Palestinians - often losing jobs/positions- while those with far more privilege debate the word 'genocide' or 'the distinction between ceasefire & pause' or are silent..
Why do the those who often have far less privilege in systems always bear the greatest cost of speaking out? While those who have more power in these systems and could have more influence with fewer consequences, are either silent or actively silence those who do speak up.
All that rhetoric about allyship, anti-racism, or integrity is meaningless if you can't bring yourself to speak up against the massacre of children- who are being massacred with support from govts from the 'democratic world' - because of dehumanisation, racism and islamophobia
Some of us warned at the time that this overselling would lead to vaccine hesitancy by undermining public trust & it did. There was no reason to oversell. Vaccines have prevented deaths in huge numbers- but there was no reason to pretend they alone were enough to protect people.
We were told breakthrough infections were rare- even when it was clear they weren't. We were told- vaccine immunity was long-term, even though it wasn't and even immunity against severe disease waned over time. Those who pointed this out were relentlessly attacked.
Bizarrely those trying to put out factual information and temper the overselling were accused of causing vaccine hesitancy - while it's ultimately the overselling that was proven wrong in time that has fuelled loss of trust.
New paper showing that T cells post-COVID can attack antigens in the liver. This could be one of the causes of pediatric hepatitis of unknown etiology. Really important to study this in cases- unfortunately this hypothesis was never investigated properly
A recent paper showed that an HLA allele that was found in almost all cases of hepatitis is also associated with a cross-reactive T cell response to COVID. All of this evidence points to a potential role of a post-COVID dysregulated immune response in hepatitis
This was never investigated with the same thoroughness that other (biologically less plausible) hypotheses were investigated. Functional studies of T-cell reactivity to SARS-CoV-2 to or other antigens were not conducted despite these indicators. It's really important to do this.
If you believe that a court of law is 'due process' for victims, then you believe that letting 99% of rapists go free (which are the current statistics) while re-traumatising victims is 'due process'. And that's not even against a celeb with lots of resources & a toxic fan base.
Would you take this to court in these circumstances? Put your name down in public - to be vilified by people who'd support him at all costs for perpetuity? Be dragged through social media as a person who made an accusation 'for political reasons' by blue tick assholes?
Have yourself and your family exposed to this toxicity? When your chance of getting any justice was so low, and would involve being vilified whatever the outcome.