momo65

Sure of course it should. It's only one study and not especially robust. However its been pretty obvious there's some genetic link. The first few UK Covid deaths were dominated by Asian ethnicity GPs. Whether this is the link or not there's plainly some genetics in play either directly, indirectly or through epigenetic factors

The reason things were very grim in India is quite likely to be explained by the recent discovery of a gene whose presence greatly increases the liklihood of severe disease & death. It's found in about 70% of their population but only 15% of ours.

As you say we believe that over a long period that's been the case. However some of the basic research stuff being done in virology may show that those acute symptoms cause problems we don't know about. There are a huge range of diseases that we don't understand the causes of.

I'm saying that it's not impossible that our current strategy with those proves to be the wrong one. Again currently there is no practical alternative. Imagine however that colds cumulatively were show to have major consequences a strategy would follow

From what we are seeing from Covid research and assuming it's not in a class of its own for severity I suspect we may see we have serious trouble because we are reinfected repeatedly. We know several viruses cause malignancies. Possibly many more do that we haven't yet worked out. Your assumption that the immune system will in time save us may turn out to be correct or horribly wrong as immunodysfunction is increasingly becoming more prominent among disease origins along with genetic susceptibility

One of the important things that all the research into Covid is doing is stimulating investigation into some of your other "usual common" viruses which may yet show that they aren't as benign as we've assumed. Recent cellular work showing that Covid had similar effects to ageing on the length of telomeres, which are currently 9ne of the leading possible causes of ageing, is leading other workers to consider whether ageing or at least its damaging effects may be the result of viral infections which would be a major finding if it were the case

No weve not banned shellfish but we have introduced laws to reduce their risks by putting labels on foods listing possible allergens ie mitigations

Interesting - not what you found but your approach. You didn't read all the papers available and then came to a view. You had a view and looked for papers to confirm it. Not surprisingly you found them. Confirmation bias is inherent in your approach. I'm not arguing with your conclusions they may or may not be proven correct in the long term but not by this approach

But that's exactly what we do all the time -we alter what we do. We keep to the speed limits, we cordon off dangerous buildings in case the fall on us.

Having looked at the abstract of the research described it doesn't quite say what you think it does. It merely says that if the central nervous system is affected it may not be the actual neurones that are affected. However it does not exclude the other cell types in the brain which provide the environment and circulation necessary for normal function. Given the documented evidence of circulatory damage in small vessels elsewhere its still entirely possible that those effects could affect brain function. Also this is just one paper. We can't put too much emphasis on one smallish paper

Underlying health conditions? Really? Is a 40y old with type 1 diabetes in some way less worthy of life or compassion than anyone else? What that question really suggests is someone wanting to be justified that they don't have to care. Yes people die all the time in say car crashes so we do our best, by imposing mitigations by law, to reduce those. Most are due to human failures.

Have you the link to that? I think you need to distinguish between people reporting findings of research or papers and alarmism. If something appears concerning to professionals they should raise awareness. That way others can check. That's how science works. The problem is that that people pick up what scientists or doctors say when addressing mainly other scientists & doctors when the warning of this is preliminary evidence is implicit. To that wider audience that warning isn't implicit because interpreting what those groups say to among themselves is not part of their normal activity. FWiW I think there's clear evidence to believe the brain is affected to some degree in some cases during acute infection but whether that leaves any significant long term deficit is not settled and nor is it clear whether its a general occurance

Don't have java script running and do have ad blocker but still there. Without sight of the source documents that Telegraph is presumably quoting I'm not in a position to comment. It's about as reliable as the Dailly Mail but only more divisive so without corroboration if the Telegraph said the sea is wet I'd be dubious.

Whilst that is plausible. Nothing I've seen suggests it. No doctor treating Covid patients has ever said that this is blown out of proportion.

Behind a pay wall so no comment possible

Rather than debate you simply said the post was "literally ridiculous" and then produced an unevudenced hypothesis about SAGE over egging. They interpreted the evidence to the best level and way beyond the level of understanding of most of us. If you aren't qualified to undertake similar analyses then you aren't qualified to judge it either. But that has not stopped you

You see, back to ridicule. Case proven

Of course it is. Its just a way to try to belittle and ridicule those whose views don't agree with their agenda in a hope it shuts them up.

It would indeed. Do I think they were consciously lying - probably not but their interpretation of the little available data was faulty but unfortunately some folks academic standing is the basis for their self worth meaning they perhaps fail to question why they are so out of step

Yep Cox B are indeed the commonest in diagnosed cases. The latter are of course likely to be the more severe cases so we perhaps need to be aware that others may be causing it but being asymptomatic. If you have cytokine storm you are really v sick probably with multisystem failures. It's not likely that accounts for the majority of Covid myocarditis cases but could skew the average severity

The latter has a long standing reputation as a maverick. In general for science go with the middle of the Bell shaped normal distribution of opinions ie ignore the extremes at either end. The fact that someone has a Chair often says more about their ability to manage the system than ability. Equally US call a lot more folk Prof whereas we use terms like Reader, & Senior Lecturer for similar points in the academic ladder

I never said jcvi acted on hunches but there is evidence that did not seem to be included. Myocarditis is much more common with Covid than vac (from memory x30 but certainly over x10). Added to which those cases have been mild & self limiting. That's not the case with the Covid induced cases but I don't know if that's independent of them being generally ill anyway. Its quite likely that myocarditis is caused by other viruses too, in a transient way but without the detailed surveillance given post vac isn't detected

Based on what evidence? Different interpretation of data is normal in science. So who has lied about what? That's genuine interest not rhetorical question

Honesty is fine. Have a debate. Between professionals who know what they are talking about not random people who've done their own "research" (that isn't pointed at you or anyone in particular). Then let parents choose for their child.

No it hasn't. It's still about mitigations in schools. I'm certainly no pharmaceutical rep