Not to be a dick, but since people just commonly utter things in public spaces about covid like it's just true by default with a casual acceptance that if you got a covid test and it's positive and exhibited symptoms that must mean it's covid, then I think it deserves a friendly rebuttal, since there remains so much dissent.
As everyone knows by now a positive on a PCR test just means it found the viral material it was looking for. If that viral material is the culprit causing symptoms is completely unknown. Most people are always carrying around a few active viruses capable of causing cold and flu symptoms. And because you got a virus doesn't mean that virus was particularly bad, it's far more likely your immune system was taking a dump and had nothing to do with a specific pathogen being more harmful.
Also there's zero logical rigor behind testing for one thing, and then if a symptom emerges claiming that one thing is responsible as it could just as easily be an opportunistic breeder in a body with a lowered immune system response. And coinfection is completely ignored, where covid very well might not be the main thing causing the problem; according to an article on the NIH's website, "One study discovered that 94.2% of people with COVID‐19 were also coinfected with several other microorganisms, such as viruses, bacteria, and fungi" - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8242380/
Just sayin for accuracy..."science" doesn't know exactly what made you sick, but is happy to pretend like it does, which just happens to also be a very profitable position to take.
Hmm. If science can’t be trusted because of the profit motive, how did you manage to write this comment without a digital device, since, you know, $Big Tech$?
Science is the search for answers and as such isn’t perfect, but using uncertainty to claim that nothing can be claimed with any degree of confidence is kinda silly. Sort of like saying gravity is just a theory; how willing are you to test the uncertainty by jumping off the Empire State Building?
Biological testing for HIV (a virus) is highly effective and well established in the care and treatment of people living with HIV and AIDS, and has helped identify and save the lives of millions of people. Coulda been some other virus, though. Coulda been a CIA plot. But the tests still work, and so do the medicines that sustain HIV+ people, even though the meds are produced by profit-making Pharma. I work in global public health, and share a healthy skepticism of $Big Pharma$, but I also recognize the benefit of the lifesaving drugs they produce. I’d prefer a nonprofit model, and a greater focus on holistic integrated health, but supported by evidence yielded by the scientific method, with all of its inherent uncertainties.
Not to be a dick, but since people just commonly utter things in public spaces about covid like it's just true by default with a casual acceptance that if you got a covid test and it's positive and exhibited symptoms that must mean it's covid, then I think it deserves a friendly rebuttal, since there remains so much dissent.
As everyone knows by now a positive on a PCR test just means it found the viral material it was looking for. If that viral material is the culprit causing symptoms is completely unknown. Most people are always carrying around a few active viruses capable of causing cold and flu symptoms. And because you got a virus doesn't mean that virus was particularly bad, it's far more likely your immune system was taking a dump and had nothing to do with a specific pathogen being more harmful.
Also there's zero logical rigor behind testing for one thing, and then if a symptom emerges claiming that one thing is responsible as it could just as easily be an opportunistic breeder in a body with a lowered immune system response. And coinfection is completely ignored, where covid very well might not be the main thing causing the problem; according to an article on the NIH's website, "One study discovered that 94.2% of people with COVID‐19 were also coinfected with several other microorganisms, such as viruses, bacteria, and fungi" - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8242380/
Just sayin for accuracy..."science" doesn't know exactly what made you sick, but is happy to pretend like it does, which just happens to also be a very profitable position to take.
Hmm. If science can’t be trusted because of the profit motive, how did you manage to write this comment without a digital device, since, you know, $Big Tech$?
Science is the search for answers and as such isn’t perfect, but using uncertainty to claim that nothing can be claimed with any degree of confidence is kinda silly. Sort of like saying gravity is just a theory; how willing are you to test the uncertainty by jumping off the Empire State Building?
Biological testing for HIV (a virus) is highly effective and well established in the care and treatment of people living with HIV and AIDS, and has helped identify and save the lives of millions of people. Coulda been some other virus, though. Coulda been a CIA plot. But the tests still work, and so do the medicines that sustain HIV+ people, even though the meds are produced by profit-making Pharma. I work in global public health, and share a healthy skepticism of $Big Pharma$, but I also recognize the benefit of the lifesaving drugs they produce. I’d prefer a nonprofit model, and a greater focus on holistic integrated health, but supported by evidence yielded by the scientific method, with all of its inherent uncertainties.