Poll of the Day > I went through all of 2020 through 2022 without catching corona. No vax either.

(+) Yeah! (+)

ZangsBeard posted...

Oh look. More bad faith arguments from the diarrhea kid.

It's the same question I've been asking all thread long. You'd know that if you actually read the thread, but you clearly didn't because you think I'm an "antivaxxer" who's "surprised" that I caught the virus. I never claimed the virus wasn't out there. This thread isn't me saying "But how could this happen to me?"

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

Have you not heard about the myocarditis/pericarditis cases cropping up, particularly from the Moderna vaccine?

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346

Those who have argue "Well, it's very rare." But "very rare" doesn't mean "Won't ever happen." Because it clearly happened to those people. I don't want myocarditis. I'm trying to make choices that will keep myocarditis out of my way.

And how many deaths have been reported (credibly, not on OpenVAERS, since I could go on OpenVAERS right now and say that I grew extra penises out of my ears after being vaccinated) as being correlated with those cases of myo(peri)carditis? And of those correlated deaths, how many are believed to have been causally linked?

Yes, myocarditis is a potential side effect of the mRNA vaccines, especially in younger males (for reasons that are yet unknown). Nobody's really disputing that. Attributing deaths to that side effect, however, is just not true. The myocarditis cases in question are easily treatable and cause no lasting harm.

On the other hand, there have indeed been deaths associated with blood clots from the A-Z and Janssen vaccines (particularly younger women), as I mentioned earlier. Nevertheless, that risk is lower than the risk of dying of blood clots from Covid itself, even without considering the option of getting an mRNA vaccine instead.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

But what you should be able to do is look at that person who died of a particular strain and answer why. Or catch them before they die and figure out why they're having such a bad reaction to it.

Why should you be able to do that? What precedent is there for that being possible with any disease, let alone a brand new one? Do you have any idea how short three years actually is in the grand scheme of scientific research?

The medical community is trying to pin down risk factors, but that's a very, very complicated analysis due to just how many different variables there are. Even once a risk factor is identified (and many have been), studying it well enough to fully understand the mechanism behind it takes a very long time and is very challenging, especially where we don't have the option of actually experimenting on people by infecting them with the disease in a controlled trial (because that would be mean). Those analyses are ongoing around the world, but there's no reason to ever expect results as conclusive as you seem to be expecting, let along to expect them so soon.

Quite simply, this is the best science can do. It's always been the best science can do, and in many ways is actually better than usual because those working on this subject have had a much easier time getting funding and public support than those working on lower-profile issues. People are absolutely working on understanding it better, but the information you're asking for will likely never exist. You're just going to have to come to terms with that and accept that that doesn't mean nobody is trying to improve.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

It's the same question I've been asking all thread long. You'd know that if you actually read the thread, but you clearly didn't because you think I'm an "antivaxxer" who's "surprised" that I caught the virus. I never claimed the virus wasn't out there. This thread isn't me saying "But how could this happen to me?"

Oh cool, I never said that. Youd think youd understand that with how much youve been splattering the topic saying it already.

No wonder you dont know shit about infectious diseases.

And I love how you try to back track on your rampant antivax stance since youre being called out on it.

If the diaper fits

adjl posted...

And how many deaths have been reported (credibly, not on OpenVAERS, since I could go on OpenVAERS right now and say that I grew extra penises out of my ears after being vaccinated) as being correlated with those cases of myo(peri)carditis? And of those correlated deaths, how many are believed to have been causally linked?

Yes, myocarditis is a potential side effect of the mRNA vaccines, especially in younger males (for reasons that are yet unknown). Nobody's really disputing that. Attributing deaths to that side effect, however, is just not true. The myocarditis cases in question are easily treatable and cause no lasting harm.

On the other hand, there have indeed been deaths associated with blood clots from the A-Z and Janssen vaccines (particularly younger women), as I mentioned earlier. Nevertheless, that risk is lower than the risk of dying of blood clots from Covid itself, even without considering the option of getting an mRNA vaccine instead.

It's credible that myocarditis is a lethal disease. We're just gonna say that the myocarditis that these vaccines cause can't possibly kill you? Again, damned if I do and damned if I don't. So I have to pick which path I'm gonna gamble on.

Traditional odds said I should've caught the virus years ago. But I didn't. So clearly I can't just assume trends will apply to me perfectly.

Why should you be able to do that? What precedent is there for that being possible with any disease, let alone a brand new one? Do you have any idea how short three years actually is in the grand scheme of scientific research?

The medical community is trying to pin down risk factors, but that's a very, very complicated analysis due to just how many different variables there are. Even once a risk factor is identified (and many have been), studying it well enough to fully understand the mechanism behind it takes a very long time and is very challenging, especially where we don't have the option of actually experimenting on people by infecting them with the disease in a controlled trial (because that would be mean). Those analyses are ongoing around the world, but there's no reason to ever expect results as conclusive as you seem to be expecting, let along to expect them so soon.

Quite simply, this is the best science can do. It's always been the best science can do, and in many ways is actually better than usual because those working on this subject have had a much easier time getting funding and public support than those working on lower-profile issues. People are absolutely working on understanding it better, but the information you're asking for will likely never exist. You're just going to have to come to terms with that and accept that that doesn't mean nobody is trying to improve.

Why? Because you're supposed to try and understand diseases like this. In fact, science is about leaving no mysteries on the table. Like I said early, you don't just give up and say "No one knows."

If you're saying "Well we aren't giving up," then that would mean we still have things to figure out. It's not true that there's nothing to figure out.

ZangsBeard posted...

Oh cool, I never said that.

Your own words...

ZangsBeard posted...

So Tc is an antivax who doesnt actually listen to medical professionals and is surprised they got an infectious airborne disease.

#ShockeredPikachu

Nothing you've said here is correct. And you can't read.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

Your own words...

Nothing you've said here is correct. And you can't read.

Oh look, he cherry picked something I didnt say to make it look like it was what I said.

pssst. I never said Id didnt call you anti vax. But youre so good at understanding scientific literature obviously its affecting your ability to follow a basic conversation.

Pssst, hint; I was responding to the

This thread isn't me saying "But how could this happen to me?"

Try less next time. You might actually get something right.

Edit: why is it the people who are wrong in every fashion always telling others they cant read? Lolol

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

The exact words from @wpot were "There's nothing to figure out." As if all the mysteries of this virus had been solved. No one here has answered my questions because the actual answer to my questions is "Science hasn't figured it out yet." I'm not asking whether the immunocompromised are more susceptible than the immuno-doing-alright. What I'm asking is "How come these people we thought would live are dying? These healthy people with strong immune systems? Tell me what went wrong there."

And hes also gone into more explanation on there are things to figure out. The nothing to figure out was probably about something exact. Had you read his posts, you probably would know that he has also said that theres always more to learn But it really doesnt seem like youre actually reading other peoples posts, tbh And weve literally have given you some of your answers. You just refuse to believe what we are saying. And if you dont want out answers, then look them up. They are online. You just refuse to for whatever reason Sid you want to know why people we thought would live die, thats not even a mystery. Its how illnesses work. Sometimes, they mutate. Meaning they change in a new way. Sometimes, people had an underlying problem that no one knew about. Sometimes, viruses become more aggressive. Sometimes, treatment doesnt work for many reasons Sometimes, the body just doesnt fight back. The reasons vary person to person But the doctors can usually tell you what happened Just because they cant stop it every time doesnt mean its a mystery Thats your answer. But Im sure youll ignore it like every other answer weve given you

ZangsBeard posted...

Oh look, he cherry picked something I didnt say to make it look like it was what I said.

pssst. I never said Id didnt call you anti vax. But youre so good at understanding scientific literature obviously its affecting your ability to follow a basic conversation.

Pssst, hint; I was responding to the

Try less next time. You might actually get something right.

Edit: why is it the people who are wrong in every fashion always telling others they cant read? Lolol

They're literally your words. I quoted your post. By what stretch of the imagination is that "something you didn't say," let alone cherrypicking?

Man

Gotta give it to whoever owns the princess magical account to come in and post that vaccines and masks are against Jesus fairly regularly

LinkPizza posted...

And hes also gone into more explanation on there are things to figure out. The nothing to figure out was probably about something exact. Had you read his posts, you probably would know that he has also said that theres always more to learn But it really doesnt seem like youre actually reading other peoples posts, tbh And weve literally have given you some of your answers. You just refuse to believe what we are saying. And if you dont want out answers, then look them up. They are online. You just refuse to for whatever reason Sid you want to know why people we thought would live die, thats not even a mystery. Its how illnesses work. Sometimes, they mutate. Meaning they change in a new way. Sometimes, people had an underlying problem that no one knew about. Sometimes, viruses become more aggressive. Sometimes, treatment doesnt work for many reasons Sometimes, the body just doesnt fight back. The reasons vary person to person But the doctors can usually tell you what happened Just because they cant stop it every time doesnt mean its a mystery Thats your answer. But Im sure youll ignore it like every other answer weve given you

So then what are the underlying problems? I should be able to read an article that says "Here Are The Underlying Problems That Keep You From Surviving This Virus, Even Though You've Avoided Other Risk Factors." That way if I am healthy but am having a hard time witht he virus, I can read that article and say "Oh, I'm suffering because I likely have this thing wrong with me."

I never asked "Why haven't the eradicated the virus," I just asked why it is certain people die when they avoid the typical risk factors? There should be articles about all of the exact potential reasons. Science should either know these things, or be researching them.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

I haven't been given any professional statements in response to my question because my question is "Why wasn't this worse for me?" Science should be able to tell me what went right with me that I'm managing this so well.

If you want this answer, you go to a doctor We know nothing about you medically Why its not worse could be for a number of factors Like genetics or your immune system Which are things we wont know about you specifically We only know what you post

LinkPizza posted...

If you want this answer, you go to a doctor We know nothing about you medically Why its not worse could be for a number of factors Like genetics or your immune system Which are things we wont know about you specifically We only know what you post

You shouldn't need to know anything about me medically. Science should have, or work on getting, a collection of factors that affect how you'll handle the virus. I should then be able to read about all those factors in an article and discern which ones apply to me so I know why I'm handling the virus in the way that I am.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

*rampant diarrhea noises*

lol...

ZangsBeard posted...

Edit: why is it the people who are wrong in every fashion always telling others they cant read? Lolol

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

But if I do have all known risk factors and survive, there should be a more substantial answer beyond "You just got lucky." That is what I want science to figure out.

I think you're underestimating just how much random chance is involved in biology and medicine. In truth, there's a certain amount of determinism and it's not true randomness, but that deterministic outcome is the product of so many seemingly-unrelated factors that identifying them all is impossible. Even the simple act of "virus infects cell" is a result of the virus floating aimlessly around until it randomly bumps into the right receptor in the right orientation to latch on and inject its genetic payload, then it's a matter of waiting until a ribosome randomly bumps into the start codon on that strand of genetic material (we're just going to look at mRNA viruses here, for simplicity's sake), then randomly bumping into the corresponding tRNA-amino acid complexes to assemble the required proteins. Similarly, the immune response relies on the appropriate immune cells bumping into the viral particles in a way that allows them to detect antigens against which antibodies can be generated.

Now, all of this happens on such a large scale that all of these random events do still end up happening despite the very high odds that any given individual interaction doesn't (you roll 400,000 d20's, you're going to get plenty of 20's), but in the case of infectious diseases, you usually are starting out with a relatively small pathogen load and it's well within the realm of possibility that you end up with half as many of those viral particles successfully infecting your cells as somebody else with an identical pathogen load gets, or that your immune system detects the virus 3-4 rounds of replication earlier than somebody else's. If you really dug into it, you might be able to say that that's because you didn't put salt on last night's dinner and that meant your blood pressure was 0.005% lower and that meant the B cell that kicked off your immune response was moving slightly slower and got to the infection site just as the first virus did and that meant you mounted a response before the rest of the load could reproduce, but determining that is going to be absurdly difficult and largely useless, so nobody's going to fund the research needed to do so.

Within the next decade, I expect it will be possible to narrow down the identified risk factors for Covid and explain some of their specific mechanisms, but there will never come a point when random variation is completely eliminated from the equation. Risk factors for adverse outcomes do not guarantee those adverse outcomes. You've seen this on a macroscopic scale: You've presumably engaged in behaviours that would be considered risk factors for Covid infection, but you haven't been infected until now. Why are you willing to accept "I was lucky" as an explanation for that, but not for what happens once the virus is inside your body? The human body is no less chaotic than the world outside. Sometimes, the only reason you will ever be able to find for the outcome of a disease is "I got (un)lucky," and that's not a failure on science's part.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

So then what are the underlying problems? I should be able to read an article that says "Here Are The Underlying Problems That Keep You From Surviving This Virus, Even Though You've Avoided Other Risk Factors." That way if I am healthy but am having a hard time witht he virus, I can read that article and say "Oh, I'm suffering because I likely have this thing wrong with me."

I never asked "Why haven't the eradicated the virus," I just asked why it is certain people die when they avoid the typical risk factors? There should be articles about all of the exact potential reasons. Science should either know these things, or be researching them.

They have literally mention some of the underlying problem in many articles. Things like diabetes, for example Or even asthma Lots of different things that people may not have know they had. And there are others You can easily look them up I just gave you a few to get you started But those are just other factors like all the other factors Just a piece of the puzzle And again, just because someone else has the same things as you doesnt matter. People are different. A slight difference in genetics or how your immune system works cause make things very different between the two of you People arent exactly the same. So, you may not find someone whos run in with COVID is exactly like yours. No illness (COVID or otherwise) works like that Some people with the Flu feel like their dying, where its a mild inconvenience for others. Same with pretty much all illnesses In that case, are you saying we know nothing about any other illness?

The reason some people die just because they avoid the risk factors we know about They are many were still finding out about Not to mention, sometimes we find out that they actually did have risk factors that no one knew about Like undiagnosed diabetes or something Who says science ISNT researching these things The only person who thinks that is you And in the end, no matter how much research is done, they wont ever know everything Just like literally every other disease out there. There isnt even one disease where they know everything about it They may know a lot, but theres always more to learn

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

You shouldn't need to know anything about me medically. Science should have, or work on getting, a collection of factors that affect how you'll handle the virus. I should then be able to read about all those factors in an article and discern which ones apply to me so I know why I'm handling the virus in the way that I am.

We would need to know about you medically. If you had read literally anything we said, you would know we said things like genetics and immune system functions And viral load is important, too We dont know that, either These are things weve already mentioned before But you arent even reading our posts or something The factors arent about the illness, but about the people that catch them (i.e. you, in this case) So, again, you cant do that Not with any disease Even the ones theyve been studying for decades I dont get whats so hard to understand

adjl posted...

the size of your initial pathogen load,

ive always kinda wondered how this one factor specifically affects ultimately how shitty you feel

bigger load gets noticed faster by the immune system so it has less time to spread, but larger load is obviously more immediately threatening...

adjl posted...

I think you're underestimating just how much random chance is involved in biology and medicine. In truth, there's a certain amount of determinism and it's not true randomness, but that deterministic outcome is the product of so many seemingly-unrelated factors that identifying them all is impossible. Even the simple act of "virus infects cell" is a result of the virus floating aimlessly around until it randomly bumps into the right receptor in the right orientation to latch on and inject its genetic payload, then it's a matter of waiting until a ribosome randomly bumps into the start codon on that strand of genetic material (we're just going to look at mRNA viruses here, for simplicity's sake), then randomly bumping into the corresponding tRNA-amino acid complexes to assemble the required proteins. Similarly, the immune response relies on the appropriate immune cells bumping into the viral particles in a way that allows them to detect antigens against which antibodies can be generated.

Now, all of this happens on such a large scale that all of these random events do still end up happening despite the very high odds that any given individual interaction doesn't (you roll 400,000 d20's, you're going to get plenty of 20's), but in the case of infectious diseases, you usually are starting out with a relatively small pathogen load and it's well within the realm of possibility that you end up with half as many of those viral particles successfully infecting your cells as somebody else with an identical pathogen load gets, or that your immune system detects the virus 3-4 rounds of replication earlier than somebody else's. If you really dug into it, you might be able to say that that's because you didn't put salt on last night's dinner and that meant your blood pressure was 0.005% lower and that meant the B cell that kicked off your immune response was moving slightly slower and got to the infection site just as the first virus did and that meant you mounted a response before the rest of the load could reproduce, but determining that is going to be absurdly difficult and largely useless, so nobody's going to fund the research needed to do so.

Within the next decade, I expect it will be possible to narrow down the identified risk factors for Covid and explain some of their specific mechanisms, but there will never come a point when random variation is completely eliminated from the equation. Risk factors for adverse outcomes do not guarantee those adverse outcomes. You've seen this on a macroscopic scale: You've presumably engaged in behaviours that would be considered risk factors for Covid infection, but you haven't been infected until now. Why are you willing to accept "I was lucky" as an explanation for that, but not for what happens once the virus is inside your body? The human body is no less chaotic than the world outside. Sometimes, the only reason you will ever be able to find for the outcome of a disease is "I got (un)lucky," and that's not a failure on science's part.

I don't accept "I was lucky." I'm pretty sure I didn't catch the virus up until now because I didn't come in contact with the virus up until now. If I had, I would've caught it. And I'm pretty sure catching vs. not catching is as simple as that.

I'm not saying research funders care, but research funders don't care about a lot of things they should. Maybe they should care more about whether or not and to what extent blood pressure has an effect on whether or not you survive the virus.

LinkPizza posted...

They have literally mention some of the underlying problem in many articles. Things like diabetes, for example Or even asthma Lots of different things that people may not have know they had. And there are others You can easily look them up I just gave you a few to get you started But those are just other factors like all the other factors Just a piece of the puzzle And again, just because someone else has the same things as you doesnt matter. People are different. A slight difference in genetics or how your immune system works cause make things very different between the two of you People arent exactly the same. So, you may not find someone whos run in with COVID is exactly like yours. No illness (COVID or otherwise) works like that Some people with the Flu feel like their dying, where its a mild inconvenience for others. Same with pretty much all illnesses In that case, are you saying we know nothing about any other illness?

The reason some people die just because they avoid the risk factors we know about They are many were still finding out about Not to mention, sometimes we find out that they actually did have risk factors that no one knew about Like undiagnosed diabetes or something Who says science ISNT researching these things The only person who thinks that is you And in the end, no matter how much research is done, they wont ever know everything Just like literally every other disease out there. There isnt even one disease where they know everything about it They may know a lot, but theres always more to learn

They mention some, but very few. That's why we're still asking questions like 'How did this 65 year old cancer patient survive the virus?" We should be working towards not having to ask questions like that.

And of course people are different, when did I say they weren't? That's why I'm saying "Show me the article with the list of all the differences between people that matter. The differences that affect how you'll handle the virus. And, knowing myself, I will read it and see what likely applies to me." If I'm a 65 year old cancer patient, I should be able to read an article and come to some understanding of why I'm going through this virus the way I am. Not to say that all 65 year old cancer patients will go through it the same way, I'm talking about one very specific cancer patient with a specific health background.

LinkPizza posted...

We would need to know about you medically. If you had read literally anything we said, you would know we said things like genetics and immune system functions And viral load is important, too We dont know that, either These are things weve already mentioned before But you arent even reading our posts or something The factors arent about the illness, but about the people that catch them (i.e. you, in this case) So, again, you cant do that Not with any disease Even the ones theyve been studying for decades I dont get whats so hard to understand

You guys don't need to know. I know about myself medically. All I need from other people is the Big List Of Factors. Then I, knowing myself medically, would go through it to know why I feel a certain way when I'm suffering from the virus.

It varies a lot in people. For me, it was more minor than any head cold I've had in the past. For a couple of my coworkers, one had serious lung scarring that was causing bleeding issues and such, and my manager had his taste for coffee ruined permanently.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

You guys don't need to know. I know about myself medically.

gigantic amount of hubris and assumptions here

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

They mention some, but very few. That's why we're still asking questions like 'How did this 65 year old cancer patient survive the virus?" We should be working towards not having to ask questions like that.

And of course people are different, when did I say they weren't? That's why I'm saying "Show me the article with the list of all the differences between people that matter. The differences that affect how you'll handle the virus. And, knowing myself, I will read it and see what likely applies to me." If I'm a 65 year old cancer patient, I should be able to read an article and come to some understanding of why I'm going through this virus the way I am. Not to say that all 65 year old cancer patients will go through it the same way, I'm talking about one very specific cancer patient with a specific health background.

You can work you way to those answers. It just like LITERALLY EVERY OTHER DISEASE, we wont know everything. You do understand that, right? There is NO DISEASE where we know 100% about that, right? And you do understand that they are still researching COVID, right? They havent stopped

You keep acting like everybody is the same. You think you can read an article that will explain why you dont have it as bad But an article like that wont exist because some of the reasons you dont have it as bad is unique to you You are different from other people, so an article cant tell you all those reasons If you want the articles, look them up We have already mentioned some things that are different between people Im not going to do research for you to ignore it and not read it Your problem is you havent even tried to look up the information Or you would know this stuff Its stuff weve even shared in other topics before For example, COPD, asthma, and diabetes are some of the things that can make COVID worse for some people Having any, all, or none of those are differences between humans that can change that. On article has all. It what disease has an article that talks about 100% everything about a disease? The answer is none Because you want something done to COVID that hasnt been done for any disease The problem is, you may not know if it all applies to you. People can have I diagnosed issues. You know that, right? Another problem is people dont always have s constant up-to-date analysis of their immune system If you know so much, then what was your viral load? Thats another important factor. Do you even know how to find out?

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

You guys don't need to know. I know about myself medically. All I need from other people is the Big List Of Factors. Then I, knowing myself medically, would go through it to know why I feel a certain way when I'm suffering from the virus.

You dont always know everything, though Your viral load, for example Immune system knowledge also isnt something you learn through regular doctors visits, either If you want to know things specific to that, read a medical journal, or ask a doctor thats studying COVID There are tons of them For us to even point you in the right direction, we would need to know a to about you And that list of factor wont contain everything What list of factors of disease do you know that actually contains everything Because most illnesses I hear are still finding out new information So, no. You couldnt do that A doctor could look at you records and make a guess based on that But it still wont be exact Like every other disease

agesboy posted...

gigantic amount of hubris and assumptions here

I know about myself medically as much as anyone else knows about themselves medically, I mean. I'm saying I don't need you personally to tell me how I tanked the virus, I mean I need you to tell me all the ways someone CAN tank the virus, and from that I'll figure out which one I probably used.

LinkPizza posted...

You can work you way to those answers. It just like LITERALLY EVERY OTHER DISEASE, we wont know everything. You do understand that, right? There is NO DISEASE where we know 100% about that, right? And you do understand that they are still researching COVID, right? They havent stopped

You keep acting like everybody is the same. You think you can read an article that will explain why you dont have it as bad But an article like that wont exist because some of the reasons you dont have it as bad is unique to you You are different from other people, so an article cant tell you all those reasons If you want the articles, look them up We have already mentioned some things that are different between people Im not going to do research for you to ignore it and not read it Your problem is you havent even tried to look up the information Or you would know this stuff Its stuff weve even shared in other topics before For example, COPD, asthma, and diabetes are some of the things that can make COVID worse for some people Having any, all, or none of those are differences between humans that can change that. On article has all. It what disease has an article that talks about 100% everything about a disease? The answer is none Because you want something done to COVID that hasnt been done for any disease The problem is, you may not know if it all applies to you. People can have I diagnosed issues. You know that, right? Another problem is people dont always have s constant up-to-date analysis of their immune system If you know so much, then what was your viral load? Thats another important factor. Do you even know how to find out?

But I'm not saying everyone is the same. I'm not saying the way I tank the virus is the same way someone else will tank the virus. But what I am saying is that all of the ways that a virus CAN be tanked should be known by science, or that science should be researching that. I am different in many ways from other people, but not all of those differences matter. For instance, I probably didn't survive the virus because I, uhh... use a particular shampoo. But if I did survive the virus because I use a particular shampoo, that's something science can uncover through research.

Same way they uncover things like "Blood pressure likely has an effect on immune system response. So if your blood pressure is different in a way that matters from someone else's blood pressure, that's a point for/against you as far as surviving the virus. Now we count all of the other factors for/against you to get your full likelihood." It's just there are clearly more factors beyond blood pressure and respiratory health. Science should be uncovering those factors. Science still has that to figure out.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

I know about myself medically as much as anyone else knows about themselves medically, I mean. I'm saying I don't need you personally to tell me how I tanked the virus, I mean I need you to tell me all the ways someone CAN tank the virus, and from that I'll figure out which one I probably used.

But I'm not saying everyone is the same. I'm not saying the way I tank the virus is the same way someone else will tank the virus. But what I am saying is that all of the ways that a virus CAN be tanked should be known by science, or that science should be researching that. I am different in many ways from other people, but not all of those differences matter. For instance, I probably didn't survive the virus because I, uhh... use a particular shampoo. But if I did survive the virus because I use a particular shampoo, that's something science can uncover through research.

Same way they uncover things like "Blood pressure likely has an effect on immune system response. So if your blood pressure is different in a way that matters from someone else's blood pressure, that's a point for/against you as far as surviving the virus. Now we count all of the other factors for/against you to get your full likelihood." It's just there are clearly more factors beyond blood pressure and respiratory health. Science should be uncovering those factors. Science still has that to figure out.

Science does know some ways to handle the virus. For example, the vaccine that you refuse to take even though its about as dangerous as the other vaccines, as far as anyone knows No vaccine works 100%, or is 100% safe for everyone The same goes for this one Some people will have adverse reactions Thats normal But you refuse to get one of the things that helps And again, some of it comes to random luck Just because you dont believe it doesnt make it any less fact Thats just how the body works, sometimes Also, in you post, you mentioned knowing about as much medically as anyone else If thats true, then knowing all those factors wouldnt help as much as you think And even then, the factors arent exact numbers They will never be for any disease, AFAIK The factors will usually be things like higher risk, lower, risk, etc No exact numbers, though Thats goes for pretty much anything, though Doctor dont deal in absolutes, because there are none when it comes to health People can get better or worse at the flip of a switch And for you example, science can only figure that out if they do a study with hundreds of people, where some used the shampoo and others didnt And even then, it can only say if one had higher or lower risk, if anything changed at all But again, those wont give you exact results Maybe using it gives you lower risk of catching it That doesnt mean you still cant catch it Just because some factors have higher or lower risks doesnt mean it will always work in favor of one or the other

And you assume that they are always looking at one specific thing in research But thats not always the case. Some researchers may study exact things in diseases Some look at it more broadly They are still studying it. For all we know, next week, they may come out with results on how a specific food can affect it COVID They are still studying it and finding out new things But that doesnt mean we dont know a lot already Why do you assume they arent researching it? Science is uncovering facts

LinkPizza posted...

Science does know some ways to handle the virus. For example, the vaccine that you refuse to take even though its about as dangerous as the other vaccines, as far as anyone knows No vaccine works 100%, or is 100% safe for everyone The same goes for this one Some people will have adverse reactions Thats normal But you refuse to get one of the things that helps And again, some of it comes to random luck Just because you dont believe it doesnt make it any less fact Thats just how the body works, sometimes Also, in you post, you mentioned knowing about as much medically as anyone else If thats true, then knowing all those factors wouldnt help as much as you think And even then, the factors arent exact numbers They will never be for any disease, AFAIK The factors will usually be things like higher risk, lower, risk, etc No exact numbers, though Thats goes for pretty much anything, though Doctor dont deal in absolutes, because there are none when it comes to health People can get better or worse at the flip of a switch And for you example, science can only figure that out if they do a study with hundreds of people, where some used the shampoo and others didnt And even then, it can only say if one had higher or lower risk, if anything changed at all But again, those wont give you exact results Maybe using it gives you lower risk of catching it That doesnt mean you still cant catch it Just because some factors have higher or lower risks doesnt mean it will always work in favor of one or the other

I'm not asking for "ways to handle the virus." I'm asking for what factors affect how an individual will handle the virus. If we can know that, like, actually know all those factors, then there is no "luck." We'll know why some things happen and why other things don't happen. To this you might say "Well that's an incredible amount of research that isn't practical to undertake," but again, the initial conflict of this thread was the idea that there was nothing left to figure out. There's clearly this.

Again, ideally we should not be scratching our heads over how the 65 year old cancer patient survived the virus. We should, after figuring out all of the things can have an effect, be able to go through what we know about this individual cancer patient and discern what likely happened. We should be able to eliminate things here and there until we come to "Ah it was... likely the viral load, or something. Plus he has an unusually strong immune system."

And you assume that they are always looking at one specific thing in research But thats not always the case. Some researchers may study exact things in diseases Some look at it more broadly They are still studying it. For all we know, next week, they may come out with results on how a specific food can affect it COVID They are still studying it and finding out new things But that doesnt mean we dont know a lot already Why do you assume they arent researching it? Science is uncovering facts

I never said they weren't researching it, I said I think we should know more by now.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

It's credible that myocarditis is a lethal disease. We're just gonna say that the myocarditis that these vaccines cause can't possibly kill you?

We can empirically say that all vaccine-related cases have been mild enough that zero deaths have occurred. That means the risk of death from vaccine-related myocarditis is vanishingly low.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

Traditional odds said I should've caught the virus years ago. But I didn't. So clearly I can't just assume trends will apply to me perfectly.

If you roll a die and get 1 three times in a row, do you assume that all subsequent rolls will be 1 because you can't assume that trends will apply to you perfectly? Or do you recognize that a small sample deviating from what the odds would tell you to expect does not mean the odds are incorrect?

For that matter, how far do you take that? Do you refuse to go outside because the stated risk of being struck by lightning could be much higher for you? Do you spend all your money on lottery tickets because the odds of losing might not be as high for you as for everyone else? Where do you draw the line of concluding that trends don't apply to you perfectly because this one unlikely thing happened?

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

Why? Because you're supposed to try and understand diseases like this.

I didn't ask "why should people try to figure things out?". I asked "why do you feel they should have already figured out everything there is to know about Covid?", which is a very different question.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

In fact, science is about leaving no mysteries on the table.

It's about answering as many questions as possible, but there will always be limits to how many questions can be answered (and they're still only going to be answered by the best available guesses). Heck, in most cases, answering one question reveals dozens more, because that's just the nature of our infinitely complex universe. That doesn't mean nobody should try, but it does mean you sometimes have to accept that time, manpower, and funding are all finite and temper your expectations accordingly.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

If you're saying "Well we aren't giving up," then that would mean we still have things to figure out. It's not true that there's nothing to figure out.

Research is ongoing, and likely will be for the rest of our lives. I'm not saying there's nothing to figure out, I'm saying that it will never be figured out as comprehensively as you seem to be demanding.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

I don't accept "I was lucky." I'm pretty sure I didn't catch the virus up until now because I didn't come in contact with the virus up until now. If I had, I would've caught it. And I'm pretty sure catching vs. not catching is as simple as that.

And that was luck. That was the product of countless factors like the movement of people, where you went and when you went there, the air currents and conditions wherever you were, the hygiene, PPE practices, and vaccination status of those around you... The risk of infection did not manifest for you not because it wasn't there, but because you were lucky enough that it wasn't realized.

You also come into contact with countless viruses every single day, yet are not infected by them. Infection is not so simple as a binary "contact virus-->get sick." Your immune system is constantly working to beat down would-be infections before they can cause you harm. If you do become infected, it's because something has made it past those early lines of defense. That can be the result of any number of possibilities, including a larger pathogen load, an impaired immune response (which in turn has many potential causes), or a pathogen that's particularly good at getting in.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

I'm not saying research funders care, but research funders don't care about a lot of things they should. Maybe they should care more about whether or not and to what extent blood pressure has an effect on whether or not you survive the virus.

Oh, blood pressure has already been considered. That's an easy one, given that hypertension is usually pretty well-documented for patients and BP is monitored constantly for as long as you're in the hospital. Hypertension has been identified as significant risk factor for becoming seriously ill with Covid, though as with any risk factor, that doesn't guarantee severe illness.

I'm not talking about broadly associating blood pressure with Covid, I'm talking about that hypothetical minute variation in blood pressure (which no machine would detect) triggering a butterfly effect that ultimately worsens the infection. That will never be researched, because it's far too obscure and has too little predictive value to be worth investing in.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...
All I need from other people is the Big List Of Factors.

Virologists, immunologists, epidemiologists, and anyone else involved in the field can and do write literal PhD theses on that subject that barely scratch the surface of the tip of the iceberg that is that question. You will not find a comprehensive answer to it anywhere, let alone on a video game message board. A comprehensive answer does not and will not ever exist. It's just too complex a question.

Alternatively, just say that everything is a factor. Absolutely everything which you, your ancestors, and everyone that is or has ever been around you have done and experienced has had some impact on who you are now and how the finer nuances of your body work. As I mentioned earlier, if the 45,818,169th nucleotide on your third chromosome is an A instead of a G because you're related to a human that got busy with a neanderthal 60,000 years ago, your risk of severe illness/death is doubled. That's the kind of scale you need to look at to get a comprehensive picture of your risk (and you need to do this for every disease if you're going to hold them all to the same standard), and it just isn't feasible to cover everything on such a scale.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

I said I think we should know more by now.

Based on what, exactly?

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

I'm not asking for "ways to handle the virus." I'm asking for what factors affect how an individual will handle the virus. If we can know that, like, actually know all those factors, then there is no "luck." We'll know why some things happen and why other things don't happen. To this you might say "Well that's an incredible amount of research that isn't practical to undertake," but again, the initial conflict of this thread was the idea that there was nothing left to figure out. There's clearly this.

Again, ideally we should not be scratching our heads over how the 65 year old cancer patient survived the virus. We should, after figuring out all of the things can have an effect, be able to go through what we know about this individual cancer patient and discern what likely happened. We should be able to eliminate things here and there until we come to "Ah it was... likely the viral load, or something. Plus he has an unusually strong immune system."

We already know some of the factor. But not all of them But without knowing all the factors, you can only get a higher or lower risk due to certain things Even with ALL the factors, it would be the same And there will always be luck There will never not be luck Because the body does different things every time Thats why its not always exactly the same every time you get sick Sometimes, you body handles it better or worse, for example Things change in you body that you dont even know about sometimes When we get checks up at the doctor, they check a lot of things we dont check in the daily So, you wont always know something changed And even then, youre always rolling the dice You need to understand that higher and lower risk arent exact numbers because health and people in general dont work like that Luck always plays a part, whether you like it or not And what we said was what you were asking wasnt a mystery Those things have been answered But there is always more to find The way you were posting sounded like you thought they knew next ton nothing about COVID, when thats far from the truth

We will always be scratching our head a little because nothing is exact So people have better responses against the virus That could just be his genetics Or when he got treated Or a smaller viral load, or he was vaccinated You assume that dont know how the 65 year old patient survived But maybe they do But since they cant just give out a persons medical history to random people, youd probably ever know If were talking about hypotheticals, it doesnt really help since anything can happen. How do you know they dont understand why the 65 year old cancer patient survived? You dont The doctors may know he had a high chance for many reasons And they are trying to figure out this stuff z you keep talking like they arent doing it This is why people dont understand what you want You say they should be finding out this stuff But thats exactly what they are doing So, if you agree them at they are still researching, then there was no actual point on you making this topic except to troll Research doesnt happen overnight Research takes a long time Just because you dont hear every discovery made doesnt mean they arent researching

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

I never said they weren't researching it, I said I think we should know more by now.

We do know more More than we knew when we first started. So, what do you mean by we should know more They can only do so much research at a time

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

You shouldn't need to know anything about me medically. Science should have, or work on getting, a collection of factors that affect how you'll handle the virus. I should then be able to read about all those factors in an article and discern which ones apply to me so I know why I'm handling the virus in the way that I am.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

You're vastly underestimating the complexity of biology. Hell, we're still trying to fully understand something as "simple" as the flow of water.

adjl posted...

We can empirically say that all vaccine-related cases have been mild enough that zero deaths have occurred. That means the risk of death from vaccine-related myocarditis is vanishingly low.

If you roll a die and get 1 three times in a row, do you assume that all subsequent rolls will be 1 because you can't assume that trends will apply to you perfectly? Or do you recognize that a small sample deviating from what the odds would tell you to expect does not mean the odds are incorrect?

For that matter, how far do you take that? Do you refuse to go outside because the stated risk of being struck by lightning could be much higher for you? Do you spend all your money on lottery tickets because the odds of losing might not be as high for you as for everyone else? Where do you draw the line of concluding that trends don't apply to you perfectly because this one unlikely thing happened?

"Low" doesn't mean "zero." But as far as how far I take it, it's like this: I look at what probability says should happen. If it doesn't happen, then I ask "Okay, now how do I feel about the odds? What do I think will happen? Because the experts turned out to be wrong."

I didn't ask "why should people try to figure things out?". I asked "why do you feel they should have already figured out everything there is to know about Covid?", which is a very different question.
It's about answering as many questions as possible, but there will always be limits to how many questions can be answered (and they're still only going to be answered by the best available guesses). Heck, in most cases, answering one question reveals dozens more, because that's just the nature of our infinitely complex universe. That doesn't mean nobody should try, but it does mean you sometimes have to accept that time, manpower, and funding are all finite and temper your expectations accordingly.

Research is ongoing, and likely will be for the rest of our lives. I'm not saying there's nothing to figure out, I'm saying that it will never be figured out as comprehensively as you seem to be demanding.

I didn't say everything, I said we should be doing more and knowing more than we do now.

And that was luck. That was the product of countless factors like the movement of people, where you went and when you went there, the air currents and conditions wherever you were, the hygiene, PPE practices, and vaccination status of those around you... The risk of infection did not manifest for you not because it wasn't there, but because you were lucky enough that it wasn't realized.

"Luck" is a reductive term, it's not a "mystery" what happened. Those "countless factors" are still identifiable. I didn't come in contact with the virus because I did this thing and that thing, other people did this thing and that thing, and so on.

You also come into contact with countless viruses every single day, yet are not infected by them. Infection is not so simple as a binary "contact virus-->get sick." Your immune system is constantly working to beat down would-be infections before they can cause you harm. If you do become infected, it's because something has made it past those early lines of defense. That can be the result of any number of possibilities, including a larger pathogen load, an impaired immune response (which in turn has many potential causes), or a pathogen that's particularly good at getting in.

Then that means my immune system was too strong for the virus. That's not luck either, that's something science can figure out. If an immune system can be too strong for the virus.

Oh, blood pressure has already been considered. That's an easy one, given that hypertension is usually pretty well-documented for patients and BP is monitored constantly for as long as you're in the hospital. Hypertension has been identified as significant risk factor for becoming seriously ill with Covid, though as with any risk factor, that doesn't guarantee severe illness.

I'm not talking about broadly associating blood pressure with Covid, I'm talking about that hypothetical minute variation in blood pressure (which no machine would detect) triggering a butterfly effect that ultimately worsens the infection. That will never be researched, because it's far too obscure and has too little predictive value to be worth investing in.

That's the blood pressure factor I'm talking about. If such a butterfly effect is possible, science should be aware of it.

All I need from other people is the Big List Of Factors.

Virologists, immunologists, epidemiologists, and anyone else involved in the field can and do write literal PhD theses on that subject that barely scratch the surface of the tip of the iceberg that is that question. You will not find a comprehensive answer to it anywhere, let alone on a video game message board. A comprehensive answer does not and will not ever exist. It's just too complex a question.

Alternatively, just say that everything is a factor. Absolutely everything which you, your ancestors, and everyone that is or has ever been around you have done and experienced has had some impact on who you are now and how the finer nuances of your body work. As I mentioned earlier, if the 45,818,169th nucleotide on your third chromosome is an A instead of a G because you're related to a human that got busy with a neanderthal 60,000 years ago, your risk of severe illness/death is doubled. That's the kind of scale you need to look at to get a comprehensive picture of your risk (and you need to do this for every disease if you're going to hold them all to the same standard), and it just isn't feasible to cover everything on such a scale.

You don't need to say "Everything is a factor" and close the book on it. You can further research by looking into these outlier cases and figuring out what went right/wrong. Get actual concrete answers instead of saying "Well it could've been anything."

adjl posted...

Based on what, exactly?

Based on it being three years so far. Maybe I underestimate just how much modern medicine sucks at discovering things, but I thought we'd be further along by now.

LinkPizza posted...

We already know some of the factor. But not all of them But without knowing all the factors, you can only get a higher or lower risk due to certain things Even with ALL the factors, it would be the same And there will always be luck There will never not be luck Because the body does different things every time Thats why its not always exactly the same every time you get sick Sometimes, you body handles it better or worse, for example Things change in you body that you dont even know about sometimes When we get checks up at the doctor, they check a lot of things we dont check in the daily So, you wont always know something changed And even then, youre always rolling the dice You need to understand that higher and lower risk arent exact numbers because health and people in general dont work like that Luck always plays a part, whether you like it or not And what we said was what you were asking wasnt a mystery Those things have been answered But there is always more to find The way you were posting sounded like you thought they knew next ton nothing about COVID, when thats far from the truth

Again, I know we know some of the factors. I've already said I'm pretty sure we should know more.

And if we did somehow have all the factors, ALL of the factors? Then there wouldn't be luck. Because we would know everything that can possibly happen to risk/prevent an infection. And then we can compare that to each case to narrow down what happened. Even factors like the different things the body does from time to time. If we know what those different things are, if we know what meaningful changes the body can go through that affect the likelihood of infection, and if we can determine that a person went through one of those changes, we can say "This affected your likelihood of infection."

But we don't know that yet. Like you said, there's still more to find. So no, these things have not been answered yet.

We will always be scratching our head a little because nothing is exact So people have better responses against the virus That could just be his genetics Or when he got treated Or a smaller viral load, or he was vaccinated You assume that dont know how the 65 year old patient survived But maybe they do But since they cant just give out a persons medical history to random people, youd probably ever know If were talking about hypotheticals, it doesnt really help since anything can happen. How do you know they dont understand why the 65 year old cancer patient survived? You dont The doctors may know he had a high chance for many reasons And they are trying to figure out this stuff z you keep talking like they arent doing it This is why people dont understand what you want You say they should be finding out this stuff But thats exactly what they are doing So, if you agree them at they are still researching, then there was no actual point on you making this topic except to troll Research doesnt happen overnight Research takes a long time Just because you dont hear every discovery made doesnt mean they arent researching

I made this topic to say that I expected us to not be asking why glaringly risky cases are surviving the virus. I thought we'd know that by now. So if we don't, I think we should do more to figure that out.

And then came all that talk about how there was nothing to figure out and how everything's been answered. It clearly hasn't been answered.

We do know more More than we knew when we first started. So, what do you mean by we should know more They can only do so much research at a time

Not more than what we knew when we first started, we should know more than we currently know. I expected us to know more about this by now.

sveksii posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

You're vastly underestimating the complexity of biology. Hell, we're still trying to fully understand something as "simple" as the flow of water.

If we weren't able to learn what factors affect how you'll respond to the virus, we'd know literally nothing about risk factors. So clearly biology isn't so complex that we can't learn anything. We've learned some things. I just think we should know more things.

I see this topic hasn't moved anywhere.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

I just think we should know more things.

This is what I think is interesting (and problematic) here. In the past someone who admittedly has no experience in medicine would yield the floor to either experts or those who speak in ways that lead us to think that they might just have some knowledge. Let's use adjl as an example. I of course don't know his background, but I think it's reasonable to think he has some knowledge in the area given the medical vocabulary he has available. He could be pulling one over on us, sure, but I think it's more likely true that he has some knowledge. What reason would he have to make things up?

Whether you accept adjl or not, though, the real question is: why do those who admittingly have no knowledge continue to press "I just think" viewpoints? Why is that justified? That wasn't something that used to happen when I was growing up: people used to be embarrassed to press a viewpoint without knowledge or evidence.

The answer, of course, is that certain leaders have re-trained people to doubt experts and knowledge. In such a world people can believe whatever they want and knowledge is more or less irrelevant. That is very convenient for politics and those who like messageboards, but of course it puts hefty limits upon what we can accomplish together as a society.

And that, of course, is why all of these topics are doomed to cycle on for eternity and why I really shouldn't have opened this back up. :) But who knows: every once in a while you can find a person who is able to be self-critical.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

"Low" doesn't mean "zero." But as far as how far I take it, it's like this: I look at what probability says should happen. If it doesn't happen, then I ask "Okay, now how do I feel about the odds? What do I think will happen? Because the experts turned out to be wrong."

Why do you think that having something improbable happen to you means that those who say it's improbable are wrong?

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

"Luck" is a reductive term, it's not a "mystery" what happened. Those "countless factors" are still identifiable. I didn't come in contact with the virus because I did this thing and that thing, other people did this thing and that thing, and so on.

Realistically, they aren't identifiable. The world is too chaotic a system to ever identify them all, let alone quantify the role they played or pretend anyone controlled them to produce the desired outcome. Yes, there were causes for the observed effect, but those causes are too numerous and too uncontrollable to call that any more than random chance.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

Then that means my immune system was too strong for the virus. That's not luck either, that's something science can figure out. If an immune system can be too strong for the virus.

Not really. Immune strength is very difficult to quantify to enough of an extent to make assessments like that, "strong enough" is going to depend pretty much entirely on a pathogen load that is impossible to measure unless you somehow intercept it on the way in (in which case, continuing to put it in would be profoundly unethical), and the whole thing gets even more complicated because much of Covid's pathology comes from how the immune system responds to it and stronger therefore isn't necessarily better.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

That's the blood pressure factor I'm talking about. If such a butterfly effect is possible, science should be aware of it.

Can you tell me how many milligrams of sodium you consumed and at what times for each of the last fourteen days? How about potassium? Calcium? How many litres of water? Did you measure your cortisol and adrenaline levels at multiple intervals throughout the last few days? Body temperature? Have you been constantly monitoring your blood pressure? Complete blood count?

That's the kind of data you'd need to uncover such minute variations in blood pressure as I was talking about, and quite frankly, nobody can provide that kind of data. Without that data, you cannot associate that with infection rates or prognoses. That is impossible, no matter how much you want to think that science should be able to overcome that.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

You don't need to say "Everything is a factor" and close the book on it. You can further research by looking into these outlier cases and figuring out what went right/wrong. Get actual concrete answers instead of saying "Well it could've been anything."

And that's precisely what ongoing research is doing by identifying and refining risk factors. If you want to get into complete determinism for whatever outcome happens, though, you can consider everything to be a factor. That's just the nature of comprehensive determinism, and why comprehensive determinism is a pretty stupid approach to take to anything.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

Based on it being three years so far. Maybe I underestimate just how much modern medicine sucks at discovering things, but I thought we'd be further along by now.

Why do you think that three years is enough to understand Covid so comprehensively? What precedent is there for that? Where is that expectation coming from?

*walks into the topic*

*slowly looks up*

*bloody diarrhea dripping from the vaulted ceiling*

Fuck... thats honestly kind impressive. TC got a god damned cannon in his pants

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

Again, I know we know some of the factors. I've already said I'm pretty sure we should know more.

And if we did somehow have all the factors, ALL of the factors? Then there wouldn't be luck. Because we would know everything that can possibly happen to risk/prevent an infection. And then we can compare that to each case to narrow down what happened. Even factors like the different things the body does from time to time. If we know what those different things are, if we know what meaningful changes the body can go through that affect the likelihood of infection, and if we can determine that a person went through one of those changes, we can say "This affected your likelihood of infection."

But we don't know that yet. Like you said, there's still more to find. So no, these things have not been answered yet.

What makes you sure we should know more AFAIK, youre not a scientist. So, if seems like you think they arent doing they job. Or arent doing it well enough And how do you know how much they know? Chances are that not everything they know is published. And even then, you would need to read every medical journal on COVID, which we obviously know you didnt based on your responses here

And again, there would ALWAYS be luck Even with all the factors. Because the factors ARENT exact The factors are normally things like higher risk or lower risk Those arent exact, so there will always be luck involved Again, you can pretend there wouldnt be luck, but the reality is there will always be some aspect of luck involved

And these things HAVE been answered Being answered in medical cases doesnt mean knowing everything Its about knowing some or enough And we do know quite a bit Just not everything

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

I made this topic to say that I expected us to not be asking why glaringly risky cases are surviving the virus. I thought we'd know that by now. So if we don't, I think we should do more to figure that out.

And then came all that talk about how there was nothing to figure out and how everything's been answered. It clearly hasn't been answered.

Again, luck plays a part in some cases. Some people are at higher risk from dying But they didnt It happens Some people just pull back from the brink of death This is not some new or rare phenomenon This happens in the medical field sometimes

Its not that everything has been answered But enough has been answered. We already explained to you that they has never been a disease we know literally everything about And chances are there will never be one, either But we know enough that these questions can be answered And when we learn more, they can be answered better But we will never know 100%. You asking for something that hasnt been done with any other virus

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

Not more than what we knew when we first started, we should know more than we currently know. I expected us to know more about this by now.

We know WAY more than when we first started! What the hell are you smoking? We barely knew anything And now people know certain diseases that are higher risk, and we have a vaccine (which you need to know about the virus to make one), and figured out the way it spreads, and all kinds of stuff You may not personally know this stuff, but we as humankind do