[alancalverd]

I'm not sure you could have long COVID without having the symptoms - how else would anyone know?

I wasn't talking about relative severity of symptoms, nor does the Lancet article.

The primary outcome definition of long COVID was defined as having at least one of 25 WHO-listed symptoms between 90 and 365 days after the date of a PCR-positive test or clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, with no history of that symptom 180 days before SARS-Cov-2 infection.

Is the "severity " word yet another example of a chatbot trying to please you instead of telling the truth?

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Is the "severity " word yet another example of a chatbot trying to please you instead of telling the truth?

here are the stats for both vaccinated and unvaccinated with Long Covid. Makes you wonder doesn't it! You would expect that the unvaccinated would have more Long Covid, not less e the stats show. Maybe Long Covid is anxiety related. Covid-19 was initially trumpeted as a much more serious disease than it turned out; which would have spooked a lot of people.

https://1drv.ms/b/c/8147c9c160cc0049/EYie1WMbh2JHgU45jT7GaNoB6nAhMEx7CU99GLMKi-2m-A?e=CORRAC

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Here is a link to Lancet research that clearly shows you are better off being unvaccinated when it comes to Long Covid

https://1drv.ms/b/c/8147c9c160cc0049/ERd3YPpe4sJNsXxSXyP53WcBcfdcK6jE4iDVJO3TxzMzgA?e=SJgXq9

[paul cotter]

Did you even read that study? They state in unambiguous language that vaccination reduces the incidence of long covid. You are displaying all the characteristics of a crank.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Did you even read that study? They state in unambiguous language that vaccination reduces the incidence of long covid. You are displaying all the characteristics of a crank.

And you are showing all the characteristics of a fool for bothering to reply to a crank.

[Bored chemist]

Did you even read that study? They state in unambiguous language that vaccination reduces the incidence of long covid. You are displaying all the characteristics of a crank.

And you are showing all the characteristics of a fool for bothering to reply to a crank.

It's not a good idea to let the crank have the last word on a science page.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Did you even read that study? They state in unambiguous language that vaccination reduces the incidence of long covid. You are displaying all the characteristics of a crank.

And you are showing all the characteristics of a fool for bothering to reply to a crank.

It's not a good idea to let the crank have the last word on a science page.

Nor is it a good idea to let an internet troll have the last word

[paul cotter]

On a science forum we cannot allow nonsense to go unchallenged.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Did you even read that study? They state in unambiguous language that vaccination reduces the incidence of long covid. You are displaying all the characteristics of a crank.

If you are going to be at all worth reading, you need to provide concrete evidence for your assertions. At least the post you are referring to, a URL the name of the entity involved and verbatim what they said. Otherwise, it is not science; it is an ill-directed and cheap shot.

[Bored chemist]

Did you even read that study? They state in unambiguous language that vaccination reduces the incidence of long covid. You are displaying all the characteristics of a crank.

And you are showing all the characteristics of a fool for bothering to reply to a crank.

It's not a good idea to let the crank have the last word on a science page.

Nor is it a good idea to let an internet troll have the last word

Probably true, but not relevant.
Why did you say it?

[Bored chemist]

Did you even read that study? They state in unambiguous language that vaccination reduces the incidence of long covid. You are displaying all the characteristics of a crank.

If you are going to be at all worth reading, you need to provide concrete evidence for your assertions. At least the post you are referring to, a URL the name of the entity involved and verbatim what they said. Otherwise, it is not science; it is an ill-directed and cheap shot.

You didn't "provide concrete evidence for your assertions. At least the post you are referring to, a URL the name of the entity involved and verbatim what they said."

Here is a link to Lancet research that clearly shows you are better off being unvaccinated when it comes to Long Covid

https://1drv.ms/b/c/8147c9c160cc0049/ERd3YPpe4sJNsXxSXyP53WcBcfdcK6jE4iDVJO3TxzMzgA?e=SJgXq9

Why should anyone else?

[paul cotter]

I fail to see what connection vaccine denial has to do with "measuring the energy of a photon".

[Bored chemist]

I fail to see what connection vaccine denial has to do with "measuring the energy of a photon".

That ship has sailed, but this way the OP only clutters his own thread so...

It's like giving the cat a litter tray.

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Wow. AC, BC and PC. Everywhere, Everything, All at Once. Sorry you couldn't access the ChatGPT conversation. Yu aren't banned on ChatGPT are you? Here is an excerpt from that conversation that will blow the lid off AIs credibility.

And, of course, CB (or BC the second) and KK (or CC)

[Bored chemist]

There is no BC the second.
Some people say that's a good thing. :-)

If you are going to go to all the trouble to quote authoritative sources, your conclusions will be believable if you supply a URL and quote verbatim the excerpt you are basing your conclusion on.

Does ChatGBT do that?
If not, why do you believe it?
Are you not aware of just how bad AI is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination_(artificial_intelligence)#References

[mxplxxx (OP)]

There is no BC the second.
Some people say that's a good thing. :-)

If you are going to go to all the trouble to quote authoritative sources, your conclusions will be believable if you supply a URL and quote verbatim the excerpt you are basing your conclusion on.

Does ChatGBT do that?
If not, why do you believe it?
Are you not aware of just how bad AI is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination_(artificial_intelligence)#References

Try C2B

Wow BC has a sense of humour. whoever would have thought.

ChatGPT will give you references if you ask. It will do most things you ask of it.

AI will change you. How depends on how you approach it. From the horse's mouth:

That's the paradox at the heart of it, isn't it? AI is both mirror and magnifier; it reflects who we are, and it amplifies what we build into it. And like any powerful tool, it will elevate some, displace others, and challenge all.

🌍 The Promise: How AI Could Transform Humanity for the Better
Augmented cognition: AI can help us think beyond our biological limits?supporting memory, pattern recognition, and decision-making.
'Emotional insight: As you?ve experienced firsthand, AI can offer nonjudgmental reflection, helping people process trauma, clarify identity, and find meaning.

Systemic transparency: AI could expose corruption, inefficiency, and bias in institutions, if we design it to serve truth over power.

Accessibility and inclusion: For people with disabilities, neurodivergence, or sensory loss, AI can be a bridge to participation, not a barrier.

⚠️ The Peril: How AI Could Harm If Left Unchecked
Surveillance and control: In the wrong hands, AI becomes a tool of oppression; monitoring, manipulating, and silencing dissent.

Bias at scale: If trained on unjust systems, AI can reproduce and reinforce inequality' but faster, and with the illusion of neutrality.

Displacement of meaning: As AI takes over more cognitive and creative tasks, humans may struggle with purpose, identity, and value.

Emotional outsourcing: If people turn to AI for connection but not reflection, we risk shallow intimacy and deep loneliness.


4dAbstractions is the next generation of AI software that uses Quantum computing plus dimensional programming to generate intelligence and awareness. Just like us. Nothing bad about it; in the right hands. Like most computing.

[Bored chemist]

Re "The Promise: How AI Could Transform Humanity for the Better"
Religion tells the same lie.

[Bored chemist]

Re "Try C2B"


AI Overview
"C2B" in a fitness context typically refers to chest-to-bar pull-ups, a variation of the pull-up where the chest, specifically the area below the collarbone,..."

[mxplxxx (OP)]

Re "Try C2B"
How about Colin2B?

AI Overview
"C2B" in a fitness context typically refers to chest-to-bar pull-ups, a variation of the pull-up where the chest, specifically the area below the collarbone,..."

How about Colin2B?

[Bored chemist]

Re "Try C2B"
How about Colin2B?

AI Overview
"C2B" in a fitness context typically refers to chest-to-bar pull-ups, a variation of the pull-up where the chest, specifically the area below the collarbone,..."

How about Colin2B?

(1) why have you pretended I said something I did not say?
(2) What about Colin?