Ive got covid...

[C_T_Russell]

Getting over the worst of it now, was really like a bad head cold.
I see what they mean about the brain fog. Luckily it hasnt lasted long, was bad for about 3 days.
Now im just left with a little cough but im still testing as infectious.
Its a bit of a joke with the self isolation rules, they say only a week and then you can go out, but I dont want to infect the public so im going to leave it until i test negative, but my doctor said dont bother testing yourself anymore.
You can still be infectious without symptoms, and having symptoms doesnt mean you are infectious either because you can have a cough linger on for weeks as an example, so not sure why my doctor said its ok after a week when im clearly still infectious.

Just glad that ive got it out of the way now, will probably end up going back to work by the end of this week if im all clear.

[harm_less]

The other upside is that you will now have a stronger immunity to COVID which will persist for far longer than the vaccine induced immunity does, so no 2nd booster required for you.

[Praktica]

Well - so says "Doctor" John Campbell, the famous disease expert nurse educator.

[harm_less]

Well - so says "Doctor" John Campbell, the famous disease expert nurse educator.

And as usual it's not his say so, it's evidence based on the scientific studies he quotes and provides links to.

[king1]

The other upside is that you will now have a stronger immunity to COVID which will persist for far longer than the vaccine induced immunity does, so no 2nd booster required for you.

From what I read the vaccination is a much better protection long term than natural immunity

Dr [Alison] Campbell said the evidence when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines points the other way, directing Newshub to research in the UK which found "for most people vaccination against COVID-19 will induce more effective and longer lasting immunity than that induced by natural infection with the virus", and it was recommended to get vaccinated even after infections "because it will boost whatever immunity you have from natural infection".
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zeala...video.html

[harm_less]

The other upside is that you will now have a stronger immunity to COVID which will persist for far longer than the vaccine induced immunity does, so no 2nd booster required for you.

From what I read the vaccination is a much better protection long term than natural immunity

Dr [Alison] Campbell said the evidence when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines points the other way, directing Newshub to research in the UK which found "for most people vaccination against COVID-19 will induce more effective and longer lasting immunity than that induced by natural infection with the virus", and it was recommended to get vaccinated even after infections "because it will boost whatever immunity you have from natural infection".
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zeala...video.html

Papers linked to in Dr. Campbell's video:

https://www.medscape.co.uk/viewarticle/c...tiveuk_int

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.abn8014

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...1.full.pdf

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthc...022-01-11/

Newshub is hardly a reliable source of health or science information and their article contains absolutely no links to scientific studies to support its content.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

We are only now starting to understand the long term effects of this infection. The current best advice is - no matter how you feel - rest, rest, rest.

Wouldn't hurt!

[harm_less]

We are only now starting to understand the long term effects of this infection. The current best advice is - no matter how you feel - rest, rest, rest.

Wouldn't hurt!

That seems to be the general consensus. The human body has incredible powers of rejuvenation, if we give it the unrestricted opportunity to do so.

[Magoo]

Well - so says "Doctor" John Campbell, the famous disease expert nurse educator.

And as usual it's not his say so, it's evidence based on the scientific studies he quotes and provides links to.

yes, because links and quotes from other sites is scientific research.

---

---

Getting over the worst of it now, was really like a bad head cold.
I see what they mean about the brain fog. Luckily it hasnt lasted long, was bad for about 3 days.
Now im just left with a little cough but im still testing as infectious.
Its a bit of a joke with the self isolation rules, they say only a week and then you can go out, but I dont want to infect the public so im going to leave it until i test negative, but my doctor said dont bother testing yourself anymore.
You can still be infectious without symptoms, and having symptoms doesnt mean you are infectious either because you can have a cough linger on for weeks as an example, so not sure why my doctor said its ok after a week when im clearly still infectious.

Just glad that ive got it out of the way now, will probably end up going back to work by the end of this week if im all clear.

lucky you were vaxxed ow

[king1]

From what I read the vaccination is a much better protection long term than natural immunity

Papers linked to in Dr. Campbell's video:

https://www.medscape.co.uk/viewarticle/c...tiveuk_int

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.abn8014

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...1.full.pdf

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthc...022-01-11/

Newshub is hardly a reliable source of health or science information and their article contains absolutely no links to scientific studies to support its content.

it refers to this site
https://www.immunology.org/coronavirus/c...on-vaccine

[Magoo]

i might start calling myself Doctor.
that or The General, but Doctor sounds better. more genteel, more befitting for a man of my calm disposition.

Mr Campbell does as most internet pundits do.
he is an aggregator. he takes studies and documents from many sources to form an idea then runs with that.
his sources seem very good, so his ideas seem to make sense.
his ideas are not research, they are a collection of other peoples research drawn from to form conclusions to suit a narrative.

please dont insult the degreed scholars and institutions out there by calling it research, or evidence.

[harm_less]

i might start calling myself Doctor.
that or The General, but Doctor sounds better. more genteel, more befitting for a man of my calm disposition.

Mr Campbell does as most internet pundits do.
he is an aggregator. he takes studies and documents from many sources to form an idea then runs with that.
his sources seem very good, so his ideas seem to make sense.
his ideas are not research, they are a collection of other peoples research drawn from to form conclusions to suit a narrative.

please dont insult the degreed scholars and institutions out there by calling it research, or evidence.

Must say I'm tiring somewhat in having to remind people that a PhD is a doctrate, therefore someone that has attained a PhD, as Dr. Campbell has, can legitimately refer to themselves as a doctor. In Dr Campbell's case he has a doctrate related to training nurses which isn't too far away from educating the general public which he does a pretty fine job of by sourcing, digesting and abridging scientific and research papers which he then presents in an easy to understand form.

You only have to read the numerous positive comments posted in reply to his YouTube presentations by very skilled and highly qualified medical professionals to appreciate that his content passes the muster in terms of accuracy. That's good enough proof of truth for me.

If peer reviewed science papers don't qualify as research in your opinion then what does?

---

Papers linked to in Dr. Campbell's video:

https://www.medscape.co.uk/viewarticle/c...tiveuk_int

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.abn8014

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/...1.full.pdf

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthc...022-01-11/

Newshub is hardly a reliable source of health or science information and their article contains absolutely no links to scientific studies to support its content.

it refers to this site
https://www.immunology.org/coronavirus/c...on-vaccine

I put more credence in a collection of scientific papers from reliable international organisations than a public service website whose primary purpose is to drive immunisation uptake. To paraphrase the weakness that Dr Campbell was struggling to describe 'follow the money'.

[Magoo]

harm_less

If peer reviewed science papers don't qualify as research in your opinion then what does?

a peer review of his conclusions.
reading someone elses conclusions is not research, its reading research.
his conclusions are just that, his conclusions. based on what others have researched
how he comprehends or interprets other peoples research just makes it an opinion, his.
it deserves no more cognizance than any other internet 'researcher'

[king1]

it refers to this site
https://www.immunology.org/coronavirus/c...on-vaccine

I put more credence in a collection of scientific papers from reliable international organisations than a public service website whose primary purpose is to drive immunisation uptake. To paraphrase the weakness that Dr Campbell was struggling to describe 'follow the money'.

I can only see benefits in having the booster on top of any immunity a covid infection might provide...  where is the harm in doing so?  but are you sure that you should be recommending people to not have a booster?

[Praktica]

Well - so says "Doctor" John Campbell, the famous disease expert nurse educator.

And as usual it's not his say so, it's evidence based on the scientific studies he quotes and provides links to.

You mean - he cherry picks studies he thinks support his ideas?

[harm_less]

harm_less

If peer reviewed science papers don't qualify as research in your opinion then what does?

a peer review of his conclusions.
reading someone elses conclusions is not research, its reading research.
his conclusions are just that, his conclusions. based on what others have researched
how he comprehends or interprets other peoples research just makes it an opinion, his.
it deserves no more cognizance than any other internet 'researcher'

Except Dr. Campbell has around half a century of experience in the hospital environment. Experience often recognises gaps in clinical theory.

---

I put more credence in a collection of scientific papers from reliable international organisations than a public service website whose primary purpose is to drive immunisation uptake. To paraphrase the weakness that Dr Campbell was struggling to describe 'follow the money'.

I can only see benefits in having the booster on top of any immunity a covid infection might provide...  where is the harm in doing so?  but are you sure that you should be recommending people to not have a booster?

I've had a booster but I'll definitely be putting a lot of thought into the wisdom of putting my immune system through another one, particularly so if I am infected with COVID before then.

---

And as usual it's not his say so, it's evidence based on the scientific studies he quotes and provides links to.

You mean - he cherry picks studies he thinks support his ideas?

He provides full disclosure of his source material. Viewers are welcome to source their own research data.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

I know quite a few PhDs. Not a single one of them calls themself Doctor. The consensus among them is to do so is more about ego than anything else.

[harm_less]

I know quite a few PhDs. Not a single one of them calls themself Doctor. The consensus among them is to do so is more about ego than anything else.

Or if you're active in the public eye some degree of credibility. I attained a horticultural degree for just that reason, to differentiate myself from the hoards of snake oil salesmen in the Organic sector. Not a title you wear on my sleeve but a useful tool to show when my horticultural advice is questioned.

[Magoo]

Harm_less

Except Dr. Campbell has around half a century of experience in the hospital environment. Experience often recognises gaps in clinical theory.

if only 'working in a hospital' were a qualification, its not. 
how much experience with Covid did he see prior to 2020?

half a century in a hospital does not an expert make of a virus only two years old, 
and certainly not at pandemic level.

i still surmise his to be strictly an opinion, not medical research,
nor the result of medical research.
so just a layman really, not dissimilar to any other 'internet doctors', 
there are dozens of mr campbells out there i cant see any difference here.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

I know quite a few PhDs. Not a single one of them calls themself Doctor. The consensus among them is to do so is more about ego than anything else.

Or if you're active in the public eye some degree of credibility. I attained a horticultural degree for just that dreason, to differentiate myself from the hoards of snake oil salesmen in the Organic sector. Not a title you wear on my sleeve but a useful tool to show when my horticultural advice is questioned.

Neither you, nor I, use our degrees as part of our titles or honorifics
It is advertising, nothing less, and only usually used on very formal occasions, or in small print on letterheads.