Yeah essentially what was told was "This is x and you are stupid if you disagree and there is no point to ask questions since you wouldn't understand anyway. And you are Y (a label to shame people) if you have any doubts.".

But honestly, given this title, it's hard to even begin to take this article/study seriously. The title seems so blatantly impossible to be true, it seems like it would be complete waste of time to check the article and the study itself.

If something about a study gets posted here, it should be validated that title is logically true about what the study actually found.

Right now I feel like I can't trust the titles at all.

If it was adjusted for BMI, the effect of exercise should and could be so much stronger, since if you would start to exercise your BMI would also improve, which is also known risk factor. So I think given a binary choice to start proper exercise routine or not, the actual improvement of risk odds is much greater than presented by this study, because of how they controlled for everything.

And consider that many people lost their routine of doing sports, which could've affected their routine afterwards everything was reopened as well. I know I used to be an active, disciplined gym goer with established routine, but I didn't have motivation after to have the same routine as I did before. I felt like I already lost a lot of my gains, and so after that my going to gym was more on and off. It can be hard to re-establish this motivation, since part of my motivation was being on the peak of my records and skill. So I was always motivated about potential progress.

Why would it be presented as an alternative? It's not either this or that.

I remember outdoor sport parks being closed up. Crazy.

I don't understand how it's so easy to close up all fitness, health related activities, but they can't regulate food and health industry in general to promote healthy diet and activities.

Especially in US, regulate food industry to have cheaper healthy foods and reduce availability of unhealthy fast foods, etc.

Or you could just use an existing library that also takes "1 second".

I think so many examples people bring up are just something that you already can do with few clicks, existing livrary, existing framework, assets, etc.

In reality code is prompts. And you can always abstract code into functions which are like promots.

If prompts are that beneficial to some it sounds like their code has way too much boilerplate.

No amount of people would be able to make possible confounders to go away, if it's not RCT.

Antibodies could persist, but it doesn't mean you wouldn't get infected again.

Are young, healthy people who did not take the vaccine anti-vaxxers or not?

And what should be done about convincing them?

But rather than thinking that if you have ADHD you could be more likely to get Alzheimer, I think based on this study, it would be better to think, that there's something that can possibly cause all of those 3 more likely to happen.

What I'm trying to say, is that there's a gene X, that could mess with your ability to pay attention, decrease your IQ and increase risk of Alzheimer's.

You can still have ADHD, but it doesn't mean you immediately have higher risk of Alzheimer's.

To me it seems more likely that there's just this one thing that can cause issues in all sorts of different mental faculties.

Like in an extreme case if we cut your head off, you would have 0 ability to pay attention, 0 ability to have a decent IQ and you would have 0 ability to memorise things. It could just be something that impacts everything on a less milder manner. And it's a bit misleading to start the title with ADHD

I think it doesn't have to be that binary either. It could be that it affects immune system priorities, where it for a period of time will prioritise defending against Covid-19 over anything else and during that time be more susceptible to other viruses. Current surges could be combination of both, lack of exposure and somewhat realigned priorities. Wouldn't call it reseting, but more like temporary reprioritisation.

Did Covid-19 vaccine affect Rhinitis in any way at all?

Could be something like immune system re-balancing its priorities. So it prioritises dealing with Covid-19 over its default priorities which happen to be reacting to generally harmless things by causing rhinitis.

Do you mean that the hypothesis would've been better if they used the word "exceptionally well paid" instead of "successful"?

Their full wording was:

> We examined the wrecked-by-success hypothesis. Initially formalized by Sigmund Freud, this hypothesis has become pervasive throughout the humanities, popular press, and modern scientific literature. The hypothesis implies that truly outstanding occupational success often exacts a heavy toll on psychological, interpersonal, and physical well-being.

Not necessarily a hypothesis by them, but examining what Sigmund Freud meant by that hypothesis and whether it's true.

What about defining those?

Why is this hypothesis bad? If I was to become exceptionally successful, it seems like important piece of information to know if it's going to wreck me. If I'm ambitious and I want to get that success, could it hurt my health?

People often warn you about these things.

But the hypothesis that they tested was that "Exceptionally successful people are wrecked by their success". What you quoted was rather the results/findings.

If you don't believe in anything supernatural there's no way you can justify making bets on e-sports in terms of thinking you can make money considering the odds.

Only way you could justify is if you found a flaw to use for arbitrage, if you build an algorithm that was somehow much more intelligent than betting system's own, you had extremely deep knowledge of the teams playing or you were participating in fraud for one team to lose on purpose.

Depending on how immune imprinting works it may still be important to consider even if you already have been exposed. E.g. is the memory something that would bias itself with diminishing influence? E.g. the first time would always stay with 50 percent influence, 2nd time 25, then 12.5, 6... and so on?

What I have read about Influenza imprinting this causes bias to stay since birth for life.

Or how would the formula exactly look like? Seems important to figure out to better make decisions.

What about considering immune imprinting? Although likely matters less now since most everyone, even unvaccinated have likely had their first imprint already. But how would imprinting specifically work? Would it be something like 50 percent weight on the first one, 25 on the 2nd etc, then it seems like it could still matter.

But wouldn't they be counterproductive to use now, if there's immunological imprinting? You would imprint your immune system to be biased towards suboptimal response, which compared to if you used the new vaccine you would get the currently most optimal response, which would imply consequences for many years to come if first times your immune system sees the virus have more weight on what kind of memory the immune system will have?

It could only be beneficial if Wuhan variant was to come back, but it might never because it was so far out of optimal spread and since so many people's immune system is imprinted to be specifically against the Wuhan variant.

Sounds like if you wanted to bias your immune system correctly, even an infection with current variant would be better since it would more likely bias your immune system correctly.

If you bias your immune system incorrectly it will have more trouble responding to any new instances of the infection that is closer to achieving full potential than immune system more accurately biased.

In addition I wonder if it would be better if people were imprinted with different types of vaccines, to avoid making it too easy for the virus to mutate into a combination of mutations that can bypass a single type of immunity of the whole population. You could work out 10 different types of most popular variations and randomly assign this to people for virus to have harder time getting into the optimal state to bypass everyone's immunological imprinting.

But why are they refusing to give bivalent vaccines for the first timers then? Why do they still want to give the Wuhan variant, wouldn't that be poor decision in terms of immunological imprinting?

But then don't use titles like that. There's many other parts of that study that are even far more interesting. Like the immune imprinting part. This might hint that if you have had anti bodies against Wuhan variant, it will be harder for your immune system to adapt to Omicron compared to if you didn't have any immunity and started from a blank spot. Because this is clearly concerning and I don't think that's something that yet been confirmed.

> The scientist also determined that antibody responses to the pandemic coronavirus follows a pattern similar to the way the immune system responds to variations of the influenza virus.This phenomenon is called immune imprinting. It means that the immune response shows a preference for recalling existing memory B cells specific against parts of the virus present in a strain to which an individual was previously exposed, rather than priming new memory B cells targeting differences present in markedly different strains upon infection. While this can be helpful in stimulating a cross-variant attack, the scientists explain, having previous exposure to earlier versions of a virus can sometimes hinder a more specific response against a virus that has mutated significantly.

This is something that is very important to know, to make decisions on how and when to vaccinate.