That’s not what “long covid” means. Long covid is an umbrella term that means long term effects following covid that persist beyond 3 months. That could mean high cholesterol, new onset autoimmune disease, cognitive damage, immune damage, all of which are observed in these studies
Why are large BlueSky liberal accounts complaining & punching down to people advocating for more health mitigations & fewer long COVID cases?
Aren't there more important things to be angry about right now?
Screencap of a PacoOnPause post: Hi, that's my video in the top left corner. I got disabled by covid, I talk about covid and I am also happy to discuss anything I said that you disagree with. Ignoring covid is actually a gift to MAHA, since they are blaming all of the post covid health problems on vaccines. 10:43 PM Feb 25, 2026 And the post it's responding to is "Post not found"
Off to a good start.
Yeah maybe because vax & relax liberals like yourself absolutely refuse to listen to the millions who have been harmed by Covid & are begging you to please mask sometimes. Covid continues to be a workers’ rights issue & continues to impact the most marginalized. It intersects every major issue rn
“messaging like this from people i don’t follow” who are mostly long covid patients/advocates, chronically ill/disabled patients/advocates that many of us who are in these communities know bc we actually engage with each other regularly instead of popping in occasionally to call them hysterical
why is sharing the Bloomberg article on long COVID so problematic? The article is mostly based around the work of physicians working on long COVID, and even explicitly makes a pro-vaccination argument, so what even is the problem with sharing it?
It's not untrue though. This article nor caption implied this was a US-based claim... Cause it's not🫠
haven't seen anyone mention this but he's not actually responding to the claim made in this peer reviewed study that he says isn't true. the study and other studies with findings in a similar range are looking at the rate of long COVID among those who *HAD COVID*, *not* all US adults.
That isn't what was said in the video, so it is fighting an imaginary strawman and misdirecting anger onto someone already being attacked from the other side. Nothing good comes of that either.
I feel like only people who've not yet had long COVID would bet on the vaccines to prevent transmission.
If a 2nd infection would kill you, you'd trust that the vaccines reduce transmission? My siblings and their families are all fully vaxxed and all 12 of them are on infection #5. I've had it once. The difference? I'd never rely on the vaccine to prevent transmission. I rely on respirators for that.
Get vaccinated, yes, but I feel like it's disingenuous to say this without adding that protection against infection & transmission declines substantially within a few months
Part 1 of 3
Calling a very well known vaccine advocate “anti vaxx” because she VERY correctly calls for people to take supportive measures like masking since our current vaccines do not stop transmission is wild. As someone who actually does vax outreach in LA the lines Michael is pushing feed anti vax ideology
Personally if I had a massive platform that I built in part by branding myself as someone who picks apart scientific methodology I would not use it to undermine the work of disabled folks fighting for their lives + ignoring/misrepresenting the sources they cite. But then again, I'm not a grifter so
…so punching down on the (largely medically vulnerable) people who are actually working for clean air and disingenuously calling them “anti-vax” is a good use of your time?
You know, I've seen a lot of people who would call you anti-vax for that, saying that by masking you're showing you believe the vaccines don't work. After all, why would you bother if you think the vaccines "significantly reduce transmission"?
As someone who spent a LOT of years arguing with antivaxxers....no the fuck it is not
Im a historian of vaccination with a MS in public health
this is most certainly not "explicitly anti-vaxx" and its actually insulting to people still worried about long COVID to frame them as equivalent to the real anti-vaccination people in power/charge now.
Criticise her message without this.
I had to redownload this app that my storage saver automatically offloaded just to reply here. Hi hello. www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8xkwQ9U/
He doesn't care, he's been doing this for years. Disabled people, public health advocates, scientists and more have tried to educate him but he's just so bought into COVID denialism. To admit he was wrong means he'd have to admit COVID isn't as harmless as he thought and he simply can't do that
What exactly are you hoping to "engage" them on? They don't want anyone to get Long COVID but y'all are living in a fantasy world where vaccines impart total immunity
No single person is saying vaccines are bad, they're saying they're not enough and we're sleepwalking through a mass disabling event
Conclusions COVID-19 vaccination reduces infectiousness and susceptibility; however, these effects are insufficient for complete control of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, especially in older people and household setting. Relaxation of preventive behaviors after vaccination may counteract part of the vaccine effect on transmission.
No one need deny the benefits of vaccines to make the point that they won’t completely control transmission. Look how it’s done in the conclusion of this paper. www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
I pay for your content and am begging you to listen to chronically ill and disabled people and scientists on this one. Please.
Michael continuing his track record of being dogshit on pandemic politics.
She provided her sources around the politics of the "health emergency." Separately, she correctly claimed that COVID vaccination's observed benefit is reduction of severity--not foolproof immunity, nor prevention of spread
It is true that our current vaxx do not meaningfully reduce infection/transmission. Covid is highly transmissible & we do not yet have sterilizing vaccines or even vaccines that produce any form of lasting mucosal immunity. Nowhere does she exaggerate the severity of Covid. Ur promoting denialism
Michael, I've been a listener for a long time, and you are consistently wrong about this. Saying "vaccines aren't enough, there are other additional things that you should also be doing" is not anti-vax. This person says that the vaccine *increases your chances of survival.* Is that pro or anti-vax?
I get that it's frustrating and embarrassing and maybe a little scary to realize that your have suffered long-term or permanent systemic damage caused by preventable repeat COVID infections.
Denying the facts to comfort yourself unfortunately means more people, including yourself, will suffer
The COVID vaccines:
~Protect against *SYMPTOMATIC* disease
~Greatly lower the risk of hospitalization from acute infections
~Greatly reduce the risk of death from acute infections
About 40% of infections are asymptomatic. About 60% of transmission is due to said asymptomatic COVID carriers.
The vaccines don't prevent infection, therefore they don't prevent transmission, either. If you want to make that claim please provide a lit review that substantiates that claim. No SARS-CoV-2 vaccine manufacturer makes that claim. If it were a sterilizing vaccine they'd scream it from the rooftops.
