Installera Steam
logga in
|
språk
简体中文 (förenklad kinesiska)
繁體中文 (traditionell kinesiska)
日本語 (japanska)
한국어 (koreanska)
ไทย (thailändska)
Български (bulgariska)
Čeština (tjeckiska)
Dansk (danska)
Deutsch (tyska)
English (engelska)
Español - España (Spanska - Spanien)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanska - Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (grekiska)
Français (franska)
Italiano (italienska)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesiska)
Magyar (ungerska)
Nederlands (nederländska)
Norsk (norska)
Polski (polska)
Português (Portugisiska – Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugisiska - Brasilien)
Română (rumänska)
Русский (ryska)
Suomi (finska)
Türkçe (turkiska)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamesiska)
Українська (Ukrainska)
Rapportera problem med översättningen
By the way, those "experts" you trust so much have actually said that all of those measures had led to less immunity. At least, if the MSM is to believed.
That's an appeal to qualification fallacy. What is amazing about science is that just about anybody can learn about it, and apply it, and do some experimentation for themselves.
Like photography or astronomy, anyone can be an amateur scientist, if they try.
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. I already pointed out the fallacy. It's like "Read this whole scientifical essay or you lose the argument", except even worse.
A what one?
If exclusion (again, to the extent possible) left norovirus as a reasonable - or the most probable - pathogenesis, or if I was certain of exposure risk for it, then I'd focus on supportive and hydration care. In my case probably through an oral rehydration solution in water, sipped gradually over the course of the day, while monitoring for any other significant symptoms.
If fluid loss felt severe, I'd ask a doctor whether an over-the-counter antiemetic drug might be a good idea, and what the pros and cons of antidiarrheals might be, only taking them under medical supervision.
I'd eat bland, simple foods (crackers, etc.) that I know I usually find easy to digest, and avoid caffeine (to the extent possible - I wouldn't want to experience significant caffeine withdrawal while also suffering from a virus, either, so I'd probably compromise by just reducing my intake to low, tolerable levels once a day,) sweets, fatty foods, and spices until I felt recovered.
And if I didn't have any outstanding medical reason not to, I'd take an extremely low dose over-the-counter antipyretic to control fever as necessary.
If I didn't recover within 3 days fully or my symptoms were severe enough to cause significant concern (severe dehydration, fever, delirium, etc.) I'd seek emergency medical care.
I'd disinfect all surfaces I came in contact with during that time, especially high contact surfaces, with a bleach-base disinfectant. And wash my hands frequently. And take particular care to stay away from immunocompromised or otherwise vulnerable people while contagious, and until thorough decontamination was undertaken.
it's more of the appeal to authority fallacy, "it's true because there are experts/scientists/papers/academics say it's true and you're not the experts"
and the system will not show them people with the same title who disagree to create the illusion that everyone has the same views/explanations/results
so here we are in 2025, still viruses have never been proven to exist, nobody has ever shown a virus in someone, nobody has ever shown the supposed replication and attacking, nobody has ever shown that imaginary fight of a virus and immune system, nobody has ever shown the contagion, it's all cartoons, yet people blindly believe in viruses.
Regular people don't ask for proof because the assume viruses must be real because the authority told me so. Most people cannot even considered there could be other reasons why people get sick(such as toxicity in the food, what they drink, quality of the air, personal stuff, mental health, etc). People are just programmed to think sickness = viruses and contagion.
Yes, I called it that before but the guy said "no because you can do the experiment yourself". I know about what you say and it makes me wonder how it works in education and the "scientifical community". I think there's also the belief in authority there and those things are rarely double-checked. And even if they are, those people might be ridiculed.