COVID-19, Part 5 - the beat goes on.

[WrongVerb]

All we have is anecdotal, except for the studies of how long the virus survives in an exterior (hostile) environment, which are definitive. But I would rather read the tea leaves as best as possible than not use what we are given. So elderly patients are dying, you take extra precaution, not ignore it. Outside events have not shown the "super spreader" characteristics that were being expected - remember it was all - "the sky is falling" around every one, but it hasn't.

Choose your path and call it a "kick I am on", I'll wear it even if it was meant as an insult. Because ignoring the information we do have is the really stupid thing to do.

Didn't mean it as an insult. Just that it's more pragmatic to wait for a full analysis by experts.

[kaldaniels]

I know you've been on this kick, based on some anecdotal reports. (I refuse to call anecdotes "evidence.") I would love to see a formal study of this, and if the hypothesis proves out, then encouraging people to spend time outdoors and keep social distancing is the right thing to do. Hopefully someone is on this already.

I ask this kindly as I mentioned it earlier but you speak of evidence vs anecdotal...what long term/permanent effects are being found in COVID patients.

You mentioned you’ve been harping on this so I’m just wondering what you are seeing. I’m finding anecdotal stuff myself.

[BernieCarbo]

If some of the best athletes in the world are susceptible, then perhaps it's time to consider that you are as well.

What am I missing? Isn't everybody susceptible?

[WrongVerb]

I ask this kindly as I mentioned it earlier but you speak of evidence vs anecdotal...what long term/permanent effects are being found in COVID patients.

You mentioned you’ve been harping on this so I’m just wondering what you are seeing. I’m finding anecdotal stuff myself.

New England Journal of Medicine: Neurologic Features in Severe SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Kidney International: Acute kidney injury in patients hospitalizedwith COVID-19

National Institutes of Health: Liver injury in COVID-19:The current evidence

European Journal of Heart Failure: COVID‐ 19 and heart failure: from infection to inflammation and angiotensin II stimulation. Searching for evidence from a new disease

Banner Health: What Long-Term Effects Could COVID-19 Have on Your Lungs?

[kaldaniels]

New England Journal of Medicine: Neurologic Features in Severe SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Kidney International: Acute kidney injury in patients hospitalizedwith COVID-19

National Institutes of Health: Liver injury in COVID-19:The current evidence

European Journal of Heart Failure: COVID‐ 19 and heart failure: from infection to inflammation and angiotensin II stimulation. Searching for evidence from a new disease

Banner Health: What Long-Term Effects Could COVID-19 Have on Your Lungs?

1) 64 severe cases looked at. It's not really talking long term, just neurological issues of those with concurrent severe COVID cases.

2) "Acute" kidney injury. We are talking about chronic/long term.

3) No real conclusion, just that liver function should be monitored. Caution in high-risk/liver patients no doubt. "not severe in most cases".

4) I'd argue this needs watching but "clinical implications of the detection of myocardial injury remain, however, uncertain".

5) Just a news article interviewing a Dr. who says "Dr. Bime reassured us that “while it is possible, there is no evidence that recovering from COVID-19 makes you more susceptible to lung cancer and other serious conditions."

Again, surely there can be complications. But we really don't know the extent and with over 2 million positive patients in this country, you would think any long term issue would at least start being seen to a highly reported extent. It doesn't seem like catching COVID is a sentence of chronic health issues for most survivors. I'm sure you can pick out blurbs as well that support your thinking but big picture-wise I don't see any huge evidence yet.

[Wonderful Monds]

1) 64 severe cases looked at. It's not really talking long term, just neurological issues of those with concurrent severe COVID cases.

2) "Acute" kidney injury. We are talking about chronic/long term.

3) No real conclusion, just that liver function should be monitored. Caution in high-risk/liver patients no doubt. "not severe in most cases".

4) I'd argue this needs watching but "clinical implications of the detection of myocardial injury remain, however, uncertain".

5) Just a news article interviewing a Dr. who says "Dr. Bime reassured us that “while it is possible, there is no evidence that recovering from COVID-19 makes you more susceptible to lung cancer and other serious conditions."

Again, surely there can be complications. But we really don't know the extent and with over 2 million positive patients in this country, you would think any long term issue would at least start being seen to a highly reported extent. It doesn't seem like catching COVID is a sentence of chronic health issues for most survivors. I'm just you can pick out blurbs as well that support your thinking but big picture-wise I don't see any huge evidence yet.

Yeah, everything I’ve read about this, none of that is really all that abnormal compared to the kind of things you’d see with people who have the flu or pneumonia. Those both cause some physical changes to your lungs, kidneys etc etc. that can be picked up for a while. It doesn’t mean that someone is permanently damaged.

[757690]

The virus has existed for around 6 months world wide

We won’t have any meaningful data in the long term effects of it for awhile, likely a year or so from now. It’s like the vaccine. Research takes time.

[kaldaniels]

The virus has existed for around 6 months world wide

We won’t have any meaningful data in the long term effects of it for awhile, likely a year or so from now. It’s like the vaccine. Research takes time.

Yeah, I agree that it will take time. I agree that we should be aware that there may be long term effects. I do not see evidence that we should speak of it as fact, in any broad sense.

[Rojo]

I'm sure you can pick out blurbs as well that support your thinking but big picture-wise I don't see any huge evidence yet.

Likes: working from home.

[mth123]

Everyone is susceptible to getting it but very few get sick. Have any of these WWE folks had symptoms? It's not a bad thing to get infected if you don't develop symptoms. You build antibodies and herd immunity

Getting infected means you can pass it on to some one else who does get sick. It is a bad thing to get infected. We don't even know if herd immunity is even possible. If you are only immune for a few weeks, we'll never reach the point we 60% or 70% of the population is immune at the same time and that's what we need for herd immunity. Another unknown theory that people are hanging their hat on.

The only thing we know for sure is that you can't spread the virus if you are never infected. It's why people should do whatever they reasonably can to prevent the spread. Closing the world - not reasonable. Staying home for the rest of your life - not reasonable. Wearing a mask - reasonable. Maintaining distance in public -reasonable. Avoiding mass exposures through things like bar hopping and sporting events - reasonable. . We are making this thing way too hard with all the half truths and politically motivated spin on the facts, theories and statistics.

[mth123]

Yeah, everything I’ve read about this, none of that is really all that abnormal compared to the kind of things you’d see with people who have the flu or pneumonia. Those both cause some physical changes to your lungs, kidneys etc etc. that can be picked up for a while. It doesn’t mean that someone is permanently damaged.

As a person with damaged kidneys, I can tell you that if you are an adult, any damage to your kidneys is permanent. You don't want damage to accumulate to the point where you need a transplant or dialysis and damage is cumulative. My Kidneys still function well enough that I can live another 30 or 40 years with no problem (and I'm old), but additional damage just brings me closer the point where I can't. It's already changed my lifestyle in an attempt to prevent any further damage. I've changed my diet, exercise habits and some other things. The change was hard, but my overall health is better for it. Even so. the damage already done will never get better.

Any disease that damages your kidneys shouldn't be taken lightly.

[bucksfan2]

Getting infected means you can pass it on to some one else who does get sick. It is a bad thing to get infected. We don't even know if herd immunity is even possible. If you are only immune for a few weeks, we'll never reach the point we 60% or 70% of the population is immune at the same time and that's what we need for herd immunity. Another unknown theory that people are hanging their hat on.

The only thing we know for sure is that you can't spread the virus if you are never infected. It's why people should do whatever they reasonably can to prevent the spread. Closing the world - not reasonable. Staying home for the rest of your life - not reasonable. Wearing a mask - reasonable. Maintaining distance in public -reasonable. Avoiding mass exposures through things like bar hopping and sporting events - reasonable. . We are making this thing way too hard with all the half truths and politically motivated spin on the facts, theories and statistics.

I have seen the bolded thrown out there quite a bit and I am curious as to why. Every report of a reinfection I have seen has been explained as a faulty test or a positive because the virus has never truly left the body. I do not fear reinfection, nor do I think this virus is going to react in a manner that no other viruses have reacted.

There has been an alarming spike in positives in the country. There are a lot of reasonable explanations as to what that has happened. In some southern states, relaxing of the lock downs early and a reluctance to push forward safety measures is a reason. You also have the massive protests that are entering the period when positive cases start to happen. In my neck of the woods there was a spike of cases, almost entirely related to a nursing home.

[kaldaniels]

Again I’m sure we can go back and forth - but the kidney study mentioned was looking at loss of kidney function due to an acute critical illness. That is often reversible to the extent that one can go on to live a normal life with functioning kidneys. We would just need more data for chronic long term damage caused by COVID.

[mth123]

Again I’m sure we can go back and forth - but the kidney study mentioned was looking at loss of kidney function due to an acute critical illness. That is often reversible to the extent that one can go on to live a normal life with functioning kidneys. We would just need more data for chronic long term damage caused by COVID.

My Doctor hasn't led me to believe this. It's a lot better for me if you are right.

[WrongVerb]

This looks like a great resource. It fills a hole in our data to this point...

Rate of Positive Tests in the US and States Over Time

This graph shows the total daily number of virus tests conducted in each state and of those tests, how many were positive each day. The trend line in blue shows the average percentage of tests that were positive over the last 7 days. The rate of positivity is an important indicator because it can provide insights into whether a community is conducting enough testing to find cases. If a community’s positivity is high, it suggests that that community may largely be testing the sickest patients and possibly missing milder or asymptomatic cases. A lower positivity may indicate that a community is including in its testing patients with milder or no symptoms. The WHO has said that in countries that have conducted extensive testing for COVID-19, should remain at 5% or lower for at least 14 days.