Coronavirus

[Trell]

I bought a massage gun for my knee last Summer and when my COVID struck, I decided to see if it would help clear my sinuses- it has a foam ball and I lightly pressed it against my cheek bones, then across my forehead above my eyebrows- it works great. Feels weird, but works great.

So you got a concussion instead?

 

[highfigh]

So you got a concussion instead?

It's not a jackhammer.

Or, this?

 

[NINaudio]

I bought a massage gun for my knee last Summer and when my COVID struck, I decided to see if it would help clear my sinuses- it has a foam ball and I lightly pressed it against my cheek bones, then across my forehead above my eyebrows- it works great. Feels weird, but works great.

Have you tried using a sinus rinse? Neilmed has a few options. I use them daily to clear out the gunk from my sinuses and it really helps.

 

[panteragstk]

Have you tried using a sinus rinse? Neilmed has a few options. I use them daily to clear out the gunk from my sinuses and it really helps.

Got my wife some of their stuff and it helps her quite a bit...when she actually uses it

 

[highfigh]

Have you tried using a sinus rinse? Neilmed has a few options. I use them daily to clear out the gunk from my sinuses and it really helps.

I don't have frequent sinus problems, so I haven't really looked for anything like that- I get a stuffed nose with a cold, but that's about it. Fortunately, I'm not allergic to anything, AFAIK.

 

[j_garcia]

News is saying our area just spiked up above the previous Delta variant levels. Not good.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Turned out to be all fine. Xrays, oxygen level etc all normal. They sent me home with a pulse oximeter. Yippie! Another toy!!!

That's certainly good news!

Hang in there, and keep us posted.

 

[Verdinut]

News is saying our area just spiked up above the previous Delta variant levels. Not good.

Not only in your area though. The recent Omicron variants are more transmissible than the Delta, but a lot less dangerous for getting hospitalized or dying.

In Canada, there were a lot more Omicron infections than with Delta, short term hospital admissions and less mortality.

In your area, if people follow safe sanitary guidelines, the infection curve should go down rather fast, within a couple of weeks as happened elsewhere.

 

[Dude#1279435]

That's certainly good news!

Hang in there, and keep us posted.

Still headaches, stuffy nose and fatigue, but at least the breathing problems seem to have gone down. Probably get the fourth shot sometime after I've recovered. See how my body reacts to Moderna this time. Also think I had some type of cold virus previous to this that wasn't covid. Took me two weeks to get it out of my system. Man, getting old sucks.

BTW, the third Pfizer wiped me out for two full days. I was lucky though. My boss had the worst reaction with vomiting etc. He probably will not get another booster.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Warning to anyone who’s had Covid as symptoms that can last TWO YEARS revealed

DOCTORS have discovered the symptoms of Covid that can last for two years or more. Their research has shown that half of patients admitted to hospital are still likely to have at least one pe…

www.the-sun.com

Their research has shown that half of patients admitted to hospital are still likely to have at least one persistent problem two years later.

The study, published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, has the longest follow-up period of patients to date.

Researchers are only able to analyse what symptoms exist after two years given the coronavirus emerged in late 2019.

So it's possible problems like fatigue and anxiety could stick around even longer.

Lead author Professor Bin Cao, of the China-Japan Friendship Hospital, China, said: “Our findings indicate that for a certain proportion of hospitalised Covid-19 survivors, while they may have cleared the initial infection, more than two years is needed to recover fully from Covid-19.”

The study involved almost 1,200 patients, aged 57 on average, who were infected with the bug in the early phase of the pandemic.

They had all been treated in Wuhan, China, then assessed six months, 12 months and two years after discharge.

Researchers looked at their walking abilities, mental health, quality of life and more.

Covid patients were generally found to be in poorer health than those in the general population two years after infection.

They reported:

• Fatigue or muscle weakness (31 per cent of Covid patients compared to five per cent in the general population)
• Sleep difficulties (51 per cent compared with 14 per cent)
• Pain or discomfort (23 per cent compared with five per cent)
• Anxiety or depression (12 per cent compared with five per cent)

Joint pain, palpitations, dizziness, and headaches were also more common among previously hospitalised Covid patients.

Not all of those hospitalised were affected, however.

More than half (55 per cent) of participants had at least one symptom of Covid at two years, and were therefore considered “long Covid” patients.

The researchers then compared the long Covid group with the group of participants who had endured Covid, but gotten better.

Those with long Covid had more pain (35 per cent vs 10 per cent), and mobility issues (five per cent vs one per cent) than their fully recovered counterparts.

Some 13 per cent showed symptoms of anxiety and 11 per cent depression, compared with three per cent and one per cent in non-long Covid patients, respectively.

The researchers said it’s not possible to say whether problems like these are specific to Covid, or whether other hospital patients experience them.

Long Covid is defined as someone who still battles symptoms beyond four weeks in the UK.

It may be defined as ongoing Covid (four to 12 weeks), or post-Covid syndrome (more than 12 weeks) by medics.

The symptoms may include fatigue, a cough, breathlessness, muscle or joint pain, loss of taste of smell and brain fog.

 

[Dan]

That article has generated a lot of press. It is published in a peer reviewed journal but it is an off shoot of the Lancet with a much lower bar for publication. I do not directly dispute the findings but I am skeptical for a few reasons having nothing to do with science. First, given the Chinese government's opaqueness regarding Covid 19 there, I am surprised this amount of data was available and the research allowed. Second, researchers in China are under enormous pressure to publish, to maintain their careers, much worse than the "publish or perish" at our universities. Hence, they will write or steal just about anything. Third, some but not all of their work isn't very good. I am a peer reviewer for three journals in my field and find myself rejecting many of their papers for severe flaws. These are not in the Covid realm however. So it's admittedly a gut feel on my part, I certainly have no data to contradict them.

 

[Dude#1279435]

That article has generated a lot of press. It is published in a peer reviewed journal but it is an off shoot of the Lancet with a much lower bar for publication. I do not directly dispute the findings but I am skeptical for a few reasons having nothing to do with science. First, given the Chinese government's opaqueness regarding Covid 19 there, I am surprised this amount of data was available and the research allowed. Second, researchers in China are under enormous pressure to publish, to maintain their careers, much worse than the "publish or perish" at our universities. Hence, they will write or steal just about anything. Third, some but not all of their work isn't very good. I am a peer reviewer for three journals in my field and find myself rejecting many of their papers for severe flaws. These are not in the Covid realm however. So it's admittedly a gut feel on my part, I certainly have no data to contradict them.

There's this one too, but they even acknowledge it's higher amongst those vaccinated w/o the booster.

Growing share of Covid-19 deaths are among vaccinated people, but booster shots substantially lower the risk | CNN

Since Covid-19 vaccines became widely available, there has been a wide gap in deaths between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. But recent Covid deaths are much more evenly split as highly transmissible variants take hold, vaccine protection wanes and booster uptake stagnates.

www.cnn.com

Edit: well the first one is from The Sun. LOL.

 

[Swerd]

Second, researchers in China are under enormous pressure to publish, to maintain their careers, much worse than the "publish or perish" at our universities. Hence, they will write or steal just about anything.

I can confirm that. I've found papers in obscure cancer research journals where the entire text, including figures and tables, were lifted directly from a previously published paper. The only difference in the second paper was the Chinese authors. It speaks volumes about the lack of any standards of those journals.

For what it's worth, the first paper didn't have much to say in the first place. The journal that published it clearly didn't care that it's content was plagiarized.

Third, some but not all of their work isn't very good.

That's always been a problem, but not just for Chinese scientists. The same is true for everyone. But some Chinese seem to have taken plagiarism and publishing false info to a new level. You can't really know who publishes good work in fields outside of your own. Also, knowing which journals are worth reading & believing and which journals should be ignored is required for anyone in medical or basic science.

I once knew a so-called scientist who violated standard statistical methods so blatantly that a paper of hers became subject material in a graduate level biostatistics course. It was singled out as an example of what not to do. She was not Chinese.

 

[Dan]

Heck some of my papers aren't all that great, generally just case reports in obscure journals so that a resident can get a publication and needs another name on the paper. But I have a few with over 100 citations so I think those are pretty good.. But I would never plagiarize or falsify data.

 

[Swerd]

And now … chapter 2. Last night and this morning I felt mildly sick, as if it's coming back. I ran a quick at-home test, and sure enough I was positive again. I quickly went online to schedule a Test-to-Treat visit at my local drug store for tomorrow morning. I hope I'll get another 5-day course of Paxlovid, but I don't know what they'll do. I'll be sure to remind them of the immune suppressing drugs I must take.

I remember in younger days how people often got the flu. And after a few days, felt like they were on the mend, only to get a few more days of fever and illness. People called it the 'boomerang flu'. I feel like I've been boomeranged with Covid-19 and now with Covid-20.

Yesterday, after 17 days of on & off Covid-19, I seem to have turned the corner. I've tested Negative yesterday and today. Here's the history:

• Days 1-7 First developed symptoms – first tested Positive on day 2
• Days 8 & 10 Tested Negative, but symptoms returned late on day 10
• Days 11-17 Symptoms continued – tested Positive on days 12 & 15
• Days 18-19 Tested Negative (yesterday & today)

I received 5 days of Paxlovid on days 2-7. When my symptoms returned I asked for a 2nd course, but was refused. As approved by the FDA for emergency use, Paxlovid may be given for 5 days only. A second course may be given, but only 3 weeks after finishing the first course.

I had been talking with my primary care doc during this. When Covid-19 boomeranged on me, she said that was the first time she saw that. A day later, speaking with other MDs in her group practice, she learned of 2 other similar patients. All 3 of us were immune compromised in one way or another.

I was told I'm eligible for the monoclonal antibody cocktail that clears corona virus from the blood. It's given by IV infusion, but I'm not sure how long the infusion takes. I called the phone number late Friday, leaving a voice message. They called me back this morning, ready to schedule me for tomorrow at a local hospital. I told them about my 2 days of negative home tests. So that is on hold for now – I hope it's on hold for good.

Perhaps more than 5 days of Paxlovid might be helpful. But that will have to wait until full FDA approval happens.

My wife was also infected during all this. She fully recovered after her 5-days of Paxlovid.

So that's my news. I hope others who may be immune compromised learn something useful.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Yesterday, after 17 days of on & off Covid-19, I seem to have turned the corner. I've tested Negative yesterday and today. Here's the history:

• Days 1-7 First developed symptoms – first tested Positive on day 2
• Days 8 & 10 Tested Negative, but symptoms returned late on day 10
• Days 11-17 Symptoms continued – tested Positive on days 12 & 15
• Days 18-19 Tested Negative (yesterday & today)

I received 5 days of Paxlovid on days 2-7. When my symptoms returned I asked for a 2nd course, but was refused. As approved by the FDA for emergency use, Paxlovid may be given for 5 days only. A second course may be given, but only 3 weeks after finishing the first course.

I had been talking with my primary care doc during this. When Covid-19 boomeranged on me, she said that was the first time she saw that. A day later, speaking with other MDs in her group practice, she learned of 2 other similar patients. All 3 of us were immune compromised in one way or another.

I was told I'm eligible for the monoclonal antibody cocktail that clears corona virus from the blood. It's given by IV infusion, but I'm not sure how long the infusion takes. I called the phone number late Friday, leaving a voice message. They called me back this morning, ready to schedule me for tomorrow at a local hospital. I told them about my 2 days of negative home tests. So that is on hold for now – I hope it's on hold for good.

Perhaps more than 5 days of Paxlovid might be helpful. But that will have to wait until full FDA approval happens.

My wife was also infected during all this. She fully recovered after her 5-days of Paxlovid.

So that's my news. I hope others who may be immune compromised learn something useful.

Glad to hear it seems to be clearing up!

 

[Mr._Clark]

Here's an opinion piece from the NYT about potential nasal vaccines for COVID-19. If it works it works, of course, but I've always wondered if we really know that the COVID virus enters through the nasal cavity and not the lungs? (or some combination of both)

I seem to recall there was some controversy early on in the pandemic about whether or not the coronavirus was spread by aerosols, but I also seem to recall that most experts now believe it can be spread by both droplets and aerosols. I haven't seen any studies, but my initial impression is that aerosols could get into the lungs. Having said that, I also don't know if there are ACE2 receptors on the surface of the cells in the lungs that could provide a point of entry?

Basically, I find myself wondering the people developing nasal vaccines are overly focused on the nasal cavity because this is how prior viruses enter the body so this is what they know, when perhaps they should be working on vaccines that target both the nasal cavity and the lungs? (of course, the usual disclaimers apply: I'm not a doctor or a biologist of any sort, and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night).

>>>The currently available Covid-19 vaccines are injected into people’s arm muscles and are highly capable at combating the virus once people are infected. But they are not as successful at preventing people from getting infected to begin with. To do that, you ideally want to stop a virus from spreading right at the site where people get infected: the nasal cavity. . . . Ideally, a nasal vaccine could enter the mucus layer inside the nose and help the body make antibodies that capture the virus before it even has a chance to attach to people’s cells. This type of immunity is known as sterilizing immunity. . . .

The mucus layer is a formidable barrier. The body also doesn’t generate a robust immune response by simply spraying any conventional vaccine up the nose. . . . The good news is that scientists like myself believe we have found a way around this problem for SARS-CoV-2. We have shown in animal studies that we can spray the virus’s so-called spike proteins into the nose in a previously vaccinated host and significantly reduce infection in the nose and lungs as well as provide protection against disease and death. Combining this approach with efforts underway to develop a single vaccine for a broader range of coronaviruses could potentially offer people protection against future variants, too.<<<

Opinion | The Answer to Stopping the Coronavirus May Be Up Your Nose (Published 2022)

Why nasal vaccines for Covid could be so effective.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Dude#1279435]

After three Pfizer shots, should I switch the fourth with Moderna?

 

[Swerd]

After three Pfizer shots, should I switch the fourth with Moderna?

If you can get Moderna for your fourth shot, go for it. It won't cause harm. Otherwise, get whatever is available – but be sure to get that fourth shot.

I think there is little different in the immune responses between the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. I've not read any scientific report that directly says that, it's just my opinion.

 

[Swerd]

Here's an opinion piece from the NYT about potential nasal vaccines for COVID-19. If it works it works, of course, but I've always wondered if we really know that the COVID virus enters through the nasal cavity and not the lungs? (or some combination of both)

The idea of routes of immunization other than direct injection has been around for a long time. In theory, giving a vaccine for a respiratory virus through the nose could work better than an injected vaccine. Something sprayed into the nose should reach the tonsils in the back of the throat, where immune reactions begin to take place. Going into the lungs isn't necessary.

A few years ago, this idea of a nasal spray vaccine was tried for the flu. Remember 'Flu Mist'? It was developed hoping that more people would get the nasal spray than the injected vaccine. After a few years, it was taken off the market, as it wasn't as effective as the injected flu vaccine. I guess that route of immunization wasn't proven ineffective – only that Flu Mist wasn't effective against that year's flu strain.

The original polio vaccine, the Salk vaccine, was given by injection. A few years later it was replaced by an oral vaccine, the Sabin vaccine. Its development took longer, but was found to be more effective in the long run. When polio virus infects humans, it resides mainly in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. The Sabin vaccine was found to lead to immunization in lymph node-like structures, called Peyer's patches, associated with the small intestine. The lumen of the GI tract is exposed to the external environment; much of it is populated with potentially pathogenic microorganisms. Peyer's patches are where immune surveillance & responses happen to bacteria and viruses found in the intestinal lumen. Peyer's patches act for the GI system much as the tonsils act for the respiratory system, trapping foreign particles, surveilling them, and destroying them.