Coronavirus

[highfigh]

I was short of breath for a few months after I had it and still cough frequently, but it's getting better. My case was like a cold with fatigue, I would become winded very easily and I wasn't very interested in eating (I wish that part had remained, to be honest). Never lost taste or smell, didn't have muscle/joint pain/headaches, but I really didn't feel energetic, at all. After my negative test, it took awhile to feel 'normal'.

I started coughing a little over a month ago and before that, I couldn't take a deep breath- my lungs felt clogged and they wouldn't clear out but once I started coughing, it loosened and cleared. I don't have any problems with deep breaths and after a few days of that, I went back to be tested and it was negative.

 

[panteragstk]

I started coughing a little over a month ago and before that, I couldn't take a deep breath- my lungs felt clogged and they wouldn't clear out but once I started coughing, it loosened and cleared. I don't have any problems with deep breaths and after a few days of that, I went back to be tested and it was negative.

Not sure what it is, but I've felt the same for around the same amount of time. It's annoying, but it seems to be clearing up. No positive either.

Allergies have been terrible here this year though, so it's not just me.

 

[Verdinut]

A glimpse into long COVID and symptoms

DEFINE_ME

www.thelancet.com

 

[Mr._Clark]

A glimpse into long COVID and symptoms

DEFINE_ME

www.thelancet.com

Another Lancet article reports significantly lower odds of long covid from omicron compared to delta. 4.5% is far from zero, but it's better than 10.8%.

>>>Among omicron cases, 2501 (4·5%) of 56 003 people experienced long COVID and, among delta cases, 4469 (10·8%) of 41 361 people experienced long COVID. Omicron cases were less likely to experience long COVID for all vaccine timings, with an odds ratio ranging from 0·24 (0·20–0·32) to 0·50 (0·43–0·59).<<<

DEFINE_ME

www.thelancet.com

 

[Mr._Clark]

Here's a recent study looking at the effectiveness of various immunity (prior infection, vaccination, vaccination + boosted, hybrid) against omicron.

There are a lot of ways to slice the data. I suspect the antivaxxers will assert that the study shows that vaccines are not effective. Although two doses of vaccine is not effective against infection 6 months after the second shot, having some form of immunity (regardless of how it was obtained) is very effective against severe Covid-19.

Also, hybrid immunity was better (albeit modestly) than prior infection alone with regards to infection. Unvaccinated people considering the vaccine will have better immunity if they get jabbed regardless of whether or not they were previously infected (unvaxxed but previously infected people frequently assert that their immunity is better than immunity from vaccines, but this is a non-sequitur with regards to the choice to get vaccinated).

>>>Results
The effectiveness of previous infection alone against symptomatic BA.2 infection was 46.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39.5 to 51.9). The effectiveness of vaccination with two doses of BNT162b2 and no previous infection was negligible (−1.1%; 95% CI, −7.1 to 4.6), but nearly all persons had received their second dose more than 6 months earlier. The effectiveness of three doses of BNT162b2 and no previous infection was 52.2% (95% CI, 48.1 to 55.9). The effectiveness of previous infection and two doses of BNT162b2 was 55.1% (95% CI, 50.9 to 58.9), and the effectiveness of previous infection and three doses of BNT162b2 was 77.3% (95% CI, 72.4 to 81.4). Previous infection alone, BNT162b2 vaccination alone, and hybrid immunity all showed strong effectiveness (>70%) against severe, critical, or fatal Covid-19 due to BA.2 infection. Similar results were observed in analyses of effectiveness against BA.1 infection and of vaccination with mRNA-1273.

Conclusions
No discernable differences in protection against symptomatic BA.1 and BA.2 infection were seen with previous infection, vaccination, and hybrid immunity. Vaccination enhanced protection among persons who had had a previous infection. Hybrid immunity resulting from previous infection and recent booster vaccination conferred the strongest protection. (Funded by Weill Cornell Medicine–Qatar and others.)<<<

Loading…

www.nejm.org

This article states that 90% or more of Americans may have some form of immunity. Hopefully it's high enough to reduce the more severe effects of future waves. But, who knows? This blasted virus has been unpredictable.

>>>Sixty percent infected—if that’s even accurate—actually isn’t the most relevant metric when it comes to forecasting how rough the road ahead might be. Vaccinations, too, can confer protection. And the fraction of Americans who have been infected or vaccinated is probably above 90 percent. But because immunity against infection and transmission ebbs over time, more than 90 percent exposed doesn’t translate to more than 90 percent “protected” against another viral encounter.<<<

America Is Starting to See What COVID Immunity Really Looks Like

With time and effort, we can build enough protection to blunt surges—but herd immunity remains out of reach.

www.theatlantic.com

The "above 90 percent" in the article above links to a CDC page that estimated the overall seroprevalence at 94.7% in December of 2021. Given the huge surge in new cases in early 2022, it seems reasonable to think that, by now, well over 95% probably have some immunity.

>>>The nationwide blood donor seroprevalence survey estimates the percentage of the U.S. population ages 16 and older that have developed antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, from vaccination or infection. This percentage is known as seroprevalence.<<<

COVID Data Tracker

CDC’s home for COVID-19 data. Visualizations, graphs, and data in one easy-to-use website.

covid.cdc.gov

 

[Swerd]

Here's a recent study looking at the effectiveness of various immunity (prior infection, vaccination, vaccination + boosted, hybrid) against omicron.

There are a lot of ways to slice the data. I suspect the antivaxxers will assert that the study shows that vaccines are not effective. Although two doses of vaccine is not effective against infection 6 months after the second shot, having some form of immunity (regardless of how it was obtained) is very effective against severe Covid-19.

Thanks for posting that NEJM paper. But first, I have to get this off my chest:

Antivaxxers always asserted the vaccines were not effective – even before there was any data. They were no more right about that back then than they might be now.​

​

If they couldn't understand simple results from studies showing that ivermectin was incapable of anti-virus response, it's being far too polite to give them the benefit of doubt that they might actually understand the results from papers such as this. They can't.​

The results of the paper clearly demonstrate something we've long suspected would come to be. Now we know for certain – that the SARS-CoV-2 has mutated significantly since the infection broke out worldwide about 2½ years ago. It's mutated often enough that the first generation vaccines can only provide limited immunity to the latest variants. I guess I was not very impressed by the paper for that reason.

What we don't know is whether SARS-CoV-2 will continue to mutate as fast as it has since it broke out worldwide. We should count our lucky stars that this virus seems to have mutated – as often suggested by virologists – into forms that are much more rapidly spread, but much less damaging to those it infects. Is the virus done with all those newly emerging variations? Who knows? In the meantime, lets see some new 2nd generation vaccines.

 

[Dan]

How does anyone justify using one source for anything that's critical to so many users?

Call it the China syndrome. Like so many industries way too much has been outsourced to Chine without any redundancy. We have been seeing in far too many sectors the shortcomings of this approach

 

[GO-NAD!]

Well...this isn't very comforting to know.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1539679245278101504

 

[GO-NAD!]

There seems to be waning interest in COVID, but we can't forget that COVID is still interested in us.

Cause of long-COVID symptoms revealed by lung-imaging research at Western University | CBC News

Using a functional MRI where patients inhale xenon gas, researchers can see in real-time what it is happening inside the lungs. Preliminary results show symptoms are related to microscopic abnormalities that affect how oxygen is exchanged from the lungs to red blood cells.

Having participants inhale the gas while being scanned by the MRI allowed researchers to see how the 500 million air sacs in the lungs deliver oxygen to the blood. In the case of long-COVID patients, the transition of the oxygen was depressed compared to healthy volunteers.

"They had all been about nine months post-infection, and we wondered if we could find the source of their symptoms because they were all highly symptomatic and their quality of life scores were really very poor," said Grace Parraga, a professor and the Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Lung Imaging to Transform Outcomes at Western's Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry.

"What we see in patients who have long-COVID, and they're symptomatic, is that they actually have normal pulmonary function. So their breathing tests that doctors would prescribe were normal, and their CT scans were normal. But the MRI told us a completely different story."

 

[Mr._Clark]

Here's the latest risk level map from globalepidemics:

There's obviously quite a bit of red.

I'm not sure if this is good news or not, but the average number of deaths per day in the U.S. is about 400 or so right now:

Off hand, I would have hoped that the number of deaths would have gone down more by now due to the relatively high levels of immunity, better treatments, the reduced (allegedly) severity of the omicron variants, etc.

The number of reported new cases in the U.S. seems to be leveling off at around 100k per day, but I hear second hand reports that some doctors think that the number of new cases in the U.S. is actually as high as it's ever been, but people aren't getting tested, many of the cases are relatively mild, etc. so the reported case numbers are only a fraction of the actual number of new cases. I doubt that anyone really knows how many new cases there are right now.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Well...this isn't very comforting to know.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1539679245278101504

That doesn't give me the warm fuzzies.

This is somewhat interesting:

>>>Among those with reinfection, 36,417 (12.29%) people had two infections, 2,263 (0.76%) people had three infections, and 246 (.08%) people had four or more infections.<<<

Four or more infections is rare (.08%), but I'm surprised there's even this many. I guess COVID is really, really interested in some people.

Edit: I'm probably brain dead right now, but I don't see how the percentages "Among those with reinfection" can add up to 100%? What am I missing here?

 

[Alex2507]

What am I missing here?

It's probably metric.

 

[j_garcia]

You know Covid isn't over when Fauci caught it.

 

[Dude#1279435]

About six months the boosters last? Better get on the ball on getting the fourth.

 

[rnatalli]

I saw a story that they plan to roll out boosters in the fall and they will include protection for sub-variants as well. On a related note, it sounds like they're also working on a more universal flu vaccine.

 

[mtrycrafts]

That doesn't give me the warm fuzzies.

This is somewhat interesting:

>>>Among those with reinfection, 36,417 (12.29%) people had two infections, 2,263 (0.76%) people had three infections, and 246 (.08%) people had four or more infections.<<<

Four or more infections is rare (.08%), but I'm surprised there's even this many. I guess COVID is really, really interested in some people.

Edit: I'm probably brain dead right now, but I don't see how the percentages "Among those with reinfection" can add up to 100%? What am I missing here?

Not sure but a whole bunch only had 1 infection, so far? About 86.87%?
If you add up those numbers and %ages, then you can find the total population who are infected, presuming something here as I get a population of 296466.
Then each of those % will give you the posted numbers with some rounding decimal errors.

 

[Trell]

I saw a story that they plan to roll out boosters in the fall and they will include protection for sub-variants as well. On a related note, it sounds like they're also working on a more universal flu vaccine.

The GOP Supreme Court majority will never call out the Catholic church for their centuries long history of paedophilia and other rampant sexual abuse and rape.

 

[Mr._Clark]

You have it the wrong way round. Vit K reverses warfarin. Vitamin K should not be taken by anyone taking warfarin, as you will clot. Warfarin is still the anticoagulant of choice, in fact the only one indicated for people with prosthetic heart valves.

The newer anticoagulants, the factor XA antagonists are not vitamin K dependent. They have to be reversed by recombinant factor X (ten).

I would caution people not to be cavalier, with vitamin D as vitamin D intoxication is a real problem and serious. You are particularly prone if you are a somewhat darker skinned Caucasian. If you are going to take more than 1000 units of vit D per day, you should have vit D and serum calcium measured, especially if you fit the demographics above. I personally get too high vitamin D levels taking even small supplements.

If in doubt, have your doctor check a vitamin D level and serum calcium. There is no advantage in boosting vitamin D to high levels, in fact, that is dangerous.

That is good information. Here's an example of a vitamin D overdose:

>>>A British man's overdose on vitamin D is a cautionary tale for people who are considering adding supplements to their lives, according to a paper published Tuesday in the journal BMJ Case Reports.

After a visit with a private nutritionist, the man began taking more than 20 over-the-counter supplements every day, including 50,000 international units (IU) of vitamin D three times a day. That's a dose hundreds of times higher than standard nutritional recommendations.

Within a month, the man began suffering from nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhea and repeated bouts of vomiting, along with cramping in the legs and ringing in the ears. . . .

The man stopped taking the supplements when his symptoms began, but his condition didn't improve. By the time he was referred to the hospital two months later, he had lost 28 pounds (12.7 kg) and his kidneys were in trouble. Tests showed he had overdosed on vitamin D, a condition called hypervitaminosis D. . . .

Too much vitamin D in the blood leads to hypercalcaemia, which occurs when the calcium level in your blood is above normal. The man in the BMJ case study was diagnosed with hypercalcaemia, which can weaken your bones, create kidney stones, and interfere with how your heart and brain work.
The man was hospitalized for eight days and treated with drugs to lower the levels of calcium in his blood. A followup two months later found his blood calcium levels had dropped to almost normal. While the man's vitamin D level had also significantly improved, it was still high, Alkundi said.<<<

How an increasingly popular supplement landed a man in the hospital

A private nutritionist told a British man to take large doses of vitamin D along with other supplements. It didn't go well.

www.cnn.com

Let's be careful out there!

 

[Mr._Clark]

If you add up those numbers and %ages, then you can find the total population who are infected, presuming something here as I get a population of 296466.
Then each of those % will give you the posted numbers with some rounding decimal errors.

That's correct. Here's the paragraph from the .pdf copy of the paper:

It seems to me that "among those with reinfection" should be "among those with at least one infection."

Having said that, I don't see this making a difference in terms of the conclusions reported in the preprint.

 

[rnatalli]

That is good information. Here's an example of a vitamin D overdose:

>>>A British man's overdose on vitamin D is a cautionary tale for people who are considering adding supplements to their lives, according to a paper published Tuesday in the journal BMJ Case Reports.

After a visit with a private nutritionist, the man began taking more than 20 over-the-counter supplements every day, including 50,000 international units (IU) of vitamin D three times a day. That's a dose hundreds of times higher than standard nutritional recommendations.

Within a month, the man began suffering from nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhea and repeated bouts of vomiting, along with cramping in the legs and ringing in the ears. . . .

The man stopped taking the supplements when his symptoms began, but his condition didn't improve. By the time he was referred to the hospital two months later, he had lost 28 pounds (12.7 kg) and his kidneys were in trouble. Tests showed he had overdosed on vitamin D, a condition called hypervitaminosis D. . . .

Too much vitamin D in the blood leads to hypercalcaemia, which occurs when the calcium level in your blood is above normal. The man in the BMJ case study was diagnosed with hypercalcaemia, which can weaken your bones, create kidney stones, and interfere with how your heart and brain work.
The man was hospitalized for eight days and treated with drugs to lower the levels of calcium in his blood. A followup two months later found his blood calcium levels had dropped to almost normal. While the man's vitamin D level had also significantly improved, it was still high, Alkundi said.<<<

How an increasingly popular supplement landed a man in the hospital

A private nutritionist told a British man to take large doses of vitamin D along with other supplements. It didn't go well.

www.cnn.com

Let's be careful out there!

So he was literally pissing his money away.