Coronavirus

[Swerd]

I'm scheduled to get the flu and covid vaccines on the same day shortly as well. Hopefully it doesn't cause too many side effects.

I had nothing worse than mild soreness at the injection site.

 

[cpp]

I'm scheduled to get the flu and covid vaccines on the same day shortly as well. Hopefully it doesn't cause too many side effects.

Mine are scheduled on the 24th of this month. Adding the RSV with it.

 

[Teetertotter?]

I have to call the VA for an appointment, to have the latest covid and flu shot. Flu shot, I usually do without. Receiving these shots are no big deal, for me.

 

[davidscott]

Scheduled to get both Monday. Never had any reaction to the flu shot but had some pretty rough reactions to the covid shot. I'm told that it means the shot is working. Never had covid so maybe it is.

 

[davidscott]

Got both shots today. I fully expect to feel terrible tomorrow and maybe Wednesday. The pharmacist told me its ok to take Alieve or Ibuprofen if and when I start feeling the effects so there is that. I'll let you know.

 

[davidscott]

Felt terrible when I woke up at 5 after the Alieve had worn off. Took another and the body and headaches finally stopped this afternoon. Funny thing is that the flu shot in my right arm hurt more than the covid in my left. So glad I don't have to deal with these shots for another year.

 

[davidscott]

Mine are scheduled on the 24th of this month. Adding the RSV with it.

Yeah, I'm going the schedule RSV next week.

 

[mtrot]

Felt terrible when I woke up at 5 after the Alieve had worn off. Took another and the body and headaches finally stopped this afternoon. Funny thing is that the flu shot in my right arm hurt more than the covid in my left. So glad I don't have to deal with these shots for another year.

I don't think the covid shots ever bothered me very much. But my last flu shot was the senior shot, which is twice as strong as the regular shot, seemed to make me feel like crap. I haven't taken one since. If I take another one, I'm going to try to get the lower dose shot.

 

[davidscott]

I got the senior shot and that's probably why the flu shot hurt my arm more than the covid shot.

 

[cpp]

Yeah, I'm going the schedule RSV next week.

got my Flu and Covid today one in each arm. RSV is next week.

 

[mtrot]

It appears some of you guys are opting to get separate flu and covid shots. Isn't there a combination flu/covid shot available now? Is it better to get separate shots?

 

[Swerd]

It appears some of you guys are opting to get separate flu and covid shots. Isn't there a combination flu/covid shot available now? Is it better to get separate shots?

There is no combination flu/covid vaccine shot available. It might be in the future, but certainly not now.

No scientific or medical evidence says there is any difference. It's only better to get one shot instead of two if you fear needles.

 

[davidscott]

Felt terrible yesterday today nothing and no Alieve. So on to the RSV next week. Then I'm done for a year.

 

[davidscott]

got my Flu and Covid today one in each arm. RSV is next week.

Any adverse reactions?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Felt terrible yesterday today nothing and no Alieve. So on to the RSV next week. Then I'm done for a year.

In what way did you feel that? Covid shot makes my arm a bit stiff, not the flue. No running nose are anything.

 

[cpp]

Any adverse reactions?

Not at the moment. Played 18 holes this morning. No soreness.

 

[Mr._Clark]

I realize this is a small study, but many of the "young, healthy, seronegative volunteers" had cognitive problems after they were given the COVID virus.

>>>Patient-reported outcomes and cross-sectional evidence show an association between COVID-19 and persistent cognitive problems. The causal basis, longevity and domain specificity of this association is unclear due to population variability in baseline cognitive abilities, vulnerabilities, virus variants, vaccination status and treatment. . . . These results support larger cross sectional findings indicating that mild Wildtype SARS-CoV-2 infection can be followed by small changes in cognition and memory that persist for at least a year. The mechanistic basis and clinical implications of these small changes remain unclear. . . .

We found that volunteers who exhibited sustained viral load after inoculation with SARS-CoV-2 performed worse on a measure of global cognition, than volunteers who did not exhibit sustained viral load. This deficit persisted up to a year after inoculation. <<<

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(24)00421-8/fulltext

 

[mtrycrafts]

I realize this is a small study, but many of the "young, healthy, seronegative volunteers" had cognitive problems after they were given the COVID virus.

View attachment 69697

>>>Patient-reported outcomes and cross-sectional evidence show an association between COVID-19 and persistent cognitive problems. The causal basis, longevity and domain specificity of this association is unclear due to population variability in baseline cognitive abilities, vulnerabilities, virus variants, vaccination status and treatment. . . . These results support larger cross sectional findings indicating that mild Wildtype SARS-CoV-2 infection can be followed by small changes in cognition and memory that persist for at least a year. The mechanistic basis and clinical implications of these small changes remain unclear. . . .

We found that volunteers who exhibited sustained viral load after inoculation with SARS-CoV-2 performed worse on a measure of global cognition, than volunteers who did not exhibit sustained viral load. This deficit persisted up to a year after inoculation. <<<

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(24)00421-8/fulltext

Yep, we can see this effect on Trump.

 

[Swerd]

I realize this is a small study, but many of the "young, healthy, seronegative volunteers" had cognitive problems after they were given the COVID virus.

View attachment 69697

>>>Patient-reported outcomes and cross-sectional evidence show an association between COVID-19 and persistent cognitive problems. The causal basis, longevity and domain specificity of this association is unclear due to population variability in baseline cognitive abilities, vulnerabilities, virus variants, vaccination status and treatment. . . . These results support larger cross sectional findings indicating that mild Wildtype SARS-CoV-2 infection can be followed by small changes in cognition and memory that persist for at least a year. The mechanistic basis and clinical implications of these small changes remain unclear. . . .

We found that volunteers who exhibited sustained viral load after inoculation with SARS-CoV-2 performed worse on a measure of global cognition, than volunteers who did not exhibit sustained viral load. This deficit persisted up to a year after inoculation. <<<

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(24)00421-8/fulltext

First of all, I do admire the efforts it took to attempt a study of this problem. It must have been difficult to get a study where humans were infected with a known pathogen past hospital review boards or regulatory groups in the UK. It also must have been difficult to find enough volunteers. It's findings do suggest there may be enough reasons to find more ways to further investigate these observations.

With that said, here are my questions.

• It is a very small study, with 34 young (18-30 years old) healthy volunteers. Of those 34 people, 18 were subsequently infected and 16 were not.
  • Is that large enough to make any useful conclusions?
  • Does the age range of the volunteers reflect the ages of infected patients who have been reported to have such symptoms?
  • Considering that 16 volunteers were exposed to the virus, but were not infected, was the dose of virus really enough to induce cognitive problems in the 18 who were infected?
• The statistical analysis is quite extensive. (I am not a statistician … yadda yadda.) But does this analysis help tease out some real conclusions, or is it hand-waving to allow unwarranted conclusions from such a small study group?
  
  
• I am not a neurologist or psychiatrist and am not familiar with the methods used to asses cognitive function of the study group. But I am concerned about this: They all required self-assessment from conscious study participants who were not blinded to their disease status. Were there enough built-in controls to account for unintended bias in these self-assessments? The size of the error bars in the figure suggests a large variability — large enough to question what these methods can and cannot reliably detect.

 

[mtrot]

First of all, I do admire the efforts it took to attempt a study of this problem. It must have been difficult to get a study where humans were infected with a known pathogen past hospital review boards or regulatory groups in the UK. It also must have been difficult to find enough volunteers. It's findings do suggest there may be enough reasons to find more ways to further investigate these observations.

With that said, here are my questions.

• It is a very small study, with 34 young (18-30 years old) healthy volunteers. Of those 34 people, 18 were subsequently infected and 16 were not.
  • Is that large enough to make any useful conclusions?
  • Does the age range of the volunteers reflect the ages of infected patients who have been reported to have such symptoms?
  • Considering that 16 volunteers were exposed to the virus, but were not infected, was the dose of virus really enough to induce cognitive problems in the 18 who were infected?
• The statistical analysis is quite extensive. (I am not a statistician … yadda yadda.) But does this analysis help tease out some real conclusions, or is it hand-waving to allow unwarranted conclusions from such a small study group?
  
  
• I am not a neurologist or psychiatrist and am not familiar with the methods used to asses cognitive function of the study group. But I am concerned about this: They all required self-assessment from conscious study participants who were not blinded to their disease status. Were there enough built-in controls to account for unintended bias in these self-assessments? The size of the error bars in the figure suggests a large variability — large enough to question what these methods can and cannot reliably detect.

I also have questions.

1. What would account for the uninfected seemingly becoming "smarter" in the quarantine period?

2. What would account for both groups appearing to decline significantly after 90 days?

Or, am I reading the graph wrong?