~*Official #COVID-19 Thread of Doom*~ Revenge of Omicron Prime

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

When did this change? 

1 in 5 People With COVID-19 Developed Mental Health Issue

WWW.HEALTHLINE.COM

---

New research suggests that people diagnosed with COVID-19 may have a significant risk for developing anxiety or mood disorder after recovering. Scientists are still uncovering how the new coronavirus impacts the brain and the central nervous system, but they believe the infection...

 

 

Do you have a more-recent article disputing it?

Did you read the article? Because it doesn’t suggest what you seem to think it does.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Did you read the article? Because it doesn’t suggest what you seem to think it does.

 

 

 

[Spork3245]

Just now, sblfilms said:

Did you read the article? Because it doesn’t suggest what you seem to think it does.

 

Please inform me what you think I think it suggests.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

 

 

For the record I did not read the article

[marioandsonic]

3 minutes ago, ManUtdRedDevils said:

My mom finally got her first shot. She had to drive a couple of hours to get it but at least she has some protection.  Now give me my stimulus check. 
 

 

The House gives it the final vote tomorrow right?

[Spork3245]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

For the record I did not read the article

 

Clearly, or you wouldn't have posted that.

[osxmatt]

1 minute ago, marioandsonic said:

 

The House gives it the final vote tomorrow right?

 

Correct. Also talk that Biden will sign it tomorrow.

[Joe]

I’ve been one of the bigger optimists in this thread, but it seems wildly optimistic to think that we will have such a dramatic downturn in severe cases and deaths that mask orders will be lifted in blue states by July.

[Spork3245]

5 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Did you read the article? Because it doesn’t suggest what you seem to think it does.

 

Do you have any more recent studies that dispute this? 

Yes, COVID-19 Can Cause Erectile Dysfunction in Men

HEALTH.CLEVELANDCLINIC.ORG

---

Research suggests negative effects on sexual health due to coronavirus

 

This?

Hormones, Blood Clots and COVID-19: Should You Be Worried?

HEALTH.CLEVELANDCLINIC.ORG

---

Get the answers from a vascular medicine specialist

 

 

This?

COVID-19 Can Also Damage Your Heart (Not Just Your Lungs)

HEALTH.CLEVELANDCLINIC.ORG

---

Study points to possible long-term effects of the heart, even in the young & healthy

 

 

Let me quote this part, just in case:

Quote

The study examined and compared the hearts of 100 patients – some who had previously recovered from COVID-19 and others who never had the virus. Experts performed a heart MRI on each patient, which is a type of test that examines the structure and function of the cardiovascular system. It’s often used to assess the heart after a heart attack or stroke and can identify abnormalities, damage or inflammation.

The findings were sobering, as 78% of patients who previously had the virus showed structural changes or damage to their hearts, including inflammation and scarring.

Some of the COVID-19 patients had previously existing heart conditions, but even more mystifying was the fact that some patients with heart damage were relatively young, healthy and had no history of underlying risk factors.

“We should think of this cross-sectional study as a single snap shot in time, so we don’t know if any of these abnormalities were present before COVID-19,” says cardiologist Paul Cremer, MD, who did not take part in the study. “This research is certainly impactful and hints at possible damage to the heart, even when cardiac function is normal, but it primarily highlights the need for more research on the long-term effects of COVID-19.”

 

If this has all been found to be false or only affecting those with "severe cases", that's information I must have missed and would appreciate seeing it.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

9 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

Clearly, or you wouldn't have posted that.

Never underestimate my ability to look foolish in the name of a joke

[Jason]

Uh... 

 

Covid-19’s Effects May Linger in Your Body, Even After Asymptomatic Cases

WWW.WSJ.COM

---

Researchers have found abnormalities even in people who didn’t show symptoms, raising questions about possible risks later in life.

 

[Joe]

Damn!

[Jason]

12 minutes ago, Joe said:

Damn!

 

My family is getting their second doses tomorrow. 

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, Joe said:

I’ve been one of the bigger optimists in this thread, but it seems wildly optimistic to think that we will have such a dramatic downturn in severe cases and deaths that mask orders will be lifted in blue states by July.

90-95% of severe cases are amongst people aged 50+. What do you think happens when that crowd is above 90% vaccinated, which is what it looks like we will see well before July?

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

If this has all been found to be false or only affecting those with "severe cases", that's information I must have missed and would appreciate seeing it.

Count up how many mays and coulds there are in the articles, or the number of times they reference "some" people having this or that. It's no surprise that issues strongly linked to age are also linked to Covid, because negative Covid effects are found most often in olds. But *some* mild cases, or *some* asymptomatic cases, or *some* cases where people are young and healthy otherwise having serious negative effects is fully expected and yet has no bearing in whether these issues are significant. 

None of your article links show the high risks I asked about previously, they only show that there maybe/possibly/could be some undefined risk.

[Joe]

So I looked it up and the data is frankly even more stark than I realized going by age group.

 

The drop-off in deaths for people sub 50 years old is absolutely massive. However, two caveats:

 

1. That 50-64 age group seems tricky. They still represent a significant number of COVID deaths and I could see there being a lot of vaccine hesitancy within this group.

 

2. The variants could mess things up still. Maybe not in a way to bring a new, big wave, but certainly to have us hold off on mask mandates until the fall at the very least.

[Air_Delivery]

I'm not worried about dying of COVID. I'm worried about the long term effects.

[Guest]

 

me being tired of dealing with anti-maskers and totally fine with them never ever coming back

[CitizenVectron]

Though my province is still slow on vaccinations (I think around 7% with at least one dose), people 80+ are like 90% vaccinated...and our deaths have really dropped off compared to what they "should" be based on infection counts a month ago. You can literally see a point in late January (about one month after first doses for 80+ people) where the death rate starts to differ from what should be expected.

[Joe]

"Barbara Bear Angelpaste"

 

wat

[Spork3245]

24 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

None of your article links show the high risks I asked about previously, they only show that there maybe/possibly/could be some undefined risk.

 

So you don't have any articles or studies providing any information refuting these studies? I'll stick with the information available until something [scientific] refutes it. I'm very confused as to where you're getting this "it only/mostly affects high-risk patients" long-term from, there's no data that I've seen which supports such sentiment.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Joe said:

So I looked it up and the data is frankly even more stark than I realized going by age group.

 

The drop-off in deaths for people sub 50 years old is absolutely massive. However, two caveats:

 

1. That 50-64 age group seems tricky. They still represent a significant number of COVID deaths and I could see there being a lot of vaccine hesitancy within this group.

 

2. The variants could mess things up still. Maybe not in a way to bring a new, big wave, but certainly to have us hold off on mask mandates until the fall at the very least.

 

1 minute ago, CitizenVectron said:

Though my province is still slow on vaccinations (I think around 7% with at least one dose), people 80+ are like 90% vaccinated...and our deaths have really dropped off compared to what they "should" be based on infection counts a month ago. You can literally see a point in late January (about one month after first doses for 80+ people) where the death rate starts to differ from what should be expected.

 

It's truly incredible and we are indebted to the scores of people who spent a tremendous amount of their time, effort, and skill to get these vaccines out. Makes me a bit emotional to think about it. 

[Guest]

Just now, Spork3245 said:

 

So you don't have any articles or studies providing any information refuting these studies? I'll stick with the information available until something [scientific] refutes it. 

I'm saying they don't say what you think they say. They don't back up your position. But I don't care to go back and forth on this, be as cautious as you please!

[Spork3245]

Just now, sblfilms said:

I'm saying they don't say what you think they say. They don't back up your position. But I don't care to go back and forth on this, be as cautious as you please!

 

Did you read the actual studies linked within the articles or just did a ctrl+f for "could" and "may"?

[CitizenVectron]

Just now, sblfilms said:

 

 

It's truly incredible and we are indebted to the scores of people who spent a tremendous amount of their time, effort, and skill to get these vaccines out. Makes me a bit emotional to think about it. 

 

Me too. For the last year (literally, as of next week) my group of friends has been playing Gloomhaven (board game) online rather than in person every weekend for a few hours. We were talking on Discord this past Saturday, and I said something like "You know, in a week or two it will have been a year since lockdowns started...and we are already on our way to mass vaccinations and herd immunity. In under a year we had multiple universities and companies design, test, trial, and manufacture vaccines for a disease we've never seen before. It's a tribute to modern human ingenuity." I actually felt myself tearing up at the wonder of it, but fortunately I was only on audio.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

actually felt myself tearing up at the wonder of it, but fortunately I was only on audio.

I read this as "I was the only one on the audio"

[Guest]

Just now, Spork3245 said:

 

Did you read the actual studies linked within the articles or just did a ctrl+f for "could" and "may"?

Yes, I read through them. That is why there was a lag between when you posted and I replied, I wanted to read through all the information in them to see what they actually were saying. The issue with headline thinking is that you can easily miss what is actually found in the data. 

Again, it is no surprise that ill effects strongly associated with old age would crop up in a pool of data that includes a disproportionate amount of older people. So the question is what of the effects have a causal relationship regardless of age and what are simply correlated because old age patients are overrepresented in Covid patients generally. 

I'll give you an example I heard recently that is a helpful way to understand how to approach these questions, even as lay people like ourselves. The conventional wisdom for decades now has been that women should not drink coffee when they are pregnant, as many studies have shown that coffee drinking is strongly correlated with negative outcomes for babies and mommas during the pregnancy. But it turns out that what the studies all missed is that if you separate out coffee drinkers from non-coffee drinkers amongst pregnant women, the average age of these pools grow far apart. That's because older women on average drink much more coffee than younger women, and older women have those negative pregnancy risks at higher rates as a function of age. So the studies got the cause wrong, it was age and its associated issues the whole time.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

we're gonna see a real time experiment on herd immunity that is just weeks ahead of where we are

 

 

[Spork3245]

18 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

No, I didn't read the studies and briefly skimmed through

 

That would have, at least, been honest.

 

Outcomes of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients Recently Recovered From Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) | Cardiology | JAMA Cardiology | JAMA Network

JAMANETWORK.COM

---

This cohort study evaluates the presence of myocardial injury in unselected patients recently recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

 

Findings  In this cohort study including 100 patients recently recovered from COVID-19 identified from a COVID-19 test center, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging revealed cardiac involvement in 78 patients (78%) and ongoing myocardial inflammation in 60 patients (60%), which was independent of preexisting conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness, and the time from the original diagnosis.

 

 

Results

An unselected cohort of 100 patients who recently recovered from COVID-19 infection were included, of which 53 (53%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 49 (14) years

 

Unlike these previous studies, our findings reveal that significant cardiac involvement occurs independently of the severity of original presentation and persists beyond the period of acute presentation, with no significant trend toward reduction of imaging or serological findings during the recovery period

 

 

Conclusions

Taken together, we demonstrate cardiac involvement in 78 patients (78%) and ongoing myocardial inflammation in 60 patients (60%) with recent COVID-19 illness, independent of preexisting conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness, and the time from the original diagnosis. These findings indicate the need for ongoing investigation of the long-term cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.

 

18 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I'll give you an example I heard recently that is a helpful way to understand how to approach these questions, even as lay people like ourselves. The conventional wisdom for decades now has been that women should not drink coffee when they are pregnant, as many studies have shown that coffee drinking is strongly correlated with negative outcomes for babies and mommas during the pregnancy. But it turns out that what the studies all missed is that if you separate out coffee drinkers from non-coffee drinkers amongst pregnant women, the average age of these pools grow far apart. That's because older women on average drink much more coffee than younger women, and older women have those negative pregnancy risks at higher rates as a function of age. So the studies got the cause wrong, it was age and its associated issues the whole time.

 

This is actually an example of better data replacing old data. That's how science works. Unfortunately, there is no "better data" to replace what is currently known about COVID long-term effects. If your issues are seriously with words "could" and "may", it's because you don't read these types of studies often; they almost never use definitive language and cannot unless the result presents itself 100% of the time in all situations.

[Guest]

Just now, Spork3245 said:

 

That would have, at least, been honest.

 

 

Ok, no more with you if you are just going to call me a liar.

[Spork3245]

6 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Ok, no more with you if you are just going to call me a liar.

 

There's no way you read the study as it hit the exact notes you took issue with as missing. Sorry if you calling you out offends you. If I'm taking the time to find these things for you, take the time to actually read them - not doing so is incredibly offensive and shows I am wasting my time.

[Guest]

Just now, Spork3245 said:

 

There's no way you read the study as it hit the exact notes you took issue with as missing. Sorry if you calling you out offends you.

It's offensive because it's not true and needless. If you disagree, disagree. But what you quoted backs up my position. The mean age was nearly 50, this is an older group and the data captures the affects of an illness of older group. Find a study that compares groups of people based on ages and you would be able to show something meaningful if these issues cropped up in high rates in the younger pools. 

 

And to address your "new data" claim about the coffee. It wasn't new data, the data was already there, it was new analysis of the same data. Which is my point, data doesn't tell you anything separated from good analysis and you've presented articles that only have data and no actual analysis. That is kind of their point, they need more observations because they are stuck in the could/maybe/might/etc. phase. They present no evidence of the increase in risk because they have no idea if there is an increased risk, and they certainly have no idea of the relative increase in risk based on demographic factors like age.

[Spork3245]

14 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

It's offensive because it's not true and needless.

 

It evidently was and is, and I'm honestly still annoyed, but moving on.

 

Quote

If you disagree, disagree. But what you quoted backs up my position. 

 

 

I don't disagree, I'm just following science.

 

Quote

The mean age was nearly 50, this is an older group and the data captures the affects of an illness of older group. Find a study that compares groups of people based on ages and you would be able to show something meaningful if these issues cropped up in high rates in the younger pools. 

 

50 is not elderly. Median age also means that there was younger than 50 as well as older than 50. You're setting impossible standards while yet providing any counter evidence.

 

Quote

 

And to address your "new data" claim about the coffee. It wasn't new data, the data was already there, it was new analysis of the same data. 

 

New analysis of data = new data. It's providing new/more info on the same topic via a new researcher analyzing what's available. Providing further insight into something, to me, is the same as new data being found and/or provided. If you disagree, you disagree, but I am clarifying what I meant.

 

14 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

That is kind of their point, they need more observations because they are stuck in the could/maybe/might/etc. phase. They present no evidence of the increase in risk because they have no idea if there is an increased risk, and they certainly have no idea of the relative increase in risk based on demographic factors like age.

 

Yes, most first studies require further analysis and further study. However, the data that is currently available contradicts what you are saying.

 

Do you have any data or research that refutes any of these long-term effects of covid studies?

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, Air_Delivery said:

I'm not worried about dying of COVID. I'm worried about the long term effects.

 

Same.

[Jason]

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

There currently is no claims of systemic long term negative affects for those with mild or less Covid cases.

 

This is from just a month ago.

 

COVID-19's Potential Effects On Asymptomatic Patients

WWW.NPR.ORG

---

Scientists are looking at how COVID-19 affects asymptomatic people in the long-term. NPR's Lulu Garcia-Navarro talks with Dr. Eric Topol of the Scripps Research about what early studies are finding.

 

Quote

GARCIA-NAVARRO: What kinds of things are doctors seeing in some of these asymptomatic patients?

 

TOPOL: Well, as you highlighted, they represent a significant fraction, so they don't even know they've had COVID. But when they've been studied with, for example, CT scans of their lungs, about half have abnormalities that are consistent with COVID.