Jump to content

Menu

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, TracyP said:

This is so true. I just talked my mom down yesterday after she called going, "Oh no! Now they say covid can cause a rash. What next!?!?!" And I have to say, "Mom, a rash/hives has always been a side effect of viruses. This is no big deal."

It always takes 3-6 months to recover from pneumonia. This is not new. 

The inflammatory syndrome seen in kids is concerning, but it is only impacting 0.16% of diagnosed covid cases so far (meaning the actual percentage is far lower.) With treatment it is rarely fatal. That risk really needs to be put in perspective.

I hate the way the media is latching onto every worst case story. This is frustrating for so many reasons, but as someone who already struggles with anxiety, my biggest frustration is that it makes my fear of covid out of line with my actual risk. So then I have talk myself down... sigh.

But people are reporting post-viral syndromes, which is not the same as long recovery from pneumonia. A lot of those people didn’t have serious pneumonia.

What I’d like to know is how frequent these are. The problem, for me, is that we personally know people like this, which makes it seem less rare.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 18.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ausmumof3

    3055

  • Pen

    2322

  • square_25

    1730

  • Arcadia

    1337

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

DS got home 3 hours ago!  ❤️❤️

Update-  my youngest is not only short of breath, coughing, dizzy, nausaues, and with headache-  she is also confused.  I called our doctor and talked with him and she is going to be going to the ER.

That's not a blanket right.  If my religion required human sacrifice, I can't practice it.  If my religion required sexual assault, I can't practice it. Freedom of religion isn't a blanket right

Posted Images

11 minutes ago, TracyP said:

This is so true. I just talked my mom down yesterday after she called going, "Oh no! Now they say covid can cause a rash. What next!?!?!" And I have to say, "Mom, a rash/hives has always been a side effect of viruses. This is no big deal."

It always takes 3-6 months to recover from pneumonia. This is not new. 

The inflammatory syndrome seen in kids is concerning, but it is only impacting 0.16% of diagnosed covid cases so far (meaning the actual percentage is far lower.) With treatment it is rarely fatal. That risk really needs to be put in perspective.

I hate the way the media is latching onto every worst case story. This is frustrating for so many reasons, but as someone who already struggles with anxiety, my biggest frustration is that it makes my fear of covid out of line with my actual risk. So then I have talk myself down... sigh.

I'd suggest listening to actual scientists talk about this. I like the podcast This Week in Virology.

On one hand, some things are overblown by the media (especially scientific articles that haven't yet been refereed). On the other hand, this is a really potent virus with a lot of unknowns and longer term effects. For example, a doctor was talking about how hair loss is being noticed long term in women who recover from COVID. He quipped, "Mask now or wig later." When I listen to scientists talk about it, they include uncertainties, which media doesn't do.

Emily

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, square_25 said:

But people are reporting post-viral syndromes, which is not the same as long recovery from pneumonia. A lot of those people didn’t have serious pneumonia.

What I’d like to know is how frequent these are. The problem, for me, is that we personally know people like this, which makes it seem less rare.

I think the worrying thing for me is that a number of people taking months to recover, or at least having problems months later as we don’t know enough to know about actually recovering, are people who weren’t severely ill initially and were not hospitalized. My cousin’s friend, mid 20s, wasn’t severely ill with it, didn’t have to even go to the ER, now has sats down to 84% when she exercises. It is a really weird disease.

Now that we are trying not to intubate people I think that in some ways it is more difficult for them, although fantastic that they survive. They sit there for days, coughing and breathing with optiflow tubing stuck up their nose, getting very little sleep because of all the coughing and breathing etc. It is unlike anything I’ve seen before.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TCB said:

I think the worrying thing for me is that a number of people taking months to recover, or at least having problems months later as we don’t know enough to know about actually recovering, are people who weren’t severely ill initially and were not hospitalized. My cousin’s friend, mid 20s, wasn’t severely ill with it, didn’t have to even go to the ER, now has sats down to 84% when she exercises. It is a really weird disease.

Yeah, that's what I saw on the personal experiences thread... lots of people knew someone who wasn't that ill and now has a post-viral syndrome. And lots of people also know people who are asymptomatic! It seems very hard to generalize. 

Like, I already knew that if I wound up in the hospital with pneumonia, I'd have a long road ahead of me to recovery. But that doesn't seem to be what is happening here. 

 

20 minutes ago, TCB said:

Now that we are trying not to intubate people I think that in some ways it is more difficult for them, although fantastic that they survive. They sit there for days, coughing and breathing with optiflow tubing stuck up their nose, getting very little sleep because of all the coughing and breathing etc. It is unlike anything I’ve seen before.

Ooof. I haven't heard about this. Does it actually seem to help survival rates? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, square_25 said:

 

Ooof. I haven't heard about this. Does it actually seem to help survival rates? 

It seems that it is helping survival rates. We haven’t really had high enough numbers of patients to really observe that personally but there is a definite switch to avoiding ventilation now, and that is because it has been shown to improve outcomes. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TCB said:

It seems that it is helping survival rates. We haven’t really had high enough numbers of patients to really observe that personally but there is a definite switch to avoiding ventilation now, and that is because it has been shown to improve outcomes. 

Yeah, I heard about people moving away from ventilation, just not about the negative consequences. It makes sense, I guess. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Yeah, I heard about people moving away from ventilation, just not about the negative consequences. It makes sense, I guess. 

It’s great that people are surviving of course. It’s just also really uncomfortable for them to be stuck in an isolation room, not seeing any family etc. and to be having to endure the things they have to endure. I try and spend as long as possible in the rooms with them but that’s still not a lot of human contact. Add to that not being able to sleep well at all because you’re working at coughing and breathing and it’s a hard experience to go through. People are mostly very stoical about it though! I’ve been impressed!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
  • Sad 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, square_25 said:

But people are reporting post-viral syndromes, which is not the same as long recovery from pneumonia. A lot of those people didn’t have serious pneumonia.

True but not my point. Many people are reacting with surprise that someone hospitalized with pneumonia could take months to recover.

2 hours ago, square_25 said:

What I’d like to know is how frequent these are. The problem, for me, is that we personally know people like this, which makes it seem less rare.

Yeah, and my personal experience is the opposite. I definitely look forward to more data on how often this occurs.

2 hours ago, EmilyGF said:

I'd suggest listening to actual scientists talk about this. I like the podcast This Week in Virology.

Ooh, love them! I recommended that podcast earlier in this thread.

2 hours ago, EmilyGF said:

On one hand, some things are overblown by the media (especially scientific articles that haven't yet been refereed). On the other hand, this is a really potent virus with a lot of unknowns and longer term effects. For example, a doctor was talking about how hair loss is being noticed long term in women who recover from COVID. He quipped, "Mask now or wig later." When I listen to scientists talk about it, they include uncertainties, which media doesn't do.

Emily

I am having a hard time telling how to read this post. I feel like you are lecturing me to not make light of covid. Trust me, I would not be one to do that. I just don't want to see it overblown either. I'm so sick of having to defend myself every time I point out that the media is making this virus look worse than it is.

Not your fault (how could you know?) but you struck a nerve, so I'm feeling a bit raw at the moment. My dd went bald at 14yo due to alopecia. A virus could very well have been the trigger for her autoimmune condition. That is a well established fact. We probably actually agree. Listen to scientists, not media. That's good advice.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, TracyP said:

True but not my point. Many people are reacting with surprise that someone hospitalized with pneumonia could take months to recover.

Yeah, and my personal experience is the opposite. I definitely look forward to more data on how often this occurs.

Ooh, love them! I recommended that podcast earlier in this thread.

I am having a hard time telling how to read this post. I feel like you are lecturing me to not make light of covid. Trust me, I would not be one to do that. I just don't want to see it overblown either. I'm so sick of having to defend myself every time I point out that the media is making this virus look worse than it is.

Not your fault (how could you know?) but you struck a nerve, so I'm feeling a bit raw at the moment. My dd went bald at 14yo due to alopecia. A virus could very well have been the trigger for her autoimmune condition. That is a well established fact. We probably actually agree. Listen to scientists, not media. That's good advice.

I've got a friend who ended up with a heart transplant after a virus weakened his heart. It's just one of those things you don't think about normally.

 

ETA: And now he's immunocompromised; I had no idea that, even after transplant, people have to be SO careful. They are going to homeschool their kids.

 

Edited by vonfirmath
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, TracyP said:

True but not my point. Many people are reacting with surprise that someone hospitalized with pneumonia could take months to recover.

Yeah, and my personal experience is the opposite. I definitely look forward to more data on how often this occurs.

Ooh, love them! I recommended that podcast earlier in this thread.

I am having a hard time telling how to read this post. I feel like you are lecturing me to not make light of covid. Trust me, I would not be one to do that. I just don't want to see it overblown either. I'm so sick of having to defend myself every time I point out that the media is making this virus look worse than it is.

Not your fault (how could you know?) but you struck a nerve, so I'm feeling a bit raw at the moment. My dd went bald at 14yo due to alopecia. A virus could very well have been the trigger for her autoimmune condition. That is a well established fact. We probably actually agree. Listen to scientists, not media. That's good advice.

I think the way to read this is that people with science training are ALREADY discounting the media hysteria, and are trying to go by better evidence. One of the things that happens is that people go “The media are sensationalizing things!”, which is true, but then they ignore the actual evidence. It’s hard to stay moderate.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Laura Corin said:

Interesting BBC programme I saw last night; I don't know how viewable it is elsewhere.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000ljnb/surviving-the-virus-my-brother-me?xtor=CS8-1000-[Discovery_Cards]-[Multi_Site]-[SL02]-[PS_IPLAYER~N~~P_SurvivingtheVirus]

Identical twin doctors - Chris who is a researcher/TV presenter and went back to front-line work for Covid; Xand who works in disaster zones/TV presenting but wanted to help in care homes in the UK.  But the programme did not go as I suspect it was designed to go.  Xand had Covid early in the pandemic - badly but not hospitalised - then started to have heart arrhythmias, admitted to A&E (ER) to have his heart restarted, but had continuing problems thereafter.  The programme ended up being more about a forties-year-old highly-trained professional who could no longer trust himself in the kind of high-responsibility environments for which he was trained.  On the way through, there was filming in a rehabilitation unit that was full of people - including younger people - rehabilitating from Covid-induced strokes. 

I came away with a stronger understanding of how little is actually known still about how the virus affects the body as a whole.

 

Thank you for telling about that.  For people who can’t see it on bbc I player I found what I think is same thing here:

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

re: flu v covid in kids....there's a new report from the AAP that says the mortality rate for kids who get covid is 7.5 times higher than flu....it's just that not as many kids have had covid (yet). Amber Schmidtke is a great source for looking at data in Georgia specifically, but here she summarizes these nationwide findings:

Quote

Another important finding is the mortality data for children. There have been 86 pediatric deaths as of July 30th and 338,982 pediatric infections. Therefore, the child mortality rate is 0.03%. It is a relief to see such a tiny percentage, for sure. To compare that to influenza (see table below), in the 2018 - 2019 season there were and estimated 477 pediatric deaths out of 11,296,414 illnesses. That would mean a mortality rate of 0.004%. Compared to seasonal influenza, the COVID-19 mortality rate among children is 7.5 times higher. So it is incorrect to say that COVID-19 kills fewer children than influenza - it just hasn’t had the chance to spread to kids at the same rate as influenza due to existing public health recommendations, thankfully.

 

Here's a link to the whole report, with references: https://amberschmidtkephd.substack.com/p/the-daily-digest-10aug2020

I thought this was interesting/scary because I hear so many people say the flu is more deadly for kids, and I always just sort of assumed this was true and that the real things to worry about were long term effects that we don't yet know about and, especially, kids passing covid on to household members and other higher risk people. Obviously, the overall risk to kids is still small, but it appears that it's considerably more dangerous to them than flu is. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

That would seem to presume that 338,982 represents the actual total number of kids infected with covid.  And giving the testing situations and the fact that it's so much more mild in kids, I think it's pretty safe to say that there have been a whole lot more than 338,982 kids infected.  We have absolutely no idea how many kids get it, or had it, and were never tested.  We only know how many cases were confirmed.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

That would seem to presume that 338,982 represents the actual total number of kids infected with covid.  And giving the testing situations and the fact that it's so much more mild in kids, I think it's pretty safe to say that there have been a whole lot more than 338,982 kids infected.  We have absolutely no idea how many kids get it, or had it, and were never tested.  We only know how many cases were confirmed.  

 

That is also true for flu. We only know how many cases for people who had flu confirmed. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

That would seem to presume that 338,982 represents the actual total number of kids infected with covid.  And giving the testing situations and the fact that it's so much more mild in kids, I think it's pretty safe to say that there have been a whole lot more than 338,982 kids infected.  We have absolutely no idea how many kids get it, or had it, and were never tested.  We only know how many cases were confirmed.  

It would also be true that most kids with a mild case of the flu are never tested, too, though, wouldn't it? It does seem to be using an estimated total number of flu cases and confirmed cases of covid (I don't know how they're estimating the flu cases). At any rate, I do think we should be careful about saying "flu is more dangerous" when there doesn't seem to be any actual data to back that up. Like I said, I found it interesting because I've taken it on faith that flu was more dangerous to kids; I won't do that anymore. And just looking at raw numbers....86 pediatric deaths when kids haven't been in school doesn't tell us a lot about what things would look like if we hadn't protected kids (and we're starting an experiment in not protecting them in a lot of places right now).

Edited by kokotg
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because other viruses cause certain symptoms common to COVID19 doesn't mean that those symptoms aren't important to know to look for.  So of course, the media is going to report on new unknown symptoms - not just for ratings but because people really do need to see the whole range of symptoms during a pandemic. 

I don't know of a single reliable news source that doesn't report the overall stats when presenting information on COVID19.  Many people might gloss right over them but they are there.  It's not like we have had to do a deep dive in order to report these figures. 

It's actually not the news media's fault that health education in this country is so poor.  It has not been hidden information that the flu can cause significant long term damage in some cases.  There actually is a reason why local health departments push flu shots.  But I think that people are finally paying attention to information that has always been out there because now it's "everywhere" due to pandemic coverage.  And still people are minimizing or disbelieving the data and are blaming the media for the correct information that they put out because somehow they've lost the ability (or perhaps never had the ability) to use critical thinking skills to process information. 

 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, kokotg said:

It would also be true that most kids with a mild case of the flu are never tested, too, though, wouldn't it? It does seem to be using an estimated total number of flu cases and confirmed cases of covid (I don't know how they're estimating the flu cases). At any rate, I do think we should be careful about saying "flu is more dangerous" when there doesn't seem to be any actual data to back that up. Like I said, I found it interesting because I've taken it on faith that flu was more dangerous to kids; I won't do that anymore. And just looking at raw numbers....86 pediatric deaths when kids haven't been in school doesn't tell us a lot about what things would look like if we hadn't protected kids (and we're starting an experiment in not protecting them in a lot of places right now).

 

Did that include NY State other than NYC?

if yes, it said stats for 49 states iirc, what state was not included? 

Also was it including Navajo lands?

Edited by Pen
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kokotg said:

It would also be true that most kids with a mild case of the flu are never tested, too, though, wouldn't it? It does seem to be using an estimated total number of flu cases and confirmed cases of covid (I don't know how they're estimating the flu cases). At any rate, I do think we should be careful about saying "flu is more dangerous" when there doesn't seem to be any actual data to back that up. Like I said, I found it interesting because I've taken it on faith that flu was more dangerous to kids; I won't do that anymore. And just looking at raw numbers....86 pediatric deaths when kids haven't been in school doesn't tell us a lot about what things would look like if we hadn't protected kids (and we're starting an experiment in not protecting them in a lot of places right now).

Right, lots of kids aren't tested for the flu.  But because we know so much more about the flu than covid, the estimates can be more accurate.  Not perfect of course, but certainly a well researched estimate.  It's not possible to create a well researched estimate with a disease that is less than 1 yr old.  

I am not saying "flu is more dangerous."  I simply find the fact that flu kills some 200+ kids each year, and causes thousands of hospitalizations to be an important factor to keep in mind.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

That is also true for flu. We only know how many cases for people who had flu confirmed. 

No, the quote you listed actually specifically says "estimated."  Which the CDC does with the flu every year, it estimates total number of overall cases.  One of the reasons they do that is for planning and public health purposes.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Right, lots of kids aren't tested for the flu.  But because we know so much more about the flu than covid, the estimates can be more accurate.  Not perfect of course, but certainly a well researched estimate.  It's not possible to create a well researched estimate with a disease that is less than 1 yr old.  

I am not saying "flu is more dangerous."  I simply find the fact that flu kills some 200+ kids each year, and causes thousands of hospitalizations to be an important factor to keep in mind.  

certainly. It will be a miracle if we don't hit 200 pediatric deaths with covid if we open all the schools up while it's still spreading widely. But I definitely think (and I've said before) that if this causes us to start taking potentially dangerous viruses more seriously overall, it will be a great thing. Increase access to sick leave, better health care, stop acting like it's somehow brave and noble to go to work/school sick. ETA: My husband is a high school teacher, and I remember his department head scolding him after he took a sick day because he had strep throat and was still actively contagious--she proudly boasted that she hadn't taken a sick day in 30 years and listed off all the contagious illnesses she'd just worked right through! 

Edited by kokotg
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kokotg said:

certainly. It will be a miracle if we don't hit 200 pediatric deaths with covid if we open all the schools up while it's still spreading widely. But I definitely think (and I've said before) that if this causes us to start taking potentially dangerous viruses more seriously overall, it will be a great thing. Increase access to sick leave, better health care, stop acting like it's somehow brave and noble to go to work/school sick.

The CDC estimates flu deaths according to flu season, I am not sure if they have a table of them that goes strictly by the year.  

 

I have no doubt that this will result in some changes.  I don't know how many though.  One thing about attendance policies....especially in schools.....they are in place because kids skip school.   For years, schools, particularly ones in low performing districts, have been pushing "make sure you kids show up to school every day!"  And it's not because they have lots of sick kids, it's because lots of kids just don't show up.  It's going to be a very fine line I think between making sure that sick kids stay home.......but that well kids go to school.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

The CDC estimates flu deaths according to flu season, I am not sure if they have a table of them that goes strictly by the year.  

 

I have no doubt that this will result in some changes.  I don't know how many though.  One thing about attendance policies....especially in schools.....they are in place because kids skip school.   For years, schools, particularly ones in low performing districts, have been pushing "make sure you kids show up to school every day!"  And it's not because they have lots of sick kids, it's because lots of kids just don't show up.  It's going to be a very fine line I think between making sure that sick kids stay home.......but that well kids go to school.  

I think making sure parents have enough paid sick leave to stay home with sick kids would go farther than anything else toward keeping sick kids home where they belong (which would, ironically, reduce absenteeism overall since the kids wouldn't pass things along to their classmates as readily). 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

The CDC estimates flu deaths according to flu season, I am not sure if they have a table of them that goes strictly by the year.  

 

I have no doubt that this will result in some changes.  I don't know how many though.  One thing about attendance policies....especially in schools.....they are in place because kids skip school.   For years, schools, particularly ones in low performing districts, have been pushing "make sure you kids show up to school every day!"  And it's not because they have lots of sick kids, it's because lots of kids just don't show up.  It's going to be a very fine line I think between making sure that sick kids stay home.......but that well kids go to school.  

If COVID19 had petered out with the change of seasons then they would have report COVID deaths by season too.  But that hasn't been the case with COVID. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

If COVID19 had petered out with the change of seasons then they would have report COVID deaths by season too.  But that hasn't been the case with COVID. 

Not to mention that it's just so new, we actually don't have a handle on the best way to work with the data yet.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kokotg said:

I think making sure parents have enough paid sick leave to stay home with sick kids would go farther than anything else toward keeping sick kids home where they belong (which would, ironically, reduce absenteeism overall since the kids wouldn't pass things along to their classmates as readily). 

agree

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kokotg said:

re: flu v covid in kids....there's a new report from the AAP that says the mortality rate for kids who get covid is 7.5 times higher than flu....it's just that not as many kids have had covid (yet). Amber Schmidtke is a great source for looking at data in Georgia specifically, but here she summarizes these nationwide findings:

 

Here's a link to the whole report, with references: https://amberschmidtkephd.substack.com/p/the-daily-digest-10aug2020

I thought this was interesting/scary because I hear so many people say the flu is more deadly for kids, and I always just sort of assumed this was true and that the real things to worry about were long term effects that we don't yet know about and, especially, kids passing covid on to household members and other higher risk people. Obviously, the overall risk to kids is still small, but it appears that it's considerably more dangerous to them than flu is. 

Yeah, I think that's comparing different numbers -- we estimate flu numbers, but we're taking confirmed COVID numbers. 

On the other hand, we've had 86 COVID deaths with schools closed and kids staying home, and I doubt we've infected more than a tenth of the population. I would guess COVID will outstrip the flu for kid deaths by the end of it. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

No, the quote you listed actually specifically says "estimated."  Which the CDC does with the flu every year, it estimates total number of overall cases.  One of the reasons they do that is for planning and public health purposes.  

 

Ah thanks.  I reread and saw quote “estimate” more clearly.  Then I think for myself I need to take it as a “we don’t know yet” situation. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TCB said:

I think the worrying thing for me is that a number of people taking months to recover, or at least having problems months later as we don’t know enough to know about actually recovering, are people who weren’t severely ill initially and were not hospitalized. My cousin’s friend, mid 20s, wasn’t severely ill with it, didn’t have to even go to the ER, now has sats down to 84% when she exercises. It is a really weird disease.

Now that we are trying not to intubate people I think that in some ways it is more difficult for them, although fantastic that they survive. They sit there for days, coughing and breathing with optiflow tubing stuck up their nose, getting very little sleep because of all the coughing and breathing etc. It is unlike anything I’ve seen before.

 

7 hours ago, square_25 said:

Yeah, that's what I saw on the personal experiences thread... lots of people knew someone who wasn't that ill and now has a post-viral syndrome. And lots of people also know people who are asymptomatic! It seems very hard to generalize. 

Like, I already knew that if I wound up in the hospital with pneumonia, I'd have a long road ahead of me to recovery. But that doesn't seem to be what is happening here. 

 

Ooof. I haven't heard about this. Does it actually seem to help survival rates? 

Dh felt fine after a few days. His only symptom remaining was loss of smell. They let him go back to work on day 20. He was there for ONE DAY. He stuck to his office but did walk around the hospital with his mask a little.  He came home exhausted and then it went gastrointestinal. He couldn’t eat all weekend. He slept all day Friday. He finally could eat BRAT foods without severe pain on Sunday. He’s still struggling. He had to drink baking soda and water to reduce the acid in his stomach yesterday morning. He’s now resigned to stay home and wait until he feels 100%. His hospital head employment nurse said they’ve had people out that are not hospitalized for 2 months+. 

  • Sad 15
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Plum said:

Dh felt fine after a few days. His only symptom remaining was loss of smell. They let him go back to work on day 20. He was there for ONE DAY. He stuck to his office but did walk around the hospital with his mask a little.  He came home exhausted and then it went gastrointestinal. He couldn’t eat all weekend. He slept all day Friday. He finally could eat BRAT foods without severe pain on Sunday. He’s still struggling. He had to drink baking soda and water to reduce the acid in his stomach yesterday morning. He’s now resigned to stay home and wait until he feels 100%. His hospital head employment nurse said they’ve had people out that are not hospitalized for 2 months+. 

Oh, I am so sorry. That must be quite the unpleasant rollercoaster, not knowing how long it's going to last... 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

“Our analyses suggest children younger than 5 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 have high amounts of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in their nasopharynx compared with older children and adults. Our study is limited to detection of viral nucleic acid, rather than infectious virus, although SARS-CoV-2 pediatric studies reported a correlation between higher nucleic acid levels and the ability to culture infectious virus.5 Thus, young children can potentially be important drivers of SARS-CoV-2 spread in the general population, as has been demonstrated with respiratory syncytial virus, where children with high viral loads are more likely to transmit.6 Behavioral habits of young children and close quarters in school and day care settings raise concern for SARS-CoV-2 amplification in this population as public health restrictions are eased. In addition to public health implications, this population will be important for targeting immunization efforts as SARS-CoV-2 vaccines become available.”

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2768952

(apologies if this was already posted)

Edited by Pen
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Boom. Proof it’s airborne. Which is immensely troubling because hospitals don’t have the infrastructure to deal with an airborne virus + large # of patients. There’s only so many airborne rooms and they can’t be retrofitted. Also proof Dh got it at work. 

“The team used two samplers, one about seven feet from the patients and the other about 16 feet from them. The scientists were able to collect virus at both distances and then to show that the virus they had plucked from the air could infect cells in a lab dish.

The genome sequence of the isolated virus was identical to that from a swab of a newly admitted symptomatic patient in the room.

The room had six air changes per hour and was fitted with efficient filters, ultraviolet irradiation and other safety measures to inactivate the virus before the air was reintroduced into the room.”
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/health/coronavirus-aerosols-indoors.html

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.03.20167395v1

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Oh, I am so sorry. That must be quite the unpleasant rollercoaster, not knowing how long it's going to last... 

It is. He thought he was in the clear and he got worse. Now he’s wondering if it will travel to his lungs after all. So far it hasn’t. But this thing seems to take up shop and then move around. 

  • Sad 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Plum said:

Boom. Proof it’s airborne. Which is immensely troubling because hospitals don’t have the infrastructure to deal with an airborne virus + large # of patients. There’s only so many airborne rooms and they can’t be retrofitted. Also proof Dh got it at work. 

“The team used two samplers, one about seven feet from the patients and the other about 16 feet from them. The scientists were able to collect virus at both distances and then to show that the virus they had plucked from the air could infect cells in a lab dish.

The genome sequence of the isolated virus was identical to that from a swab of a newly admitted symptomatic patient in the room.

The room had six air changes per hour and was fitted with efficient filters, ultraviolet irradiation and other safety measures to inactivate the virus before the air was reintroduced into the room.”
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/health/coronavirus-aerosols-indoors.html

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.03.20167395v1

 

Ugh. No surprises, of course, because we've seen SO MUCH transmission by air (I'd say that's been the primary transmission mode), but still, NOT a positive. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, square_25 said:

I'm not really reading anecdotes of worst-case scenarios with COVID, but I actually don't know anyone IRL who had a post-viral syndrome after the flu, while a lot of the people we know who had COVID report lingering issues. So I'm currently cautiously assuming that it's more prevalent with COVID than it is with other things. 

Do you have data on inflammatory syndromes in kids after the flu? I never paid any attention in this, so I don't know the rate of this complication. 

I was really sick with something 5 years ago. About 2 weeks after I stopped coughing all the time (I had been sick for 6 weeks or so), I  developed paresthesia. I had a whole host of symptoms. I do not know if the virus caused my problems, but it is a possibility. Most of the problems mostly resolved after 18 months. I have flairs, especially when stressed, and may have had an episode this past winter. It is hard to say, because it causes real symptoms and can affect any system but there isn't any real) problem with the system. So, I saw 4 doctors for an issue this winter and none of them could find anything wrong - evidence of inflammation, yes, cause, no.

My dad, who is actively farming and doing construction now at 71, spent a year in an easy chair in his early 60's. Some virus knocked him down hard. It took a long time for him to overcome the fatigue and heart issues.

A woman in her 50's from my hometown picked up a weird virus about a decade ago. She had severe neurological problems afterward and died without fully recovering a couple years later.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Meriwether said:

I was really sick with something 5 years ago. About 2 weeks after I stopped coughing all the time (I had been sick for 6 weeks or so), I  developed paresthesia. I had a whole host of symptoms. I do not know if the virus caused my problems, but it is a possibility. Most of the problems mostly resolved after 18 months. I have flairs, especially when stressed, and may have had an episode this past winter. It is hard to say, because it causes real symptoms and can affect any system but there isn't any real) problem with the system. So, I saw 4 doctors for an issue this winter and none of them could find anything wrong - evidence of inflammation, yes, cause, no.

My dad, who is actively farming and doing construction now at 71, spent a year in an easy chair in his early 60's. Some virus knocked him down hard. It took a long time for him to overcome the fatigue and heart issues.

A woman in her 50's from my hometown picked up a weird virus about a decade ago. She had severe neurological problems afterward and died without fully recovering a couple years later.

Yeah, post-viral syndromes do seem more prevalent than people are aware of. I wish we'd spent more time studying them, so we would have a better idea of what the rate is like in other viruses... 

Edited by square_25
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, square_25 said:

But people are reporting post-viral syndromes, which is not the same as long recovery from pneumonia. A lot of those people didn’t have serious pneumonia.

What I’d like to know is how frequent these are. The problem, for me, is that we personally know people like this, which makes it seem less rare.

Really a follow up study should have been set up similar to the ones in Italy where people get a call at 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months to see how many people are still having symptoms and to what degree.  I’m not sure if that’s being done.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Really a follow up study should have been set up similar to the ones in Italy where people get a call at 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months to see how many people are still having symptoms and to what degree.  I’m not sure if that’s being done.

https://www.vox.com/2020/4/29/21240085/coronavirus-russia-putin-cases-deaths

Don't know if this ongoing app/ study does that? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to BNO UK just changed their COVID death definition to exclude anyone who died more than 28 days after testing positive which wiped more than 5,000 deaths of their official toll.  This seems kind of disingenuous.  Maybe some were being counted as covid deaths that really weren’t but many many people take more than four weeks to die from it.

  • Confused 6
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ausmumof3 said:

According to BNO UK just changed their COVID death definition to exclude anyone who died more than 28 days after testing positive which wiped more than 5,000 deaths of their official toll.  This seems kind of disingenuous.  Maybe some were being counted as covid deaths that really weren’t but many many people take more than four weeks to die from it.

That... seems like monkeying with the numbers. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, square_25 said:

That... seems like monkeying with the numbers. 

It seems a bit suspicious when uk officially just went into recession doesn’t it?  I can see why you wouldn’t want to count someone who was hit by a bus six weeks after covid but from what we’ve seen here people are often in the ICU for six to eight weeks and sometimes relapse and end up back in hospital after several weeks so excluding all deaths more than four weeks in is almost certainly going to exclude some genuine COVID deaths as well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

It seems a bit suspicious when uk officially just went into recession doesn’t it?  I can see why you wouldn’t want to count someone who was hit by a bus six weeks after covid but from what we’ve seen here people are often in the ICU for six to eight weeks and sometimes relapse and end up back in hospital after several weeks so excluding all deaths more than four weeks in is almost certainly going to exclude some genuine COVID deaths as well.

And the excess death counts are higher than the official COVID counts, anyway. So this is pointless. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

According to BNO UK just changed their COVID death definition to exclude anyone who died more than 28 days after testing positive which wiped more than 5,000 deaths of their official toll.  This seems kind of disingenuous.  Maybe some were being counted as covid deaths that really weren’t but many many people take more than four weeks to die from it.

 

Quite a lot of people take longer than 4 weeks.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

@ElizabethB  I don’t think it would convince anyone that HCQ is helpful—or not. But Costa Rica is another interesting country to look at.

Stopped after the fraudulent  publication in Lancet and have since restarted.

They themselves are clear that they don’t know whether or not it helps, but they are making it a readily available option. 

 

“The country has provided the drug to coronavirus patients since conferencing with Chinese experts in April, according to Mario Ruíz, Medical Manager of the CCSS.

Costa Rica has a low case fatality rate (.75%), and fewer than 5% of known active coronavirus cases are currently hospitalized.

“We can’t say that’s a result of this medication, but we can’t discard it either,” Macaya said last month. The CCSS has not released data comparing the outcomes of patients treated with hydroxychloroquine to other methods.”

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pen said:

@ElizabethB  I don’t think it would convince anyone that HCQ is helpful—or not. But Costa Rica is another interesting country to look at.

Stopped after the fraudulent  publication in Lancet and have since restarted.

They themselves are clear that they don’t know whether or not it helps, but they are making it a readily available option. 

 

“The country has provided the drug to coronavirus patients since conferencing with Chinese experts in April, according to Mario Ruíz, Medical Manager of the CCSS.

Costa Rica has a low case fatality rate (.75%), and fewer than 5% of known active coronavirus cases are currently hospitalized.

“We can’t say that’s a result of this medication, but we can’t discard it either,” Macaya said last month. The CCSS has not released data comparing the outcomes of patients treated with hydroxychloroquine to other methods.”

 

India’s death rates still seem lower compared to cases as well.

I wonder how Costa Rica’s testing is?  If they are catching most cases .75 pc is not particularly low (IFR estimate is .69 and Australia’s is around that).  But if they have significantly more cases than they’re picking up it might be.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kokotg said:

re: flu v covid in kids....there's a new report from the AAP that says the mortality rate for kids who get covid is 7.5 times higher than flu....it's just that not as many kids have had covid (yet). 

Our state press conference yesterday (Ohio) had experts from three large children's hospitals in the state. One of the experts noted that about 8% of kids who get COVID need hospitalization (not all in the ICU). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, kbutton said:

Our state press conference yesterday (Ohio) had experts from three large children's hospitals in the state. One of the experts noted that about 8% of kids who get COVID need hospitalization (not all in the ICU). 

So far, here .87% of confirmed cases in under 18s has been hospitalized. 

Edited by kdsuomi
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

India’s death rates still seem lower compared to cases as well.

 

Yes. They do.

 

Quote

I wonder how Costa Rica’s testing is?  If they are catching most cases .75 pc is not particularly low (IFR estimate is .69 and Australia’s is around that).  But if they have significantly more cases than they’re picking up it might be.

 

I don’t have any testing information.

Here is worldometer chart showing Costa Rica and Australia if it comes through properly

 

If HCQ had been helping, I hope getting back on will help them again as they had been doing wonderfully and then went into a steep increase — whether caused by HCQ withdrawal or not

 

C2F2C703-2FD6-41F4-8954-E5EB698E95DB.jpeg

Edited by Pen
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ausmumof3 said:

According to BNO UK just changed their COVID death definition to exclude anyone who died more than 28 days after testing positive which wiped more than 5,000 deaths of their official toll.  This seems kind of disingenuous.  Maybe some were being counted as covid deaths that really weren’t but many many people take more than four weeks to die from it.

I can't find the report right now, but I think it was maybe England who changed their numbers, not the whole UK, and they said they did it so that the whole of the UK was doing the same thing, so that numbers could be compared like with like. I'm not 100% sure about that because I can't see the article I read earlier.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TCB said:

I can't find the report right now, but I think it was maybe England who changed their numbers, not the whole UK, and they said they did it so that the whole of the UK was doing the same thing, so that numbers could be compared like with like. I'm not 100% sure about that because I can't see the article I read earlier.

I saw a similar article earlier as well.

The reason the article described for the change in numbers is that they were actually counting people who didn't have Covid on their death certificate.  They were counting people based on having had a covid diagnosis in the past, and not based on what was on their death certificates.  It was almost like those conspiracy theories that talk about people who die in, for example, a car accident, but were then found to be covid positive being counted as covid deaths.

But, I can't find the article now either, it was a couple of hours ago that I saw it.  Maybe some news person published an article without checking for conspiracy theory sources. 🤷‍♀️

 

Ok, I did find something

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-casualties/uk-to-review-potentially-faulty-england-covid-19-death-data-idUSKCN24I1A0

 

Quote

Health Minister Matt Hancock ordered a review into how England reports coronavirus deaths, after academics said the daily figures may include people who have died of other causes.    The way Public Health England, a government agency responsible for managing infectious disease outbreaks, calculates the figures means they might look worse there than in other parts of the United Kingdom, according to two academics.

 

Edited by happysmileylady
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...