Omicron anecdata?

[mommyoffive]

Neighbor Tuesday: Jesus and Vaccines - by Dr. Emily Smith (substack.com)

[KSera]

44 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

Does the Novavax COVID-19 cause fewer side effects? (substack.com)

I’d love to see some research comparing side effect of the two types in people who had strong negative reactions to the mRNA vaccines. Anecdotally, novavax has been pretty much universally much better for the people I know in that category, so Im curious what the actual data would be if restricted to people who had a very rough time with a Pfizer or Moderna. 

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, mommyoffive said:

Drop in routine vaccinations - by Katelyn Jetelina (substack.com)

These numbers were bad enough even before 2021, but the increasing belief in anti-vax nonsense is pretty alarming:

[KSera]

@Matryoshkais your mailbox full? I had a question for you but it wouldn’t send. 

[iamonlyone]

6 hours ago, KSera said:

I’d love to see some research comparing side effect of the two types in people who had strong negative reactions to the mRNA vaccines. Anecdotally, novavax has been pretty much universally much better for the people I know in that category, so Im curious what the actual data would be if restricted to people who had a very rough time with a Pfizer or Moderna. 

That would be interesting. It would also be interesting to have the same person rate his/her reaction with different Covid vaccines over time, since all bodies are different. My personal experience was that I had minimal side effects with Novavax. My shot history is J&J followed by three Pfizers.

I had Novavax yesterday, late afternoon, and, if I didn't know I had gotten a shot, I wouldn't have noticed any effects. I was cold when I went to bed last night (but didn't take my temp). I had a very mild headache when I woke up that went away after I ate breakfast. I went to work and was tired and a little brain foggy, also my neck was somewhat sore; however, by 2 p.m., I suddenly felt completely normal: focused, energetic and no aches and pains. I keep pushing on my shoulder because I can't believe the shot site isn't even sore! (I definitely felt the shot, but my arm wasn't even tender last night by bed time.)

I did notice the study said that shot #2 of Novavax tends to have more side effects. So, if I get Novavax again down the road, I may not have the same experience.

Edited to say: I didn't have a hard time with Pfizer. I had the strongest reaction to J&J (one day), and I needed to take it easy for a day after Pfizer (a bit achy and needing to nap).

Edited November 15, 2023 by iamonlyone

[Matryoshka]

5 hours ago, KSera said:

@Matryoshkais your mailbox full? I had a question for you but it wouldn’t send. 

Yes, 'twas full.  Just went and made some space!

[kbutton]

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2023/11/10/Update-COVID-Threat/?fbclid=IwAR0EvTRX5jerjMC6lEQxA6xoWSrrpU3-oVxOuBX0L0Om8p72-HsZyX-Z2M4_aem_AQ2LavBu1mEQcRZk0Tejr21K5xB7cMlkhzFuVH0zHjdU_RYP4QYK5XmEqrItd8-SAqQ

[Penelope]

On 11/14/2023 at 1:32 AM, KSera said:

I thought the use of that patient as the case study was one of the unfortunate things about the interview, as some people think, as you seem to be saying here, that it is something just affecting people with severe covid who were in the ICU, and this reinforces that erroneous idea. My own parents also thought as you did and were surprised to learn that's not the case at all. There are tens of thousands of people with long covid that had an acute disease course that was pretty much like a regular respiratory illness. Young people, healthy athletic people. So many people.

I didn’t say I thought that. 

Maybe he chose that patient because she was willing to speak, but maybe also because those patients are “easier” to understand and more obvious that a Covid infection was the inciting event. 

And long Covid is a syndrome that might turn out to be more than one thing. 

Yes, many cases of “long Covid” (poorly defined as it still is) are in people who had mild infections. The cause(s) might not be as clear in all those people. That is what all the studies that have better controls and better methodology are trying to get at.
 

Quote

Over 75 Percent of Long Covid Patients Were Not Hospitalized for Initial Illness, Study Finds (gift link)

Anosmia is indeed awful for those afflicted, and while that may be one of the most common long lasting symptoms, those don't make up the bulk of those in long covid clinics and long covid support groups. 

I don’t think in 2023 that 100% of those who are posting online about having long covid or in a support group for long Covid or seeking medical attention for long Covid, actually or solely have disease resulting from Covid. I believe they are suffering and deserve medical attention. I think some of them have other issues that are not being diagnosed because of medical ignorance and the hype over long COVID in preference to other things. I said that before, in the part of my post you didn’t quote. That is part of my frustration with this, as I stated, that I hear people being brushed off in the name of “long Covid”. And that’s really why I responded in the first place.
 

I wouldn’t want patients to feel minimized, but from my perspective, the topic is everywhere and is the opposite of minimized in media. It’s true the public isn’t as interested anymore, c’est la vie. 

The trouble is that humans have experienced groupings of nonspecific symptoms for forever. Sometimes there isn’t a clear answer as to the cause, and sometimes that is because medical understanding is limited. It must be very difficult to sort out. People who suffer need to be supported and offered help, regardless.

 

Quote

I'm not in the camp that finds 1% a reassuring statistic. That's on par with the chance of paralytic polio in those infected with polio (at the highest end of those estimates). I think some people are okay with other people's kids having a 1% chance of being disabled by an illness, but they assume it won't be their own kid, so it's okay.

I hope I'm reading you wrong, but I'm sensing an effort to downplay the seriousness of covid infection and the impacts it has on the body, and a brushing away of long covid as something people don't actually need to worry about.

The comparison to paralytic polio is inappropriate IMO, when the definition of long Covid includes a catch-all of nonspecific symptoms that are not necessarily disabling. The incidence of “chronic disabling long Covid” in children, if there are clear, well-medically-documented cases in kids who were not hospitalized and without significant pre-existing conditions, must be incredibly small. Polio it is not.

As far as worrying about it, I don’t tell anyone else what to do, but I put most of my health focus on lifestyle factors, where I believe the biggest health returns are. Not incidentally, I believe (even without solid proof) that some of these things I do will give me a better chance of doing well with whatever infections come my way. However, for me personally, continuing to wear masks, avoid social situations, and avoid gathering indoors, which is what I gather you mean by worrying about it, would not be part of a healthy lifestyle for me in the long term, either mentally or physically. Nor can I ask my children to do that. No disrespect to those who chose that.
 

Any “worrying” I do is reading about the research periodically, because I think it’s important. Still very murky, from what I can see. So many complex questions that reading a lot of articles,, or even peer-reviewed papers, cannot get around. 
 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2023 by Penelope

[KSera]

2 hours ago, kbutton said:

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2023/11/10/Update-COVID-Threat/?fbclid=IwAR0EvTRX5jerjMC6lEQxA6xoWSrrpU3-oVxOuBX0L0Om8p72-HsZyX-Z2M4_aem_AQ2LavBu1mEQcRZk0Tejr21K5xB7cMlkhzFuVH0zHjdU_RYP4QYK5XmEqrItd8-SAqQ

Thanks for sharing this, kbutton. Sobering, and at the same time, clearly something most people will wave away. It’s a curious thing, all the people who are sure they understand long Covid better than the researchers studying it (and the people living it). Heaven forbid we clean the air and have people mask in risky settings such as health care. Somehow people think that would be less “healthy” than incurring the damage caused by Covid infections. Everyone thinks their superior immune system and health habits mean they will be unafflicted. 

Edited November 16, 2023 by KSera

[bookbard]

51 minutes ago, KSera said:

Everyone thinks their superior immune system and health habits mean they will be unafflicted. 

So there's a great interview with Naomi Klein today in The Guardian about the wellness industry and Covid. The idea is that their individual 'strong immune system' which they have 'earned' through their healthy lifestyle will save them. They even met someone who was basically like - unhealthy people deserve to die.

They trace this sort of attitude back a bit, but I think it sounds very neoliberal to me. Push responsibility down onto the individual so that the group doesn't have to take action. Unfortunately it is based on lies. You can be very healthy and die or become very ill from Covid. Equally, saying stuff you to other people won't save you, because those people are your doctors, teachers, bus drivers and delivery workers. You need those 'unhealthy' people. You also need them not to be driving crazy-like because their brain has been injured by a mild Covid infection.

Anyway, you can't persuade the wellness cultists, but it's another reason why change at a group level is so important (ie government) and pushing it down to individuals is a mistake. Shutting the borders in Australia saved hundreds of thousands of lives. It's the same with climate change. My recycling is nothing compared with the government switching over to renewable energy. If you look at Australia 5 yrs ago vs now (different government), you can see the difference in fossil fuel emissions. 

[mommyoffive]

State of Affairs: November 16 - by Katelyn Jetelina (substack.com)

[mommyoffive]

How many people die of the flu anyway? (substack.com)

[Amoret]

More on Long Covid (from Time).

one (of many) responses:
Dr. Sean Mullen
@drseanmullen
Nov 15

This Time article on Long COVID research failure not only does a disservice to the intricacies of biomedical science but also prematurely calls for a paradigm shift that could potentially derail years of progress. The authors' suggestion to pivot from the biomedical model to a focus on symptom management and health services research is a regressive approach that risks abandoning the pursuit of a deeper understanding of Long COVID's underlying biological mechanisms. Such a shift is a capitulation to complexity and an implicit endorsement of ignorance.

Furthermore, the proposed centralization of research under a government agency, such as the Health and Human Services Office of Long COVID Research and Practice, is a simplistic solution to a multifaceted problem. History has shown that bureaucratic centralization often stifles innovation and delays action, which is the antithesis of what is required in the dynamic field of emerging diseases. The call to concentrate power within a singular entity seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to the understandable frustrations with the pace of research, yet it disregards the benefits of a diverse and decentralized approach that can spark creativity and rapid responses.

Lastly, the article's call for patient involvement rings hollow when the authors themselves advocate for a narrow focus on management over treatments. This token nod towards patient advocacy groups contrasts starkly with their recommendation to step back from research aimed at unraveling the disease's mysteries. Patients are not just seeking empathy and management of their symptoms; they are desperately seeking answers and solutions that can only come from a robust and sustained scientific inquiry into the fundamental nature of Long COVID. By suggesting otherwise, the authors seem to be out of touch with the very community they purport to serve, and the article reflects a resigned attitude that patients, researchers, and clinicians should find unacceptable.

Finally, the conflation of ME/CFS with Long COVID is a disconcerting oversimplification that dismisses decades of patient experiences and scientific inquiry. ME/CFS is a distinct clinical entity that existed long before the COVID-19 pandemic, and while there may be symptomatic overlap, each condition warrants its own separate consideration in research and patient care. To assume that Long COVID is simply a rebranded form of ME/CFS is to erase the unique challenges and struggles faced by patients of both conditions. It is only through dedicated, condition-specific research that we can honor the lived realities of those affected. Science, not supposition, should lead the way in our efforts to understand and treat these complex syndromes. Only with clear, evidence-based insights can we hope to provide the recognition and respect that patients with ME/CFS and Long COVID rightly deserve. The medical community's responsibility is to keep these conditions distinct in research and treatment until such time as rigorous scientific evidence suggests a unified approach.

------

One of the authors (Steven Phillips), an epidemiologist & former Medical Director for Global Projects at Exxon Mobil turned VP Covid Collaborative, wrote an earlier article (Jan 2023), also for Time, and also calling for a societal paradigm shift: "Today, this ('the science') strongly supports a new paradigm of 'living with the virus' through accepting exposure for most Americans."

[Penelope]

On 11/15/2023 at 9:03 PM, KSera said:

Thanks for sharing this, kbutton. Sobering, and at the same time, clearly something most people will wave away. It’s a curious thing, all the people who are sure they understand long Covid better than the researchers studying it (and the people living it). Heaven forbid we clean the air and have people mask in risky settings such as health care. Somehow people think that would be less “healthy” than incurring the damage caused by Covid infections. Everyone thinks their superior immune system and health habits mean they will be unafflicted. 

As someone who said in the post before yours that I focus on general health measures but no longer mask, I don’t think most people, including myself, think we are completely bulletproof from any illness. Maybe very young people still do. I don’t know what a “superior immune system” means; I think we know that people in certain populations do better with certain illnesses or are less likely to contract them as a group, but that varies by illness, and individual variation is huge.
 

ETA: I hadn’t read bookbard’s post. Surely the person who said unhealthy people deserve to die is an extreme (disturbing) viewpoint. 
 

Researchers are not monolithic in their expertise or in their opinions about how people should live, or what society should do, in response.

I’m all for cleaner air, but first I’d like real-world studies showing that certain levels of air filtration make a significant difference in viral transmission, the incidence of Covid, the incidence of long Covid, other infections, asthma, things like that. Not just basic science lab research.
Due to the massive expense, I think we should have better indications that measures are effective before deploying in public buildings on a massive scale.

I know that some buildings did improve air filtration during the pandemic. There are different levels of things that can be done, and I don’t think we can outfit every building with hospital standards. 
 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by Penelope

[KSera]

1 hour ago, Penelope said:

I’m all for cleaner air, but first I’d like real-world studies showing that certain levels of air filtration make a significant difference in viral transmission, the incidence of Covid, the incidence of long Covid, other infections, asthma, things like that. Not just basic science lab research.

You have not seen this research? I was about to link you to some of it, but I don’t honestly think that’s worthwhile. I’m sure you could find it if you wanted to, but I think it would mess up your narrative that there’s nothing more we can do and no compelling reason we would even need to. Perhaps you can get on board with improving air quality due to the fact that increased ventilation decreases indoor CO2 levels which are shown to impact children’s ability to concentrate and learn. That’s probably the route we need to go for people to get on board with doing it, since there’s a certain subset of the population who automatically do not want to do anything if the purpose is related to Covid in any way. 
 

You’re honestly the first person I have seen actually argue against improving indoor air quality, so I admit to being a bit floored by your post.

 

 

[Corraleno]

4 hours ago, Penelope said:

 I’m all for cleaner air, but first I’d like real-world studies showing that certain levels of air filtration make a significant difference in viral transmission, the incidence of Covid, the incidence of long Covid, other infections, asthma, things like that. Not just basic science lab research.
Due to the massive expense, I think we should have better indications that measures are effective before deploying in public buildings on a massive scale.

I know that some buildings did improve air filtration during the pandemic. There are different levels of things that can be done, and I don’t think we can outfit every building with hospital standards. 

I'm not sure why you would dismiss out of hand the extensive laboratory and modeling studies showing that better ventilation and HEPA filtration significantly decrease the levels of circulating virus, but there is also real world evidence that increased ventilation and filtration in schools can cut transmission rates nearly in half, e.g. this study that included 169 K-5 schools:

"Adjusting for county-level incidence, COVID-19 incidence was 37% lower in schools that required teachers and staff members to use masks, and 39% lower in schools that improved ventilation, compared with schools that did not use these prevention strategies. Ventilation strategies associated with lower school incidence included methods to dilute airborne particles alone by opening windows, opening doors, or using fans (35% lower incidence), or in combination with methods to filter airborne particles with high-efficiency particulate absorbing (HEPA) filtration with or without purification with ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) (48% lower incidence). 
 https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e1.htm

 

[Ausmumof3]

This is only tangentially Covid related but it’s made me feel really sad tonight and it doesn’t belong anywhere else. Our police commissioner was one of the voices of sanity through Covid handling all the border lockdowns and last minute rule changes with a fair bit of grace and integrity given the chaotic and unpredictable situation. There is plenty of criticism but overall I feel he did a good job. His son finished high school last week and was attending schoolies celebrations last night when he was hit by an 18yo driver in a hit and run. He passed away today. 
 

Feel very sad for him, his workload would have been crazy the last couple of years and then to lose his son 😞 

[Kassia]

@Ausmumof3 what a horrible tragedy.  😞 

[Ausmumof3]

Just now, Kassia said:

@Ausmumof3 what a horrible tragedy.  😞 

It really is. He’s the one who in past years does the talk encouraging people to be safe at schoolies etc as well 😞 

[KSera]

That’s horrible @Ausmumof3  I’m really sorry to hear. 

[Penelope]

On 11/16/2023 at 11:44 PM, KSera said:

You have not seen this research? I was about to link you to some of it, but I don’t honestly think that’s worthwhile. I’m sure you could find it if you wanted to, but I think it would mess up your narrative that there’s nothing more we can do and no compelling reason we would even need to. Perhaps you can get on board with improving air quality due to the fact that increased ventilation decreases indoor CO2 levels which are shown to impact children’s ability to concentrate and learn. That’s probably the route we need to go for people to get on board with doing it, since there’s a certain subset of the population who automatically do not want to do anything if the purpose is related to Covid in any way. 
 

You’re honestly the first person I have seen actually argue against improving indoor air quality, so I admit to being a bit floored by your post.

 

 

I think you’re assuming things about me because again, you are reading things into my post that I did not say. 

No, I wasn’t aware of the research you mention here; I will look for it.

Please read my posts instead of making assumptions. Where am I arguing against indoor air quality? I said the opposite. 
 

What I am saying is that there are a number of things we can do that can potentially affect air quality- there’s a spectrum, isn’t there? And they are associated with various costs. I know that because I looked into what I could do for my own home a couple of years ago, and I found that there was not a lot of info behind the various options they were trying to sell me. And I’ve heard other info on this topic from people who know and understand more than I do. How much do we do, and what result can we expect for the $$ spent? That’s all.
 

I agree that there are many reasons beyond Covid to think about air quality, and I said that before. But this thread has referred to air quality in the interest of preventing Covid infections due to the concerns about Covid sequelae, so what data is there that air quality will have that desired result? And what specific measures for particular buildings can expect this result? Are there pilot studies looking at this, in schools, in businesses?

[KSera]

15 minutes ago, Penelope said:

what data is there that air quality will have that desired result? And what specific measures for particular buildings can expect this result? Are there pilot studies looking at this, in schools, in businesses?

Yes, quite a few large studies, including looking at different flow rates, mechanical vs natural ventilation, etc. Most of the ones I’ve seen have been conducted in schools. Italy did a very good one including 10,000 classrooms. 

[Penelope]

On 11/17/2023 at 2:04 AM, Corraleno said:

I'm not sure why you would dismiss out of hand the extensive laboratory and modeling studies showing that better ventilation and HEPA filtration significantly decrease the levels of circulating virus, but there is also real world evidence that increased ventilation and filtration in schools can cut transmission rates nearly in half, e.g. this study that included 169 K-5 schools:

"Adjusting for county-level incidence, COVID-19 incidence was 37% lower in schools that required teachers and staff members to use masks, and 39% lower in schools that improved ventilation, compared with schools that did not use these prevention strategies. Ventilation strategies associated with lower school incidence included methods to dilute airborne particles alone by opening windows, opening doors, or using fans (35% lower incidence), or in combination with methods to filter airborne particles with high-efficiency particulate absorbing (HEPA) filtration with or without purification with ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) (48% lower incidence). 
 https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e1.htm

 

No, I don’t think modeling studies are enough. 
 

Thank you for the link. I would hope they could do something like this again, in 2023, but with more outcomes. There are a lot of interventions going on in this studio at the same time, most schools were hybrid, the range of the kids having in-person school was huge— I don’t know if that was accounted for, but very different than conditions today— and  I know there has been a lot of criticism over the methodology of the observational studies published there, but just glancing at it, looks very interesting. 
 

Taken at face value, it looks like you can get most of the benefit from ventilation alone, which makes sense, and I’d prefer schools do that as much as possible, but filtration is looking good on its own when ventilation isn’t possible. What about masking, since schools no longer mask? I doubt masking made any difference, but it’s part of this study, and other MMWR observational studies have purportedly shown benefits, so if one believes masking is critical, you can’t separate out those effects here.
 

I know that some of the money given to schools a couple of years ago was supposed to be for improving air quality, I just don’t know what happened there. I know it will differ by locality; locally, many organizations said they already had improved air filtration. 
 

I still don’t think filtration is a real answer for preventing Covid sequelae, but maybe the chance for more real-world evidence is behind us for now, given that it would be hard to take a group of schools prospectively and ask them to test children regularly for Covid again with some particular filtration interventions. I doubt anyone would agree to that, so maybe it’s just pie in the sky on my part. But you could do it for adults…

Edited November 18, 2023 by Penelope

[Penelope]

On 11/16/2023 at 4:47 PM, Amoret said:

More on Long Covid (from Time).

one (of many) responses:
Dr. Sean Mullen
@drseanmullen
Nov 15

This Time article on Long COVID research failure not only does a disservice to the intricacies of biomedical science but also prematurely calls for a paradigm shift that could potentially derail years of progress. The authors' suggestion to pivot from the biomedical model to a focus on symptom management and health services research is a regressive approach that risks abandoning the pursuit of a deeper understanding of Long COVID's underlying biological mechanisms. Such a shift is a capitulation to complexity and an implicit endorsement of ignorance.

Furthermore, the proposed centralization of research under a government agency, such as the Health and Human Services Office of Long COVID Research and Practice, is a simplistic solution to a multifaceted problem. History has shown that bureaucratic centralization often stifles innovation and delays action, which is the antithesis of what is required in the dynamic field of emerging diseases. The call to concentrate power within a singular entity seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to the understandable frustrations with the pace of research, yet it disregards the benefits of a diverse and decentralized approach that can spark creativity and rapid responses.

Lastly, the article's call for patient involvement rings hollow when the authors themselves advocate for a narrow focus on management over treatments. This token nod towards patient advocacy groups contrasts starkly with their recommendation to step back from research aimed at unraveling the disease's mysteries. Patients are not just seeking empathy and management of their symptoms; they are desperately seeking answers and solutions that can only come from a robust and sustained scientific inquiry into the fundamental nature of Long COVID. By suggesting otherwise, the authors seem to be out of touch with the very community they purport to serve, and the article reflects a resigned attitude that patients, researchers, and clinicians should find unacceptable.

Finally, the conflation of ME/CFS with Long COVID is a disconcerting oversimplification that dismisses decades of patient experiences and scientific inquiry. ME/CFS is a distinct clinical entity that existed long before the COVID-19 pandemic, and while there may be symptomatic overlap, each condition warrants its own separate consideration in research and patient care. To assume that Long COVID is simply a rebranded form of ME/CFS is to erase the unique challenges and struggles faced by patients of both conditions. It is only through dedicated, condition-specific research that we can honor the lived realities of those affected. Science, not supposition, should lead the way in our efforts to understand and treat these complex syndromes. Only with clear, evidence-based insights can we hope to provide the recognition and respect that patients with ME/CFS and Long COVID rightly deserve. The medical community's responsibility is to keep these conditions distinct in research and treatment until such time as rigorous scientific evidence suggests a unified 

I agree that it’s a terrible idea to stop investigating long Covid separately this soon.

There are people with long Covid subjecting themselves to sketchy medical practitioners and dangerous therapies, like triple anticoagulant therapy, instead of only trying new things as part of research studies. Its like 2020 all over again where people were taking ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and IV vitamin C and who knows what else for Covid, but maybe much worse.

[Penelope]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42726-0
 

Quote

Persistent symptoms were common after SARS-CoV-2 infection but were prevalent to almost the same extent as in the general population during the same period. In line with our results, previous studies found a substantial proportion of non-infected people with records of similar symptoms¹⁴. This finding highlights the challenge in identifying long COVID, which could result in misclassification and difficulties in diagnosing long COVID.

A summary thread by the study lead

  Interesting takeaway that just like in at least one other study I remember, the primary difference from symptoms in matched controls was altered taste and smell, 

but: “development of persistent symptoms was more common after reinfection”, as seen in some other studies which were not as well-done and inclusive as this one.

Does that mean these symptoms need to be grouped better in order to study long COVID syndrome(s) properly? Do they need to better categorized and defined? Seems so. It’s going to be a while. 

 

 

 

 

[KSera]

10 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Interesting takeaway that just like in at least one other study I remember, the primary difference from symptoms in matched controls was altered taste and smell, 

I think this is a misapplication of this data. Yes, altered taste and smell are the most common persistent symptoms that people have--on the order of 22% of people in this study. That 22% of people aren't the ones that most people are referring to when they talk about long covid. You have several times now implied that long covid is mostly loss of taste and smell.  The study is large with interesting data, but really wasn't designed at all to be looking specifically at the smaller population of people suffering with long covid.

Fortunately, there are other studies looking more specifically at that population. Not enough still, and not enough focused on treatments (though certainly there are some good trials running on that, just not enough).

[Penelope]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

. You have several times now implied that long covid is mostly loss of taste and smell.  The study is large with interesting data, but really wasn't designed at all to be looking specifically at the smaller population of people suffering with long covid.

Fortunately, there are other studies looking more specifically at that population. Not enough still, and not enough focused on treatments (though certainly there are some good trials running on that, just not enough).

Sigh.

No.

What I have implied is that long Covid is not as common as some links and comments I have read on this board say that it is. What I have stated outright, over and over, is that as a syndrome, it is too poorly defined. This is not some crazy idea that is coming out of my own brain and typing fingers, lol, it is something that has been mentioned by experts and in peer-reviewed literature. 
 

What I have implied that there are numerous other illnesses I give more thought to as being concerning and a risk to me over long Covid, like cancer, heart disease, autoimmune diseases, the list goes on, because it was implied earlier that everyone should worry about it equally.  And so what? Everyone has different things on their personal plate of concerns.

I think the controlled studies are clear that most people with prolonged Covid symptoms get better. *Even for these folks, we should be investigating for good treatments. Another ** that I will repeat- we nor our medical practitioners should assume that a every new onset of nonspecific symptoms (fatigue, diarrhea, etc, as listed in the studies) following a viral illness are necessarily “long COVID”. That might sound obvious and silly to you, but it is happening. We need to know better what it is and what it isn’t, and AFAIK it is supposed to be given after excluding other potential causes.
 

What I think we’d agree on is that there is a distinct subset of people who have chronic, debilitating symptoms that are linked to Covid in some way. And of course, not just anosmia and dysgeusia. Since we don’t have a causal pathway at this time, I don’t know that we can say that Covid is responsible for all of them. It is still early days in this research, research that needs to continue.
 

And I’m unsure what you mean by the bolded, because I think you are inadvertently reinforcing something I was trying to point out. This study absolutely was looking at long Covid I.e. PASC, as it is defined by the WHO. But it might not reflect the smaller subset of people who are not getting better after 6 or 12 months or however one thinks we should define this more severely affected group. 
*But then if that’s the case, definitions need to be redrawn and symptoms better defined in order to properly study what may, or may not, be different groups with different processes going on.

ETA Maybe there is a basic difference in perception here : do you see long COVID as a very defined entity that is always clearly and obviously separated from other causes? How so? What about those people in the studies and who have been profiled in the media who believe they have it and never tested positive for COVID? What about a friend of mine who was told she had long Covid after an unremarkable viral illness, when she had several negative home tests for Covid? Several months later, with symptoms that sure, are on the long Covid list, but really could be from anything. I know that is far from inclusive of everyone who has long Covid, but there were a lot of those people in some of the early studies. I’m wondering how those examples are any different from people who insist that they have a problem that was caused by a Covid vaccination; maybe a few of them are correct, but we can’t just assume.

Edited November 18, 2023 by Penelope

[KSera]

7 minutes ago, Penelope said:

This study absolutely was looking at long Covid I.e. PASC, as it is defined by the WHO. But it might not reflect the smaller subset of people who are not getting better after 6 or 12 months or however one thinks we should define this more severely affected group. 

We should. The study definition is too broad, but the people in long Covid support groups and visiting long Covid clinics are not the same as what is being used in the study definitions unless they are studies being done at those clinics, which many of them are. The point is, there are definitely an alarming number of people in this much smaller group as well. 
 

All of us dealing with this and reading studies and following closely are well aware of other post viral syndromes and the other confounders you bring up. That doesn’t mean there isn’t very clearly damage being done to a lot of people specifically by Covid. Heck, even in those with no lasting symtoms, the risk of heart attack and stroke are significantly elevated and they can see blood clot damage in various organ systems after recovery.

[Corraleno]

47 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Since we don’t have a causal pathway at this time, I don’t know that we can say that Covid is responsible for all of them.

I don't think anyone believes there will be a single "causal pathway" for all variants of long covid, but there is increasing evidence of a causal pathway for the particular set of symptoms (fatigue, brain fog, memory loss, etc.) that seem to be causing the most serious and long-lasting effects: residual infection and gut dysbiosis.

Gut Microbiota Dysbiosis Correlates With Long COVID-19 at One-Year After Discharge
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10111044/

Gut dysbiosis and long COVID‐19: Feeling gutted
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9088471/

Altering Microbiome Alleviates Symptoms of Long COVID
https://www.gastroendonews.com/PRN/Article/06-23/Long-COVID-microbiome/70511

A simple lay-person summary of the issue:

"... a subset of patients with long COVID had traces of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in their stool samples even months after acute COVID-19 infection, which suggests that components of the virus remain in the gut of some patients long after infection. They found that this remaining virus, called a viral reservoir, triggers the immune system to release proteins that fight the virus, called interferons. These interferons cause inflammation that reduces the absorption of the amino acid tryptophan in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract.
....

The researchers found that when tryptophan absorption is reduced by persistent viral inflammation, serotonin is depleted, leading to disrupted vagus nerve signaling, which in turn can cause several of the symptoms associated with long COVID, such as memory loss.
....

“Long COVID varies from patient to patient, and we don’t fully understand what causes the differences in symptoms,” said co-senior author, Christoph Thaiss, PhD, an assistant professor of Microbiology. “Our study provides a unique opportunity for further research to determine how many individuals with long COVID are affected by the pathway linking viral persistence, serotonin deficiency, and dysfunction of the vagus nerve and to uncover additional targets for treatments across the different symptoms patients experience.”

https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2023/october/penn-study-finds-serotonin-reduction-causes-long-covid-symptoms

[KSera]

1 hour ago, Penelope said:

ETA Maybe there is a basic difference in perception here : do you see long COVID as a very defined entity that is always clearly and obviously separated from other causes? How so? What about those people in the studies and who have been profiled in the media who believe they have it and never tested positive for COVID? What about a friend of mine who was told she had long Covid after an unremarkable viral illness, when she had several negative home tests for Covid? Several months later, with symptoms that sure, are on the long Covid list, but really could be from anything. I know that is far from inclusive of everyone who has long Covid, but there were a lot of those people in some of the early studies. I’m wondering how those examples are any different from people who insist that they have a problem that was caused by a Covid vaccination; maybe a few of them are correct, but we can’t just assume.

No, I don't see it that way. Long before covid-19, people were getting me/cfs and lyme disease and other post-viral syndromes. There are clearly many different things that can trigger this kind of thing. The point is that covid-19 is now on the scene as well, and the prevalence of it (and the fact that people are getting it over and over again) means that these kinds of post viral syndromes are increasing a LOT and the impact is enormous on those affected by it, and I still maintain is likely to be significant on society due to the numbers impacted. The fact that it's not the only one doesn't mean it's less meaningful. We don't dismiss Lyme disease simply because there are also other things that could cause similar symptoms. And yes, there do seem to be a small number of people whose long covid symptoms began with the covid vaccination they received. I don't think that's even highly controversial in groups where people are actually dealing with this.

[Penelope]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

No, I don't see it that way. Long before covid-19, people were getting me/cfs and lyme disease and other post-viral syndromes. There are clearly many different things that can trigger this kind of thing. The point is that covid-19 is now on the scene as well, and the prevalence of it (and the fact that people are getting it over and over again) means that these kinds of post viral syndromes are increasing a LOT and the impact is enormous on those affected by it, and I still maintain is likely to be significant on society due to the numbers impacted. The fact that it's not the only one doesn't mean it's less meaningful. We don't dismiss Lyme disease simply because there are also other things that could cause similar symptoms. And yes, there do seem to be a small number of people whose long covid symptoms began with the covid vaccination they received. I don't think that's even highly controversial in groups where people are actually dealing with this.

Okay. 👍 I agree it is important.

For the last part, I wasn’t talking only about people who have long Covid symptoms after vaccination, I mean in general, the folks who claim to be vaccine-injured in any way, and there seem to be a whole lot of those. Aren’t a lot of us skeptical about these claims, until proven otherwise by studies linking certain conditions with vaccinations (like myocarditis, possibly some other things, rarely), since that is how vaccine science decides whether vaccines could trigger certain things, or not. And when the best population studies we have do show that just as many people have fatigue and brain fog without having Covid as they do after Covid, there is something more that needs to be teased out. I wonder if it will turn out that Covid is a -specific- trigger for some of these symptoms, or whether the processes are similar to viral syndromes generally and it just seems more common because we just had a pandemic with 90%+ of the population newly infected.

[Penelope]

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

 

Altering Microbiome Alleviates Symptoms of Long COVID
https://www.gastroendonews.com/PRN/Article/06-23/Long-COVID-microbiome/70511

 

I hadn’t seen this one, interesting. I hope someone is doing intervention trials with dietary styles that have been shown to result in a healthier microbiome, 

[Penelope]

5 hours ago, KSera said:

Yes, quite a few large studies, including looking at different flow rates, mechanical vs natural ventilation, etc. Most of the ones I’ve seen have been conducted in schools. Italy did a very good one including 10,000 classrooms. 

Quoting you again, sorry, because I found this review article from Center for American Progress, but it was from 2022 so maybe there are more recent school studies, published in the past year? They cite only two real-world studies on school ventilation: the CDC one @Corraleno linked above, and an Italian one with about 3,000 classrooms, and it appears the Italian analysis was by the Hume Foundation (I don’t know what that is) and not published anywhere but their website that I can find, so more of an unpublished observation, as far as I can tell. 
 

Anyway, most of the article talks about the federal funding designated for this issue and how some schools, about half, had been planning to use it. It underscores for me that it is/was up to people in their local school districts to be active in following up if it’s an issue they care about. 

Edited November 18, 2023 by Penelope

[KSera]

The Italian study I refer to is a different one. Conducted in 10,000 classrooms in the Marche region and funded by the Marche government, who had no involvement in the study itself. Among other relevant findings:

The stratified analysis of the effect of the different ventilation rates (analysis by sub-cohorts) also demonstrated that higher ventilation rates provide greater RRRs (Table 2). Once again, when referring to the most conservative indicator (y₂), the results showed that students in classrooms without mechanical ventilation had a 5-fold higher risk of infection compared with sub-cohort 2 (RR = 0.20), and a roughly 3-fold higher risk of infection compared with sub-cohort 1 (RR = 0. For each indicator, the classrooms equipped with MVSs were associated with reduced risk, indeed, even adopting the most conservative indicator (y₂) a relative risk reduction of 74% was recognized29).”

Which also, like this isn’t a shocking result. As @Corraleno said above, this is an area where laboratory modeling predicts this clearly—no aerosol scientist is going to be surprised that ventilation reduces transmission of an airborne pathogen. 

35 minutes ago, Penelope said:

It underscores for me that it is/was up to people in their local school districts to be active in following up if it’s an issue they care about. 

People in private schools and/or wealthy school districts are already doing so or have already done so. It will be the schools in poorer areas already suffering disproportionately from the pandemic and other health inequities that will be least likely to see these changes made. 

[mommyoffive]

Why are there special flu shots for older adults? (substack.com)

 

What I'm Reading: Pushing back on pandemic revisionism. (substack.com)

 

How to not kill Grandma (or anyone, including yourself) this Thanksgiving and Holiday Season, 2023 version. (substack.com)

 

It's the holiday season! Here are simple steps to navigate viruses (substack.com)

 

Outbreak Outlook - National - November 20 (substack.com)

 

Long Covid Weekly #69: Monoclonal Nasal Spray, Covid hurts our immune system and more (substack.com)

 

 

[Pawz4me]

More free Covid tests can be ordered as of today

[Penelope]

This article is more along the lines of what I was looking for on real-world filtration evidence for different infections. The U.K. article I came across is paywalled, but I found this summary from the institution. https://www.uea.ac.uk/about/news/article/air-cleaners-dont-stop-you-getting-sick-research-shows
 

Here is the preprint, though the article apparently will be published. 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.06.15.23291419v1.full.pdf
 

My takeaway is that real-world Covid studies with good methodology (according to the standards these researchers use) have not been completed, but there are some currently being done or awaiting publication, which is good. There is some evidence that trends toward a reduction of viral infections, though not statistically significant.

Quote

In short, we found no strong evidence that air treatment technologies are likely to protect people in real world settings.

"There is a lot of existing evidence that environmental and surface contamination can be reduced by several air treatment strategies, especially germicidal lights and high efficiency particulate air filtration (HEPA). But the combined evidence was that these technologies don't stop or reduce illness.

"There was some weak evidence that the air treatment methods reduced likelihood of infection, but this evidence seems biased and imbalanced

Quote

Our findings are disappointing -- but it is vital that public health decision makers have a full picture.

"Hopefully those studies that have been done during Covid will be published soon and we can make a more informed judgement about what the value of air treatment may have been during the pandemic."

This research was led by the University of East Anglia with collaborators at University College London, the University of Essex, the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital Trust, and the University of Surrey.

It was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response, led by Kings College London and UEA in collaboration with the UK Health Security Agency.

 

[Penelope]

On 11/18/2023 at 6:58 PM, KSera said:

The Italian study I refer to is a different one. Conducted in 10,000 classrooms in the Marche region and funded by the Marche government, who had no involvement in the study itself. Among other relevant findings:

The stratified analysis of the effect of the different ventilation rates (analysis by sub-cohorts) also demonstrated that higher ventilation rates provide greater RRRs (Table 2). Once again, when referring to the most conservative indicator (y₂), the results showed that students in classrooms without mechanical ventilation had a 5-fold higher risk of infection compared with sub-cohort 2 (RR = 0.20), and a roughly 3-fold higher risk of infection compared with sub-cohort 1 (RR = 0. For each indicator, the classrooms equipped with MVSs were associated with reduced risk, indeed, even adopting the most conservative indicator (y₂) a relative risk reduction of 74% was recognized29).”

Which also, like this isn’t a shocking result. As @Corraleno said above, this is an area where laboratory modeling predicts this clearly—no aerosol scientist is going to be surprised that ventilation reduces transmission of an airborne pathogen. 

People in private schools and/or wealthy school districts are already doing so or have already done so. It will be the schools in poorer areas already suffering disproportionately from the pandemic and other health inequities that will be least likely to see these changes made. 

Thanks. I was looking at the study and wondering why it wasn’t included in the large review just published. I presume it didn’t meet some criteria for methodology. But also I believe the journal it’s published in is considered a predatory journal. ETA: or not? Unclear.

 

another edit: the lead author of this article also has a sole affiliation with the Hume Foundation. I haven’t double-checked authors with the other study I found, but I suspect they are connected at least by funding, if not being the same research group with some of the same classrooms included. I can’t find where it lists funding sources, but I assume the government provided the funding for the intervention, but perhaps not the researchers, data collection, etc. 

 

The bolded: probably so, just like how all the private schools I was aware of that reopened in May 2020 or at least by September, while the public school kids go shut out of full access to education for a long time, nearly two years in some cases. 

Edited November 20, 2023 by Penelope

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, Penelope said:

This article is more along the lines of what I was looking for on real-world filtration evidence for different infections. The U.K. article I came across is paywalled, but I found this summary from the institution. https://www.uea.ac.uk/about/news/article/air-cleaners-dont-stop-you-getting-sick-research-shows
 

Here is the preprint, though the article apparently will be published. 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.06.15.23291419v1.full.pdf
 

That is a really bizarre meta-analysis of 32 studies, going back to 1977, 16 of which were in private residences, none of which look at covid. 

The studies included a wide variety of “air treatment systems,” including HEPA filtration, UV sterilization, ionization, electrostatic filtration, charcoal filters, plain old air conditioning (no HEPA filtration), and one study cleansed the air with “mugwort smoke.” The illnesses being tested for ranged from asthma, to allergies, aspergillus mold, and norovirus, as well as respiratory infections, and most looked at duration or severity of symptoms, not number of infections.

Only two of the studies were in schools, and both looked at the effect of HEPA filtration on asthma, not infection. Two other studies done in preschools looked at respiratory infections, but they just had regular air conditioning systems, no HEPA filtration. 

I don't understand how studies from 20, 30, 40 years ago, on topics as diverse as whether electrostatic nano filtration reduces mold in hospitals, whether mugwort smoke (???) reduces respiratory infections, whether HEPA filtration in private residences reduces asthma symptoms, and whether unfiltered air conditioning systems reduce bronchitis in preschools, could be considered in any way relevant to the question of whether HEPA filtration in schools can effectively reduce the number of covid infections.

[bookbard]

In Australia, they've approved the new vaccines that are already available in the USA - but haven't approved people actually receiving new vaccines if they've already been vaccinated this year. So that is kind of pointless. They also haven't approved boosters for kids, who were vaccinated in 2021 and haven't been allowed any vaccines since. So my now 13 yr old had the kid dose back then. Nothing since. It is so frustrating. I know the risk of death is miniscule, that's not what I'm worried about. It's the risk of long covid. 

An article in the local media actually recommending masks, which is miraculous. And hospitals requiring them. So that's something.

 

 

[KSera]

It's peculiar that multiple highly relevant studies published in peer-reviewed journals are dismissed, but a preprint of a head-scratching meta-analysis is

6 hours ago, Penelope said:

more along the lines of what I was looking for

I honestly don't think this is a fruitful sidebar at this point. You entered the discussion hinting covid vaccines are dangerous, then moved on to long covid being something that is mostly only a concern for those who were hospitalized with severe covid,  and then doubting that cleaner air would decrease transmission (with a side comment about doubting masks do so either). I expect you think you are "just asking questions" but it's a technique that's been used far too much in the last 4 years to take it at face value.

[mommyoffive]

Tips for a Safer Thanksgiving - by Jennifer Dowd, PhD (substack.com)

[mommyoffive]

People’s CDC November 20 COVID-19 Weather Report (substack.com)

 

 

[bookbard]

The eighth COVID-19 wave is here. Could catching it trigger Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or autoimmune disorders? - ABC News

So this is a deep dive in the major Australian news source, the ABC. It interviews a range of scientists from different fields and has a good overview of different long-term effects of Covid. One of the scientists explored brain inflammation. I had the worst headaches of my life with Covid - I wonder if that was due to brain inflammation? 

[KSera]

Just now, bookbard said:

So this is a deep dive in the major Australian news source, the ABC.

Just wanted to say I've seen some good long covid coverage coming out of the ABC.

[bookbard]

Just now, KSera said:

Just wanted to say I've seen some good long covid coverage coming out of the ABC.

Some of it has been good, but it's mixed, depending on the writer, I guess. There's definitely been some minimalism around masks, as in they'll have an article about 'oh dear Covid is increasing what should we do?' and either masks aren't mentioned or they'll interview someone who says 'don't worry about masking!' I think it depends on the writer.

[Penelope]

16 hours ago, KSera said:

It's peculiar that multiple highly relevant studies published in peer-reviewed journals are dismissed, but a preprint of a head-scratching meta-analysis is

I honestly don't think this is a fruitful sidebar at this point. You entered the discussion hinting covid vaccines are dangerous, then moved on to long covid being something that is mostly only a concern for those who were hospitalized with severe covid,  and then doubting that cleaner air would decrease transmission (with a side comment about doubting masks do so either). I expect you think you are "just asking questions" but it's a technique that's been used far too much in the last 4 years to take it at face value.

Some studies show that long Covid is more likely after hospitalization. That is a different thing than the total number of long Covid patients, because only a small percentage of people with Covid are hospitalized, so even though there is a lower percentage of non-hospitalized who have PASC, it makes sense that they are still the largest share of PASC patients. 
 

Personally, I think the -published meta-analysis is more interesting as a collection of studies that meet certain stringent criteria, more than for the “meta” part of it that lumps all of them together and makes a conclusion. As I said earlier, I was interested in studies on how particular air quality measures affect different outcomes in real world settings, not just Covid. 
 

But this literature review that looked for Covid-era real-world filtration studies with sound methodology, and did not find any. If their criteria were sound, the conclusion is that for the answers on filtration and Covid transmission, we need more information.
Only one peer-reviewed study besides the one I posted was shared (from the same foundation/Marche region of Italy in the publication I had posted). 🤔
 

Evidence-based medicine is about asking questions, yes based on basic science research, but ideally testing in real-world settings, using the best controls possible. There are many examples of things that “should” work, even with evidence from observational studies, that have failed in real life, because the real world is not a laboratory. 
 

Evidence-based medicine does not find masks decrease transmission in real-world population studies, which is why I said that I thought ventilation was doing the heavy lifting in the study and not masks. This is not the same thing as whether I will reduce my risk of catching a virus when I wear an N-95 in a crowded indoor venue for an hour (I’d like to think it would, though I can’t prove it), but that is not the context in which masks were worn in that MMWR study, masks, probably cloth, on schoolchildren for 7 hours a day, taking them on and off to eat and drink. 

 

Quote

You entered the discussion hinting covid vaccines are dangerous,

What?

 

Edited November 21, 2023 by Penelope

[wathe]

8 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Evidence-based medicine does not find masks decrease transmission in real-world population studies,

I disagree.  As real-world studies go, this one from NEJM is about as good as it gets: Lifting Universal Masking in Schools — Covid-19 Incidence among Students and Staff

EBM is about using the best available evidence to make the best possible medical decisions.  Some forms of evidence are better than others, and some questions are best answered by different forms of evidence than others. Perfect real-world studies are rarely actually possible.  The one I've linked comes close, though.

-------

WRT to meta-analysis, it doesn't matter how stringent methodology criteria are if the study content isn't relevant to the research question.

21 hours ago, Corraleno said:

That is a really bizarre meta-analysis of 32 studies, going back to 1977, 16 of which were in private residences, none of which look at covid. 

The studies included a wide variety of “air treatment systems,” including HEPA filtration, UV sterilization, ionization, electrostatic filtration, charcoal filters, plain old air conditioning (no HEPA filtration), and one study cleansed the air with “mugwort smoke.” The illnesses being tested for ranged from asthma, to allergies, aspergillus mold, and norovirus, as well as respiratory infections, and most looked at duration or severity of symptoms, not number of infections.

Only two of the studies were in schools, and both looked at the effect of HEPA filtration on asthma, not infection. Two other studies done in preschools looked at respiratory infections, but they just had regular air conditioning systems, no HEPA filtration. 

Content wise, this is a GIGO meta-analysis, no matter how good the methodology of these studies might have been.  They've pooled a mish-mash of technologies as inputs and measured a mish-mash of mostly surrogate outcomes.  This study doesn't tell us anything meaningful about air filtration and covid transmission, or even respiratory virus transmission more generally.  It's a bit of a dog's breakfast, truly.

[Penelope]

24 minutes ago, wathe said:

-------

WRT to meta-analysis, it doesn't matter how stringent methodology criteria are if the study content isn't relevant to the research question.

Content wise, this is a GIGO meta-analysis, no matter how good the methodology of these studies might have been.  They've pooled a mish-mash of technologies as inputs and measured a mish-mash of mostly surrogate outcomes.  This study doesn't tell us anything meaningful about air filtration and covid transmission, or even respiratory virus transmission more generally.  It's a bit of a dog's breakfast, truly.

I agree with you that it’s too broad for that. I understand about meta-analyses.

 

Agree to disagree about masks. We have a Cochrane analysis which is not conclusive for positivity, and regardless of what one thinks about that, conditions now are not the same.  I think any possible group effects are tiny, but that is opinion. And please no one back at me about the public back-and-forth about that Cochrane review. 
 

__

Here’s a recent study on filtration and COVID in German kindergartens, adding to real-world info, FWIW. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/13/7/e072284

Quote

Abstract

Objectives The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters on COVID-19 period prevalence in kindergartens.

Design The observational study follows an intervention design with the intervention group using HEPA filters and the control group not.

Setting The study was conducted in 32 (10 intervention, 22 control) kindergartens (daycare centres) in Rhineland Palatinate (Germany).

Participants Data of 2360 children (663 intervention, 1697 control) were reported by the kindergarten heads. Data were collected on institutional level without any identifying information on individuals. Thus, all children of all facilities were included; however, no demographic data were recorded.

Interventions The study followed a quasi-interventional design, as no formal intervention was conducted. A charity foundation equipped kindergartens with HEPA filters. These kindergartens were enrolled as intervention group. The control group was recruited from the neighbouring communities and districts.

Outcome measures The primary outcome measure was the number of COVID-19 cases reported by the kindergarten heads, converted into period prevalence rates per 1000 population.

Results The mean COVID-19 period prevalence rates of the control and intervention groups were 186 (95% CI: 137.8 to 238.9) and 372 (95% CI: 226.6 to 517.6) per 1000 children, respectively. The one-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test indicates a p value of 0.989; thus, the hypothesised preventive effect of HEPA filters could not be confirmed in the kindergarten setting.

Conclusions While HEPA filters can significantly reduce the viral load in room air, this does not lead to reduced COVID-19 prevalence in the selected kindergartens in Germany. It is known that contagion mainly occurs via direct face-to-face air exchange during play and that the contaminated air does not necessarily pass through the filter prior to air exchange between children. The use of HEPA filters may also lead to a sense of security, leading to reduced preventive behaviour.

Interesting end of the conclusion. I think for preschool and kindergarten-age children, I’d say that any other preventive behaviors are unnecessarily restrictive for Covid, at least currently, so I’m not sure what other measures they would suggest- thinking as an American and what I know of our schools. Maybe Germany has other good ideas.

 

Probably one of the issues with filtration studies re: Covid transmission is the same issue that possibly affected that N95 mask trial in health care workers: people in buildings with air filtration aren’t only getting infected in said buildings. 

Edited November 21, 2023 by Penelope

[Penelope]

On 11/20/2023 at 11:33 AM, mommyoffive said:

Why are there special flu shots for older adults? (substack.com)

 

What I'm Reading: Pushing back on pandemic revisionism. (substack.com)

 

How to not kill Grandma (or anyone, including yourself) this Thanksgiving and Holiday Season, 2023 version. (substack.com)

 

It's the holiday season! Here are simple steps to navigate viruses (substack.com)

 

Outbreak Outlook - National - November 20 (substack.com)

 

Long Covid Weekly #69: Monoclonal Nasal Spray, Covid hurts our immune system and more (substack.com)

 

 

Who is “Brandon” from the last newsletter?