We thought it was just a respiratory virus(ucsf.edu)
ucsf.edu
We thought it was just a respiratory virus
https://www.ucsf.edu/magazine/covid-body
157 comments
So there are a few unknowns:
1. Does the virus remain infectious in food? In particular, does hot or reheated food affect it?
2. The digestive process produces more acid. Will that kill the virus?
3. Will the virus even touch the wall of the stomach? It may be in food after chewing, rather than directly on the stomach wall
There are some reasons to think that swallowing virus replicating in your throat is different than having some inside a chewed up piece of food surrounded by saliva.
We don’t know of course, and someone super high risk should perhaps avoid takeout salads. But as of yet we haven’t had any case cluster reports where a superspreader cook spread the virus to their colleagues + customers via food. No country has reported a single instance of a traced infection via takeout.
This doesn’t mean it’s impossible, as contact tracing is not perfect. But the lack of any evidence so far is suggestive.
1. Does the virus remain infectious in food? In particular, does hot or reheated food affect it?
2. The digestive process produces more acid. Will that kill the virus?
3. Will the virus even touch the wall of the stomach? It may be in food after chewing, rather than directly on the stomach wall
There are some reasons to think that swallowing virus replicating in your throat is different than having some inside a chewed up piece of food surrounded by saliva.
We don’t know of course, and someone super high risk should perhaps avoid takeout salads. But as of yet we haven’t had any case cluster reports where a superspreader cook spread the virus to their colleagues + customers via food. No country has reported a single instance of a traced infection via takeout.
This doesn’t mean it’s impossible, as contact tracing is not perfect. But the lack of any evidence so far is suggestive.
Always interesting to learn more about the virus and that there is a lot of knowledge about handling ventilators. But even so, the numbers from New York say that 80% of people over 80 years do not make it once they are on the ventilator.
Source: https://www.google.dk/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/health/el...
I do hope that more attention will be focused on telling that this virus is both causing respiratory issues and heart issues. The leading comorbidities data from New York says it very clearly.
Source: https://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/220457/c...
Source: https://www.google.dk/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/health/el...
I do hope that more attention will be focused on telling that this virus is both causing respiratory issues and heart issues. The leading comorbidities data from New York says it very clearly.
Source: https://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/220457/c...
Does this mean that it's possible blood thinners could help some patients with covid-19?
Zinc
DiabloD3(4)
Dear reader, it's ok, you can skip the comments here. Just read the article and move on
It's only been an hour, and insightful comments take more time to type out than ignorant speculation. Have some faith that this community isn't just another Reddit.
This applies to most of the stories on HN nowadays
But the virus hadn’t wrecked Dowd’s lungs. In fact, she had only mild pneumonia. Instead, SARS-CoV-2 had ruptured her heart.
A lot of the early part of the article rehashes basics, like how viruses replicate. If you have basic knowledge of that sort, you can kind of skim until the mid point, where we find the above factoid.
I have been reading less about the virus of late, but this fits with everything I know. It causes blood clots. Ventilators aren't really fixing it. The lack of oxygen is probably more about what it does to the blood (than what it does to the lungs).
Later in the article, it talks about impacts on the feet suspected to be a side effect. Feet issues are commonly associated with blood/circulation issues. This is why diabetes can lead to feet being amputated.
The blood issues are well established and this has been known for some time. I'm somewhat aghast to see this article talking like we don't already know that detail.
A lot of the early part of the article rehashes basics, like how viruses replicate. If you have basic knowledge of that sort, you can kind of skim until the mid point, where we find the above factoid.
I have been reading less about the virus of late, but this fits with everything I know. It causes blood clots. Ventilators aren't really fixing it. The lack of oxygen is probably more about what it does to the blood (than what it does to the lungs).
Later in the article, it talks about impacts on the feet suspected to be a side effect. Feet issues are commonly associated with blood/circulation issues. This is why diabetes can lead to feet being amputated.
The blood issues are well established and this has been known for some time. I'm somewhat aghast to see this article talking like we don't already know that detail.
This is the feature article in a special series of articles on combating the virus. As such it's presenting a summary of what we know about it so far, and references a lot of sources, some going back several months. Given that context I think that's exactly what I'd expect it to do.
Not everyone has done as much research as you, and the public perception and debate is still awash with "just a bad flu" disinformation, so its really important a clearer and more accurate picture is put out as widely as possible.
Not everyone has done as much research as you, and the public perception and debate is still awash with "just a bad flu" disinformation, so its really important a clearer and more accurate picture is put out as widely as possible.
Thank you.
The stuff about blood clots began coming out about the time I concluded I probably had it and had been mostly asymptomatic and about that same time I ran into a researcher on HN who said something about the blood that I didn't follow and I asked questions and that went weird places and then they said something else about zinc.
And that led to an epiphany for me and I turned to my son and kind or recounted the exchange with the researcher and then I said "We've been eating a lot of zinc-rich foods. I am going to go get a cheese pizza because cheese has zinc." So I got a pizza and then he felt vastly better.
So the whole blood angle is cemented in my mind like "Clearly, this is a hard fact and everyone knows it." But it's probably just me in my little bubble and that's it.
I'm still aghast. But what you say makes sense.
The stuff about blood clots began coming out about the time I concluded I probably had it and had been mostly asymptomatic and about that same time I ran into a researcher on HN who said something about the blood that I didn't follow and I asked questions and that went weird places and then they said something else about zinc.
And that led to an epiphany for me and I turned to my son and kind or recounted the exchange with the researcher and then I said "We've been eating a lot of zinc-rich foods. I am going to go get a cheese pizza because cheese has zinc." So I got a pizza and then he felt vastly better.
So the whole blood angle is cemented in my mind like "Clearly, this is a hard fact and everyone knows it." But it's probably just me in my little bubble and that's it.
I'm still aghast. But what you say makes sense.
It's worth remembering that just because you have a bubble of belief/knowledge it doesn't automatically make it scientific fact rather than anecdotally coinciding with some science.
For example, yes there is some research suggesting zinc (and related, vitamin D) may be very relevant with covid-19, but there isn't yet definitive understanding among experts yet alone us HN commenters.
Anecdotally: I often feel better after eating a pizza, dating back to before covid-19 existed, and despite my zinc levels being fine. I just really fucking love pizza.
All of us, whether we are trying to read every research paper released or not following anything except newspaper headlines, need to keep reminding ourselves that just as the experts will keep revising their beliefs to fit new findings, we need to keep checking if our own knowledge is correct, or if it might be either outdated and/or based on cognitive biases.
Personally I'm recommending friends/family to make sure that they are getting enough of various vitamins/minerals, while being very clear that my suggestion is a "can't do any harm to have the right levels of whatever" rather than "I'm sure this will help with covid".
For example, yes there is some research suggesting zinc (and related, vitamin D) may be very relevant with covid-19, but there isn't yet definitive understanding among experts yet alone us HN commenters.
Anecdotally: I often feel better after eating a pizza, dating back to before covid-19 existed, and despite my zinc levels being fine. I just really fucking love pizza.
All of us, whether we are trying to read every research paper released or not following anything except newspaper headlines, need to keep reminding ourselves that just as the experts will keep revising their beliefs to fit new findings, we need to keep checking if our own knowledge is correct, or if it might be either outdated and/or based on cognitive biases.
Personally I'm recommending friends/family to make sure that they are getting enough of various vitamins/minerals, while being very clear that my suggestion is a "can't do any harm to have the right levels of whatever" rather than "I'm sure this will help with covid".
It's worth remembering that just because you have a bubble of belief/knowledge it doesn't automatically make it scientific fact rather than anecdotally coinciding with some science.
I'm well aware of that. I'm just trying to say that it made an especially big impression on me because of my personal experience, not that my anecdote makes it scientific fact.
I'm still appalled that they know it causes blood issues and are not connecting the dots between that and the feet issues. The article doesn't explicitly say that feet issues of that sort are consistent with blood issues, though that is an extremely well-established scientific fact.
I paid accident claims for five years. As part of that job, I read medical records all day. I paid for foot amputations and we had to sometimes try to decide "Was this really an accident? Or was this really a complication of diabetes?"
So I'm not just talking out my ass here. I completed a Certified Life and Health Insurance Specialist certificate. I also just do a lot of reading of medical stuff because of my own health issues.
I'm pretty confident the blood issues are very well established at this point and have been for some time.
I'm well aware of that. I'm just trying to say that it made an especially big impression on me because of my personal experience, not that my anecdote makes it scientific fact.
I'm still appalled that they know it causes blood issues and are not connecting the dots between that and the feet issues. The article doesn't explicitly say that feet issues of that sort are consistent with blood issues, though that is an extremely well-established scientific fact.
I paid accident claims for five years. As part of that job, I read medical records all day. I paid for foot amputations and we had to sometimes try to decide "Was this really an accident? Or was this really a complication of diabetes?"
So I'm not just talking out my ass here. I completed a Certified Life and Health Insurance Specialist certificate. I also just do a lot of reading of medical stuff because of my own health issues.
I'm pretty confident the blood issues are very well established at this point and have been for some time.
> I'm still appalled that they know it causes blood issues and are not connecting the dots between that and the feet issues.
I feel like you're jumping to conclusions prematurely. If you as health insurance specialist can connect these dots, you can be sure that researchers did, too. However, having a hunch is only the first step of a thorough scientific investigation, and those take time. Until we have collected and analyzed the evidence, this remains speculation, and scientists shouldn't go off spouting half-researched speculations. That leads to only more fake news. If you look through the Lancet or JAMA, you might find first articles on this connection (if there is one). But until there are peer reviewed papers about this, most researchers know that it's better not to speculate when talking to the press.
Source: am researcher
I feel like you're jumping to conclusions prematurely. If you as health insurance specialist can connect these dots, you can be sure that researchers did, too. However, having a hunch is only the first step of a thorough scientific investigation, and those take time. Until we have collected and analyzed the evidence, this remains speculation, and scientists shouldn't go off spouting half-researched speculations. That leads to only more fake news. If you look through the Lancet or JAMA, you might find first articles on this connection (if there is one). But until there are peer reviewed papers about this, most researchers know that it's better not to speculate when talking to the press.
Source: am researcher
I feel like you're jumping to conclusions prematurely.
I honestly don't think I am. I am currently a freelance writer by trade. I sometimes write health articles. I'm familiar with protocols for how to carefully qualify things to keep them factual and avoid wild speculation and suggest confidence levels for various tidbits while being informative.
I am not super impressed with the quality of the medical information in the piece.
But given that thanking someone for their remark and saying "Oh, that makes sense to me" is getting me so much flak, it's probably best for me to bow out of this discussion at this point.
I honestly don't think I am. I am currently a freelance writer by trade. I sometimes write health articles. I'm familiar with protocols for how to carefully qualify things to keep them factual and avoid wild speculation and suggest confidence levels for various tidbits while being informative.
I am not super impressed with the quality of the medical information in the piece.
But given that thanking someone for their remark and saying "Oh, that makes sense to me" is getting me so much flak, it's probably best for me to bow out of this discussion at this point.
Completely fine to bow out, and if you don't reply to this comment I won't infer that it means you agree I'll assume you're still bowing out.
But if you sometimes write health articles, I feel it worth saying: health articles should be written having understood the proven science and convey it to people in an easy to understand way of what is or isn't proven, not by people who assume their connecting the dots is right before the research shows that.
I haven't read any of your articles, for all I know you're a fantastic writer on those subjects. But your HN comments specifically have not been written in the way that health articles should be, which is why people are giving you flak. And on that subject, sorry that you feel attacked here - it certainly wasn't my intention, nor I think the others', we just aren't in agreement.
But if you sometimes write health articles, I feel it worth saying: health articles should be written having understood the proven science and convey it to people in an easy to understand way of what is or isn't proven, not by people who assume their connecting the dots is right before the research shows that.
I haven't read any of your articles, for all I know you're a fantastic writer on those subjects. But your HN comments specifically have not been written in the way that health articles should be, which is why people are giving you flak. And on that subject, sorry that you feel attacked here - it certainly wasn't my intention, nor I think the others', we just aren't in agreement.
I get your point, but I think Doreen is actually being reasonable here. Even if you just consider children, the link between covid-19 and Kawasaki Syndrome is well-established (https://www.cdc.gov/kawasaki/about.html).
But, it's not like there hasn't been additional coverage on covid-19 as a circulatory disease rather than a respiratory-first one.
https://news.weill.cornell.edu/news/2020/07/what-is-known-ab... and https://health.clevelandclinic.org/should-you-be-worried-abo... and https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/autopsies-indicat... for consumer-oriented overviews.
A recent covid-19 study here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32291094/
And this from a post-SARS study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6178621/
There's plenty of primary and secondary research out there. The problem, I think, is that mainstream media headlines have been -- and continue to -- present covid-19 as a respiratory virus.
Perhaps like Doreen, my family have been tracking the circulatory effects more closely than most, given we have a toddler with a heart condition and family with diabetes.
But, it's not like there hasn't been additional coverage on covid-19 as a circulatory disease rather than a respiratory-first one.
https://news.weill.cornell.edu/news/2020/07/what-is-known-ab... and https://health.clevelandclinic.org/should-you-be-worried-abo... and https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/autopsies-indicat... for consumer-oriented overviews.
A recent covid-19 study here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32291094/
And this from a post-SARS study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6178621/
There's plenty of primary and secondary research out there. The problem, I think, is that mainstream media headlines have been -- and continue to -- present covid-19 as a respiratory virus.
Perhaps like Doreen, my family have been tracking the circulatory effects more closely than most, given we have a toddler with a heart condition and family with diabetes.
I feel you are missing the point of my comments. I wasn't arguing anything about the disease itself, only about how to approach understanding and talking about it.
Additionally... the article submitted that we're all commenting in response to specifically makes the case that this virus is affecting more than the respiratory system.
I don't disagree with anything in your comment, but I also don't see how any of your comment disagrees with anything I said or with the original article.
Additionally... the article submitted that we're all commenting in response to specifically makes the case that this virus is affecting more than the respiratory system.
I don't disagree with anything in your comment, but I also don't see how any of your comment disagrees with anything I said or with the original article.
I'm not disputing your claims.
Not because I specifically agree (or disagree) with them. Personally, I also consider myself in a pretty good position to judge this stuff, however I decided a while back that even when I think I'm sure I'm not going to tell it as a fact, especially online where other readers can't easily tell if corin_ or doreenmichele are making great points or deluded idiots. (A quick edit here: I didn't mean that to imply one or both of us are deluded or idiots. Just that neither of us are coming into this thread with "here are my qualifications and/or research to make me more than a random commenter".)
My reply wasn't that you were wrong in your beliefs, however this part in particular:
"And that led to an epiphany for me [...] So I got a pizza and then he felt vastly better. So the whole blood angle is cemented in my mind like "Clearly, this is a hard fact and..."
My point is that even if you are 100% correct about the blood issues and zinc, you have literally described a one day process of epiphany to pizza to fact proven. Whether you're right or wrong overall, that's not how people should be forming opinions on fighting covid.
Not because I specifically agree (or disagree) with them. Personally, I also consider myself in a pretty good position to judge this stuff, however I decided a while back that even when I think I'm sure I'm not going to tell it as a fact, especially online where other readers can't easily tell if corin_ or doreenmichele are making great points or deluded idiots. (A quick edit here: I didn't mean that to imply one or both of us are deluded or idiots. Just that neither of us are coming into this thread with "here are my qualifications and/or research to make me more than a random commenter".)
My reply wasn't that you were wrong in your beliefs, however this part in particular:
"And that led to an epiphany for me [...] So I got a pizza and then he felt vastly better. So the whole blood angle is cemented in my mind like "Clearly, this is a hard fact and..."
My point is that even if you are 100% correct about the blood issues and zinc, you have literally described a one day process of epiphany to pizza to fact proven. Whether you're right or wrong overall, that's not how people should be forming opinions on fighting covid.
My point is that even if you are 100% correct about the blood issues and zinc, you have literally described a one day process of epiphany to pizza to fact proven. Whether you're right or wrong overall, that's not how people should be forming opinions on fighting covid.
You are wildly misreading my comment.
A professional researcher stated their opinion that there was something blood related -- that I didn't understand so I asked for clarification -- and then said something about zinc. I then went over our consumption habits, realized that we were eating a lot of zinc-rich foods we don't normally eat in large quantities and felt it was worth betting on "It's the zinc, like the researcher said." And that bet paid off for us -- though me and my oldest son both have a genetic disorder, so I'm absolutely not inclined to generalize from that.
So I'm not recommending anything about how to fight covid. It's a personal anecdote about how this got cemented in my mind so clearly. That's it. Nothing more.
You are wildly misreading my comment.
A professional researcher stated their opinion that there was something blood related -- that I didn't understand so I asked for clarification -- and then said something about zinc. I then went over our consumption habits, realized that we were eating a lot of zinc-rich foods we don't normally eat in large quantities and felt it was worth betting on "It's the zinc, like the researcher said." And that bet paid off for us -- though me and my oldest son both have a genetic disorder, so I'm absolutely not inclined to generalize from that.
So I'm not recommending anything about how to fight covid. It's a personal anecdote about how this got cemented in my mind so clearly. That's it. Nothing more.
Apologies for misreading your comment, but you did describe a pizza cementing your view.
We all have cognitive biases, including the most intelligent, accomplished people anywhere.
Plenty of research shows that the placebo effect is a very real phenomenon (even when we are told we're being given a placebo pill it can still help!)
I wasn't trying to change your mind on anything covid related; just about how we all let anecdotes convince us of pre-existing beliefs.
And even if you personally didn't need that lesson, I still think it needed to be explained for anyone reading your comments considering their implication that a one off pizza event was enough to impact your views (even if that's not how you intended the comment to mean).
Edit to add: of course, the mechanisms behind cognitive biases can be helpful! If a doctor says X will help and then X does help, it's good that our brains automatically process that as being more likely true than if it hadn't worked. But they can be unhelpful, too.
We all have cognitive biases, including the most intelligent, accomplished people anywhere.
Plenty of research shows that the placebo effect is a very real phenomenon (even when we are told we're being given a placebo pill it can still help!)
I wasn't trying to change your mind on anything covid related; just about how we all let anecdotes convince us of pre-existing beliefs.
And even if you personally didn't need that lesson, I still think it needed to be explained for anyone reading your comments considering their implication that a one off pizza event was enough to impact your views (even if that's not how you intended the comment to mean).
Edit to add: of course, the mechanisms behind cognitive biases can be helpful! If a doctor says X will help and then X does help, it's good that our brains automatically process that as being more likely true than if it hadn't worked. But they can be unhelpful, too.
> And that bet paid off for us.
You don't know that, since you don't know that you have Covid-19, nor do you know that your zinc consumption had anything to do with whether or not you had it, or recovery from it.
You don't know that, since you don't know that you have Covid-19, nor do you know that your zinc consumption had anything to do with whether or not you had it, or recovery from it.
I do know that "bet paid off for us."
I know that because it wasn't a one time incident. We continued to consciously and intentionally consume zinc-rich foods at a greater rate than normal and it successfully alleviated symptoms that had us concerned. It did so consistently for some period of time until those symptoms finally resolved. We pay very close attention to our diets because of the medical situation. So I know we were consuming abnormally high levels of zinc for some weeks.
Your framing seems to suggest you think I am saying zinc helped "cure" us of the infection. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it helped mitigate the worst of our symptoms, which is a completely different claim.
You are correct that I don't know for absolute certain that we had Covid-19 because that was never verified by testing. I've already made that clear and also made it clear that I'm not suggesting treatment to anyone else.
I'm aware there are people promoting zinc as a means to cure Covid-19. I'm not remotely suggesting that.
Even if you accept that I'm correct about having it and I'm correct about zinc helping us, the only takeaway here is that zinc may mitigate some symptoms in some populations, especially populations prone to nutrient deficiencies.
If you have any reason to believe you are zinc deficient, zinc is a good thing to take to treat your deficiency. If you aren't deficient, I'm not recommending it for any purpose.
This is a consistent stance of mine and has been for many years: It's a good thing to determine if you have deficiencies and redress those deficiencies. Otherwise, I absolutely don't recommend any kind of supplement at all. I think it's a dangerous practice to take supplements if you aren't deficient.
I know that because it wasn't a one time incident. We continued to consciously and intentionally consume zinc-rich foods at a greater rate than normal and it successfully alleviated symptoms that had us concerned. It did so consistently for some period of time until those symptoms finally resolved. We pay very close attention to our diets because of the medical situation. So I know we were consuming abnormally high levels of zinc for some weeks.
Your framing seems to suggest you think I am saying zinc helped "cure" us of the infection. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it helped mitigate the worst of our symptoms, which is a completely different claim.
You are correct that I don't know for absolute certain that we had Covid-19 because that was never verified by testing. I've already made that clear and also made it clear that I'm not suggesting treatment to anyone else.
I'm aware there are people promoting zinc as a means to cure Covid-19. I'm not remotely suggesting that.
Even if you accept that I'm correct about having it and I'm correct about zinc helping us, the only takeaway here is that zinc may mitigate some symptoms in some populations, especially populations prone to nutrient deficiencies.
If you have any reason to believe you are zinc deficient, zinc is a good thing to take to treat your deficiency. If you aren't deficient, I'm not recommending it for any purpose.
This is a consistent stance of mine and has been for many years: It's a good thing to determine if you have deficiencies and redress those deficiencies. Otherwise, I absolutely don't recommend any kind of supplement at all. I think it's a dangerous practice to take supplements if you aren't deficient.
> successfully alleviated symptoms
Again, you don't know that. You can't establish causation, particularly when N=2, and even more so when you do not know whether or not you had Covid-19.
Yes, I understand you fully acknowledge you may not have had it, but that acknowledgement contradicts that claim that zinc consumption alleviated its effects. What you can say is that you may have had Covid-19, and increased zinc consumption may have helped.
Again, you don't know that. You can't establish causation, particularly when N=2, and even more so when you do not know whether or not you had Covid-19.
Yes, I understand you fully acknowledge you may not have had it, but that acknowledgement contradicts that claim that zinc consumption alleviated its effects. What you can say is that you may have had Covid-19, and increased zinc consumption may have helped.
Look, I don't know what the disconnect is here.
I have a genetic disorder. My son has a genetic disorder. We use diet to mitigate health issues regularly.
I do know for an absolute fact what I have stated as clearly as I can figure out how to state: that increased zinc consumption mitigated the unusual problems we were having that aren't typical for us and which we firmly believe were due to Covid-19.
I have stated clearly that we were never tested, so, no, I can't prove we had it. I can still believe we had it and I don't think it should be anywhere near this much drama to say I believe we had it when I've stated clearly that this is a belief unverified by testing, so I certainly cannot prove it.
I have stated clearly -- and repeatedly -- that my anecdote isn't a recommendation for treatment.
I think it did mitigate symptoms from Covid-19. I admit I can't prove it was Covid-19. I've stated that repeatedly.
And whatever was wrong with us, zinc helped.
You are entirely free to think it's worthless data because we were never tested. I've done everything in my power to distinguish as clearly as I can my opinion from verifiable fact. I am telling you "zinc helped" is in the category of fact in my mind and what it helped with was "probably Covid-19" is my opinion.
I'm planning to walk away at this point. It never ceases to amaze me how much other people have some big problem with me having opinions about my own health status like me thinking about my own health is some kind of serious crime on the order of impersonating a surgeon.
I have a genetic disorder. My son has a genetic disorder. We use diet to mitigate health issues regularly.
I do know for an absolute fact what I have stated as clearly as I can figure out how to state: that increased zinc consumption mitigated the unusual problems we were having that aren't typical for us and which we firmly believe were due to Covid-19.
I have stated clearly that we were never tested, so, no, I can't prove we had it. I can still believe we had it and I don't think it should be anywhere near this much drama to say I believe we had it when I've stated clearly that this is a belief unverified by testing, so I certainly cannot prove it.
I have stated clearly -- and repeatedly -- that my anecdote isn't a recommendation for treatment.
I think it did mitigate symptoms from Covid-19. I admit I can't prove it was Covid-19. I've stated that repeatedly.
And whatever was wrong with us, zinc helped.
You are entirely free to think it's worthless data because we were never tested. I've done everything in my power to distinguish as clearly as I can my opinion from verifiable fact. I am telling you "zinc helped" is in the category of fact in my mind and what it helped with was "probably Covid-19" is my opinion.
I'm planning to walk away at this point. It never ceases to amaze me how much other people have some big problem with me having opinions about my own health status like me thinking about my own health is some kind of serious crime on the order of impersonating a surgeon.
The disconnect is that we disagree on how to establish causation. I follow what I believe to be the generally accepted standard that when dealing with only two people, it’s not valid to assume that medical intervention x, later followed by health status y is not enough to establish that x causes y. It appears you do think that’s a valid way to establish causation, hence we disagree.
The article clearly establishes that the medical research community is aware of the potential link between blood and feet issues. From the article:
Recently, there’s been speculation that some of COVID-19’s seemingly disparate symptoms may stem from trouble in the blood. Blood clots, for example, are showing up in cases of COVID-19 frequently enough for clinicians to take notice. “There’s something unique about the coagulation system in these patients,” says nephrologist Kathleen Liu, MD ’99, PhD ’97, MAS ’07, a UCSF professor of medicine. In caring for COVID-19 patients on dialysis machines, she’s been surprised to see blood clots block dialysis tubes more than usual. Clotted tubes are common, she says, “but this is extreme.”
That may be because, as growing evidence suggests, SARS-CoV-2 can infect cells in the walls of blood vessels that help regulate blood flow and coagulation, or clotting. If true, this behavior could explain some of the virus’s weirder (and rarer) manifestations, such as heart attacks, strokes, and even “COVID toes.”
Recently, there’s been speculation that some of COVID-19’s seemingly disparate symptoms may stem from trouble in the blood. Blood clots, for example, are showing up in cases of COVID-19 frequently enough for clinicians to take notice. “There’s something unique about the coagulation system in these patients,” says nephrologist Kathleen Liu, MD ’99, PhD ’97, MAS ’07, a UCSF professor of medicine. In caring for COVID-19 patients on dialysis machines, she’s been surprised to see blood clots block dialysis tubes more than usual. Clotted tubes are common, she says, “but this is extreme.”
That may be because, as growing evidence suggests, SARS-CoV-2 can infect cells in the walls of blood vessels that help regulate blood flow and coagulation, or clotting. If true, this behavior could explain some of the virus’s weirder (and rarer) manifestations, such as heart attacks, strokes, and even “COVID toes.”
Thank you. I missed that, obviously.
>I paid accident claims for five years. As part of that job, I read medical records all day. I paid for foot amputations and we had to sometimes try to decide "Was this really an accident? Or was this really a complication of diabetes?"
How long has it been since you last worked in insurance?
How long has it been since you last worked in insurance?
I am having difficulty following this. Your son felt vastly better after consuming zinc/cheese. What was wrong with your son?
That's not something I care to discuss further on HN. You can email me.
Fair enough - I won't email to follow up. It's a personal question and that didn't occur to me when I wrote my previous comment.
[deleted]
>I'm somewhat aghast to see this article talking like we don't already know that detail.
It's an article, not a news story or a scientific paper. So it's neither about breaking news nor innovative research results.
So, they don't presume what the public knows at any substantial level (heck, many still don't know/believe the virus is not real).
I, on the other hand, am more aghast for the use of the word aghast for such a trivial matter :-)
It's an article, not a news story or a scientific paper. So it's neither about breaking news nor innovative research results.
So, they don't presume what the public knows at any substantial level (heck, many still don't know/believe the virus is not real).
I, on the other hand, am more aghast for the use of the word aghast for such a trivial matter :-)
[deleted]
> If you have basic knowledge of that sort, you can kind of skim until the mid point, where we find the above factoid.
Well maybe you skimmed a little too much, because the article clearly talks about the negative effects of an overactive immune system response being characteristic in some patients, and there was plenty of evidence of that in some people's wrecked lungs. Part of the therapy is to guide and even suppress the complex immune system response to keep people's bodies from destroying themselves.
Your comment didn't mention any of that and might be read by some as a "move along, nothing to see here." I think this is definitely not the case and people would be better served to read the article itself instead of your comment dismissing it and instructing them to skip over the section about immune system response.
Well maybe you skimmed a little too much, because the article clearly talks about the negative effects of an overactive immune system response being characteristic in some patients, and there was plenty of evidence of that in some people's wrecked lungs. Part of the therapy is to guide and even suppress the complex immune system response to keep people's bodies from destroying themselves.
Your comment didn't mention any of that and might be read by some as a "move along, nothing to see here." I think this is definitely not the case and people would be better served to read the article itself instead of your comment dismissing it and instructing them to skip over the section about immune system response.
I wasn't instructing anyone to do any such thing. Another way to frame my point: If the start of the article bores you to tears, hang in there. It gets meatier.
I can only go by what you wrote.
> If you have basic knowledge of that sort, you can kind of skim until the mid point, where we find the above factoid.
I replied to your comment because I read the article first and actually did learn this bit about the immune system response which is in the first half. If I had read your comment first I would likely would have skimmed the article (or even skipped it altogether) and missed it. In that situation your comment would have directed me away from learning something new. I'll continue to try to read articles before comments in the future.
> If you have basic knowledge of that sort, you can kind of skim until the mid point, where we find the above factoid.
I replied to your comment because I read the article first and actually did learn this bit about the immune system response which is in the first half. If I had read your comment first I would likely would have skimmed the article (or even skipped it altogether) and missed it. In that situation your comment would have directed me away from learning something new. I'll continue to try to read articles before comments in the future.
Nasim Taleb had a good point on the most recent EconTalk [0] about covid: We kinda know what the morality rate is, but we have no idea what the morbidity of covid looks like.
All the co-morbidities are essentially unknown and are likely to stay that way for a while. These side effects take time to suss out; more than the nine months we've had with covid.
With the unknown and potentially unbounded risks we are staring at, Taleb says that over-reaction is the best strategy. He and Russ Roberts go on to talk about the basic issues with statistics in these cases, a good trip back to the first week of any stats course that everyone promptly ignores.
[0] https://www.econtalk.org/nassim-nicholas-taleb-on-the-pandem...
All the co-morbidities are essentially unknown and are likely to stay that way for a while. These side effects take time to suss out; more than the nine months we've had with covid.
With the unknown and potentially unbounded risks we are staring at, Taleb says that over-reaction is the best strategy. He and Russ Roberts go on to talk about the basic issues with statistics in these cases, a good trip back to the first week of any stats course that everyone promptly ignores.
[0] https://www.econtalk.org/nassim-nicholas-taleb-on-the-pandem...
Balgair says: >"We kinda know what the morality rate is, but ..."<
"Morality rate", hmmm...I like it, but maybe for another article!8-))
"Morality rate", hmmm...I like it, but maybe for another article!8-))
Mainstream (and that includes many politicians) still think of it as respiratory. All the other effects are not yet mainstream knowledge.
Coronaviruses in cats primarily attack the blood.
Has been speculated on since as early as March (that I've seen) with more evidence in support since then that this strain of human coronavirus is behaving like that.
Explains the majority of symptoms. Low pulse ox, feet, brain, lung, kidney, etc etc.
Has been speculated on since as early as March (that I've seen) with more evidence in support since then that this strain of human coronavirus is behaving like that.
Explains the majority of symptoms. Low pulse ox, feet, brain, lung, kidney, etc etc.
> Ventilators aren't really fixing it. The lack of oxygen is probably more about what it does to the blood (than what it does to the lungs).
That's not right. It causes cytokine storms just like any other major repiratory virus. Ventilators do help, lots of people survive on them. They are a critically important piece of the treatment puzzle.
I don't think statements like that are very helpful. It's on the spectrum toward conspiracy nonsense.
> I'm somewhat aghast to see this article talking like we don't already know that detail.
It's not a scientific study, it's a review piece for general readers.
That's not right. It causes cytokine storms just like any other major repiratory virus. Ventilators do help, lots of people survive on them. They are a critically important piece of the treatment puzzle.
I don't think statements like that are very helpful. It's on the spectrum toward conspiracy nonsense.
> I'm somewhat aghast to see this article talking like we don't already know that detail.
It's not a scientific study, it's a review piece for general readers.
Yes, COVID-19 is a bad one but it’s just another virus at the end of the day. I feel they act as we rediscovering everything about viruses for sensationalism.
Yes, but downplaying the fact that it’s new and that there’s a lot of unknown unknowns about it and its effects mid/long term is dangerous. Not all viruses are the same, and it takes time to observe and study them.
This is IMO the other important reason why it’s important to stop the spread, besides overloading hospitals.
This is IMO the other important reason why it’s important to stop the spread, besides overloading hospitals.
Another way to look at it is that many people who were previously ignorant regarding most things we know about viruses are learning quickly and because they are novel to them, they find them sensationable.
Blood clots might be caused by a change in angiogenesis that appears to be correlated with COVID-19. I found this autopsy analysis by an MD to be very enlightening:
https://youtu.be/1HTionnTT9I
https://youtu.be/1HTionnTT9I
I'd previously read that COVID-19 might be a cardiovascular disease, which would account for the blood clots and heart stuff.
From the OC:
Marcus plans to also start collecting data from wearable devices, including Fitbits and Zio patches, which wirelessly monitor heart rhythms. “There may be large numbers of people who are suffering from cardiovascular effects of COVID-19 in the absence of other symptoms,” Marcus says. “I’m worried we’re missing those cases.”
I have no idea what it means to regard COVID-19 in cardiovascular vs respiratory terms. I'm just repeating what I think I've read. I really don't understand this stuff.
From the OC:
Marcus plans to also start collecting data from wearable devices, including Fitbits and Zio patches, which wirelessly monitor heart rhythms. “There may be large numbers of people who are suffering from cardiovascular effects of COVID-19 in the absence of other symptoms,” Marcus says. “I’m worried we’re missing those cases.”
I have no idea what it means to regard COVID-19 in cardiovascular vs respiratory terms. I'm just repeating what I think I've read. I really don't understand this stuff.
If I get Covid19, my plan is to take aspirin wile at home. If I need to go the Emergency Room, then I'll leave it to the doctors to decide what I should get, but before I need urgent care, I'll use aspirin.
Any scientific backing for this?
The Cleveland Clinic recommends against it:
https://www.cleveland.com/coronavirus/2020/05/taking-daily-a...
https://www.cleveland.com/coronavirus/2020/05/taking-daily-a...
That link specifically states don't take it every day as a preventative measure in case you might end up getting Covid-19, not don't take it when you know you have it, like the grandparent said they were going to do.
It says don't do it because there are risks of gastrointestinal and brain bleeding, which would be a bad thing to risk if you don't currently have an illness.
It even links to the following article from the Mayo Clinic, which goes over the pros and cons of taking aspirin daily to prevent blood clots and heart attacks, and has recommendations for classes of people that they recommend should take aspirin every day. so I'd think if you have an active illness known to cause blood clots, it's probably worth risking the bleeding risks from the other.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heart-disease...
From the article: "Guidelines are varied between organizations, but they're evolving as more research is done. The benefits of daily aspirin therapy don't outweigh the risk of bleeding in people with a low risk of heart attacks. The higher your risk of heart attack, the more likely it is that the benefits of daily aspirin outweigh the risk of bleeding."
Anecdote is not data, but for awhile in my 20s I used to take aspirin pretty much every day just because I had constant issues with headaches. I think I did get an ulcer during that time, but it healed in time, once I stopped taking aspirin so often. Better than dying of a blood clot from a virus that still doesn't have a solid treatment, especially if you have to stay home and self-treat it.
It says don't do it because there are risks of gastrointestinal and brain bleeding, which would be a bad thing to risk if you don't currently have an illness.
It even links to the following article from the Mayo Clinic, which goes over the pros and cons of taking aspirin daily to prevent blood clots and heart attacks, and has recommendations for classes of people that they recommend should take aspirin every day. so I'd think if you have an active illness known to cause blood clots, it's probably worth risking the bleeding risks from the other.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heart-disease...
From the article: "Guidelines are varied between organizations, but they're evolving as more research is done. The benefits of daily aspirin therapy don't outweigh the risk of bleeding in people with a low risk of heart attacks. The higher your risk of heart attack, the more likely it is that the benefits of daily aspirin outweigh the risk of bleeding."
Anecdote is not data, but for awhile in my 20s I used to take aspirin pretty much every day just because I had constant issues with headaches. I think I did get an ulcer during that time, but it healed in time, once I stopped taking aspirin so often. Better than dying of a blood clot from a virus that still doesn't have a solid treatment, especially if you have to stay home and self-treat it.
They have no choice but to say that. Just like in criminal justice one is assumed innocent until proven guilty (beyond any reasonable doubt), in the medical field a drug is assumed harmful until proven beneficial (beyond a certain p-value). As long as the proof of the benefit is not out there (and peer-reviewed), a medical professional needs to give more weight to the known risks vs the unproven potential benefits. They might lose their license if they do otherwise.
But while they may need to think about their license, I need to think about my survival. And here I'm talking about my own survival. I'm not advising anyone else to do the same. I'm not a doctor, and even if I claimed I were one, nobody should just take a random guy's advice over the internet.
That said, my thought process is this: it is aspirin we are talking about, not cyanide. I have taken aspirin many times in my life, including several times recently. The benefit is not proven because doing medical trials is expensive. But the benefit is plausible enough that someone started just such a trial [1]. Separately, the benefits of other blood thinners are considered so great that they are part of the standard of care for Covid19 patients in some hospitals, such as MassGeneral [2]. So, my own assessment of that taking aspirin has for me a higher potential benefit than the potential risk.
But again, this is just for me, not offering advice to other people.
[1] https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04365309
[2] https://www.massgeneral.org/assets/MGH/pdf/news/coronavirus/...
But while they may need to think about their license, I need to think about my survival. And here I'm talking about my own survival. I'm not advising anyone else to do the same. I'm not a doctor, and even if I claimed I were one, nobody should just take a random guy's advice over the internet.
That said, my thought process is this: it is aspirin we are talking about, not cyanide. I have taken aspirin many times in my life, including several times recently. The benefit is not proven because doing medical trials is expensive. But the benefit is plausible enough that someone started just such a trial [1]. Separately, the benefits of other blood thinners are considered so great that they are part of the standard of care for Covid19 patients in some hospitals, such as MassGeneral [2]. So, my own assessment of that taking aspirin has for me a higher potential benefit than the potential risk.
But again, this is just for me, not offering advice to other people.
[1] https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04365309
[2] https://www.massgeneral.org/assets/MGH/pdf/news/coronavirus/...
How is your argument different from the people claiming that Chinese medicine cures covid-19? We don't have any proof that it doesn't, but 96% of covid-19 patients in Wuhan received it and they were cured! Yay!
I don't know much about Chinese medicine or about the claim that it may cure Covid19, so I can't comment on this.
If you are alluding however that I'm committing the base rate fallacy, then I'm not. My argument is not statistical in nature.
My argument is this: I know more about my body than the FDA. The FDA makes decisions that affects hundreds of millions of people and cannot know how each will respond to a drug (like aspirin). I however know how my body responds to aspirin because I have taken it and I know I tolerate it well.
So, although both the FDA and I are making a risk-reward analysis, my problem is much more narrow and I have a lot more information about it. I do not need to employ double-blind clinical trials or know anything about t-statistics and p-values.
If I were to start recommending aspirin to HN readers, then I'd start becoming a bit like the FDA, and I would need to resort to statistical arguments. But I'm not recommending aspirin to anyone. I'm just showing people the way I'm carrying my personal risk-reward analysis. This could be useful.
If you are alluding however that I'm committing the base rate fallacy, then I'm not. My argument is not statistical in nature.
My argument is this: I know more about my body than the FDA. The FDA makes decisions that affects hundreds of millions of people and cannot know how each will respond to a drug (like aspirin). I however know how my body responds to aspirin because I have taken it and I know I tolerate it well.
So, although both the FDA and I are making a risk-reward analysis, my problem is much more narrow and I have a lot more information about it. I do not need to employ double-blind clinical trials or know anything about t-statistics and p-values.
If I were to start recommending aspirin to HN readers, then I'd start becoming a bit like the FDA, and I would need to resort to statistical arguments. But I'm not recommending aspirin to anyone. I'm just showing people the way I'm carrying my personal risk-reward analysis. This could be useful.
I apologize for not finding a way to frame that more neutrally. I did not reply to your comment because I think you are free to do as you see fit for yourself. Me providing the link to someone else was not intended to be some passive-aggressive dismissal of your choice.
The Cleveland Clinic is a fairly big name, respected clinic. I think of it as a reliable source. I was just trying to sum up a lengthy piece briefly, which is always fraught with potential problems.
I do a lot of making my own health decisions of that sort. I'm routinely attacked for saying anything at all about my thinking about my own health. I wish it were easier to have meaningful discourse of that sort in a responsible fashion without people acting like "You are evil incarnate and practicing medicine without a license for leaving comments on the internet." I have no idea how we get there from here.
The Cleveland Clinic is a fairly big name, respected clinic. I think of it as a reliable source. I was just trying to sum up a lengthy piece briefly, which is always fraught with potential problems.
I do a lot of making my own health decisions of that sort. I'm routinely attacked for saying anything at all about my thinking about my own health. I wish it were easier to have meaningful discourse of that sort in a responsible fashion without people acting like "You are evil incarnate and practicing medicine without a license for leaving comments on the internet." I have no idea how we get there from here.
I agree with your reasoning. Also the link the parent provided was referring to taking it as a preventative measure, before you know you have Covid-19, not once you know you have it.
It's plausible but hasn't been adequately tested to say one way or the other.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40265-020-01365-1
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40265-020-01365-1
Influenza does this stuff too, and we happily refer to influenza as a respiratory virus.
Yup. For example, there's a well-established effect where influenza causes heart attacks and strokes, big enough that the severity of the influenza season has a noticable effect on heart attack deaths. This is, naturally, taken into account when calculating the number of influenza deaths. The differencce is that instead of this being spun as proof that influenza is more deadly than people think, since Covid the press has been spinning it as proof it's leas deadly and that the official flu stats are overstating the number of deaths. For instance, this article - which was quite popular on HN - outright claimed that widespread flu deaths didn't exist because doctors didn't see people dying because of the flu and the CDC was misleading the public by claiming otherwise: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/comparing-...
But on an apples to apples comparison, aren’t there very few flu deaths confirmed by testing?
And what you cite can’t be proof that the flu is more deadly than people think. If what you say is true, those deaths are in the numbers used for the death rate of the flu.
The point of that article is that perhaps our algorithms for estimating flu deaths are wrong.
Edit: Can someone explain the downvotes? Any error in my reasoning is not obvious to me. The claim above was that:
1. Heart attacks are included in flu death estimations
2. This should make the public think the flu is more deadly than they believe
That seems contradictory, as the public’s belief about the deadliness of the flu comes in stats from point #1. As for the article, the author made no real attempt to rebut its central claim.
And what you cite can’t be proof that the flu is more deadly than people think. If what you say is true, those deaths are in the numbers used for the death rate of the flu.
The point of that article is that perhaps our algorithms for estimating flu deaths are wrong.
Edit: Can someone explain the downvotes? Any error in my reasoning is not obvious to me. The claim above was that:
1. Heart attacks are included in flu death estimations
2. This should make the public think the flu is more deadly than they believe
That seems contradictory, as the public’s belief about the deadliness of the flu comes in stats from point #1. As for the article, the author made no real attempt to rebut its central claim.
> aren’t there very few flu deaths confirmed by testing?
Is this true? An anecdote, but both times I and/or my partner had fever and flu-like symptoms, a flu test was the first thing performed by the doctor.
Is this true? An anecdote, but both times I and/or my partner had fever and flu-like symptoms, a flu test was the first thing performed by the doctor.
Yup! Only about 20% of flu deaths are confirmed by test. The rest are estimated by an algorithm (which the OP alluded to)
Sorry for AMP link, canonical url is paywalled: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business...
The CDC explains its methodology here. There are valid reasons to assume influenza deaths are higher than confirmed tested deaths. But many of these apply to coronavirus as well: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/how-cdc-estimates.htm
Sorry for AMP link, canonical url is paywalled: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business...
The CDC explains its methodology here. There are valid reasons to assume influenza deaths are higher than confirmed tested deaths. But many of these apply to coronavirus as well: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/how-cdc-estimates.htm
Direct quote from the article:
"Clinicians, too, were seeing surprising numbers of COVID-19 patients develop heart problems – muscle weakness, inflammation, arrhythmias, even heart attacks. “We’re not used to respiratory viruses having such dire consequences on the heart in such apparently high numbers,” says cardiologist Gregory Marcus, MD. Many patients whose hearts acted up also had failing lungs. But others had no other symptoms or, like Dowd, only mild ones."
"Clinicians, too, were seeing surprising numbers of COVID-19 patients develop heart problems – muscle weakness, inflammation, arrhythmias, even heart attacks. “We’re not used to respiratory viruses having such dire consequences on the heart in such apparently high numbers,” says cardiologist Gregory Marcus, MD. Many patients whose hearts acted up also had failing lungs. But others had no other symptoms or, like Dowd, only mild ones."
Project FEAR has crossed the Atlantic.
[citation needed]
Maybe i can dig out the MRI scans of my heart, so you can see the scar tissue that an influenza infection left.
Friendly reminder that even if flu was the direct cause of you having scar tissue on the heart, it's a single data point rather than a great citation.
edit: good citation provided by twic below
edit: good citation provided by twic below
First paper that came to hand:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3533457/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3533457/
Excellent source, thanks!
I wasn't the one who asked for citation, and didn't mean to imply that you were wrong at all in my comment just that one patient's example isn't a good way of proving something about a disease.
I've edited out the quick CDC quote of my last comment since your citation is much better.
I wasn't the one who asked for citation, and didn't mean to imply that you were wrong at all in my comment just that one patient's example isn't a good way of proving something about a disease.
I've edited out the quick CDC quote of my last comment since your citation is much better.
> If we did a mass testing campaign on 300 million Americans right now, I think the rate of asymptomatic infection would be somewhere between 50% and 80% of cases
Wow that’s incredible. 200 million Americans could have the virus.
Wow that’s incredible. 200 million Americans could have the virus.
They mean 50-80% of cases, not 50-80% of Americans.
No. 50-80% of cases are asymptomatic, not 50-80% of the nation is infected asymptomatically.
Interesting explanation for why children rarely get sick or transmit this disease:
> Fattahi’s team has found evidence suggesting that male sex hormones such as testosterone may increase the number of ACE2 receptors that cells produce, which could help explain why SARS-CoV-2 seems to wreak greater havoc on men than on women and why kids rarely get sick.
> Fattahi’s team has found evidence suggesting that male sex hormones such as testosterone may increase the number of ACE2 receptors that cells produce, which could help explain why SARS-CoV-2 seems to wreak greater havoc on men than on women and why kids rarely get sick.
This is only true for Children under 10. Children over 10 transmit contract and transmit at similar rates. Considering 11 is when puberty kicks in for many kids, this appears to support Fattahi's findings.
(https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/health/coronavirus-childr...)
(https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/18/health/coronavirus-childr...)
That article puts people in 10 year bins, so it is not useful to determine what the cutoff age should be with more granularity than 10 years of age.
However, Sweden did not close school for children through 14 years of age.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/how-sweden-wasted-ra...
And their excess mortality rates for that age group are indistinguishable from other European countries:
https://euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps
When you go to that link, near the bottom select graphs by age and see that Sweden ages 0-14 looks like all the other countries shown there. I think that is a pretty good indication. We have a country that kept their schools open and a number of countries that did not, and the results look the same.
EDIT: in fact, the excess mortality for that age group looks indistinguishable from other years.
However, Sweden did not close school for children through 14 years of age.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/how-sweden-wasted-ra...
And their excess mortality rates for that age group are indistinguishable from other European countries:
https://euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps
When you go to that link, near the bottom select graphs by age and see that Sweden ages 0-14 looks like all the other countries shown there. I think that is a pretty good indication. We have a country that kept their schools open and a number of countries that did not, and the results look the same.
EDIT: in fact, the excess mortality for that age group looks indistinguishable from other years.
If a lot of the damage is often caused by an overreacting immune system, why isn't this disease harder on younger people who presumably have stronger immune systems? Kind of like the Spanish flu?
This doesn't add up for me and this article doesn't dwell on that either.
There is still no proof for this but some scientists suggest people over 80 years old came in contact with a similar virus when they were young and now their immune system is overreacting (like when the second sting of a wasp can be much worst that the first).
In the Netherlands they found out by coincidence that some people who have a broken TLR7 gene don't fight the virus so the virus hits them very hard.
So there may be multiple reasons.
In the Netherlands they found out by coincidence that some people who have a broken TLR7 gene don't fight the virus so the virus hits them very hard.
So there may be multiple reasons.
The issue with young people and the Spanish flu wasn’t “they have stronger immune systems so they cytokine storm harder and die in greater rates”, it was that there was an earlier endemic flu like 40 years before and basically everyone over like ~40 had been exposed to it and they had immunity, and anyone under that age had not been exposed so they lacked immunity.
I've seen the idea of cross-reactivity and T-cell immunity being passed around.
I think the idea is that younger, healthier people with better immune systems are able to prevent the virus from replicating as much, whereas sluggish immune systems and bodies that are highly inflamed like overweight ppl, diabetics, etc. (high leptin, also related to il-6) get overwhelmed.
T-cell immunity/cross-reactivity meaning that most people have the ability to fight the virus from exposure to other coronaviruses.
I think a major component of the death toll from the pandemic is basically a consequence of obesity. I'm suspicious that govt interventions, planning, etc make that much difference when the US is an order of magnitude more obese than Japan, for example.
I think the idea is that younger, healthier people with better immune systems are able to prevent the virus from replicating as much, whereas sluggish immune systems and bodies that are highly inflamed like overweight ppl, diabetics, etc. (high leptin, also related to il-6) get overwhelmed.
T-cell immunity/cross-reactivity meaning that most people have the ability to fight the virus from exposure to other coronaviruses.
I think a major component of the death toll from the pandemic is basically a consequence of obesity. I'm suspicious that govt interventions, planning, etc make that much difference when the US is an order of magnitude more obese than Japan, for example.
That hasn't really been seen in the data though. Yes, obesity has been linked to more severe cases, but some of the hardest hit, highest mortality rate areas, like NYC and Italy, are markedly lower in their rates of obesity that other areas with lower mortality rates.
[deleted]
The article based on studies by UCSF is a good read for many who are not understanding the basics of what is happening. I would suggest giving this out to friends and family who have concocted their own version of science and are refusing to wear a mask.
This is potentially concerning, but it's worth playing devil's advocate. What are the confounders? Most people have been more sedentary than usual this year. What impact does that have on circulation?
I will get beat up for bringing this up, but I think that these facilities are operating in bubbles / silos. The reason I believe this, is that for months everything discussed in the article has also been discussed by an ER doctor in Riverside, CA that makes Youtube videos in his down time. [1] He is just reading the research available on nih.gov and a few other sites. What would it take to get all of the medical research groups to start collaborating on a common platform? Is the issue that they do not have a platform to share findings, theories, tests, or is everyone depending on the scientific review process and waiting for peer reviewed papers? Should we set up a forum for all the medical groups to share findings, theories, debate theories, etc?
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/user/MEDCRAMvideos/videos
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/user/MEDCRAMvideos/videos
The article is a summary of research findings over the course of the pandemic. What makes you think the research is happening in a silo? it's not. Medical researchers, just like, uh, that guy you saw on YouTube, are quite capable of reading the research on nih.gov and capable of discussing and sharing findings with each other.
The article even says "By June, clinicians were swapping journal papers, news stories, and tweets describing more than three dozen ways that COVID-19, the disease the coronavirus causes, appears to manifest itself."
The article even says "By June, clinicians were swapping journal papers, news stories, and tweets describing more than three dozen ways that COVID-19, the disease the coronavirus causes, appears to manifest itself."
I see each group reaching the same or similar conclusions, but months apart. This suggest to me they are not collaborating with one another. It feels to me like there is a gap.
Think of it this way. If there were a giant asteroid heading towards earth and we have a limited time to solve this problem, would I want 500 teams all operating by themselves and using the incredibly slow process of sharing data via NIH / NIST and other research paper repositories, or would I want them all in a war room (virtual or physical) and someone coordinating the effort to risk rank all the solutions and quickly form action plans? My vote is the latter. It feels like the scientific community may have artificially painted themselves into a corner because of something like the banana ladder conundrum. [1] meaning, doing it that way because that is the way it has always been done.
[1] - https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/33470/what-tech...
Think of it this way. If there were a giant asteroid heading towards earth and we have a limited time to solve this problem, would I want 500 teams all operating by themselves and using the incredibly slow process of sharing data via NIH / NIST and other research paper repositories, or would I want them all in a war room (virtual or physical) and someone coordinating the effort to risk rank all the solutions and quickly form action plans? My vote is the latter. It feels like the scientific community may have artificially painted themselves into a corner because of something like the banana ladder conundrum. [1] meaning, doing it that way because that is the way it has always been done.
[1] - https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/33470/what-tech...
I think the issue here is less that they are arriving at the same conclusion months apart, and more that the reporting makes it sound like a sudden, recent revelation rather than a consensus that has been building for months and months.
they're not _independently_ reaching similar conclusions months apart, they're strengthening (and writing about) the same conclusion from the same and more data.
Peer review is the heart and soul of scientific research. I do think there is room to speed up collaboration, but we should not compromise the rigidity of the scientific method, especially with as many unknowns as with the current coronavirus, establishing definite knowns is very valuable.
This is a summary article. Those clinicians reached their conclusions months ago.
This article claims that they are able to isolate live virus from stool, which seems to contradict the observations here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2196-x
I'm surprised to read the stuff about asymptomatic cases. I thought the current thinking was that asymptomatic people are really pre-symptomatic, because of the incubation period. In other words, truly asymptomatic cases are rare. Am I wrong about that?
Yes you are wrong, though I suppose what you consider "rare" could be arbitrary. It seems that asymptomatic cases are anywhere from 20-40% of cases, although even that could be low, given that you are more likely to be missed if you have no symptoms prompting you to get tested.
Hard to know without widespread testing, and it depends how people define asymptomatic.
But cruise ship cases seem to indicate people with no true visible symptoms. There was a cruise ship with universal masking and a 80+% asymptomatic rate after 28 days.
Now, these patients may well have symptoms such as ground glass opacities in the lungs. But you can’t exactly feel that, so that’s some of the ambiguity.
But cruise ship cases seem to indicate people with no true visible symptoms. There was a cruise ship with universal masking and a 80+% asymptomatic rate after 28 days.
Now, these patients may well have symptoms such as ground glass opacities in the lungs. But you can’t exactly feel that, so that’s some of the ambiguity.
Some people just have very mild symptoms that they don't recognise. A lot of people don't notice their temperature is raised for a day or so.
Some lists of symptoms don't include anosmia or diarrhoea, so people have symptoms but don't think these are covid-19 symptoms.
Some lists of symptoms don't include anosmia or diarrhoea, so people have symptoms but don't think these are covid-19 symptoms.
> Gut specialists are finding that 20% to 40% of people with the disease experience diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting before other symptoms, says gastroenterologist Michael Kattah, MD, PhD, a UCSF assistant professor. If you swallow virus particles, he says, there’s a good chance they will infect cells lining your stomach, small intestine, or colon. As in the lungs and heart, these cells are studded with vulnerable ACE2 portals.
In that case, is the info about not getting it from eating as thoughtless and parroting as saying masks don’t work, or is this article fake news? It makes a huge life changing difference to know for high risk people