Covid-19 takes serious toll on heart health–a full year after recovery
science.org
science.org
This is sort of a half truth. You can still spread it if vaccinated.
There are many groups, doing many different activities. There are plenty of vaccinated people who are done with masking, done with isolation, and going out in public or traveling. While there are also people who caught covid while doing a necessary job before a vaccine was required.
It's false to create only two groups. This completely ignores symmetry, undermining your entire argument of saying I'm ignoring it.
>It's false to create only two groups.
That claim is not even a half-truth...
>This completely ignores symmetry
... and this would not follow even if it were.
[Update moved to a subsequent reply.]
That claim is not even a half-truth."
Would you like to expand on that? There clearly are numerous different groups providing a variety of permutations of risk taking or risk avoiding actions.
">This completely ignores symmetry
... and this would not follow even if it were."
Would you like to explain this too? It appears to me that two artificial groups were formed and then used in a false dichotomy.
I'm not being pedantic. Attacking a large number of people in a heterogeneous, artificial group is disingenuous when a moderate to large number of the people in that group may not even exhibit the risks claimed, while wholly ignoring the risks posed by the "good" group.
Beyond that, it is consistent with every factual claim you have made to say that the population lies on a broad spectrum of how thoroughly they are contributing to ameliorating the impact of this epidemic on the population as a whole. Your own argument is predicated on this spectrum being divisible into two populations. My point is that, wherever you make that divide, one group is helping more than the other.
With regard to your specific questions here:
1) Putting aside the abstruse issue around the axiom of choice (which is not relevant here) one can always create two groups, and in my expanded reply, I made a relevant, non-pedantic case for that.
2) There are more symmetries than dichotomous ones.
Also:
> while wholly ignoring the risks posed by the "good" group.
With words like 'wholly' and 'false', you are making straw man arguments. It is factually accurate and completely reasonable to say that some people are net contributors to public health, while others have the opposite effect.
My argument is that the person who made the division into two groups did so using the wrong line, and even then blamed one group for the damage while absolving the other. This two group divide was poorly defined and should not have been made in the first place.
"With words like 'wholly' and 'false', you are making straw man arguments."
Not at all. 'False' is a perfectly acceptable way to identify a factually incorrect statement. If the person making the argument supports their argument with facts as well as non-subjectively, unambiguously defined definition of the groups, then one could address the individual points. As it stands, they made a blanket statement which is not supported by facts but rather by opinion. Perhaps they could rephrase it to be accurate or add facts to support their claim.
"It is factually accurate and completely reasonable to say that some people are net contributors to public health, while others have the opposite effect."
But it is not factually accurate based on the division made by the original person. Nor was that the claim (net contributors to public health). Nor have I seen facts to support the claim that one group is a net positive and the other is a net negative. If both groups are capable of catching and spreading the virus, then there is no net positive in that context - merely one group is less of a net negative - to what degree would again require better definition of the groups.
At that time, you called it a half-truth. You wrote "You can still spread it if vaccinated", dividing the population into the vaccinated and the rest. You were not arguing then that this particular line is poorly defined, and you have not done so since, even though you have frequently made that claim.
>...and even then blamed one group for the damage while absolving the other. [my emphasis.]
This is straw-manning again: Dhosek did not go that far. This is not as pedantic as it might seem, as any claim that this was implied would depend on the commonsense notions of net benefit that you are trying to argue against.
> Not at all. 'False' is a perfectly acceptable way to identify a factually incorrect statement.
But that is not what you were doing when you introduced 'false' into the discussion.
> But it is not factually accurate based on the division made by the original person.
Suddenly you seem to know exactly what Dhosek meant! Your argument seems to be "I don't know what you mean, but you are wrong."
>If both groups are capable of catching and spreading the virus, then there is no net positive in that context.
This is the crux of your argument, and its downfall. Unless you can show that vaccination, contact tracing, social distancing and mask-wearing have no causal and beneficial effects over the 'null hypothesis' of doing nothing, then it does not follow that they have no net benefit to society, except (or even) if practiced to the maximum and with vaccination providing complete protection. That's what 'net' means in this context (and others)! You would have to put an unjustifiably high weight on any deviation from the ideal situation in order to turn it negative.
I don't even think "covid burden" was the topic, depending on how you define that it could mean the demographics most at risk hospitalization (as overwhelming hospitals seems to have been the concern, and justification for lockdowns). It was only defined as people acting as reservoirs and vectors. This is essentially the entire population given that experts believe catching covid is inevitable, and that the virus can persist after exposure, including in the gut. So the only distinction I can see being made in this context of inevitable infection, reservoirs, and vectors, is vaccine status. Which is not a great dividing line. Basically, my whole point is that in the context of reservoirs and vectors, there's not a reasonable basis for a division into two groups.
As for the argument that everyone will get it eventually: For one thing, the pace matters, the recent shortage of ICU beds is a negative public-health outcome, and the statistics clearly show the benefit of vaccination in this regard (few health issues have better statistical evidence.) This alone shows that there is a reasonable basis for so dividing the population.
Counties like S. Korea, had bold actions like contact tracing and lockdowns. Many many countries covered pay for folks to stay home. The US initially had a lock down then just quit acting really.
Sure, preventing ANYONE from getting COVID was unrealistically, but preventing most people from getting it was always possible.
Easy for the laptop class of this website to call not wanting lockdowns selfish when it disproportionally harms the poorest and most vulnerable of our society.
So does dying from Covid, or getting sick numerous times and missing work. Or not being able to afford missing work so you go in anyway and spread the disease, leading to your work being shutdown for weeks.
No matter what is done, the poorest and most vulnerable will be disproportionally affected. While I agree we can't perpetually mandate stay-at-home orders and expect everyone to live off savings, we _can_ expect the gov't to make that possible beyond the pathetic payments that folks received.
Another way to look it it is birth rate versus death rate. Globally speaking COVID death would need to be at lest one order of magnitude higher to stagnant growth. The 2 year pandemic made the global world population lag by about a week. So in a week we have the same number of people as we would have today if there were no COVID. Its that insignificant.
On a population chart over 100 years COVID will be p much invisible, a tiny tiny slow down of the growth. There are no absurd levels of death there are just many many humans and thus the death number feel subjectively high.
The current policies in the west have done nothing to proactively protect the fragile, and everything to restrain the non-fragile.
As an example of what I mean : I spent a couple of lockdowns in a relatively poor country (Serbia) which for example allowed the 60+, fragile and immunocompromised exclusive access to shops, malls and other commerce until 9, a 30 minute pause to ventilate with nobody inside, and then normal access for the rest of the population. Subsidised delivery services were organised, etc. 16 hospitals with 900 ICU bed each (pop 6 million) were built chinese-style in 6 months, so the local healthcare system could go back to normal.
Also, health insurance has a basic public option, with price-controlled drugs, generally 10-15x smaller than the US retail price, even for US-made drugs, new or old.
Watching the US figuratively struggle for air for two years has been quite demoralizing.
You need to compare it to normal (expected) total.
excluding comparisons means you cannot judge severity one way or another. Basic stats here
Now if you have something against government mandating that businesses operate within certain safety parameters then I’ve got news for you….
As an immunocompromised person, and considering the ADA, I'm of the opinion that some mitigation strategies, like required masking in the grocery store, help preserve my civil liberties and should be considered reasonable accommodations.
Given our civil liberties conflict, you wind up in a tough to resolve scenario.
Positive rights are your assertion that you have the right to action from another group. In general, medicine is one area where positive and negative rights conflict regularly. For example, imagine abortion, assisted suicide, or emergency care during a pandemic. Some of these are solved by employment contracts -- as an ER doctor you are accepting to be bound by people's positive right to emergency medical care.
However, your assertion is that society et large should be bound by your positive right.
You should have a very strong case for this. Do you?
In the US, we've made this call already: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Ac...
You know this because you did not have an established mask mandate or legal requirements for facilities to validate that patrons were not ill. Either of these would infringe on the rights of other groups. Like it or not, there are established groups of people who are unable to wear masks. The other route of validating that customers are not sick would paradoxically infringe on the rights of the immunosuppressed.
A COVID test before entering every facility would probably not be a reasonable accommodation. I'm of the opinion that a Federal mask mandate in public spaces could probably have been justified under the ADA - anywhere that can be forced to have an accessible bathroom, access ramps, etc.
> Like it or not, there are established groups of people who are unable to wear masks.
Balancing that would similarly be an ADA question. A lot of people claimed to be in this category, but attempts to use the ADA to bypass state-level mask mandates tended to flop.
Frankly the risk to the immunocompromised does not appear to have been that high. Countries like South Africa, which have nearly a thirty percent HIV positive rate, did not see substantially different outcomes.
Beyond that, we had pre-existing data that masks don't do much. Post hoc analysis and wishful thinking have contributed to a modern round of pseudoscience claiming that masks are effective. When the dust settles, I think we'll see that well-fitted N95s are just about the only effective prevention measure. But, as I'm suspecting you know, this would not constitute a reasonable accommodation. In industries that require it, mask fitting and regular testing are commonplace. Further, fitted N95s can only be worn safely for a short duration.
On the other hand, I think that what the ADA should mandate is proper ventilation systems in these heavily trafficked areas. I do think that this is similar to what we've seen for accessibility requirements for businesses, and frankly a bizarre untackled problem for public health.
I disagree. We agree on many of the same facts - better masks are important, as is ventilation - but not, apparently, the approaches those facts inform. The "as I'm suspecting you know" shit is rude; in this case, for example, some other countries (correctly) don't count cloth masks as legit. We should've done that, too, way back in 2020.
Re: South Africa, it's a young population, and being HIV+ alone doesn't make you inherently immunosuppressed if treated effectively - which SA is quite good at.
For example, requiring a workplace to provide an employee who requires it an N95 mask very clearly falls under the 'reasonable accommodation' category.
However, requiring all employees or patrons to wear N95 masks does not track with other examples of reasonable accommodations.
Of course the value of any lockdown policy is contingent on the practical ability to correctly assess the threat of a new disease early enough that such short-duration, non-pharmaceutical interventions could work. But I don't think temporary restrictions are incompatible with basic civil liberties.
EDIT: Removed amateur-hour epidemiology, restated "philosophical" argument contingent on NPIs being effective.
I was in South Korea from March-June 2020, there was no lockdown in South Korea. The only serious restriction was the 2 week quarantine required to enter the country. Businesses and everything were open just as usual - I was eating out at restaurants and working out of coffee shops everyday. Hell I even went to an amusement park one day (ok that did end up shutting down a week or two later when it was discovered that someone who had tested positive had been there).
Meanwhile my family in the U.S were under lockdown not allowed to leave the house without an excuse deemed acceptable by the government, shocked that South Korea was life as usual despite having such a low case count.
In comparison, countries like Canada (which I'm in) and US, does a half-hearted job in contact tracing.
We rolled out the COVID Alert app, which is supposed to balance privacy concerns with the need for contact tracing, but now with Omicron burning through all the provinces, most have shifted to only PCR testing people in high-risk groups. And having a PCR testing from public health is the only way to get the one time key to fire off the alerts.
North America could barely get masks going, paid lip service to contact tracing...
Australia implemented absolutely dystopian contact tracing decisions, countrywide lockdowns, left its citizens abroad, and it's still clear that every single person in that country is going to get COVID. It will be endemic, just like it is everywhere else. Even worse, the country has by-and-large taken a vaccine which gives them resistance to a spike protein that is not the most common in today's COVID cases. Recent (simian) experimentation has shown that the Omicron booster is not effective for previously vaccinated individuals.
You will not see long term differences in outcomes between Canada, the US, and countries like South Korea or Australia. Our measures did not work, do not work, and are exclusively security theater. Countries which 'have things under control' are either extremely ruthless in their lockdown and travel approach, and have deferred pain, or are lying on the numbers.
Although this would be a non-starter in the U.S due to privacy concerns, I don't deny that this was probably effective. At the same time I imagine cases were drastically underreported because testing positive would result in your whole office shutting down, potentially getting one fired. So there's no incentive to get tested unless you have no choice.
Went and donate blood mid Dec 2021, it's one of the things that I kept up, because people still need that stuff. 10 days later, I get a email from them saying that I may have been exposed. While it's nice that they notify me, it's not from public health's contact tracing.
We've tried nothing and it doesn't work.
South Korea has a total confirmed case rate 10x lower than the USA, and a death rate 20x lower. It's absolutely realistic. It just requires serious effort on the part of everyone to follow straightforward rules about testing/tracing/mitigation. Korea hasn't been shut down for two years. They've just been smarter about it.
Its know fact that Europeans were immune to some of the diseases they brought to America that nearly wiped out Native Americans. Therefore its not unreasonable to think that different populations will have different levels of response to a disease. Perhaps South Koreans were more likely to be exposed to similar enough corona viruses in the past to garner them enough protection this time.
This fallacy is distressingly common. That's not the way logic works. The contention above was that it was impossible to mitigate the spread of covid. I provided an existence proof that it was not. It's not on me to refute every contradicting hypothesis. It's clear that Korea did something right, and people interested in techniques to fight the virus would do best to study those actions instead of make excuses for why it must have been something else.
As far as natural population immunity though: that's just wrong. It's a novel virus (c.f. the initial outbreak in a nearby east asian nation), everyone gets it. Korea has absolutely had rapid outbreaks too (the church group got a ton of press early) that show that covid can spread rapidly there. They just handled it better.
Bigger issue is getting people to vaccinate especially since long Covid will cost billions in increased insurance premiums and Medicare costs.
I'm guessing. I don't know. If anyone has actual information, feel free to jump in...
I know there are some standards for recycling air in public buildings such as schools, and air born sickness seems like something they would have to worry about normally, so I would imagine they were pretty prepared for that aspect
I skimmed this but didn't really see much past the actual heat source https://www.cibsejournal.com/general/life-support-keeping-sc...
When I hear folks say that, I always ask them, "Herpes has a 100% survival rate, does that mean you'd shrug it off as no big deal if someone gave you herpes?".
Nobody is denying that COVID causes problems for some people, the argument is that it doesn't justify forcing everyone to wear masks everywhere, get vaccinated multiple times to do anything in society, get COVID tested anytime one needs to travel (for countries that haven't shut down borders), and force remote learning on children. Maybe it's possible that the side effects from these authoritarian policies don't outweigh the benefits, and disproportionately harm the youth for the benefit of the elderly since COVID is only statistically dangerous for those close to the median age of life expectancy. Perhaps people should be able to vote with their feet.
EDIT: just to add: from what we can see, vaccines help cut down on adverse outcomes due to a covid infection, which is why I'm still pro-vaccine. But many other policies out there are just nonsense.
From what I can tell even the CDCs latest online review, as of Oct 2021, doesn't have any evidence that one is better than the other in terms of antibodi titers [1] In fact the most recent CDC published studies, from this year, have shown naturally induced immunity to be superior to vaccine induced immunity in terms of both illness and death [2]
[1]https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
[2]https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm...
Some of the HK doctors that got infected had some of these long term effects, IIRC.
There's a reason why they don't fuck around in trying to limit the spread over there.
It'll be interesting to see what we think of the "let it rip" strategy for Omicron a lot of areas used a decade from now.
"I will not take the vaccine because there are no long-term studies" is silly because it's inconsistent. "I will not take the vaccine and I will not get COVID" isn't a reliable option, so it's largely a choice between two unknowns.
That leaves us having to make educated guesses. Based on the history of vaccination, the safety thus far of nearly 10 billion doses of vaccine administered, and stuff like the biology and half-life of mRNA, the choice seems fairly clear.
Second, the short half life of mRNA does not guarantee that there are no long term effects.
Third, you are ignoring that in this choice between "two unknowns", the probability of getting symptomatic covid (presumably asymptomatic/mild covid is unlikely to cause heart issues) is less than 1. The probability of exposure to the vaccine for a vaccinated person is 1.
Fourth, unlike exposure to covid in young, healthy people, the vaccine guarantees that your tissues are exposed to a rapid megadose of an inflammatory protein, manufactured in isolation, as opposed to an infection where the protein is attached to the rest of the virus and exposure ramps up gradually. That's my personal concern and I feel like its being swept under the rug. There is a nonzero risk of autoimmune disorders which will be difficult to detect, especially if past preprints regarding expression of the spike protein in human tissues post vaccination prove to be true.
Finally: >The long-term impact of either one cannot be conclusively determined in the short-term, barring the invention of time travel
Right, which is why vaccine trials normally take 5-10 years and "safe and effective" has been a campaign of transparent propaganda. Numerous past vaccines have been pulled from the market for fewer side effects. Combine that with the stigma against reporting side effects/speaking against the vaccines, the fact that the actual safety trial data is a secret known only to pfizer/moderna and the FDA, the rumors that adverse event collection during clinical trials was (deliberately?) inadequate, the history of big pharma deliberately harming consumers in pursuit of profits, the full protection of pfizer et al from liability, and the assertion that covid is less of a problem than it has been made out to be (especially with recent data on omicron), no, the choice is not clear at all if you have not been taken in by the propaganda.
Edit: let's also remember that the claims of both safety and effectiveness have been repeatedly revised, and multiple points of "misinformation" have been proven correct. So on top of all this it should be clear that our institutions are not deserving of the amount of trust that people like you are placing in them. The executive branch wanted a vaccine yesterday, the FDA suspended typical testing protocols for what amounts to a rubber stamp, and now we are the safety trials. Not even getting into our sudden collective amnesia regarding regulatory capture.
> There is a nonzero risk of autoimmune disorders which will be difficult to detect, especially if past preprints regarding expression of the spike protein in human tissues post vaccination prove to be true.
Which preprints? Why do you say autoimmune disorders have a nonzero risk and will be difficult to detect?
> actual safety trial data is a secret known only to pfizer/moderna and the FDA
Do you have a source?
> multiple points of "misinformation" have been proven correct.
Which points of misinformation are now correct?
I don't think it's unreasonable for a healthy person under 60 years of age with no comorbidities to opt out of the vaccine (or the flu vaccine, which actually is deadlier than people think, yet nobody cares about your flu vaccination).
Ignoring, of course, the fact that if we'd done so then the death toll would have been pretty horrendous and that if everyone's sick or afraid of getting sick the economy is still going to to get screwed.
We didn't shut down society for polio before the vaccine. That was an exponentially more fucked up disease.
The deadliest day of the COVID pandemic beats the deadliest year of polio.
The way I'm going to remember it is that when this country had a crisis, instead of us coming together it caused division vitriol and hatred
Plenty of people will remember it this way. Many small businesses went bankrupt and an entire generation of kids had massive educational and social setbacks.
It's absurd to even suggest that everything is back to normal and everyone is A-OK with how things worked out.
It's almost like killing a million Americans has an impact on labor availability.
> an entire generation of kids had massive educational and social setbacks
This is largely a guess at this point, unless you're Doctor Who, and we've zero information on how they might make up ground.
It will certainly be interesting to see these results between, say, red and blue states in the US with wildly different mitigation approaches.
How many do you think are born every year? The pandemic is 2 years old at this point.
Unemployment was already quite low pre-pandemic. https://imgur.com/a/pFvBFgg is bound to have an impact on ability to hire folks.
2. The demographics of the people who died with/of covid skew what, 70% over the age of 65? More? How many of those people do you think were actively looking for a job?
3. I'd say that "and we've zero information on how they might make up ground" is _exactly_ why it's unconscientious to inflict this kind of damage on them.
Pre-covid the labor participation rate for people 65+ was 26% and the 65-75 bracket was projected to climb to 30% by 2030 as the last of the baby boomers entered that range. The idea that everyone retires at 65 is not particularly accurate.
How many folks in their late 70s are still working that late in life? - Approximately 5% in the US.
Not sure that the math supports that US deaths were the decrease in the participating labor force. I don’t recall too many octogenarians waiting tables and being retail cashiers pre-pandemic. They seem to be concentrated primarily in roles where they are public health experts with piss poor communication skills (in my opinion).
Define "viable". Viable for whom? For what?
1. Omnicron is so infectious no public health measures can prevent it. 2. Omnicron infects the upper air ways NOT the lungs like previous strains, this prevents it from easily spreading to other organs.
Omnicron should really be thought of as a different but adjacent virus because of how differently it attacks our bodies.
Thankfully "let it rip" is paying off with infections plummeting around the world after an 8 week~ wave of it.
Source?
Further the new BA.2 strain (which is causing a slight re-uptick of cases in the UK) is reported as 1.5x more infectious as well. So this is literally the most infectious disease ever recorded, and possibly the most infectious ever full stop.
https://www.businessinsider.com/ba2-omicron-coronavirus-cont...
My interpretation of this is health measures can slow it a bit, but 100% of the population will be exposed, so given the less pathogenic nature of it, getting it over with faster would likely be a net benefit.
Let's see if the cardiologists agree next year.
Our reported cases here in Canada are only plummeting since restrictions have been placed on who can actually have a PCR test scheduled, and these are the only results that are reported.
The emphasis has been put on handing out rapid tests, which aren't tracked. As expected, cases started dropping immediately alongside the number of PCR tests performed. We're not past the spike, we're just ignoring it.
You can dive into it, but by all metrics cases are going in countries that started their omnicron wave mid to late December
If you look to Nova Scotia, you can also see hospitalization peaking and arguably decreasing, aprox 1-2 weeks after reported cases peaked. (Nova Scotia is a good case because it started the Omnicron wave 2-3 weeks before the rest of Canada)
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/covid-update-nova...
>We don't know the long-term effects of COVID, either
>They're [the long-term effects] likely to be bigger
How were you able to determine that last quote?
We know, for example, that the incidence of myocarditis from COVID infection is substantially higher than the incidence induced by vaccination.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33088905/
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm
> During March 2020–January 2021, patients with COVID-19 had nearly 16 times the risk for myocarditis compared with patients who did not have COVID-19, and risk varied by sex and age.
https://www.myocarditisfoundation.org/about-myocarditis/
> While we often associate cardiovascular conditions with elderly populations, myocarditis can affect anyone, including young adults, children and infants. In fact, it most often affects otherwise healthy, young, athletic types with the high-risk population being those of ages from puberty through their early 30’s, affecting males twice as often as females. Myocarditis is the 3rd leading cause of Sudden Death in children and young adults.
You didn't notice but your argument is actually one against being the first to take the vaccine. Since it is perfectly reasonable to assume that one can avoid getting COVID for a long time long enough to make a decision on actual numbers later on.
Yes, considering the vaccine's mechanism - causing your body to produce a SARS-CoV-2 viral protein that an active infection would also cause you to produce. Worrying about the vaccine while getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 is like worrying about getting wet in a swimming pool; you're already wet.
> Since it is perfectly reasonable to assume that one can avoid getting COVID for a long time long enough to make a decision on actual numbers later on.
I do not think that's perfectly reasonable to assume in the days of Omicron.
No, that exactly not what it is. I never had COVID so I was never in that swimming pool in the first place. My personal situation allowed me to stay far away form any swimming pools so the risk of falling in one was very small.
Intentionally getting the vaccine gives me 100% of the unknown risk associated with it while not getting the vaccine gives me a unknown but lower than 100% risk of getting COVID and then once I have it 100% of the unknown risk associated with COVID but that happens ONLY when I get it.
This kind of risk assessment is done for every medical procedure.
Lets just make a though experiment and assume the risk of COVID and the vaccine would be exactly the same. Now its obvious that taking the vaccine is more risk than trying to avoid getting COVID instead.
Of course the risk is not the same but back in the days we did not know the risk of either so it was perfectly reasonable to try to avoid COVID for as long as possible until the actual risk for both is better known.
>I do not think that's perfectly reasonable to assume in the days of Omicron.
Pretty much everyone already did try to avoid getting COVID for over a year when the vaccines came out. Most of us succeed and did not get COVID in that time but somehow it should not be reasonable to think one can do it longer? Omicronw wasn't a thing then, its irrelevant, no one could include it in their personal risk assessment back then. No one knew that Omicron would come and between the vaccine roll out and the first Omicron case many month passed.
Sure, things have changed now, Omicron seems to be way harder to avoid but on the other hand the risk is also way lower so the risk assessment is completely different now. Funny enough many people regret getting pushed to take the vaccine and would not do it again and even reject the booster(s).
Also the risk assessment for kids always suggested that vaccines are not needed for them and now with Omicorn less then ever. But the same people who declared everyone stupid/selfish or whatever who didn't take the vaccine, are the people who now push and promote that kids also get vaccinated and parent who dont want that are declared monsters. In other words thous people never cared about risk assessment and logical decision anyway they just want everyone to do what they want. Everyone else is declared an anti-vaxxer and a horrible human for no reason.
Risk assessment for medical stuff is a personal decision. And People will decide differently which is perfectly fine. Not acceptable is to not respect it and treat people differently based on their decision.
I'm 40 years old and prior to catching covid on Jan 1st I was in the best shape of my life. I ran 9 ultramarathons last year, including a 40 mile run on my birthday. I was double vaccinated and boosted on December 7th, all Moderna. I do 100 pushups and 100 squats a day and was regularly running 30 miles per week. (50km)
Covid took me out for 3 full weeks and my fitness wasn't enough to power through it. The first symptoms were extreme fatigue but what is hanging on is chest pain. I have had to significantly cut back my training.
Only in the last week do I feel like I can get back to a more normal pace and that's with a measured concern to not overdo it. I always feel great at the time, but afterwards I'm paying the price.
I plan to continue training at a reduced effort to try and bring back my fitness. I've never had something that holds on for so long before.
Overtraining is a real thing, and this person is doing it. Either that or they're embellishing to make a point.
The last 6 months, minus a week has been with 25 of them in burpee form.
I break them up throughout the day, it's not a lot of exercise at all. It feels like the bare minimum to stay in overall functional fitness shape. It's nice to have the strength to do whatever I'd like to do on tap anytime.
9 ultramarathons in a year may have been over-training however. (Towards the end it was getting to be one every other weekend just for kicks.)
Lungs also took a serious beating, but mostly recovered. I had a bronchoscopy and was the youngest patient they had seen in years. Bronchoscopy showed an absurdly high number of white blood cells in my lungs ~18 months post-covid- evidence of inflammation and extremely reactive tissue.
It likes to make sure you remember it, that's for sure.
I'm surprised that exercise is mentioned all the time for heart health - but the word doesn't appear even once in the article.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/sd32t3/association... [2]: https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/sdugl1/selfreporte...
First COVID-19-positive
test (T,) between 1 March 2020
and 15 January 2021
n = 162.690
By July 2021, about 50% of veterans had been vaccinated, so it's possible a sizable percentage of these studied veterans were in fact vaccinated (and there are known issues with cardiovascular side effects of vaccines), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/07/26/va-man...
How many patients received early treatment? It is well understood that outcomes are worse, and treatment more difficult, the further Covid progressed before treatment begins.
People got the shots, and things still didn't change. People feel lied to. The tolerance for mandates is eroding quick. Willingness to take more booster shots is not there, people are dropping out. And its questionable if more booster shots will even work.
Mental health, and well being of society needs to be the much bigger consideration. Also you can't look at covid in isolation. Look at the overall mortality rate. And those numbers are up. Deaths unrelated to covid are up too.
They were not concerned that COVID had any play in heart health after that many months. Of course, more and more articles and studies are coming out regarding the actual short term & longer term effects accompanied with the unknowns. My story related very closely to these young people who woke up feeling like they are in their 50s/60s and scared they will croak any given moment.
After going through a year of hell, I'm quite optimistic and more aware of my heart health than ever.
This is another article I found last year that really resonated with my story and gave me lots of hope for answers. No doctor was able to give me one, so I had to experiment and try lots of stuff over the last year.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/how-covid...
We know its related to the spike protein, but do we know why? What makes it harmful (is it basically protein-sized shrapnel?) and why does it prefer the heart? (maybe there is no preference and effects on the heart are just easier to observe)
Further, if the spike is whats dangerous, what are the effects on people who have had 2 shots, a booster, AND then got covid anyway? This makes up the majority of my friends and family.
I wanted to get more at the "why and how" of the spike's impact. AFAIK there's no real explanation.
Hence the importance of early treatment to assist the immune system, especially in older people.
Children's ACE2 receptors are more resilient to damage, which is likely why they have only ~50% the risk of long covid as compared with a fully vaccinated adult. So yes, it's definitely a risk, but a smaller one.
That said, as an adult you can likely mitigate any cardiovascular damage at least somewhat by taking an ACE inhibitor to up-regulate your ACE2 receptors, whereas without medical training that probably wouldn't be especially safe or ethical to do on your kids.
That is, given people over 50 make up 93% of severe outcomes, I wouldn't expect young people to exhibit significant levels of heart damage or other types of "long covid".
Isn't that same study that referred to reduced effectiveness of vaccines among veterans?
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/NGA/nigeria/death-rate