Coronavirus: Better Call Sol - CORONAMANIA (17 Viewers)

signals of these new restrictions (which fall short of a lockdown) strike me as being as much political as health based. there's a general perception out there that the incoming govt have taken their eye off the ball, and this might be seen as much as a flexing of muscles as it is of an attempt to do something meaningful.
I dunno I think it was always going to get trickier to keep everyone on board as time went on. And I definitely think that localised lockdowns are the way forward, whatever about whether they've gotten the current one right or not.
 
IIRC the original plan assumed that 15% or so of people will ignore all requests to wear masks/social distance/not be a cunt, it still mostly worked though. Or it seemed to be working IDK
 
Regarding the medium-to-long-term effects, I don’t have any studies to hand but talking to my clinician buddies there is a huge amount of rehabilitation for those who have had serious COVID-19 - breathing will be affected, fatigue, and muscle weakness are the main symptoms that we’ve been interested in. It’s very early to know what way it will shape up for people.
 
Regarding the medium-to-long-term effects, I don’t have any studies to hand but talking to my clinician buddies there is a huge amount of rehabilitation for those who have had serious COVID-19 - breathing will be affected, fatigue, and muscle weakness are the main symptoms that we’ve been interested in. It’s very early to know what way it will shape up for people.


this one is interesting.

Question What are the cardiovascular effects in unselected patients with recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?

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

Meaning These findings indicate the need for ongoing investigation of the long-term cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.
 

this one is interesting.
what do they mean by unselected patients?
and were these simply people known to have had covid 19? cos if that's the only criterion, that's a little bit scary.

i was confused by what they mean by acute in "which was independent of preexisting conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness "
 
what do they mean by unselected patients?
and were these simply people known to have had covid 19? cos if that's the only criterion, that's a little bit scary.

i was confused by what they mean by acute in "which was independent of preexisting conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness "

I think unselected means they are ~random, with pre-existing cardiac patients removed. They have no specific selection crit, barring removing patients with known existing cardiac problems.

In teh Methods section they mention:

All participants were considered eligible after a minimum of 2 weeks from the original diagnosis if they had resolution of respiratory symptoms and negative results on a swab test at the end of the isolation period.

I think what they mean by "independent of preexisting conditions" is similar to the above, they weren't screening for certain things to create their cohort, they just took any patient that recovered between two time points, didn't matter if they were asymptomatic, didn't matter if they had other issues (provided they were not cardiac issues). And I guess they didn't find a correlation between any specific pre existsing illness and the patient have cardiac problems now.
 
The vascular complications from the virus are the scary part for me. It seems to hit microcapillaries hard, so any densely vascularised tissue (which are usually the most crucial!) are showing signs of microinfarctions.
 
the restrictions brought in yesterday to try and lower the infection rate
are so random a lot of people will probably ignore them.

e.g. only 6 people can meet at a house but 50 can meet for wedding ?
some folks can't go outside their county but taking holidays is still allowed ?!

blaming young adults (who have to work) isn't helping.

i haven't been more than 10 miles from home since February it's not
fun but i can tolerate it.
 
probably been posted before, but worth a goo:


i don't know for certain how deaths are recorded for an ED; i assume it's where the person lived, rather than where they died, but i assume that means that nursing homes can have a significant influence on stats.
 
the restrictions brought in yesterday to try and lower the infection rate
are so random a lot of people will probably ignore them.
Here's the thing - they're not random. Every single restriction is most likely the result of a whole lot of analysis and debate and trying to balance physical and mental health risks against public pressure and economics. Just because you don't know the ins and outs doesn't mean this shit is random
 
6 people from 3 households allowed to visit another household because thats what it takes to keep social distancing.

Vs

30 and often more in a classroom

Etcetc


Its like they all went off in different pods with the goal of coming up with one restriction each pod,and yet didnt know what the others were planning and then at the end decided great job,without seeing what each other had planned.


Its not the restrictions themselves,its the inconsistency
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Activity
So far there's no one here

21 Day Calendar

Lau (Unplugged)
The Sugar Club
8 Leeson Street Lower, Saint Kevin's, Dublin 2, D02 ET97, Ireland

Support thumped.com

Support thumped.com and upgrade your account

Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...

Upgrade now

Latest threads

Latest Activity

Loading…
Back
Top