Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: COVID-19 Lasting Heart Damage(?) [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree that 3 weeks is not remotely in the ballpark of long-term, and I'd welcome more research into the prevalence of long-term impacts. I've personally had a couple other viruses over the years that lingered into the 6-8 week range, but those tailed off in a predictable trajectory of improvement. The course of this virus feels nothing like that. I've read that it might take a year or two to see where things settle out for those of us with long haul symptoms, and by that point I'd certainly label it as long-term illness if symptoms remain.
Quote Reply
Re: COVID-19 Lasting Heart Damage(?) [Route66] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Route66 wrote:
I agree that 3 weeks is not remotely in the ballpark of long-term, and I'd welcome more research into the prevalence of long-term impacts. I've personally had a couple other viruses over the years that lingered into the 6-8 week range, but those tailed off in a predictable trajectory of improvement. The course of this virus feels nothing like that. I've read that it might take a year or two to see where things settle out for those of us with long haul symptoms, and by that point I'd certainly label it as long-term illness if symptoms remain.

Even one or two years is a pain in the ass, but its not permanent. If 99.9999% recover fully in 2 years there is no need to curtail societies and cause a variety of other damages. If 80% get off the hook in a few months and 20% have long term damage that never goes away, then let's assume eventually all of us get it and 20% need to be treated with extra health care, then that's a trade off decision as is the case with all diseases that may cause permanent damage or temporary damage.

So three things that need to really be quantified by data

  1. deaths per 100,000 infected
  2. hospitalizations per 100,000 infected
  3. persons with life long damage per 100,000 infected


Then from there, societies can make informed decisions on how to operate. There may be very good reasons to limit what people can do in society or NOT based on real risk related stats that are formulate on recorded data vs projections (which may be accurate, but may also be pessimistic).
Quote Reply
Re: COVID-19 Lasting Heart Damage(?) [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not going to be 99.9999%. When covid kills heart cells, from what I've read those cells do not regenerate. Additionally, the symptoms that many long-haulers are reporting have a great deal of overlap with ME/CFS, as well as, a number of other conditions. These are long-term, chronic illnesses. So in a year or two, we'll see where each of us has settled out. For long haulers, you will likely see a wide spectrum of outcomes, from those who eventually experience a significant amount of recovery, to those who are still substantially compromised. None of us knows what those numbers will look like, but if the disease kills somewhere up to 3% depending on the country and its statistics, I'd not be shocked at all to see at least that number in terms of chronic illness outcomes. Will it be 3-5%, less or a bit more? Time will tell. Hopefully effective vaccines will arrive and have an impact on the spread.
Quote Reply

Prev Next