Remaining Effects of Covid

[bahnause]

And is that true of only covid, or is it true of all infections? Moreover what exactly are you proposing been done?

Let's say it is unusual.

There is not much that has to be done. If you are ill, stay at home, if you have to go out you are ill, you might want to wear a mask. Take extra care around vulnerables (hospitals etc.).

 

[DustyBin]

You relly need to learn how to read a study.

The first paragraph describes the problem. It says nothing about the detailed execution of the study. The detailed methodology is described below in the text.

Problem: We don't know if reinfection adds to risks incurred after first infection.
Solution: We gather information and draw a conclusion.

"Whether reinfection adds to risks incurred after first infection is unclear" Is not the answer, it is the question.

Nowhere in the study does it say that all participants had a severe initial infection.

I do know how to read a study. That one sentence from the abstract tells us everything we need to know, as they don’t go on to answer the question.

They conclude that there’s an extremely tenuous link between repeat covid infections and health complications in a small number of people; it’s hardly the kind of “evidence” that should be used to inform public health policy.

Still, it got their names in a journal and possibly even secured them some funding, so fair play!

 

[VauxhallandI]

Let's say it is unusual.

There is not much that has to be done. If you are ill, stay at home, if you have to go out you are ill, you might want to wear a mask. Take extra care around vulnerables (hospitals etc.).

I think you are searching for a problem.

If I am ill I usually lie down until I feel better, I don't think I am unusual in that approach.

 

[bahnause]

They conclude that there’s an extremely tenuous link between repeat covid infections and health complications in a small number of people;

They say that where?

If I am ill I usually lie down until I feel better, I don't think I am unusual in that approach.

I wish everyone was that sensible. The coughing on the train and in the shops over the last few days shows a different picture. My current neighbour in the office (open-plan office without a fixed allocation of space) is quite proud of himself right now that he still comes to work even with a fever. And yes, sick pay is mandatory here. He actually hopes it is Covid, so he would be immune in the future. I hope he at least wipes his sneeze marks off the monitor before he goes home. Needless to say, I went home due to a lack of alternative places.

 

[nw1]

So in short what this is saying is that if someone gets a case of covid, then there is a risk of complications. Just like when my late sister contracted a case of influenza she developed complications and died as a result. Or when someone gets injuries as a result of an accident there is is a risk of further complications? Or maybe someone gets an insect bite, or brushes up against certain type of flora? You may think you are bringing something new to the table, but you are not. We have spent over 3 years on various threads debating all of this, it's all there for you to go back over and review.

I'm not quite sure where you are heading with this, but I'm hoping its not a severe case of "this is why we need forever restrictions" because the consequences of that have been demonstrated in real life conditions. And I can assure you most of the world can't afford that again.

That's the thing. You cannot eliminate all risk.

Maybe multiple infections of Covid do come with a small risk of complications. But is it worth living under the threat of restrictions long-term as a result? Is the risk really that big to the majority of us?

I think this is perhaps a case of the risks of "knowing too much". It wouldn't surprise me if the viruses which caused previous pandemics had significant risk of complication long after the pandemic ended. But we didn't know then, and no-one tried to cause alarm as a result. We just carried on. And really, for the sanity of us all, this is precisely what we should be doing now. I almost guarantee that Covid-related complications will be far down on the list of causes of death in coming years.

 

[OuterDistant]

Oh boy, IndySage are sabre rattling again...

New Covid variant could have us 'masking up again', scientists warn

Scientists have called for people to start wearing face masks again amid a worrying Covid-19 variant 'mutation'.

www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk

Jolly good! That should be just enough to keep the in laws at bay again this winter, given they're petrified of COVID.

Every cloud...

 

[Peter Sarf]

I remember at the time whenever anyone raised concerns about the negative mental health aspect of lockdowns, the reply was typically ‘but people are resilient’. This to me at the time seemed a way of attempting to justify ignoring the mental health aspect of lockdowns.

If lockdowns have had a significant impact on people’s mental health then clearly the people are resilient argument was wrong, at least for some people.

Mental health as a subject suffers from being hard to take seriously. For most of society there is little visible evidence to see unless one WANTS to look deeper. Unlike a more obvious affliction (missing leg etc). It is so hard to "see" that it gets to the point where people just think those afflicated need to pull themselves together !.

What was also overlooked by the government and the media was the massive mental health impact of the constant speculation of whether we we going into lockdown. This was especially prevalent in both Autumn 20 and 21; in 2021 it was even worse as it was post vaccine roll out. It made me think that this would happen every single winter going forward, and that the vaccine was pointless - especially as the government kept emphasising that the vaccine was the "way out". Thankfully the government largely held its nerve thanks to the Tory Backbench, but at the time I thought we were staring down the barrel of having a lockdown, or at least calls for lockdown, every winter.

Your right - there was a risk of lockdown fatigue.

Unfortunately we will never know how effective or otherwise lockdowns were as we had no way of trying both approaches. For me I went along with all the precautions. Bear in mind I was the ill-est I have ever been Christmas 2020 and my missus ended up with long Covid while friends around her died (probably the same genetic build). But, although I am risk averse, I think we should have taken more risks earlier on in summer 2021. It was getting ridiculous by late Spring 2021 as more and more people gave up taking it seriously. To subsequently find out that those we look up to had given up practising what they preached just leaves me with utter contempt.

We needed to see if lockdowns could be relaxed and during summer was the best time to try. There was no way a significant number of people were going to adhere to restrictions right through to the next winter and beyond unless a relaxation caused a rise in cases during summer 2021.

The Winter 21/22 stuff was particularly unnerving, I agree. Unnecessary, too, given the vaccine roll-out and Omicron being less severe. Certainly the panic over Omicron was completely and utterly ridiculous. In the event very little happened with Omicron which we don't see in a bad flu season, apart from a good few people's Christmases being ruined.

I do remember reading some stories about "travel restrictions until 2025" or some such in around December 2021, presumably testing rather than outright travel bans.

And then, quite suddenly, all restrictions, or talks of restrictions, seemed to disappear, the western world over, in the latter part of winter 21/22.

For me Omicron was a good chance for a booster - I cannot have the vaccine due to an allergy.

It is interesting how China hung on to restrictions heavier and longer than the rest of the world did - do they know something ?.

It's more (IMO) that the government and the media overreacted and caused panic, rather than private individuals as such.

There were plenty saying Omicron was considerably less severe which made it strange to see the government and media tying themselves up in knots about it. It just didn't seem to make sense - but was enough to engender uncertainty in people and make them fearful of socialising, as you say - for fear of a positive test result, more than anything else, it seemed.

Yes it seemed clear to me that Omicron was going to be a walk in the park.

Oh boy, IndySage are sabre rattling again...

New Covid variant could have us 'masking up again', scientists warn

Scientists have called for people to start wearing face masks again amid a worrying Covid-19 variant 'mutation'.

www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk

They just don't want to give up on mask compulsion, it has literally become a cult for IndySage and it's rapidly shrinking fan base.

Two words to them. The second one is off....

Every permutation and combination of conspiracy-theory/precaution/complacency/etc is out there if I dare to look.

So if it's "unlikely that this wave will cause a large surge in hospital admissions or deaths" because of the UK's high rate of vaccinations" why even get neurotic about it?

We absolutely cannot afford to go into panic mode every time there might be a new Sars-Cov-2 wave with mild symptoms. Aren't there more important things to worry about in the world? Do they understand, or care about, the consequences of constantly being afraid of Covid until the end of time?

What is the motivation behind this? Why do some people seem to be continually causing alarm over Covid long after it ceased to be dangerous for most of us?

Maybe these people should pressurise Sunak into funding the NHS properly and making it fit for purpose instead of constantly stirring up panic about Covid.

I do think there is a case for looking into the effects of multiple infections of Covid let lon one infection. There are also cases with other viruses where longer term problems occur. For example there has been growing evidence that a certain virus has to be contracted before cancer can get a look in - I am sorry I have no idea of a source as quite a while ago but I think it was research findings from a major cancer charity.

But how cautious we should actually be be over every maybe is the art.

COVID-19 reinfections could be taking a toll on some important organ systems. That risk applies to both short-term and long-term health effects

People who had more than one COVID-19 infection were three times more likely to be hospitalized and twice as likely to die than those who only had one infection. Those with multiple infections were also more vulnerable to other dangerous conditions; they were 3.5 times more likely to develop lung problems, 3 times more likely to have heart conditions, and 1.6 times more likely to have brain changes requiring care than people who had only had COVID-19 once.

Tht's not what I'd call "mild".

This sort of concern needs to have stronger evidence. Of course by the time that evidence is found it might be too late for the human race. But we cannot get hung up over every maybe.

Is there good evidence for this, though, and even if so, is it worth the economic damage and mental health effects caused by being afraid of Covid for all time?

I suspect most, in 2023, would say No.

It really is time to forget about Covid and move on. If we don't, much more damage will be caused than if we do.

Since Covid, you can't easily see a doctor in the UK. Many of us have lost affordable NHS dentistry. And operations have been postponed. People have suffered profound mental health effects.

Is it really worth living under the constant threat of restrictions for all time?

I suspect more people will die of car accidents than Covid-related effects in coming years, and no-one is (quite rightly!) calling for severe restrictions on car use. There's a need for balance and that life has risks, and trying to shield us from all risks causes more harm than it does good.

It is a matter of finding the right balance of collateral damage for the circumstances. Can you imagine what role health and safety would have on the Normandy beaches back in the early 1940s ? !.

And is that true of only covid, or is it true of all infections? Moreover what exactly are you proposing been done?

Hindsight will be the answer.

Let's say it is unusual.

There is not much that has to be done. If you are ill, stay at home, if you have to go out you are ill, you might want to wear a mask. Take extra care around vulnerables (hospitals etc.).

Yes. I would try harder to avoid passing my maybe on to someone else. It is why when I had Omicron I stayed in bed. Befor Covid I would have reluctantly gone to work. My first dose of Covid I had no choice as I was out of it - proper flu.

They say that where?

I wish everyone was that sensible. The coughing on the train and in the shops over the last few days shows a different picture. My current neighbour in the office (open-plan office without a fixed allocation of space) is quite proud of himself right now that he still comes to work even with a fever. And yes, sick pay is mandatory here. He actually hopes it is Covid, so he would be immune in the future. I hope he at least wipes his sneeze marks off the monitor before he goes home. Needless to say, I went home due to a lack of alternative places.

Yes. I was always one who went to work with minor ailments for me. It was my back trouble that I could have done without - and many thought that was skiving. But looking back I did not consider the effect on other people of viruses some of whom would be off for a week (never knew if they were really ill or just less keen on work). Catching Covid opened my eyes up to what it is like.

Jolly good! That should be just enough to keep the in laws at bay again this winter, given they're petrified of COVID.

Every cloud...

Indeed - even my household might have a few "false alarms".

And lets not forget there will be those who want to blame the effects of Brexit, appalling delivery delays etc on Covid - rightly or wrongly.

 

[nw1]

It is interesting how China hung on to restrictions heavier and longer than the rest of the world did - do they know something ?.

Or was it merely the extremely authoritarian nature and control-freakery of the current Chinese regime? I don't think Xi Jinping can be considered a good role model in anyone's book.

 

[ainsworth74]

It is interesting how China hung on to restrictions heavier and longer than the rest of the world did - do they know something?

That having boasted about how well they had handled the pandemic and sunk much reputation into their achievements it then becomes very difficult to reverse course. Especially in an dictatorship that has morphed into a cult of personality (to a degree). Very embarrassing if the leader then turns out to have gotten it wrong...

 

[nw1]

And lets not forget there will be those who want to blame the effects of Brexit, appalling delivery delays etc on Covid - rightly or wrongly.

I think both Covid restrictions and Brexit have a lot to answer for but I won't go down that rabbit hole here

 

[westv]

I think both Covid restrictions and Brexit have a lot to answer for but I won't go down that rabbit hole here

Is it Breggzit or Brexit?

 

[nw1]

Is it Breggzit or Brexit?

The latter leads the way, IMX.

 

[jon0844]

I genuinely believe that an unintended consequence of the mask charade is an increased acceptance of people covering their faces. Funnily enough, although it wasn’t our primary concern at the time, quite a few of us predicted that this would happen.

People wore masks for criminal acts for years before Covid, and since Covid a lot of county lines/push throughs at stations are people with masks on. With facial recognition being used more and more, covering your face is vital to stop anyone - or anything - being able to identify you.

 

[yorkie]

Let's say it is unusual.

There is not much that has to be done. If you are ill, stay at home, if you have to go out you are ill, you might want to wear a mask. Take extra care around vulnerables (hospitals etc.)

We are regularly exposed to commonly circulating viruses, which circulate in a state of endemic equilibrium. There is no way to avoid exposure and indeed regular exposure is completely natural and boots out immune system.

Flimsy loose fitting masks don't do anything to prevent the spread of viruses, however if anyone wants to reduce their exposure, they are free to wear a tight fitting FFP3 mask but unless you live as a hermit, exposure is inevitable.

If people are concwerned for their health, the best things to do are eat healthily (including reducing ultra-processed foods and artificial sweetners, and stop fussing over sugar/fat content of natural foods) and get plenty of exercise. This is much more effective than trying to avoid exposure to commonly circulating pathogens!

People wore masks for criminal acts for years before Covid, and since Covid a lot of county lines/push throughs at stations are people with masks on. With facial recognition being used more and more, covering your face is vital to stop anyone - or anything - being able to identify you.

Absolutely; masks are long associated with criminals and criminal acts. Now that the pandemic is over, masks rightfully have gone back to having such negative connotations. Some people claimed they were going to be normalised indefinitely; they were wrong. However it is true to say that since the pandemic there has been an increase in court photos where suspects or convicted criminals are seen wearing masks.

I genuinely believe that an unintended consequence of the mask charade is an increased acceptance of people covering their faces. Funnily enough, although it wasn’t our primary concern at the time, quite a few of us predicted that this would happen.

Some increased acceptance but that has massively slid away recently. It's not normal to wear a mask and the wearer is bringing themselves to attention by standing out. I think mask wearers these days generally fall into categories such as criminals, virtue signallers, or people who have been mislead and unable to think for themselves. Fortunately it's an absolutely miniscule proportion of the population now.

 

[Eyersey468]

Oh boy, IndySage are sabre rattling again...

New Covid variant could have us 'masking up again', scientists warn

Scientists have called for people to start wearing face masks again amid a worrying Covid-19 variant 'mutation'.

www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk

They just don't want to give up on mask compulsion, it has literally become a cult for IndySage and it's rapidly shrinking fan base.

Two words to them. The second one is off....

If they want to wear a mask they are quite welcome to do so but don't expect me to go along with that nonsense any more

 

[VauxhallandI]

People wore masks for criminal acts for years before Covid, and since Covid a lot of county lines/push throughs at stations are people with masks on. With facial recognition being used more and more, covering your face is vital to stop anyone - or anything - being able to identify you.

Previously the masks stood out like a sore thumb and would attract attention from the authorities, now not so much.

 

[bahnause]

We are regularly exposed to commonly circulating viruses, which circulate in a state of endemic equilibrium. There is no way to avoid exposure and indeed regular exposure is completely natural and boots out immune system.

We all want strong, robust immune systems, “boosting” or “strengthening” the immune system isn’t particularly desirable. In fact, autoimmune diseases such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis occur when the immune system over-reacts and attacks healthy tissue in the body. Your body needs a healthy, well-balanced immune system, not a "boosted" one. And do you know what exactly you want to strengthen? Do you want more antibodies? Or more T-cells?

The immune system is not an account into which we have to regularly pay infections because otherwise we are accumulating debts.
There is no such thing as an "immune debt". It is not a medical concept, nor does it capture the essence of the immune system.

Infections do not make us stronger just because they are supposedly natural. Apart from the fact that flu, measles or even colds were practically non-existent in hunter-gatherer communities, infections can even weaken us in the long run. We therefore do not have to avoid them tooth and nail, but neither do we have to provoke them. Not only out of self-protection, but also out of solidarity with our fellow human beings.

If people are concwerned for their health, the best things to do are eat healthily (including reducing ultra-processed foods and artificial sweetners, and stop fussing over sugar/fat content of natural foods) and get plenty of exercise. This is much more effective than trying to avoid exposure to commonly circulating pathogens!

Less stress and plenty of sleep might help too.

 

[Bantamzen]

If they want to wear a mask they are quite welcome to do so but don't expect me to go along with that nonsense any more

I don't think its really anything to do with masks if I'm honest. IndySage got way too used to the spotlight on social media during the restrictions they've become addicted to it. I regularly see various members scrambling for attention, posting memes, charts, links and anything else they think will keep the likes coming. Someone should really refer them to a specialist in addictions...

We all want strong, robust immune systems, “boosting” or “strengthening” the immune system isn’t particularly desirable. In fact, autoimmune diseases such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis occur when the immune system over-reacts and attacks healthy tissue in the body. Your body needs a healthy, well-balanced immune system, not a "boosted" one. And do you know what exactly you want to strengthen? Do you want more antibodies? Or more T-cells?

The immune system is not an account into which we have to regularly pay infections because otherwise we are accumulating debts.
There is no such thing as an "immune debt". It is not a medical concept, nor does it capture the essence of the immune system.

Infections do not make us stronger just because they are supposedly natural. Apart from the fact that flu, measles or even colds were practically non-existent in hunter-gatherer communities, infections can even weaken us in the long run. We therefore do not have to avoid them tooth and nail, but neither do we have to provoke them. Not only out of self-protection, but also out of solidarity with our fellow human beings.

I'm curious as to how one provokes a virus. Do you stand in a crowded area and call it names, or challenge it to a fight....??

But being serious for a moment, our immune systems learn through exposure. If you were to spend 20 years alone on a desert island, then come back and live in a big city you would likely catch all manner of infections and potentially feel a lot worse than the people around you simply because your immune system hadn't been exposed to new variations of existing diseases. And covid was not a brand new type of virus, it was a mutation of others meaning that many people had at least some limited protection from serious illness because our immune systems were able to recognise parts of the RNA in the virus and react appropriately. Now it is true as we get older our immune systems start to slow, but quite honestly encouraging people to keep a healthy diet, & do a bit of exercise will be far more beneficial than a loose bit of cloth.

Humanity, indeed animals in general have been exposing each other to airborne viruses from pretty much the time that we dragged ourselves out of the oceans and starting breathing the air.

 

[DustyBin]

They say that where?

It's the inescapable conclusion given the limitations of the study and it's findings.

In fairness, it's an older study that's out of date. For example, they refer to fears of the Omicron variant, which we know were unfounded.

Ultimately, attempting to prevent exposure to a widely circulating endemic virus is futile, as well as pointless.

People wore masks for criminal acts for years before Covid, and since Covid a lot of county lines/push throughs at stations are people with masks on. With facial recognition being used more and more, covering your face is vital to stop anyone - or anything - being able to identify you.

Very true, however:

Previously the masks stood out like a sore thumb and would attract attention from the authorities, now not so much.

 

[yorkie]

We all want strong, robust immune systems, “boosting” or “strengthening” the immune system isn’t particularly desirable.

Don't you believe in vaccines then?

If it's not desirable to bost your immune system, how do you explain the fact that a virus that is novel to a population will cause a lot more problems than the same virus which is already commonly circulating in a population, and where people have been exposed to the virus from a young age and on repeated occasions throughout their lives?

In fact, autoimmune diseases such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis occur when the immune system over-reacts and attacks healthy tissue in the body. Your body needs a healthy, well-balanced immune system, not a "boosted" one. And do you know what exactly you want to strengthen? Do you want more antibodies? Or more T-cells?

"Boosted", "well balanced", call it what you want but the fact is that we humans live with a large number of commonly circulating respiratory viruses which we are regularly exposed to, and this is all totally natural and part of life. The idea that you can somehow escape from these exposures is absurd.

The immune system is not an account into which we have to regularly pay infections because otherwise we are accumulating debts.

This is just gibberish.

There is no such thing as an "immune debt". It is not a medical concept, nor does it capture the essence of the immune system.

You're the one coming up with this term.

Infections do not make us stronger just because they are supposedly natural. Apart from the fact that flu, measles or even colds were practically non-existent in hunter-gatherer communities, infections can even weaken us in the long run. We therefore do not have to avoid them tooth and nail, but neither do we have to provoke them.

This is all nonsense; it is a fact that all of us are regularly exposed to commonly circulating respiratory viruses and indeed most of the time the virus is fought off before an infection develops. You can make up all sorts of strawman arguments but it doesn't change the fact that you are talking nonsense.

As for the times before we kept animals within close proximity to us, the viruses which we hadn't yet been exposed to had not yet jumped from animals to humans. The problem is that even if you avoided animals you cannot avoid exposure to these viruses unless you also avoided humans. By all means wear a mask (either a loose fitting one which is nothing more than a placebo, or a tight-fitting FFP3 mask) but if you take off that mask in the presence of any other humans, then exposure to pathogens is inevitable.

Not only out of self-protection, but also out of solidarity with our fellow human beings.

Absolute nonsense! We live with viruses and there is no way to avoid this; the idea that we should behave differently "in solidarity" is just absurd.

Less stress and plenty of sleep might help too.

Yes, these all help much more than trying to avoid exposure to commonly circulating pathogens.

 

[bahnause]

Don't you believe in vaccines then?

If it's not desirable to bost your immune system, how do you explain the fact that a virus that is novel to a population will cause a lot more problems than the same virus which is already commonly circulating in a population, and where people have been exposed to the virus from a young age and on repeated occasions throughout their lives?

This in not how you immune sytem works. A vaccine doesn't boost your immune system, it trains it. This is why, for example, the effectiveness of vaccinations in immune-compromised individuals is severely limited or non-existent.

Can the immune system be boosted?

 

[yorkie]

This in not how you immune sytem works. A vaccine doesn't boost your immune system, it trains it. This is why, for example, the effectiveness of vaccinations in immune-compromised individuals is severely limited or non-existent.

Can the immune system be boosted?

"Boost" or "train"; use whatever words you want to use.

Everyone is regularly exposed to commonly circulating pathogens, so someone who has absolutely "non-existent" immunity wouldn't live long.

You can use whatever words you want, or make whatever fancy arguments you want, the fact is that exposure to commonly circulating viruses cannot be avoided.

 

[bleeder4]

It does puzzle me somewhat when I see the occasional person still wearing a mask. Obviously it's entirely up to them and doesn't affect me. But, before 2020, I had never seen anyone wearing a mask in public at all. So what did these people do before Covid? Presumably they didn't wear a mask back then. I'm genuinely curious about it. I would ask one of them but it would probably get taken the wrong way.

 

[bahnause]

"Boost" or "train"; use whatever words you want to use.

I could use "boost", but I don't see the point. Then we both would be wrong.

I try to back up everything I write here with the appropriate sources. If then the only answer is "nonsense", fair enough.

 

[nw1]

It does puzzle me somewhat when I see the occasional person still wearing a mask. Obviously it's entirely up to them and doesn't affect me. But, before 2020, I had never seen anyone wearing a mask in public at all. So what did these people do before Covid? Presumably they didn't wear a mask back then. I'm genuinely curious about it. I would ask one of them but it would probably get taken the wrong way.

I'm more puzzled by people who still insist on testing as a matter of course, and are not routinely mixing with vulnerable people. At this late stage, why put yourself through the constant anxiety of having to perform self-isolation (which I guess is what people would do) if it comes up positive, which it might well do several times a year?

 

[Eyersey468]

@bahnause could you explain how less stress and more sleep helps you avoid viruses?

 

[Mag_seven]

Oh boy, IndySage are sabre rattling again...

According to their website they provide "independent scientific advice to the UK government". I'm quite sure the government did not appoint them.

Independent SAGE | Following the Science

www.independentsage.org

Independent SAGE is a group of scientists who are working together to provide independent scientific advice to the UK government and public on how to minimise deaths and support Britain’s recovery from the COVID-19 crisis.

 

[Eyersey468]

According to their website they provide "independent scientific advice to the UK government". I'm quite sure the government did not appoint them.

I'm sure they didn't as well, though some members of it such as Alice Roberts seem to be more sensible than others

 

[bahnause]

This was in addition to some good suggestions for general health, not to avoid viruses.

 

[Richard Scott]

I'm glad you mentioned that. You can find the evidence here (one of quite a few):
Acute and postacute sequelae associated with SARS-CoV-2 reinfection

I am now looking forward to you presenting the evidence on the economic and mental effects of "being afraid of covid".

To be scientific needs more than one piece of evidence. Has this been peer reviewed? Seems to have three authors; how do we know it's not just a small group with some self interest?