Pages

Tuesday, March 17, 2020

Covid-19, Non-Oldies, Lung Damage

This is pretty much breaking, from the NYPost--Coronavirus doctor says lung scans for young patients were ‘nothing short of terrifying’. I've heard about this previously--that this disease causes permanent lung damage. People just don't seem to get it--THIS ISN'T THE FLU:

A Belgian doctor working to battle the coronavirus says he’s treated several seriously ill young patients — and their lung scans were “nothing short of terrifying,” according to reports. 
Dr. Ignace Demeyer, who works at a hospital in Aalst, said an increasing number of people between the ages of 30 and 50 have presented with severe symptoms, despite having “blank medical records” that show no underlying conditions that would make them high-risk, the Brussels Times reported. 
“They just walk in, but they are terribly affected by the virus,” Demeyer told the Belgian broadcaster VRT. 
He said CT scans indicated they were suffering from severe lung damage.
“The images we took yesterday are nothing short of terrifying,” the doctor told the station. 
“They are people who do not smoke, who have no other conditions such as diabetes or heart failure,” Demeyer added.

The part about non-smokers without diabetes or heart failure echoes something Michael Osterholm said in the long interview I linked to pretty much near the start of this. Osterholm acknowledged that the Chinese situation was aggravated by the high rate of smoking among Chinese men, but he pointed out that our high obesity rates--with attendant diabetes and cardiovascular problems--would produce similar problems for anyone contracting Covid-19.

ALSO BREAKING: It's being reported that a long term care facility in Willowbrook, IL (suburb of Chicago), has 18 patients testing positive, as well as 4 workers. One fatality at this point.


26 comments:

  1. I’ve heard the same thing from my Taiwanese wife on the lung issue. I thought it was hyperbole.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I forget where I read that, but I did. People who think this is just the flu are dangerously mistaken.

      Delete
  2. "He said CT scans indicated they were suffering from severe lung damage."

    Maybe something was lost in translation. The VRT article referenced in the New York Post article talks about severe lung infection, not severe/permanent lung damage.

    For some reason, the New York Post article links to the Dutch version of the VRT article. Per Google Translate, Dr Ignace Demeyer said, "those people can of course still heal, but it is a life-threatening situation."

    The English version, linked below, seems to indicate the same. In this article, Dr Ignace Demeyer said, "these people can be cured, but these are life-threatening situations."

    https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2020/03/17/lung-scans-covid-19-thirtysomethings-show-scary-picture/

    While serious, that doesn't sound like permanent lung damage, thankfully.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know some Dutch (Flemish in Belgium) and neither English version is an actual translation. The Dutch has a number of embedded interviews that I didn't listen to. It's possible that 'damage' is mentioned in one of the interviews. I do know that I heard about this elsewhere.

      If you do this search:

      "does covid 19 damage the lungs"

      you'll find numerous links stating that Covid 19 causes continuing lung damage.

      Delete
    2. ". . . you'll find numerous links stating that Covid 19 causes continuing lung damage."

      Any severe lung infection (aka pneumonia) has the potential to cause lung damage. As the immune system attacks the virus, it also attacks good cells, which can cause scarring/damage. Having said that, let's keep in mind that 80% have symptoms similar to the common cold or flu. Of the remaining 20% that have worse symptoms, it's claimed some smaller number may develop lung damage if they don't die. These are going to be elderly people with possible existing conditions. Of course, I haven't found any articles that provide those important details.

      Most articles I've found seem to reference cases in China or Hong Kong where we already know heavy smoking, hazardous working conditions, and pollution are all prevelant factors that likely contributed greatly to any observed lung damage. Not to mention, most if not all, are elderly with decades of wear and tear on their lungs, well before Coronavirus. No emperical studies have been done to definitively link Coronavirus to permanent lung damage.

      Since the very beginning of this thing, we've lacked the necessary data to justify shutting down our economy, society, and way of life. If we don't see severe death and destruction throughout, the credibility of all involved will be forever lost. Much like we've seen in many other areas of our society.

      Delete
    3. "Any severe lung infection (aka pneumonia) has the potential to cause lung damage."

      But not every severe lung infection is as highly contagious as this virus is. When was the last time you heard of a pneumonia pandemic?

      Delete
    4. Keep repeating this: IT'S NOT THE FLU!

      Delete
    5. If you wish, add this: IT'S NOT PNEUMONIA!

      Delete
    6. "But not every severe lung infection is as highly contagious as this virus is."

      It's not much different than N1H1, which we easily survived without all the overreaction. The R Zero number (used to measure contagiousness) for N1H1 is 1.4 to 1.6. According to WHO on 01/24/20, the R Zero number for Coronavirus is 1.4 to 2.6 (there are higher estimates as well). As mentioned previously, the contagiousness of Coronavirus is comparable to N1H1.

      For comparison, SARS had an R Zero of 2 to 4 and the measles has an R Zero of 12 to 18.

      "When was the last time you heard of a pneumonia pandemic?"

      Like Coronavirus and the common flu, the 2009 N1H1 pandemic, which killed up to 500,000 worldwide, featured pneumonia as a possible complication. Again, 80% of those with Coronavirus have mild to moderate symptoms.

      Delete
    7. "It's not much different than N1H1"

      Covid-19 IS NOT THE FLU! The flu is not a coronavirus. Much of the population had some degree of immunity to the swine flu, based on previous flu outbreaks. Nobody has any immunity whatsoever--as far as is currently known--to this novel coronavirus.

      Search this:

      "how deadly is measles"

      then ask: would a measles pandemic be nothing to sneeze (!) at?

      Delete
    8. Ten years after swine flu (6/2019)

      "But just looking at the number of deaths masks the full impact of the pandemic, because the people who died were younger than those influenza normally claims. (The elderly, whose immune systems had seen viruses similar to this one long ago, weathered the pandemic pretty well.) A group of researchers who analyzed the deaths based on years of life lost concluded the pandemic’s toll in the United States was at least as bad as an average H3N2 flu season and potentially as severe as the 1968 pandemic."

      There is no question that Obama dropped the ball on that one, and got away with it because of liberal complicity.

      Why would Trump take such a chance with a novel coronavirus that has features that could have been lab-enhanced?

      Delete
    9. "Covid-19 IS NOT THE FLU! The flu is not a coronavirus."

      N1H1 and Coronavirus don't have to be the same disease or come from the same family of diseases to share similar symptoms, contagiousness, and outcomes, as it appears they do.

      "Nobody has any immunity whatsoever--as far as is currently known--to this novel coronavirus."

      Even if that were that case, the R Zero numbers seem to show the likelihood of getting Coronavirus is similar to getting N1H1 or even the seasonal flu, which has an R Zero of around 1.3. Then, once you have Coronavirus, there's an 80% chance you'll either not notice or just think you have a cold or flu.

      Not to mention, due to cultural and hygienic differences, the R Zero in the US should be much lower than China for any disease, let alone Coronavirus.

      Delete
    10. "There is no question that Obama dropped the ball on that one, and got away with it because of liberal complicity."

      I say the reaction, then, was much more proportionate to what was going on at the time than it is now. Maybe more should have been done, but society didn't come to a halt and the markets didn't crash. It shouldn't now either.

      "Why would Trump take such a chance with a novel coronavirus that has features that could have been lab-enhanced?"

      As usual, Trump's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. I liked the early travel bans with China and other hotspots that likely saved countless lives, but think the overly broad measures taken domestically since that time have and will continue to cause irreparable harm. Destroying our economy and way of life is not the answer.

      Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. This appears to be one of those times . . .

      Delete
    11. "once you have Coronavirus, there's an 80% chance you'll either not notice or just think you have a cold or flu."

      Which means--and what you're omitting to say--that there's up to a 20% chance that you'll need to be hospitalized and often in critical care.

      Now imagine that the virus is allowed to spread to the general population and it infects the same numbers as the flu--tens of millions of people. Even at a much lower hospitalization rate than 20% that means that our hospitals would be utterly overwhelmed and the result would be that the mortality rate would skyrocket, as it has in Italy. That's partly because natural immunities and vaccinations prevent flu from spreading as rapidly in the general population as Covid-19 does.

      What's unique about Covid-19 is not that it's the most lethal or the most infectious virus out there. What's unique is that it combines relatively high rates of both--making it conducive to spread widely and rapidly--with a total lack of immunity. That's how it overwhelms health care systems and begins to pose an even bigger threat.

      Delete
    12. "Which means--and what you're omitting to say--that there's up to a 20% chance that you'll need to be hospitalized and often in critical care."

      It looks like only about 5% of overall cases require critical care. The 15% considered severe may or may not require hospitalization.

      It seems the 80% number comes from a Chinese report published on 02/11/20, linked below. On one hand they're probably motivated to under-report, while on the other, their citizens' lungs and living environment are likely much less healthy than ours. It sounds like the CDC and WHO cite similar numbers regarding severe vs non-severe.

      http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/id/e53946e2-c6c4-41e9-9a9b-fea8db1a8f51

      Here's a breakdown of the numbers based on severity:

      Mild: 80.9%
      Severe: 13.8%
      Critical: 4.7%

      Mild = No or mild pneumonia
      Severe = Shortness of breath
      Critical = Respiratory or multiple organ failure

      While it's safe to assume all of the critical patients required hospitalization, the report doesn't seem to indicate how many with severe symptoms were hospitalized. It does say "no deaths have occurred among those with mild or even severe symptoms."

      Delete
    13. All you're doing is confirming what I'm saying. If this spreads like flu and 20 million+ get infected, 4.7% of that number would swamp our hospitals and mortality rates would spike way beyond the already nasty levels. THIS IS NOT THE FLU. There is no known immunity built up over decades of exposure.

      Delete
    14. It's exactly like the flu ... if you're Incan and the Spanish have just come ashore.

      Delete
  3. Should we be cautious, yes?

    Should we throw our country and the world into a massive depression?

    Long before we had "eradicated" measles, polio, etc in which many children died, were on iron lungs, or were crippled like FDR, we did not purposely crater society.

    Life went on. We persevered.

    Today, humanity worldwide appears not want that.

    We appear to desire and seek an apocalyptic world.

    For a counter ...

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/03/must-see-historic-pandemics-in-perspective-coronavirus-is-a-blip-on-the-timeline/

    ReplyDelete
  4. I mean, things can't get soo bad that you cannot gather with someone else can it?

    https://cms.ocgov.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=114362

    Yes it can.

    So, about 17 cases out of a population of over 1 million deserves this?

    Something's truly amiss here.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "a-blip-on-the-timeline"

    Trouble is, this is our timeline. 'Ring-Around-the-Rosey' was taught to children as a survival tool during the Black Death which killed half of Europe; still sung by children today, though they have no idea what it means. A cultural trauma so severe it echoes 600 years later. The unseen is always more terrifying, whether you call it a "virus" of "ill vapors".

    I've read in several places that scarring in the lungs of survivors of acute cases is indeed severe and permanent, which is typical for severe pneumonia. There is still some question as to whether survival bestows immunity in the event of future exposure.
    Tom S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Chinese doctors original described the Wuhan virus as some new type of pneumonia, based on symptoms, but recognizing it was new. It basically seems to be a new type of SARS, which is a very scary development.

      There are some reasons to suspect that it may be a research project that got loose.

      Delete
    2. Indeed. One article I read mentioned research from an Asian university that suggested SARS with enhanced communicability factors that appeared to derive from HIV. If this is true, and it can be traced back its origin, then someone definitely needs to be charged with a capital "crime against humanity" for making such a monster. The main problem is that the Chinese have been burning burning the evidence as fast as they can haul away the body-bags.

      My main rebuttal to '1776's' argument above is derive from my ship-board firefighting experience. There is no such thing as a small fire aboard ship; and you don't justify 'sorta' fighting it because, "Why go to a lot of effort when you have plenty of life rafts for 'maybe' 80% of the crew and they 'maybe' can make it to shore and, after all, 'some' crews have survived worse fires."
      As to the markets I look to speculators mostly trying to capitalize on fear. This sort of opportunism, with a deft bit of manipulation, literally made Soros a billionaire while destroying thousands of lives.
      Tom S.

      Delete
  6. How long should we keep up this sheltering? Democrats are down with indefinite. The economy has been cratered. Trump has been neutralized. Biden gets to win in the shadows, instead of being out in public, which is exactly what his handlers wanted.

    I find it odd too that we are applauding the actions of deep state actors as they vacuum up our lives. Most of these seedy mugs are corrupt and incompetent down to their genome--Cuomo, DeBlasio, Murphy, et. al.

    I heard DeBlasio talking about how we could end up with a situation similar to 1930, and self-induced at that. Instead of stepping back from that idea like it was the third rail, he seemed to be cheered. We little people can now let big people like him run our lives.

    We are right now back to 2008. The high flyers and C-suite types are making the trek to Washington, tin cups in hand. "Bail me out!" says Boeing. Boeing can go shit in a hat. They're where they are because they turned the safest plane in aviation history into a murder weapons (stock buybacks too).

    We need to get control not of the virus, which, ultimately, we can't, but our response to it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My understanding is that the optimistic scenario is that by the end of March or early April they hope to have a handle on how widespread infection is and where the worst hotspots are. At that point new measures and adjustments may be contemplated.

      Delete