Coronavirus

[Stebo]

1 minute ago, ovweather said:

Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing right now about lasting impact since the virus is so new. It will take years before any thorough and conclusive research can be achieved.

Is it possible some of the 78% had some damage / inflammation beforehand? Sure it is. Allergies, for example, can cause severe inflammation in the body, including the heart. Were all 78% non-smokers, too? I’m not trying to minimize Covid because I’m on your side about taking it seriously and mask wearing, etc  But some of these reports seem to be jumping the gun and playing into the hands of those wanting to create mass hysteria over the virus.

Some but not all any probably no where near a majority, and even short term cardiovascular issues can be serious as can be. I don't get how some of you can be so cavalier about this.

Also how is this report false, it was a direct study of 100 people who had covid, how is that playing into the hands of those wanting mass hysteria if it is completely valid. You guys are doing everything possible to take away the validity of something that should be wholly concerning to everyone.

[mattb65]

5 hours ago, Jonger said:

But a recent study of 100 recovered coronavirus patients reveals 78 of them now have lasting cardiovascular damage even though a vast majority of them had mild cases of COVID-19 in the first place.

If you have looked into the typical symptomatic patient, it would shock me to find they aren't already walking around with cardiovascular damage as it is.

That's the thing with diabetes. It's not the diabetes itself that raises your risk of dying or having symptoms, it's the DAMAGE inflicted from the diabetes over the years that causes susceptibility.  Heightened blood sugar causes inflammation in your blood vessels and that damages nerves. My sister-in-law has RAGING type 2 diabetes.... commonly walking around with 450 mg/dl every day of her life. She spends the majority of her life recovering or weathering infections. She's 450 lbs and 5' 6''. She would probably perish from COVID-19.

 

1 hour ago, Stebo said:

You honestly believe that people already had heart problems before this? I mean that is quite an uneducated leap of faith that isn't remotely based in truth. The cases here were post-covid with cardiovascular damage, and none pre-covid.

MD here, this information is readily available in table 1 of the study. There were two control groups to compare against the covid patients. Of 50 healthy controls, 3% had evidence of myocardial changes, of 57 risk factor matched controls, 40% had evidence of myocardial changes at baseline.

Active inflammation is measured by T2 signal, 60% of Covid patients had active inflammation, 9% of risk factor matched controls.

Also important to note, these MRIs were done approximately 2-3 months after infection.

Reasonable conclusion would be that covid causes a significant increase in myocardial inflammation that persists for at least 2 months after infection.

[Stebo]

3 minutes ago, mattb65 said:

 

MD here, this information is readily available in table 1 of the study. There were two control groups to compare against the covid patients. Of 50 healthy controls, 3% had evidence of myocardial inflammation, of 57 risk factor matched controls, 40% had evidence of myocardial inflammation at baseline.

Also important to note, these MRIs were done approximately 2-3 months after infection.

Reasonable conclusion would be that covid causes a significant increase in myocardial inflammation that persists for at least 2 months after infection.

Yep, and this is short term which is bad, we don't even know long term but odds are it won't be good especially with this many having issues.

[mattb65]

4 minutes ago, Stebo said:

Yep, and this is short term which is bad, we don't even know long term but odds are it won't be good especially with this many having issues.

From the articles discussion "Our findings may provide an indication of potentially considerable burden of inflammatory disease in large and growing parts of the population and urgently
require confirmation in a larger cohort. Although the long-term health effects of these findings cannot yet be determined, several of the abnormalities described have been
previously related to worse outcome in inflammatory cardiomyopathies.2"

 

It's definitely a concern and all the more reason to do whatever is feasible to put measures in place to contain the virus like every other developed country in the world. With vaccine data continuing to be promising it is incredibly  foolish to continue to fail as a country at following the successful playbook we've seen done time and again around the world by the other developed countries.

[Hoosier]

Hopefully the heart affects are temporary.  It's a big problem if they aren't, or even if they fade away after some years go by because in the meantime you'd have people who survived the acute phase of covid but die prematurely.

[Guest ovweather]

2 hours ago, mattb65 said:

 

MD here, this information is readily available in table 1 of the study. There were two control groups to compare against the covid patients. Of 50 healthy controls, 3% had evidence of myocardial changes, of 57 risk factor matched controls, 40% had evidence of myocardial changes at baseline.

Active inflammation is measured by T2 signal, 60% of Covid patients had active inflammation, 9% of risk factor matched controls.

Also important to note, these MRIs were done approximately 2-3 months after infection.

Reasonable conclusion would be that covid causes a significant increase in myocardial inflammation that persists for at least 2 months after infection.

I guess another question is how does this result compare against other coronaviruses and influenza viruses, as well as viral and bacterial pneumonias? Do some people experience a short-term heart inflammation with these other viruses? Does is damage the heart long-term? Surely there is well-documented research here? Also, why do some people experience myocardial inflammation with Covid and others don't despite both groups having only mild symptoms?

Again, I'm not at all trying to minimize the potential impact of Covid. The virus is just so new and we have such limited research into any long-term effects.

[chances14]

12 hours ago, Jonger said:

We're selling lobster and crab like it's going out of style lately.

Not the kind of purchase that's responsible for people on a fixed budget. 

But... that's not going to stop me from selling it to them.

i sell items that would be considered luxury and definitely not essential. I'll just say it's absolutely insane the kind of money people are throwing out right now. it's all gonna come crashing down hard in the next couple months though unless the benefits get extended. been preparing since march so 'm ready for when it inevitably happens

[Stebo]

58 minutes ago, chances14 said:

i sell items that would be considered luxury and definitely not essential. I'll just say it's absolutely insane the kind of money people are throwing out right now. it's all gonna come crashing down hard in the next couple months though unless the benefits get extended. been preparing since march so 'm ready for when it inevitably happens

It could just be people who were working all along and now have extra cash as they aren't going anywhere or on vacation. I mean most people actually didn't get those unemployment benefits, so this could actually just be normal consumption.

[dta1984]

5 hours ago, Stebo said:

It could just be people who were working all along and now have extra cash as they aren't going anywhere or on vacation. I mean most people actually didn't get those unemployment benefits, so this could actually just be normal consumption.

Curious why you say that?  Though there was some delay,  everyone I've encountered part time or full time got the extra unemployment.  Maybe it's depending on the state. 

[BuffaloWeather]

19 minutes ago, dta1984 said:

Curious why you say that?  Though there was some delay,  everyone I've encountered part time or full time got the extra unemployment.  Maybe it's depending on the state. 

I think what he meant was that only around 20% of people actually got furloughed/laid off and collected Unemployment. The rest of us continued to work and not much has changed as of yet. We have actually received more money with the $1200 checks. Many people including me had designated funds set aside for vacations. Mine were New Zealand/Norway this year. I am using that money to make home improvements instead. Many others are likely doing the same. 

[Jonger]

7 hours ago, Stebo said:

It could just be people who were working all along and now have extra cash as they aren't going anywhere or on vacation. I mean most people actually didn't get those unemployment benefits, so this could actually just be normal consumption.

We'll find out when the $600 ends.

[Jonger]

1 hour ago, BuffaloWeather said:

I think what he meant was that only around 20% of people actually got furloughed/laid off and collected Unemployment. The rest of us continued to work and not much has changed as of yet. We have actually received more money with the $1200 checks. Many people including me had designated funds set aside for vacations. Mine were New Zealand/Norway this year. I am using that money to make home improvements instead. Many others are likely doing the same. 

When the layoffs first started I believe those affected were working across a more broad spectrum of fields, wages averaged around $75,000 for those out of work. Now, we're looking at lower paid industries still not back to work. As that link I posted earlier was showing, 2/3rds of those elgible for the increased unemployment are making more than they were previously. 

Not exactly the prime big spending vacation type. I think the majority of what we are seeing with spending is coming from people making upwards of $2,500 a month more now than previously.

[chances14]

8 hours ago, Stebo said:

It could just be people who were working all along and now have extra cash as they aren't going anywhere or on vacation. I mean most people actually didn't get those unemployment benefits, so this could actually just be normal consumption.

that could be a contributing factor but my customer base is generally those in the lower middle class

[Inverted_Trough]

Everyone that makes under 75k also received $1200 even if they are working.  Even retirees got the $1200 check.  People are flush with cash right now.  That's also why the savings rate has gone through the roof.  Americans typically don't save money but now they are.

[Stebo]

4 hours ago, dta1984 said:

Curious why you say that?  Though there was some delay,  everyone I've encountered part time or full time got the extra unemployment.  Maybe it's depending on the state. 

I say that as a percentage of people, most people were still working and didn't get unemployed.

[Stebo]

1 hour ago, chances14 said:

that could be a contributing factor but my customer base is generally those in the lower middle class

Like mentioned above, most of those people were still working. Around 75% of all workers remained working.

[Stebo]

3 hours ago, BuffaloWeather said:

I think what he meant was that only around 20% of people actually got furloughed/laid off and collected Unemployment. The rest of us continued to work and not much has changed as of yet. We have actually received more money with the $1200 checks. Many people including me had designated funds set aside for vacations. Mine were New Zealand/Norway this year. I am using that money to make home improvements instead. Many others are likely doing the same. 

Bingo this is exactly what I meant.

[Stebo]

2 hours ago, Jonger said:

When the layoffs first started I believe those affected were working across a more broad spectrum of fields, wages averaged around $75,000 for those out of work. Now, we're looking at lower paid industries still not back to work. As that link I posted earlier was showing, 2/3rds of those elgible for the increased unemployment are making more than they were previously. 

Not exactly the prime big spending vacation type. I think the majority of what we are seeing with spending is coming from people making upwards of $2,500 a month more now than previously.

They were still only 20-25% of workers in that range that were laid off though. It isn't as big as you want to state, no matter what you 'think'.

[Stebo]

41 minutes ago, Inverted_Trough said:

Everyone that makes under 75k also received $1200 even if they are working.  Even retirees got the $1200 check.  People are flush with cash right now.  That's also why the savings rate has gone through the roof.  Americans typically don't save money but now they are.

Yep, and that 1200 dollars or more depending upon dependents was spent on things to keep the economy rolling. Hell my brother's family got $3900 with 2 adults and 3 kids. Of course they were spending some of that money on stuff.

[Hoosier]

Unless there is some substantive news in relation to the virus, I don't want to see Trump mentioned in here.  

[Chicago Storm]

12 minutes ago, Hoosier said:

Unless there is some substantive news in relation to the virus, I don't want to see Trump mentioned in here.  

[dta1984]

19 minutes ago, Hoosier said:

Unless there is some substantive news in relation to the virus, I don't want to see Trump mentioned in here.  

Is that politics in general or is Biden ok...?

[Frog Town]

1 hour ago, Hoosier said:

Unless there is some substantive news in relation to the virus, I don't want to see Trump mentioned in here.  

Understood

[wisconsinwx]

Regardless of how you feel about min wage laws and the like, if we’re going to continue to hand out an additional $600 a week to the unemployed in addition to standard unemployment, we should also make sure the service industries are adequately compensated in a manner where they are not making less than those who are unemployed.  Maybe call it an increase or added hazard pay.

[Hoosier]

1 hour ago, dta1984 said:

Is that politics in general or is Biden ok...?

No Biden.  He is currently not even in a position to enact policy.

 

[weatherbo]

Can someone explain to me why all the extra money?  Why weren't people just paid unemployment for 100% of what they were earning before the virus?  I can understand hazard pay a little more but it just doesn't make sense to me to pay so many people an extra $600 a week, unless the goal was to keep the economy from completely tanking or an incentive to keep people home and things shutdown longer.  Hope people spent wisely.

[Stebo]

28 minutes ago, weatherbo said:

Can someone explain to me why all the extra money?  Why weren't people just paid unemployment for 100% of what they were earning before the virus?  I can understand hazard pay a little more but it just doesn't make sense to me to pay so many people an extra $600 a week, unless the goal was to keep the economy from completely tanking or an incentive to keep people home and things shutdown longer.  Hope people spent wisely.

It is a combination of several reasons, some of which you already hit on, keeping people home and keeping the economy from falling off a cliff. The other issues are the capping of unemployment is so low even in this state it is 360 a week. That is barely much above minimum wage at 40 hours. Combine that with other states where it is even lower per week. Also the expectation was this wasn't going to last just a couple of weeks and unless we want to see the middle class run into massive amounts of foreclosure or evictions there had to be more put in. This is basically money to save their houses though I do think 600/week is too much, I would go with 100% pay capped at 800 a week or current unemployment + 300-400 a week more. All these things combined would be why it is higher. The main thing is not killing the housing market because not only does that hurt those who get evicted/foreclosed on but that also hurts those who don't as it causes property values to plummet, see 2007-2009 for example.

[Santa Clause]

Sadly already over 930 deaths for today at only 430pm.

[WestMichigan]

Interesting that MI has ~12,000 fewer cases than TN, but MI has over 6x the number of deaths.  Are the doctors that much better at treating this no vs. in the beginning or has something changed with the virus?  Could be the specific population in each state that has the virus is much different also.  Curious to see what accounts for that large of a difference in deaths.

[madwx]

2 minutes ago, WestMichigan said:

Interesting that MI has ~12,000 fewer cases than TN, but MI has over 6x the number of deaths.  Are the doctors that much better at treating this no vs. in the beginning or has something changed with the virus?  Could be the specific population in each state that has the virus is much different also.  Curious to see what accounts for that large of a difference in deaths.

Michigan was hit harder earlier on when there was much less testing, so tons of cases were missed.  Probably close to 1 million people in Michigan have had it already.