People who fully recover from the coronavirus can be left with '20 to 30%' less lung function [TR]

Yahoo ^ | 3/13/2020 | Bill Bostock

[SERE_DOC]

Wah.

Cheap shots is what I call from web-detectives and if you are going to cite info from the internet for the credibility you seek, try Johns Hopkins or the Mayo Clinic.

Reading your response you would have gained a rather different response from me had you said you stayed in a Holiday Inn.

I will rest on my 18 years in clinical, field and emergency medicine, but even more so on the healthcare professionals I come in contact with face to face as it were.

So please keep reading WebMD.

And as I will point out for the last time, medicine is a practice, not an exact science.

And when medical folks say this is 100% what is going to happen, well ok.

Still even better is when tv types hype this it remains suspect, or “Still not buying the hyped Bullsh!t.

[Bob434]

‘[[Just for background, I have two degrees]]

Not doubting for one m inute any of that- just was curious why you objected to what was said in the article- you weren’t very specific in your post- You just gave a general opinion-

[[It says that if you get coronavirus, even if you fully recover from it, you could “be left with 20-30% less lung function”. ]]

Yes, i understand that- key words in this quote is ‘could be’- i didn’t read in the article that 30% of victims WILL INEVITABLY get lung problems permanently- the articel never said that from what i read of it

They even mention that it is too early to establish long term effects- again, to me, the article said it ‘could affect’ some folks by diminishing 20-30% of their lungs capacity to exchange air—

[[but ZERO/ZILCH/NADA in the way of history, controls, or any rigid analysis at all.]]

Again- it was just one study, which found that 20-30% of those tested ended up with lung problems- the study isn’t meant to be the end all be all of coronavirus analysis- it’s just another piece of the ongoing puzzle- As i’ve mentioned, I’ve heard similar findings by doctors over the past few weeks stating essentially that this virus can hurt people’s lungs-

I wouldn’t say there is Zero value- and i wouldn’t call their study garbage- while it isn’t an indepth controlled study- again, it’s just a small piece of the rapidly emerging puzzle that is coronavirus- people should be made aware that it could possibly damage their lungs- and really it isn’t too hard to imagine that it would do so since death by this virus is from the effects of lung failure due to damage- Not many people realize what it (and for that matter, other viruses and flues) does to lungs-

[Bob434]

good quesiton- we don’t know how sick the people were- IF they were healthy people before getting virus, then this is alarming- The article could have been more specific-

[Bob434]

[[I am sure the people who find no issue with this article would say “Oh, it doesn’t say you “WILL”, it says you “CAN”.

You “can” die of pneumonia. You “can” throw a clot and stroke or get PE. You “can” get damaged testicles. You “can” burst an artery in your brain from coughing. “You “can” get divorced as a result of it. You “can” miss work and lose your job. You “can” get bad breath.]]

Here’s the problem with poo pooing the idea that posters will point out that the article states “they CAN get it, and not that they WILL get it”- the problem has to do with your examples- Yes, all those htigns are true- you CAN get those things- Everyone can- however, when you get a flu, or virus- you CAN end up with lung damage because the flu or virus increases your chances of getting them- so it is correct to point out that the article states CAN instead of WILL- the virus is increasing people’s chances of ending with damaged lungs- to what extent? We don’t know- more studies will need to be done- more indepth ones as well- This o ne small study showed several got lung damage- but it was too early to say if it woudl be long term- it didn’t declare 30% will end up with permanent lung damage-

I dunno, it just seems the anger towards the article, and by extension, towards those that find such info of some value, to be a bit much? Many people don’t realize that when you get a flu, or a virus, your chances of getting lung damage increase- Our lungs are precious things- they sustain our life- I think folks hsoudl be made aware that this virus and flues and other viruses potentially pose a danger to them-

That’s all- I disagree that the article has zero value or is complete garbage- sure, it isn’t a john hopkins indepth peer reviewed study- but it does sound an alarm that these things can pose a danger to something as valuable as our lungs possibly-

[Redwood71]

Oh, so we’re an educated cheap shot artist.

Well Doctor, just for you:

https://www.hopkinsguides.com/hopkins/view/Johns_Hopkins_ABX_Guide/540747/all/Coronavirus_COVID_19__SARS_CoV_2_

Recommendations to consider testing for all respiratory symptomatic patients will be limited by availability of SARS-2-CoV testing.

Severe illness is likely to strike the same populations at high risk for complications of seasonal influenza (e.g., elderly, immunosuppressed, and those with comorbidities).

https://www.mayoclinic.org/~/media/934B29A088B146D2AA7D41AB02EA12EE

Anybody who’s had close contact with an infected person is at risk since most people have no protective
antibodies against a new virus. Older adults with underlying medical conditions such as lung and heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and a suppressed immune system seem to have a higher rate of complications such as pneumonia and an increased risk of death.

Like I said, the reason the problem got so bad in other countries is because they either were not equipped or were playing political games and it got out of hand.

This thing will pass, and people will die, generally in great numbers. And I stand by my opinion of the leading to future problems of lung injury from this and it’s effect of existing respiratory patients, now and later.

Cellular biologist? Nope. But my working with the federal government for 23 years as an active duty and civilian employee (35L/M), with most of the armed forces groups, and the reading, understanding, and applying of the relevant SOP’s and OI’s for the appearance and determination of bio weapons, as written by leaders in the medical profession, some from the organizations you mentioned, does give me a little jump on people. If you don’t wish to determine my entries are sound, then say so and show me why. But calling people names and making the effort to insult them is a bit below the normal medical professional. I’m not, but the info I gave came from them.

Thank you, your opinion is noted.

rwood

[rlmorel]

We can disagree on this.

This wasn't a "study". It appears to be anecdotal, no more than a couple people talking around a water cooler:

"...Hong Kong Hospital Authority have found after observing the first wave of discharged patients..."

There is, IMO, plenty of room for real and valid studies to to be released to the public. This was NOT one of those "real and valid studies" And while I appeciate you can find value in it, it is misinformation. Just the other day, a more "Scientific" study on a cluster of people caught the virus on a crowded bus on China, and eventually the article was retracted. It said the virus can survive for nine days on a surface. It cannot. It is pure hokum, and that was one assertion or finding. We just don't need thing like that.

[Bob434]

[[This was NOT one of those “real and valid studies”]]

No i agree- but it is a piece of the puzzle-

[[It said the virus can survive for nine days on a surface. It cannot.]]

I know- I’ve heard all kinds of estimates- one fella did say it can ‘survive’ for 9 days, but it becomes much much less contagious by the end- I t6hink maybe the confusion might come from ‘surviving’ and ‘being contagious’ I thin the same principle applies to things like herpes on surfaces- it’s only really contagious for a very short time outside the body, but can ‘survive’ for longer-

[rlmorel]

If you are interested, check out this link from an interview Dan Bongino did with a physician-I found it helpful:

Coronavirus Facts vs. Fiction Interview with Dr. Centeno - The Dan Bongino Show

[NetAddicted]

I’m a little late to post, but this worries me. My mom passed away from COPD.

[Alas Babylon!]

One Quarter of those who survive will have a COPD-like lung condition; probably for the rest of their lives.

I don't know if that is true. ANY survivor would have had it in the ONLY the past few months.

We have no long-term data to rely on.

I am a pneumonia survivor. I also had a pleurisy that completely collapsed my left lung. I was in ICU for a week on a pneumatic chest tube.

It took me over a year to get my lung function back so I could fly without gasping for air at altitude. It took two or threes years to get back to normal.

But lung power does come back. Or at least in my case it did.

[Alas Babylon!]

Officials keep changing the statistics.

But it isn't a conspiracy.

As new data is acquired, I would expect the statistics to change.

In the rapid way this has developed, every day they're learning new things, and adjusting existing assumptions accordingly.