Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[martinuzz]

Worrisome.
According to a US study of about 250000 corona patients, 1 out of 3 ex-corona patients develop neurological and / or psychiatric problems within half a year after having recovered from corona.

Most cases involve anxiety disorders, depression, drug addiction and sleeplessness. But there are also a significant number of cases of brain strokes, dementia, and psychosis.

People who had corona, have a 44% higher chance to develop a neurological or mental illness than the normal population.
About 8% suffered from insomnia, about 1% developed psychosis.
About 1 out of 8 ex-corona patients suffered mental problems for the first time in their lives. That's twice as much as with ex-influenza patients.

Part of this can be explained by the horrible healthcare system in the US. The perspective of being bankrupt for the rest of your life because of ICU bills is ofcourse driving a lot of people insane, and the stress and terror of contracting corona isn't beneficial to mental health either.
This does not explain that a lot of their test subjects didn't get severe corona and weren't even hospitalized, they had a mild corona and recovered at home, yet they still developed problems about a half year later.
31% of those that did not need medical treatment for their corona still reported to have had neurological or psychiatric problems in the half year after.

The researchers are worried.
Lots of the illnesses turned out to be recurring and chronic.
They say worldwide healthcare systems should prepare extra capacity of neurology and psychiatry, because it is going to be needed for years to come.

https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/een-op-de-drie-coronapatienten-krijgt-hersenaandoening-of-geestelijke-problemen~b88cf593/

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(21)00084-5/fulltext

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(21)00120-6/fulltext

[dragdeler]

-

[Starver]

Then why do some people call a billiards table a pool table?

because a pool table is what you use to play pool

Snookered!

[ChairmanPoo]

I think its worthwhile pointing out that in that paper they're lumping together very different conditions. Its obviously not the same to talk about strokes and anxiety. Would have been nice to get a breakdown of the hazard ratios by condition, too, for this same reason.

[Frumple]

Isn't anxiety a significant risk factor for strokes, on top of the latter sometimes exacerbating the former? Not same, but from my understanding definitely similar and/or related. Could totally be wrong and they're medically significantly distinct, but at least from mart's summary that degree of lumping doesn't seem like much of an issue.

[ChairmanPoo]

One is a psychiatric condition of varying severity, the other is a vascular/thrombosis issue. They are not similar at all.

Regardless of whether anxiety down the line might increase the risk of various conditions, you can't really lump them together. I think its mixing apples and oranges.

That being said upon further examination there's a breakdown down in the text, it just hadnt loaded the first time I clicked on the link for some reason

[scriver]

Parents' vaccination get today!

[Frumple]

Appointment made for first shot next week, so... three-ish weeks until everyone in this house has been fully vaccinated. Will be good thing, hopefully.

[McTraveller]

Just got myself a vaccination appointment - I was literally playing whack-a-mole for time slots; I'd click one and it would be "this slot is no longer available."

First dose scheduled for Sunday.  I'm thinking of pre-scheduling a vacation day the Monday after the second shot; I've heard that's the worse one.

I was going to wait a bit, but my state has the worst increase in cases and hospitalizations we've seen this pandemic so far...so I'm not tarrying.  I'm more than two score in age, so I'm not really in a low-risk group either...

[DeKaFu]

I'd love to hear some outside opinions on Canada's decision to push ahead with extending the time between vaccine shots (for Pfizer, Moderna and Astrazeneca) up to 4 months. The working plan now is to get everyone a single shot, and only then start giving out second shots to anyone. They're doing it because we've had so many issues with vaccine supply delays, and they'd rather get everyone half-vaccinated than half of everyone vaccinated in the same time frame. Even with this plan in place, we've only vaccinated about 15% of our population, and only around 2% is "fully" vaccinated (with both shots, from before they implemented this policy).

I understand why they did it, but I have some issues. Nobody else in the world (that I'm aware of) has extended the interval by this much. We have no idea how much protection someone with only a single shot is going to have four months out, especially now that the UK variant has become the dominant strain here. We know the protection drops with time, and faster for older and immunocompromised people. The second shot is what grants it staying power. But I guess if there's any issues we'll find out when our entire population is knee-deep in it?

I'd really rather have had the option to choose whether to consent to this experiment.

I also hate the idea that this basically means any other studies or data that comes out about these vaccines in the coming months/years will basically be non-applicable to us, because our use of them was so wildly different.

So many people seem to be enthusiastic about it, and dismissive of anyone even questioning it (hope you enjoy being called 'anti-science' for suggesting it might not be supported by science, since no-one has studied it), and it's making me feel a bit crazy. Obviously I'll still jump on the first vaccine I'm offered, in a few months time, but... I don't like it.

[hector13]

Pretty sure the UK has been waiting 12 weeks between doses since they started vaccinating.

[Starver]

I think the very first people vaccinated got (close to) the initial time-frame to the second dose. But, yes, it fairly soon switched to "We'll see you in 12 weeks", because of a preference (that I'm still not sure added up) to spread the half-vaccinated status to more people further down ths list, quicker, at the expense of no longer treating the prioritised as a priority to complete the course. Not currently sure if that was Pfizer/BioNTech as well as AstraZeneca/Oxford (which is definitely elongated) and what the plan is for the only just started Moderna doses that haven't even reached its recommended 4-week 'in vivo' in anyone given it under that standard authorisation.

I know someone who has just had their second AZ jab at about 10 weeks, though. Expected it in a fortnight. That might mean we're actually slightly above the number of doses realistically expected to sustain 12-weeks. Or vaccine refusal/un-soughtedness is higher than expected due to the bad press, boostering the shot-slots available for returnees. Or both.

(My own expectations have been bouncing around between as late as August, at some points, down to date we've now passed, at others, as to when I'd be asked to book. I'm at the younger edge of the pure age-priority ranking but also no (known) health/support issues, so I'd be very happy to get the nod but know there's others who are probably net better off getting my theoretical earliest slot, instead of me. I think if I were chasing it with enough force of argument, I could have wangled a date by now, if not have had the primer already. I still think it was a bad decision to not do any non-medical keyworkers (police, teachers, bus-drivers...) in advance of their personal age/health positions, as well.)


I can't tell you right now what the statistical result of all this messing about (or lack of it) with the authorised schedule actually is. We seem to be firmly out of the latest wave (and that even with incidence of the UK-variant, pretty much by definition), but disentangling treatment and lockdown (it's hardly been two weeks since the first stage of relaxation) is way beyond my paygrade, as a calculation.

[wierd]

The protection afforded by the single dose is very significant for Moderna and Pfizer jabs.  It is not full potency until after the second jab (Then it reaches 90+% resistance), but the first confers very profound resistance.

Given that there is a strong desire to prevent another mass-death spiral, it makes logistical sense to maximize the single shot population, as that will greatly curb manifest R value for the pathogen, due to a lack of highly vulnerable hosts. 

It makes sense to do it that way, but only because of lack of supplies.

Like Poo, I am a healthcare worker and got double-shot early in the pipeline.  I am now waiting for my friends and family to get their jabs.

[scriver]

My parents get their second shot somewhen in May so that's about 4 weeks.

Edit: It was Pfizer by the way, which I remember because fis is fart in Swedish and that is always funny

My opinion on extended reshot times is that I'm not particularly keen on the idea. Maybe for younger folks were the risk is lower but I really want our elders and other premier cases/occupationants to be able to be protected.

[martinuzz]

I think I will be able to get a vaccination in july, maybe august