5 ms·

That would be comforting if the outcomes were limited to 'death' or 'full recovery'!

mrfusion 6y ago
Do you have a source on the amount of other outcomes for the 0-49 group? I haven’t come across that data. I’d be curious.
- rogerkirkness 6y ago
  ARDS is limited at this point almost exclusively to those over 75 with critical cases who happen to recover.
  - spaced-out 6y ago
    source?
  - hanklazard 6y ago
    I have not seen those numbers but regardless, ARDS is not the only morbidity we need to worry about. What if, of the 10% of hospitalized cases, half of those patients permanently lose a noticeable portion of their lung function? Not supplemental oxygen dependent but can’t walk as far or exercise the same way they could before. That’s a major life change for a huge number of people, when you extrapolate it out to the entire world. The threat of minor but permanent disability should not be ignored, especially in those who spent weeks on a vent.
- spaced-out 6y ago
  That's what still has me worried about this virus. What percent of people under 49 survive, but don't fully recover? When this disease started I thought I'd rather just get it and get it over with, but now I'd rather avoid taking a risk I don't have to.
nkkollaw 6y ago
From what I got, lung damage was actually caused by unnecessary ventilators. We now know that the vast majority of people are out of oxygen because of their blood and not lungs. This is an extremely mild disease, I would assume that in a few months we'll know enough to make it a minor inconvenience for most people (more than it already is, since most people don't even experience symptoms today). What long-term damage you know of (not saying there isn't, just curious)?
- robbiep 6y ago
  Prolonged ventilation is damaging to the lungs. But ventilation is not given lightly - usually it is for an acute deterioration and is life saving (ie without it, patient would have died in that instance). Interestingly in COVID it appears that positioning and CPAP/BIPAP can be more effective that venting in edge cases. This is a very new phenomenon in medicine, and we probably over vented in the early course of the pandemic. We were acting in what we knew of other severe respiratory diseases, and the case data from COVID hadn’t had enough time to present best treatment modalities. However, to suggest that the lungs are not being absolutely ravaged by the virus infecting, replicating and rupturing lung cells is ludicrous
  - nicc 6y ago
    > However, to suggest that the lungs are not being absolutely ravaged by the virus infecting, replicating and rupturing lung cells is ludicrous I was talking about permanent damage. I actually read my comment again, and that isn't really clear. Doctors in Italy are saying that ventilators were thought to be useful because people complained that they couldn't breath, but now they're saying that it's not the lungs that aren't working, but it's oxygen that is not carried out in the blood, and that ventilators can actually cause permanent damage in many cases. I'm not a doctor, so I just base everything on what the (supposed?) experts are saying. As far as I know they might very well say that on TV because there aren't enough ventilators, no idea.
    - robbiep 6y ago
      One of the reasons we worked out we could get people through without ventilators was because we ran out of ventilators. And people with COVid are being vented for 2 weeks plus. A normal time (and a time that would minimise Kung damage from a vent) would be several days. But if someone has saturation’s in the shithouse, they’re going to die. Lack of oxygen (Hypoxia) in the blood is many many fold more common than severe thrombosis or whatever else was suggested; and the answer is right there - if the oxygen isn’t getting to the blood it’s because the lungs are shot. If we have enough gear, we put someone in ECMO to solve the gas exchange problem. Lung damage severe enough to do this is caused by the effects of the disease, not the ventilator

Do you have a source on the amount of other outcomes for the 0-49 group? I haven’t come across that data. I’d be curious.

rogerkirkness 6y ago
ARDS is limited at this point almost exclusively to those over 75 with critical cases who happen to recover.
- spaced-out 6y ago
  source?
- hanklazard 6y ago
  I have not seen those numbers but regardless, ARDS is not the only morbidity we need to worry about. What if, of the 10% of hospitalized cases, half of those patients permanently lose a noticeable portion of their lung function? Not supplemental oxygen dependent but can’t walk as far or exercise the same way they could before. That’s a major life change for a huge number of people, when you extrapolate it out to the entire world. The threat of minor but permanent disability should not be ignored, especially in those who spent weeks on a vent.
spaced-out 6y ago
That's what still has me worried about this virus. What percent of people under 49 survive, but don't fully recover? When this disease started I thought I'd rather just get it and get it over with, but now I'd rather avoid taking a risk I don't have to.

nkkollaw 6y ago

From what I got, lung damage was actually caused by unnecessary ventilators. We now know that the vast majority of people are out of oxygen because of their blood and not lungs. This is an extremely mild disease, I would assume that in a few months we'll know enough to make it a minor inconvenience for most people (more than it already is, since most people don't even experience symptoms today). What long-term damage you know of (not saying there isn't, just curious)?

robbiep 6y ago
Prolonged ventilation is damaging to the lungs. But ventilation is not given lightly - usually it is for an acute deterioration and is life saving (ie without it, patient would have died in that instance). Interestingly in COVID it appears that positioning and CPAP/BIPAP can be more effective that venting in edge cases. This is a very new phenomenon in medicine, and we probably over vented in the early course of the pandemic. We were acting in what we knew of other severe respiratory diseases, and the case data from COVID hadn’t had enough time to present best treatment modalities. However, to suggest that the lungs are not being absolutely ravaged by the virus infecting, replicating and rupturing lung cells is ludicrous
- nicc 6y ago
  > However, to suggest that the lungs are not being absolutely ravaged by the virus infecting, replicating and rupturing lung cells is ludicrous I was talking about permanent damage. I actually read my comment again, and that isn't really clear. Doctors in Italy are saying that ventilators were thought to be useful because people complained that they couldn't breath, but now they're saying that it's not the lungs that aren't working, but it's oxygen that is not carried out in the blood, and that ventilators can actually cause permanent damage in many cases. I'm not a doctor, so I just base everything on what the (supposed?) experts are saying. As far as I know they might very well say that on TV because there aren't enough ventilators, no idea.
  - robbiep 6y ago
    One of the reasons we worked out we could get people through without ventilators was because we ran out of ventilators. And people with COVid are being vented for 2 weeks plus. A normal time (and a time that would minimise Kung damage from a vent) would be several days. But if someone has saturation’s in the shithouse, they’re going to die. Lack of oxygen (Hypoxia) in the blood is many many fold more common than severe thrombosis or whatever else was suggested; and the answer is right there - if the oxygen isn’t getting to the blood it’s because the lungs are shot. If we have enough gear, we put someone in ECMO to solve the gas exchange problem. Lung damage severe enough to do this is caused by the effects of the disease, not the ventilator