7 ms·

(1) A COVID-19 infection can have long-term effects even in young people. (2) We all have seen the images of hospitals overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients, not

by dirkt 6y ago

(1) A COVID-19 infection can have long-term effects even in young people. (2) We all have seen the images of hospitals overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients, not having enough breathers, etc. For some reason this doesn't happen with the typical annual influenza ... If you reduce everything to statistics about mortality rates, you are missing very important parts of the picture.

nickthemagicman 6y ago
(1) Need sources. This is extremely extremely extremely rare if so, and very speculative and unproven with no hard science. (2) This is also extremely extremely rare in under 70 population. Horrible things happen ALL THE TIME but there's a statistically miniscule chance of it happening to you. Everything in life is dangerous if you look at life the way you're championing. I think you might just be scared of LIFE in general.
- conception 6y ago
  1) long covid is still being studied, obviously, but there are many cases of it - https://bgr.com/2020/08/21/coronavirus-symptoms-long-covid-study/# https://bgr.com/2020/08/21/coronavirus-symptoms-long-covid-s... It’s a disease that attacks your organs, there’s going to be damage.
  - logicchains 6y ago
    I don't think anybody's denying it exists. What hasn't been shown is if long-term consequences are more prevalant with covid than with other viral lung infections.
    - lima 6y ago
      Studies on long-term consequences of a virus that has been around for <1 year?
      - logicchains 6y ago
        People are claiming "long covid" for a virus that's been around for <1 year, so presumably the prevalence of this "long covid" could be studied?
        notahacker 6y ago
        Studies and reviews are taking place. The NIHR one suggests prevalence of symptoms lasting over a month in the 10-20% range.[1] As with any other early stage research relying heavily on self reported symptoms, the prevalence figures are not well established and the mechanisms causing it not yet understood, but they don't look like flu. [1]https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3981 https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3981, https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Living-with-Covid-Themed-Review.pdf https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Livin...
        __blockcipher__ 6y ago
        Symptoms over a month and “long term issues” are not the same thing. Severe COVID-19 can cause radiological abnormalities persisting for 3 months, but these heal. Long COVID is unproven and anecdotal and seems to be more likely to be psychosomatic in most but not all cases.
      - anoncake 6y ago
        You can check how much people get better in a few months and extrapolate.
    - nickthemagicman 6y ago
      Exactly. Or if it's even caused by Covid and not some underlying pre-existing pathology that ANY disease could trigger.
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    There's complications in ..every..single...disease. People have died of papercut complications.. What if 'long covid' is some underlying pre-existing pathology that ANY disease could trigger. So the question becomes are these statistically likely complications and is this directly from the covid virus. The media is feeding you fear about 'long covid' and 'covid toes' and 'covid reinfection' and all of the other sensationalized things about Covid that people eat up like Jerry Springer. Covid-19 and all of it's viral siblings are all solidly respiratory viruses. Anything else you hear is speculative fear based over hyped statistically unlikely complications with unproven conclusions. This whole pandemic is fed off of people who are just fundamentally bad at statistics and interpret every reported sensationalized account as an likely possibility and trust that the news media is unbiased, agenda less, and faithful to the truth. Also...bgr.com is a news outlet not a science source. They make money off of fear. Do you well to look at data and think for yourself.
White_Wolf 6y ago
(1) Is generic and not entirely true. Long term effects are indeed present but only in those genetically predisposed. Doesn't apply to the majority. (2) Actually we didn't. My wife works in a small city hospital. They only have 4 beds with respirators and almost never had more than 2-3 people at a time there. The city is being locked down the second time because we have 5 infected in 20k. We also had in the region of 20 (real) COVID deaths since March. All over 80. There is no complete picture as all hospitals and clinics have a financial incentive to declare COVID deaths as opposed to anything else. Some do keep internal unofficial stats but even those are rare.
- airstrike 6y ago
  > (2) Actually we didn't. My wife works in a small city hospital. "It didn't happen to me so it must not be happening anywhere else"
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    It's about as valid an argument as appealing to the pictures of "overwhelmed hospitals". Yes, we've all seen those pictures. We've also seen pictures of empty emergency care units that were created in anticipation of a wave of illnesses that didn't materialize. In general, we can say that in the overwhelming majority of cases, hospitals did not get overwhelmed with COVID patients like some of the models predicted. That may change as we move into the second winter season, but it's not a foregone conclusion.
    - airstrike 6y ago
      Two things: first, you don't need every hospital to be overwhelmed for it to constitute an issue. Second, every successful preemptive measure is by definition an overreaction. Perhaps you don't see more overwhelmed hospitals precisely because lockdowns are effectively preventing that.
      - gridlockd 6y ago
        > Two things: first, you don't need every hospital to be overwhelmed for it to constitute an issue. Of course, but you need a significant amount of hospitals to be overwhelmed to cause significant excess death. Remember, we're trying to minimize excess death of all causes, not just COVID-19. > Second, every successful preemptive measure is by definition an overreaction. Perhaps you don't see more overwhelmed hospitals precisely because lockdowns are effectively preventing that. Sure, but that insight doesn't really help. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't. Given that neither Brazil nor Sweden had a lockdown and given that neither of their healthcare systems collapsed as some models predicted, my guess would be that a lockdown isn't necessary to prevent such a collapse.
yodsanklai 6y ago
> We all have seen the images of hospitals overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients, not having enough breathers, etc. For some reason this doesn't happen with the typical annual influenza Are you sure about that? it's probably not the same extent as what has happened with covid-19, but some hospitals do get overwhelmed during flu season. A quick google search pre-2019 returns a lot of results, for instance: https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patients/ https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...
- markus92 6y ago
  It happened, but it is not even close to what COVID does. During influenza season, the hospital I work at sometimes cancel elective procedures if it's a particularly bad year for influenza. Luckily influenza season has an end date. With COVID, we hardly even had any capacity left for oncology, the last thing we might cancel. Luckily the lockdown effects happened just in time before we had to take drastic measures there. This was not just a local problem, as patients here are centrally spread over all hospitals in the country. That's the real problem with the disease, not only the fatality rate and long-term effects, but how quickly and severely it can bring a hospital system and all associated healthcare to its knees.
xeromal 6y ago
(1) So can the flu but we move along hunkey dorie.
dnautics 6y ago
> (1) A COVID-19 infection can have long-term effects even in young people. What is the rate of this?
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  We don’t know yet, which is a reason to be cautious.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    Feel free to be cautious for any reason you want. But don't expect it of others if you can't provide evidence there is reason to be cautious.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      We've got plenty of concrete evidence COVID infections can result in long-lasting chronic symptoms. That's sufficient reason to be cautious until we know the rate.
      - aga98mtl 6y ago
        Considering that there has been tens of millions of people with a covid infection, where are these people with chronic symptoms?
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02598-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02598-6 > Symptoms might take a long time to fade; a study posted on the preprint server medRxiv in August followed up on people who had been hospitalized, and found that even a month after being discharged, more than 70% were reporting shortness of breath and 13.5% were still using oxygen at home. > One study of 143 people with COVID-19 discharged from a hospital in Rome found that 53% had reported fatigue and 43% had shortness of breath an average of 2 months after their symptoms started. A study of patients in China showed that 25% had abnormal lung function after 3 months, and that 16% were still fatigued.
__blockcipher__ 6y ago
(1) is totally unproven speculation. We can’t even prove this happens for SARS-1 which per case is far more severe than SARS-2, its less deadly yet more infectious brother. (2) absolutely does happen in bad flu seasons, and by the way most of those images are misleading or taken from prior years. Seriously. Even in say, New York, you’d have hospital A overflowing yet hospital B 10 miles away was at 30% capacity remaining. At least in the US a true overrun scenario never happened yet most don’t realize this. You have to understand the role that mass collective delusion has played in our misguided response. And the media’s selective reporting doesn’t help.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > its less deadly yet more infectious brother. Nitpicking here, Sars-1 is, as I understand, more infectious but also more obvious. So you don't have asymptomatic spread and other things. This ultimately comes down to exactly what you mean by "infectious" though. > is totally unproven speculation. At this point we have more known Covid-19 long haulers in the US than there are Sars-1 infections globally. Comparisons to SARS-1 don't much matter. > absolutely does happen in bad flu seasons Indeed it does, most people weren't aware of this, and covid-19 making people more aware of the danger of the flu isn't a bad thing. Get vaccinated! > you’d have hospital A overflowing yet hospital B 10 miles away was at 30% capacity remaining. There was a period of time when NYC was globally short on ventilators and ICU beds. Raw hospital beds were never a real concern. Also worth remembering that NYC would have run out of hospital beds entirely if they didn't implement strict lockdown measures. The NYC (or really NY) stay at home order went into effect on March 20, and daily cases peaked plateaued 1.5 weeks later.
  - __blockcipher__ 6y ago
    Thanks joshua. By infectious I meant the basic reproduction number, but I believe SARS-2 is also more infectious (in the sense if likelihood of infection per exposure event) given its incredibly high binding affinities. It seems to be unusually good at infecting humans in a way SARS-1 wasn’t. Not sure if that’s due to furin cleavage or what. I’m a bit rusty on the mechanics there so open to dissenting opinions. Also I don’t believe SARS-2 exhibits asymptomatic spread; that seems to be largely a myth. It does undeniably exhibit PRE-SYMPTOMATIC spread however. My hunch is that the early course interferon mediated immunosuppression explains that phenomenon. IMO the true asymptomatics (never showing symptoms) are asymptomatic largely because of T-cell cross reactivity which theoretically will reduce or entirely prevent spread. Thus why we really don’t have good evidence of asymptomatic spread but we have a wealth of evidence on pre-symptomatic. > Also worth remembering that NYC would have run out of hospital beds entirely if they didn't implement strict lockdown measures. The NYC (or really NY) stay at home order went into effect on March 20, and daily cases peaked plateaued 1.5 weeks later. There is absolutely no way for you to prove this nor for me to disprove it, which tells you about its explanatory value. I personally find it much more likely that the dropoff in cases is purely explainable by timing; NY was already rounding the bend when it enforced its (IMO pseudoscientific and deleterious) measures. Basically everywhere in the globe, including Sweden, showed a large uptick for some time followed by a peak and wind-down. That’s just the pattern infectious diseases show. To immediately attribute it to human intervention when SARS-2 landed on our shores months earlier than originally thought just seems like hubris to me. In any case the statement is not falsifiable so I won’t focus on it any further. > There was a period of time when NYC was globally short on ventilators and ICU beds. New York as a whole was a huge proponent of early invasive ventilation which probably ended up killing people unnecessarily. NY’s implied IFR was something like .7%, a number so bad it is unmatched by anywhere else in the US. My guess is not good pre-existing Vitamin D3 levels exacerbated by being directed to stay inside, combined with stress, fear, lack of exercise and lost sleep attributable to lockdown + general hysteria, and finally the aforementioned iatrogenic harm caused by excessive ventilation. In retrospect it seemed the ventilator panic was only marginally more rational than the toilet paper panic. I should note that, if we assume every use of a ventilator prevented a certain death, ventilators still had only a marginal effect since something like 90% of those ventilated died, and it’s only those with incredibly severe COVID-19 who end up ventilated (well, ironically except NY which seemed to ventilate “early and often”, so the cases were still severe but not incredibly severe) > At this point we have more known Covid-19 long haulers in the US than there are Sars-1 infections globally. Comparisons to SARS-1 don't much matter. I have a lot of trouble believing in a bunch of anecsotsl cases of people on Twittwr with very obvious political leanings, given that most long haulers I have seen are in popupations with next to no risk or SARS-2. It’s much more likely to be that the 20-something year olds are either inducing psychosomatic symptoms, or exaggerating their actual symptoms, or coincidentally got Epstein-Barr virus or similar at the same time. I would expect bad COVID cases to have lingering effects for a few months, sure. But not “long-term” - although maybe we have different definitions there. Fatigue 1 month after successful resolution of infection doesn’t really say anything to me. But to give you something more tangible, I don’t believe anyone who’s in their 20s and otherwise healthy is really experiencing this mysterious syndrome, with a few very rare exceptions of course. You have to keep in mind the incredible psychoemotional environment we are living in currently.

by dirkt 6y ago

nickthemagicman 6y ago

(1) Need sources. This is extremely extremely extremely rare if so, and very speculative and unproven with no hard science. (2) This is also extremely extremely rare in under 70 population. Horrible things happen ALL THE TIME but there's a statistically miniscule chance of it happening to you. Everything in life is dangerous if you look at life the way you're championing. I think you might just be scared of LIFE in general.

conception 6y ago
1) long covid is still being studied, obviously, but there are many cases of it - https://bgr.com/2020/08/21/coronavirus-symptoms-long-covid-study/# https://bgr.com/2020/08/21/coronavirus-symptoms-long-covid-s... It’s a disease that attacks your organs, there’s going to be damage.
- logicchains 6y ago
  I don't think anybody's denying it exists. What hasn't been shown is if long-term consequences are more prevalant with covid than with other viral lung infections.
  - lima 6y ago
    Studies on long-term consequences of a virus that has been around for <1 year?
    - logicchains 6y ago
      People are claiming "long covid" for a virus that's been around for <1 year, so presumably the prevalence of this "long covid" could be studied?
      - notahacker 6y ago
        Studies and reviews are taking place. The NIHR one suggests prevalence of symptoms lasting over a month in the 10-20% range.[1] As with any other early stage research relying heavily on self reported symptoms, the prevalence figures are not well established and the mechanisms causing it not yet understood, but they don't look like flu. [1]https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3981 https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3981, https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Living-with-Covid-Themed-Review.pdf https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Livin...
        __blockcipher__ 6y ago
        Symptoms over a month and “long term issues” are not the same thing. Severe COVID-19 can cause radiological abnormalities persisting for 3 months, but these heal. Long COVID is unproven and anecdotal and seems to be more likely to be psychosomatic in most but not all cases.
    - anoncake 6y ago
      You can check how much people get better in a few months and extrapolate.
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    Exactly. Or if it's even caused by Covid and not some underlying pre-existing pathology that ANY disease could trigger.
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  There's complications in ..every..single...disease. People have died of papercut complications.. What if 'long covid' is some underlying pre-existing pathology that ANY disease could trigger. So the question becomes are these statistically likely complications and is this directly from the covid virus. The media is feeding you fear about 'long covid' and 'covid toes' and 'covid reinfection' and all of the other sensationalized things about Covid that people eat up like Jerry Springer. Covid-19 and all of it's viral siblings are all solidly respiratory viruses. Anything else you hear is speculative fear based over hyped statistically unlikely complications with unproven conclusions. This whole pandemic is fed off of people who are just fundamentally bad at statistics and interpret every reported sensationalized account as an likely possibility and trust that the news media is unbiased, agenda less, and faithful to the truth. Also...bgr.com is a news outlet not a science source. They make money off of fear. Do you well to look at data and think for yourself.

White_Wolf 6y ago

(1) Is generic and not entirely true. Long term effects are indeed present but only in those genetically predisposed. Doesn't apply to the majority. (2) Actually we didn't. My wife works in a small city hospital. They only have 4 beds with respirators and almost never had more than 2-3 people at a time there. The city is being locked down the second time because we have 5 infected in 20k. We also had in the region of 20 (real) COVID deaths since March. All over 80. There is no complete picture as all hospitals and clinics have a financial incentive to declare COVID deaths as opposed to anything else. Some do keep internal unofficial stats but even those are rare.

airstrike 6y ago
> (2) Actually we didn't. My wife works in a small city hospital. "It didn't happen to me so it must not be happening anywhere else"
- gridlockd 6y ago
  It's about as valid an argument as appealing to the pictures of "overwhelmed hospitals". Yes, we've all seen those pictures. We've also seen pictures of empty emergency care units that were created in anticipation of a wave of illnesses that didn't materialize. In general, we can say that in the overwhelming majority of cases, hospitals did not get overwhelmed with COVID patients like some of the models predicted. That may change as we move into the second winter season, but it's not a foregone conclusion.
  - airstrike 6y ago
    Two things: first, you don't need every hospital to be overwhelmed for it to constitute an issue. Second, every successful preemptive measure is by definition an overreaction. Perhaps you don't see more overwhelmed hospitals precisely because lockdowns are effectively preventing that.
    - gridlockd 6y ago
      > Two things: first, you don't need every hospital to be overwhelmed for it to constitute an issue. Of course, but you need a significant amount of hospitals to be overwhelmed to cause significant excess death. Remember, we're trying to minimize excess death of all causes, not just COVID-19. > Second, every successful preemptive measure is by definition an overreaction. Perhaps you don't see more overwhelmed hospitals precisely because lockdowns are effectively preventing that. Sure, but that insight doesn't really help. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't. Given that neither Brazil nor Sweden had a lockdown and given that neither of their healthcare systems collapsed as some models predicted, my guess would be that a lockdown isn't necessary to prevent such a collapse.

yodsanklai 6y ago

> We all have seen the images of hospitals overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients, not having enough breathers, etc. For some reason this doesn't happen with the typical annual influenza Are you sure about that? it's probably not the same extent as what has happened with covid-19, but some hospitals do get overwhelmed during flu season. A quick google search pre-2019 returns a lot of results, for instance: https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patients/ https://time.com/5107984/hospitals-handling-burden-flu-patie...

markus92 6y ago
It happened, but it is not even close to what COVID does. During influenza season, the hospital I work at sometimes cancel elective procedures if it's a particularly bad year for influenza. Luckily influenza season has an end date. With COVID, we hardly even had any capacity left for oncology, the last thing we might cancel. Luckily the lockdown effects happened just in time before we had to take drastic measures there. This was not just a local problem, as patients here are centrally spread over all hospitals in the country. That's the real problem with the disease, not only the fatality rate and long-term effects, but how quickly and severely it can bring a hospital system and all associated healthcare to its knees.

xeromal 6y ago

(1) So can the flu but we move along hunkey dorie.

dnautics 6y ago

> (1) A COVID-19 infection can have long-term effects even in young people. What is the rate of this?

ceejayoz 6y ago
We don’t know yet, which is a reason to be cautious.
- anoncake 6y ago
  Feel free to be cautious for any reason you want. But don't expect it of others if you can't provide evidence there is reason to be cautious.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    We've got plenty of concrete evidence COVID infections can result in long-lasting chronic symptoms. That's sufficient reason to be cautious until we know the rate.
    - aga98mtl 6y ago
      Considering that there has been tens of millions of people with a covid infection, where are these people with chronic symptoms?
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02598-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02598-6 > Symptoms might take a long time to fade; a study posted on the preprint server medRxiv in August followed up on people who had been hospitalized, and found that even a month after being discharged, more than 70% were reporting shortness of breath and 13.5% were still using oxygen at home. > One study of 143 people with COVID-19 discharged from a hospital in Rome found that 53% had reported fatigue and 43% had shortness of breath an average of 2 months after their symptoms started. A study of patients in China showed that 25% had abnormal lung function after 3 months, and that 16% were still fatigued.

__blockcipher__ 6y ago

(1) is totally unproven speculation. We can’t even prove this happens for SARS-1 which per case is far more severe than SARS-2, its less deadly yet more infectious brother. (2) absolutely does happen in bad flu seasons, and by the way most of those images are misleading or taken from prior years. Seriously. Even in say, New York, you’d have hospital A overflowing yet hospital B 10 miles away was at 30% capacity remaining. At least in the US a true overrun scenario never happened yet most don’t realize this. You have to understand the role that mass collective delusion has played in our misguided response. And the media’s selective reporting doesn’t help.

joshuamorton 6y ago
> its less deadly yet more infectious brother. Nitpicking here, Sars-1 is, as I understand, more infectious but also more obvious. So you don't have asymptomatic spread and other things. This ultimately comes down to exactly what you mean by "infectious" though. > is totally unproven speculation. At this point we have more known Covid-19 long haulers in the US than there are Sars-1 infections globally. Comparisons to SARS-1 don't much matter. > absolutely does happen in bad flu seasons Indeed it does, most people weren't aware of this, and covid-19 making people more aware of the danger of the flu isn't a bad thing. Get vaccinated! > you’d have hospital A overflowing yet hospital B 10 miles away was at 30% capacity remaining. There was a period of time when NYC was globally short on ventilators and ICU beds. Raw hospital beds were never a real concern. Also worth remembering that NYC would have run out of hospital beds entirely if they didn't implement strict lockdown measures. The NYC (or really NY) stay at home order went into effect on March 20, and daily cases peaked plateaued 1.5 weeks later.
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  Thanks joshua. By infectious I meant the basic reproduction number, but I believe SARS-2 is also more infectious (in the sense if likelihood of infection per exposure event) given its incredibly high binding affinities. It seems to be unusually good at infecting humans in a way SARS-1 wasn’t. Not sure if that’s due to furin cleavage or what. I’m a bit rusty on the mechanics there so open to dissenting opinions. Also I don’t believe SARS-2 exhibits asymptomatic spread; that seems to be largely a myth. It does undeniably exhibit PRE-SYMPTOMATIC spread however. My hunch is that the early course interferon mediated immunosuppression explains that phenomenon. IMO the true asymptomatics (never showing symptoms) are asymptomatic largely because of T-cell cross reactivity which theoretically will reduce or entirely prevent spread. Thus why we really don’t have good evidence of asymptomatic spread but we have a wealth of evidence on pre-symptomatic. > Also worth remembering that NYC would have run out of hospital beds entirely if they didn't implement strict lockdown measures. The NYC (or really NY) stay at home order went into effect on March 20, and daily cases peaked plateaued 1.5 weeks later. There is absolutely no way for you to prove this nor for me to disprove it, which tells you about its explanatory value. I personally find it much more likely that the dropoff in cases is purely explainable by timing; NY was already rounding the bend when it enforced its (IMO pseudoscientific and deleterious) measures. Basically everywhere in the globe, including Sweden, showed a large uptick for some time followed by a peak and wind-down. That’s just the pattern infectious diseases show. To immediately attribute it to human intervention when SARS-2 landed on our shores months earlier than originally thought just seems like hubris to me. In any case the statement is not falsifiable so I won’t focus on it any further. > There was a period of time when NYC was globally short on ventilators and ICU beds. New York as a whole was a huge proponent of early invasive ventilation which probably ended up killing people unnecessarily. NY’s implied IFR was something like .7%, a number so bad it is unmatched by anywhere else in the US. My guess is not good pre-existing Vitamin D3 levels exacerbated by being directed to stay inside, combined with stress, fear, lack of exercise and lost sleep attributable to lockdown + general hysteria, and finally the aforementioned iatrogenic harm caused by excessive ventilation. In retrospect it seemed the ventilator panic was only marginally more rational than the toilet paper panic. I should note that, if we assume every use of a ventilator prevented a certain death, ventilators still had only a marginal effect since something like 90% of those ventilated died, and it’s only those with incredibly severe COVID-19 who end up ventilated (well, ironically except NY which seemed to ventilate “early and often”, so the cases were still severe but not incredibly severe) > At this point we have more known Covid-19 long haulers in the US than there are Sars-1 infections globally. Comparisons to SARS-1 don't much matter. I have a lot of trouble believing in a bunch of anecsotsl cases of people on Twittwr with very obvious political leanings, given that most long haulers I have seen are in popupations with next to no risk or SARS-2. It’s much more likely to be that the 20-something year olds are either inducing psychosomatic symptoms, or exaggerating their actual symptoms, or coincidentally got Epstein-Barr virus or similar at the same time. I would expect bad COVID cases to have lingering effects for a few months, sure. But not “long-term” - although maybe we have different definitions there. Fatigue 1 month after successful resolution of infection doesn’t really say anything to me. But to give you something more tangible, I don’t believe anyone who’s in their 20s and otherwise healthy is really experiencing this mysterious syndrome, with a few very rare exceptions of course. You have to keep in mind the incredible psychoemotional environment we are living in currently.