5 ms·

"Chest X-rays of asymptomatic patients – those infected but without symptoms – exhibited a severe chest X-ray 70%-80% of the time, but those with COVID-19 sympt

by Grimm1 6y ago

"Chest X-rays of asymptomatic patients – those infected but without symptoms – exhibited a severe chest X-ray 70%-80% of the time, but those with COVID-19 symptoms had one every time, she also added." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/26/fact-check-covid-19-can-cause-worse-lung-damage-than-smoking/4237874001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/26/fac... There are things that can make living quite uncomfortable. So while yes not everyone will be hospitalized and die, there is still a lot of reasons to get any decently effective vaccine. Edit: "Bankhead-Kendall, who has treated thousands of patients since the pandemic began last March, says patients who had COVID-19 symptoms show a severe chest X-ray every time, and those who were asymptomatic show a severe chest X-ray 80 percent of the time."

_Understated_ 6y ago
> exhibited a severe chest X-ray 70%-80% of the time With a sample size of what? That's a nonsense statement that can't be scrutinised. Edit, found this: The finding is promising but will require further research given the small size of the study with only 82 patients, mostly male and average age over 50 82 people over the age of 50. It also doesn't mention how healthy these people were. This is typical of pretty much all media coverage: very little facts but also very little to throw back at them...
- jfengel 6y ago
  The "70-80%" figure is based on thousands of the doctor's own patients. https://observer.com/2021/01/covid-long-term-health-impacts-lungs/ https://observer.com/2021/01/covid-long-term-health-impacts-... It's not a peer reviewed study, and it includes only the people whose situations were severe enough to be sent to a radiologist. But it's enough to conclude that it's more than just a dismissably small number of cases.
  - _Understated_ 6y ago
    Sorry, it says nothing of the sort. All the evidence, including government statistics, tell is it is precisely that, a dismissably small number outside known vulnerable groups.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - Grimm1 6y ago
      You realize over 70m people in the US are obese right and another 100m are overweight? Known vulnerable groups include 170m people right there. I can't take your argument seriously.
      - jtxxwl2 6y ago
        And I bet you think the public health experts that sat by and watched 70m Americans get obese are just the people we should turn to now, don't you?
        andybak 6y ago
        Sorry. Can you expand on this argument? In it's current form it makes almost no sense.
        jtxxwl2 6y ago
        Public health experts, in the US and other western countries, deserve no credibility due to their handling of the obesity crisis. There are clear and obvious steps that governments could take to end obesity, but public health experts have failed to even make an effort to make them happen. Instead they have sat by and watched millions upon millions of people become obese, which is vastly more harmful to the average person's health than the coronavirus. I do not even think an argument can be made that their failure is due to incompetence.
        greedo 6y ago
        Oh yes. I'm sure that a population that can't follow simple recommendations to wear a damn mask will listen to the CDC when it says to stop eating Big Macs. And if you would like to become educated on the government's role in fighting obesity, and its recommendations, you can go to https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/strategies/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/strategies/index.html
- Grimm1 6y ago
  What I don't understand with people who reply like this is why bother taking the chance? My thought is that people have never experienced a severe respiratory illness before, while I have and because of that I'm appropriately level set on how bad the consequences can be for an individual. Nothing like back to back cases of bad pneumonia 19 years ago to make me take this whole thing seriously. My understanding is the hospitalization rate even for young and healthy (20-44) is around 10%. 1 in 10 odds for something happening is really a quite good chance of that thing happening.
  - _Understated_ 6y ago
    And you have every reason to be incredibly cautious. Were I in your shoes I'd likely err on the side of caution too. Hospitalisation rate says nothing other than they were in hospital. It could have been because they were feeling a bit rough but utterly terrified due to all the scaremongering that's going around. Or they may have been close to deaths door. No way to tell. The figures don't lie: There are vulnerable groups that can be severely symptomatic and even die from this but they make up a tiny tiny fraction of the population.
    - lostlogin 6y ago
      The figures don’t lie. Of one hundred people with covid, two will die and ten will be suffering three months later. The portion suffering long covid is growing too, and it’s poorly understood. Damaged hearts and lungs for example and there are plenty of accounts about. What are you pushing for? There are places we can look to where covid ran free, it isn’t pretty. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(21)00031-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2...
      - _Understated_ 6y ago
        Balance, that's what I'm pushing for. Assess your actual chances of catching and suffering from covid. Then balance it against the risk of a rushed experimental gene therapy still in initial trials. Edit: Remember that none of the media and government published figures show recovery rates - this is hugely important.
lbeltrame 6y ago
> exhibited a severe chest X-ray 70%-80% of the time What is a "severe chest X-ray"? This story was debated on Twitter[1]. I agree with the (unforgiving) statements put there. [1] https://twitter.com/Craig_1_1_7/status/1351203220878716928 https://twitter.com/Craig_1_1_7/status/1351203220878716928

by Grimm1 6y ago

_Understated_ 6y ago

> exhibited a severe chest X-ray 70%-80% of the time With a sample size of what? That's a nonsense statement that can't be scrutinised. Edit, found this: The finding is promising but will require further research given the small size of the study with only 82 patients, mostly male and average age over 50 82 people over the age of 50. It also doesn't mention how healthy these people were. This is typical of pretty much all media coverage: very little facts but also very little to throw back at them...

jfengel 6y ago
The "70-80%" figure is based on thousands of the doctor's own patients. https://observer.com/2021/01/covid-long-term-health-impacts-lungs/ https://observer.com/2021/01/covid-long-term-health-impacts-... It's not a peer reviewed study, and it includes only the people whose situations were severe enough to be sent to a radiologist. But it's enough to conclude that it's more than just a dismissably small number of cases.
- _Understated_ 6y ago
  Sorry, it says nothing of the sort. All the evidence, including government statistics, tell is it is precisely that, a dismissably small number outside known vulnerable groups.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Grimm1 6y ago
    You realize over 70m people in the US are obese right and another 100m are overweight? Known vulnerable groups include 170m people right there. I can't take your argument seriously.
    - jtxxwl2 6y ago
      And I bet you think the public health experts that sat by and watched 70m Americans get obese are just the people we should turn to now, don't you?
      - andybak 6y ago
        Sorry. Can you expand on this argument? In it's current form it makes almost no sense.
        jtxxwl2 6y ago
        Public health experts, in the US and other western countries, deserve no credibility due to their handling of the obesity crisis. There are clear and obvious steps that governments could take to end obesity, but public health experts have failed to even make an effort to make them happen. Instead they have sat by and watched millions upon millions of people become obese, which is vastly more harmful to the average person's health than the coronavirus. I do not even think an argument can be made that their failure is due to incompetence.
        greedo 6y ago
        Oh yes. I'm sure that a population that can't follow simple recommendations to wear a damn mask will listen to the CDC when it says to stop eating Big Macs. And if you would like to become educated on the government's role in fighting obesity, and its recommendations, you can go to https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/strategies/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/strategies/index.html
Grimm1 6y ago
What I don't understand with people who reply like this is why bother taking the chance? My thought is that people have never experienced a severe respiratory illness before, while I have and because of that I'm appropriately level set on how bad the consequences can be for an individual. Nothing like back to back cases of bad pneumonia 19 years ago to make me take this whole thing seriously. My understanding is the hospitalization rate even for young and healthy (20-44) is around 10%. 1 in 10 odds for something happening is really a quite good chance of that thing happening.
- _Understated_ 6y ago
  And you have every reason to be incredibly cautious. Were I in your shoes I'd likely err on the side of caution too. Hospitalisation rate says nothing other than they were in hospital. It could have been because they were feeling a bit rough but utterly terrified due to all the scaremongering that's going around. Or they may have been close to deaths door. No way to tell. The figures don't lie: There are vulnerable groups that can be severely symptomatic and even die from this but they make up a tiny tiny fraction of the population.
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    The figures don’t lie. Of one hundred people with covid, two will die and ten will be suffering three months later. The portion suffering long covid is growing too, and it’s poorly understood. Damaged hearts and lungs for example and there are plenty of accounts about. What are you pushing for? There are places we can look to where covid ran free, it isn’t pretty. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(21)00031-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2...
    - _Understated_ 6y ago
      Balance, that's what I'm pushing for. Assess your actual chances of catching and suffering from covid. Then balance it against the risk of a rushed experimental gene therapy still in initial trials. Edit: Remember that none of the media and government published figures show recovery rates - this is hugely important.

lbeltrame 6y ago

> exhibited a severe chest X-ray 70%-80% of the time What is a "severe chest X-ray"? This story was debated on Twitter[1]. I agree with the (unforgiving) statements put there. [1] https://twitter.com/Craig_1_1_7/status/1351203220878716928 https://twitter.com/Craig_1_1_7/status/1351203220878716928