3 ms·

Respectfully, saying there is "evidence that COVID can destroy asymptomatic people's lung function" makes no sense. I think this safely falls into the FUD categ

by 40four 6y ago

Respectfully, saying there is "evidence that COVID can destroy asymptomatic people's lung function" makes no sense. I think this safely falls into the FUD category, and it really bothers me when I hear things like this. I seriously doubt there is evidence of this claim. I don't think we can go around saying it can destroy people's lung function who show no symptoms. If a person's lung function is damaged to the point where we would describe it as 'destroyed', then that person is not asymptomatic. That's a clear symptom. Maybe I misunderstand, and you are saying folks who start out with no symptoms, then develop damage latter. Anyway, we can reasonably say that asymptomatic people might still receive minor damage to their lungs, and such damage could be observed on a CT scan or other test later. Irreversible damage? Probably not. Our bodies are in a constant state of being damaged and repairing themselves. If we went through life with the goal of avoiding any and all damage to our bodies, that would be a terrible way to live.

richardwhiuk 6y ago
It's unclear whether you can sustain permanent damage, and be asymptomatic. We definitely go through life trying to avoid damaging our bodies.
- loveistheanswer 6y ago
  >We definitely go through life trying to avoid damaging our bodies. Depends on your risk tolerance. Some people are agoraphobics, while others are BASE jumpers.
kurthr 6y ago
Well, actually there has been a Scripps paper out there since August. It's abstracted here, but it depends on whether you believe 'ground glass' abnormalities in lungs represent destruction. Certainly, it seems like some "asymptomatic" and many mild to moderate cases of COVID cause loss of lung function, which could be permanent (e.g. equivalent to having a history of pneumonia). That could be enough to make you no-longer able to compete at a professional level in sports. I personally know that a major research hospital is doing (unpublished) research on medium to long term effects of mild-moderate COVID (non-hospitalized) on lung function and that the initial radiological results 3-6mo after symptoms are fairly shocking to those running the study. So there is at least some published evidence from multiple sources and there continues to be study on this and based on the known action of the disease. Covid "long-termers" do also come from mild-moderate and perhaps even "asymptomatic" cases so I'm not sure FUD really makes sense here. https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200811/asymptomatic-covid-silent-but-maybe-not-harmless https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200811/asymptomatic-covid-... https://www.uchealth.com/en/media-room/covid-19/short-and-long-term-lung-damage-from-covid-19 https://www.uchealth.com/en/media-room/covid-19/short-and-lo... p.s. these articles were trivial to find and are in no way exhaustive.
- 40four 6y ago
  Fair enough. I read a couple of similar articles before this, but maybe I'm ignorant on the current science. I'll check the links out in more detail. But honestly a quick look at the WebMD link was not very convincing. They cite two studies from China in April of last year. One study had 16 participants, the other had 4. 20 people total studies between the two. Not really enough for any of us to make any claims with confidence. WebMD article says, "Nobody knows exactly what those changes mean yet or whether they will persist and form scar tissue or simply heal and go away after the infection is gone." I'm not saying we shouldn't be cautious. But in my opinion, if a person was truly asymptomatic then they weren't really sick. If it affected them so little that they weren't ever aware they had the virus, it seems like a stretch to believe that they would have permanent, debilitating damage. It's in the realm of possibility, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. It's unfortunate asymptomatic people still carry the virus & spread it around. But is that quality really unique to Covid-19? I doubt it. I suspect it's probably a quality of many diseases and sicknesses that we just didn't fully appreciate before. How many people every year carry around the common cold or the flu with no symptoms, and end up spreading it around. Probably a lot. I'll concede that it's possible to still be harmed by Covid, even if you have very few or no symtpoms. Maybe my gripe is that I'm just exhausted from hearing talk of Covid as if it has 'magical' properties that we all need to be afraid of.
usrusr 6y ago
It really depends on where you define the threshold for "symptomatic". If reduced lung perforce is a symptom, then it's tautological to say "no damage in the asymptomatic". If your threshold is "feeling bad enough to call emergency services", then there is plenty of room for massive performance loss without ever coming close to that threshold. People who don't routinely measure athletic performance wouldn't even notice losing the equivalent of an entire lung lobe as long as the loss doesn't come in a very short time.

by 40four 6y ago

richardwhiuk 6y ago

It's unclear whether you can sustain permanent damage, and be asymptomatic. We definitely go through life trying to avoid damaging our bodies.

loveistheanswer 6y ago
>We definitely go through life trying to avoid damaging our bodies. Depends on your risk tolerance. Some people are agoraphobics, while others are BASE jumpers.

kurthr 6y ago

Well, actually there has been a Scripps paper out there since August. It's abstracted here, but it depends on whether you believe 'ground glass' abnormalities in lungs represent destruction. Certainly, it seems like some "asymptomatic" and many mild to moderate cases of COVID cause loss of lung function, which could be permanent (e.g. equivalent to having a history of pneumonia). That could be enough to make you no-longer able to compete at a professional level in sports. I personally know that a major research hospital is doing (unpublished) research on medium to long term effects of mild-moderate COVID (non-hospitalized) on lung function and that the initial radiological results 3-6mo after symptoms are fairly shocking to those running the study. So there is at least some published evidence from multiple sources and there continues to be study on this and based on the known action of the disease. Covid "long-termers" do also come from mild-moderate and perhaps even "asymptomatic" cases so I'm not sure FUD really makes sense here. https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200811/asymptomatic-covid-silent-but-maybe-not-harmless https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200811/asymptomatic-covid-... https://www.uchealth.com/en/media-room/covid-19/short-and-long-term-lung-damage-from-covid-19 https://www.uchealth.com/en/media-room/covid-19/short-and-lo... p.s. these articles were trivial to find and are in no way exhaustive.

40four 6y ago
Fair enough. I read a couple of similar articles before this, but maybe I'm ignorant on the current science. I'll check the links out in more detail. But honestly a quick look at the WebMD link was not very convincing. They cite two studies from China in April of last year. One study had 16 participants, the other had 4. 20 people total studies between the two. Not really enough for any of us to make any claims with confidence. WebMD article says, "Nobody knows exactly what those changes mean yet or whether they will persist and form scar tissue or simply heal and go away after the infection is gone." I'm not saying we shouldn't be cautious. But in my opinion, if a person was truly asymptomatic then they weren't really sick. If it affected them so little that they weren't ever aware they had the virus, it seems like a stretch to believe that they would have permanent, debilitating damage. It's in the realm of possibility, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. It's unfortunate asymptomatic people still carry the virus & spread it around. But is that quality really unique to Covid-19? I doubt it. I suspect it's probably a quality of many diseases and sicknesses that we just didn't fully appreciate before. How many people every year carry around the common cold or the flu with no symptoms, and end up spreading it around. Probably a lot. I'll concede that it's possible to still be harmed by Covid, even if you have very few or no symtpoms. Maybe my gripe is that I'm just exhausted from hearing talk of Covid as if it has 'magical' properties that we all need to be afraid of.

usrusr 6y ago

It really depends on where you define the threshold for "symptomatic". If reduced lung perforce is a symptom, then it's tautological to say "no damage in the asymptomatic". If your threshold is "feeling bad enough to call emergency services", then there is plenty of room for massive performance loss without ever coming close to that threshold. People who don't routinely measure athletic performance wouldn't even notice losing the equivalent of an entire lung lobe as long as the loss doesn't come in a very short time.