4 ms·

Lung function appears to be unaffected after Covid-19 infection in young adults

28 points by angelzen 5y ago

wtt604 5y ago
"Of the 661 participants, 178 (27%) had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 indicating they had been infected. " While this is good news, I'm not exactly going to bet the house on this being 100% concrete when only 178 infections were in this test
- loktarogar 5y ago
  Sounds like a pretty broad statement to make for such a low number. The only data point I have - a 21 year old runner friend of mine was hit with COVID pretty hard at the start of the pandemic and to this day can't run anymore. Breathing problems. Constantly out of breath. Not saying this is typical but it's a pretty devastating result to just be dismissed by the conclusion of this study.
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    The study excludes the minority of young people who get severe breathing problems in the acute phase of the disease so your friend would not be included. The result just shows that the large majority that does not get severe breathing problems in the acute phase (in fact most young people do not get any symptoms at all) does not get long term lung damage.
    - nojokes 5y ago
      Did somebody even expect that people who did not have lung function affected would develop a long term lung issues?
- trynewideas 5y ago
  and the qualification that there was no effect on lung function "apart from those who experienced a severe infection", which pokes a hole in the headline as well
Haga 5y ago
Lifespan Total = lifespanformer* lifeSpanReductionPerInfection ^endemicInfectionsPerYear All younger then 30 will dance the Darth at the early end of life.
eftychis 5y ago
"In addition, the COVID-19 group did not include those with severe breathing problems during the acute phase of the infection." This seems to contradict the sampling statement the announcement makes, as it indicates a source of bias. I would add preliminary in the article title if I was the writer, but I guess that is not something that sells. What I got from the article is that it seems so far to have the same impact as other acute respiratory infections, but we had to exclude some people with serious issues during sampling -- which makes sense -- and we have still work to do and gather more samples that are non local etc. Titles are traps.
- shapefrog 5y ago
  So ... Lung function was unaffected by those that had unaffected Lung function. No word yet on if those with affected lung function had lung function affected.
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    It punches a pretty big hole in that ‘half of the people that get infected get Long Covid’ scare though. And the new argument will probably be that, as Long Covid is not really defined anyway, the goal posts have now moved from lung damage to heart damage or something.
    - shapefrog 5y ago
      To say 0% of people suffer some undefined consequence is about as honest as saying 50% of people suffer some undefined consequence. 2 morons dont add up to make an intelligent person.
      - tinus_hn 5y ago
        That’s fine, as long as you agree that ‘Long Covid’ is an undefined condition so it has no place in any scientific discussion, and at least part of the symptoms it is popularly claimed to include, specifically some debilitating form of lung damage, does not occur in the large majority of cases. It doesn’t occur in the short term and subsequently it doesn’t occur in the long term.
pricehhosting 5y ago
https://www.hostitbro.in/low-price-hosting/ https://www.hostitbro.in/low-price-hosting/ <a href="https://www.hostitbro.in/low-price-hosting/">low https://www.hostitbro.in/low-price-hosting/">low price hosting</a>

28 points by angelzen 5y ago

"Of the 661 participants, 178 (27%) had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 indicating they had been infected. " While this is good news, I'm not exactly going to bet the house on this being 100% concrete when only 178 infections were in this test

loktarogar 5y ago
Sounds like a pretty broad statement to make for such a low number. The only data point I have - a 21 year old runner friend of mine was hit with COVID pretty hard at the start of the pandemic and to this day can't run anymore. Breathing problems. Constantly out of breath. Not saying this is typical but it's a pretty devastating result to just be dismissed by the conclusion of this study.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  The study excludes the minority of young people who get severe breathing problems in the acute phase of the disease so your friend would not be included. The result just shows that the large majority that does not get severe breathing problems in the acute phase (in fact most young people do not get any symptoms at all) does not get long term lung damage.
  - nojokes 5y ago
    Did somebody even expect that people who did not have lung function affected would develop a long term lung issues?
trynewideas 5y ago
and the qualification that there was no effect on lung function "apart from those who experienced a severe infection", which pokes a hole in the headline as well

Haga 5y ago

Lifespan Total = lifespanformer* lifeSpanReductionPerInfection ^endemicInfectionsPerYear All younger then 30 will dance the Darth at the early end of life.

eftychis 5y ago

"In addition, the COVID-19 group did not include those with severe breathing problems during the acute phase of the infection." This seems to contradict the sampling statement the announcement makes, as it indicates a source of bias. I would add preliminary in the article title if I was the writer, but I guess that is not something that sells. What I got from the article is that it seems so far to have the same impact as other acute respiratory infections, but we had to exclude some people with serious issues during sampling -- which makes sense -- and we have still work to do and gather more samples that are non local etc. Titles are traps.

shapefrog 5y ago
So ... Lung function was unaffected by those that had unaffected Lung function. No word yet on if those with affected lung function had lung function affected.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  It punches a pretty big hole in that ‘half of the people that get infected get Long Covid’ scare though. And the new argument will probably be that, as Long Covid is not really defined anyway, the goal posts have now moved from lung damage to heart damage or something.
  - shapefrog 5y ago
    To say 0% of people suffer some undefined consequence is about as honest as saying 50% of people suffer some undefined consequence. 2 morons dont add up to make an intelligent person.
    - tinus_hn 5y ago
      That’s fine, as long as you agree that ‘Long Covid’ is an undefined condition so it has no place in any scientific discussion, and at least part of the symptoms it is popularly claimed to include, specifically some debilitating form of lung damage, does not occur in the large majority of cases. It doesn’t occur in the short term and subsequently it doesn’t occur in the long term.

pricehhosting 5y ago

https://www.hostitbro.in/low-price-hosting/ https://www.hostitbro.in/low-price-hosting/ <a href="https://www.hostitbro.in/low-price-hosting/">low https://www.hostitbro.in/low-price-hosting/">low price hosting</a>