shazbot posted:

+1 to the not dying in surgery club. not a boss like unfortunate getting the trippy-b but I� m down a cancer ridden kidney. masking was bettter than expect, got a swank private room. stingy with the pain meds and taking a poo poo and/or farting are part of my discharge requirements

all in all 0/10 don�t get kidney cancer


I spell checked like half this post but can�t concentrate enough for the rest. peace

Goddamn Particle posted:

Take care Shazbot and USF, hope you're both feeling ok soon.

Gunshow Poophole posted:

triple post kinda I don't care, kissinger is dead, celebrate by posting

Gunshow Poophole posted:

Mine too



He loev fleecy blankie

Soap Scum posted:

i think it's time for some petposting

everyone look at my cat



okay thanks

silicone thrills posted:

Seriously happy to hear both of our posters making it through their surgeries. Here's to uneventful recoveries.

shazbot posted:

+1 to the not dying in surgery club. not a boss like unfortunate getting the trippy-b but I’ m down a cancer ridden kidney. masking was bettter than expect, got a swank private room. stingy with the pain meds and taking a poo poo and/or farting are part of my discharge requirements

all in all 0/10 don’t get kidney cancer


I spell checked like half this post but can’t concentrate enough for the rest. peace

Steve Yun posted:

Steve Yun posted:

Ihmemies posted:

Wastewater data just keeps climbing. This is a gigantic, towering covid wave according to the data. Many times higher than any other previous wave recorded in wastewater. Impressive.

Ihmemies posted:

Wastewater data just keeps climbing. This is a gigantic, towering covid wave according to the data. Many times higher than any other previous wave recorded in wastewater. Impressive.

https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-023-03162-5 posted:

Abstract
Introduction
Prior reviews synthesized findings of studies on long-term cardiac complications of COVID-19. However, the reporting and methodological quality of these studies has not been systematically evaluated. Here, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on long-term cardiac complications of COVID-19 and examined patterns of reported findings by study quality and characteristics.

Methods
We searched for studies examining long-term cardiac complications of COVID-19 that persisted for 4 weeks and over. A customized Newcastle�Ottawa scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of included studies. Meta-analysis was performed to generate prevalence estimates of long-term cardiac complications across studies. Stratified analyses were further conducted to examine the prevalence of each complication by study quality and characteristics. The GRADE approach was used to determine the level of evidence for complications included in the meta-analysis.

Results
A total number of 150 studies describing 57 long-term cardiac complications were included in this review, and 137 studies reporting 17 complications were included in the meta-analysis. Only 25.3% (n = 38) of studies were of high quality based on the NOS quality assessment. Chest pain and arrhythmia were the most widely examined long-term complications. When disregarding study quality and characteristics, summary prevalence estimates for chest and arrhythmia were 9.79% (95% CI 7.24�13.11) and 8.22% (95% CI 6.46�10.40), respectively. However, stratified analyses showed that studies with low-quality scores, small sample sizes, unsystematic sampling methods, and cross-sectional design were more likely to report a higher prevalence of complications. For example, the prevalence of chest pain was 22.17% (95% CI 14.40�32.55), 11.08% (95% CI 8.65�14.09), and 3.89% (95% CI 2.49�6.03) in studies of low, medium, and high quality, respectively. Similar patterns were observed for arrhythmia and other less examined long-term cardiac complications.

Conclusion
There is a wide spectrum of long-term cardiac complications of COVID-19. Reported findings from previous studies are strongly related to study quality, sample sizes, sampling methods, and designs, underscoring the need for high-quality epidemiologic studies to characterize these complications and understand their etiology.
(..)
Meta-analysis
In total, meta-analyses were conducted for 17 long-term cardiac complications because two or more studies reported data on each of these complications. Figure 3 summarizes these complications, among which chest pain and arrhythmia were the most frequently reported complications. Meta-analyses showed substantial heterogeneity across studies for most of these complications. The prevalence estimates across studies based on random-effects models for these complications were as follows: chest pain 9.79%, arrhythmia 8.22%, stroke 0.54%, cardiac abnormalities 10.52%, thromboembolism 1.44%, hypertension 4.89%, heart failure 1.18%, myocardial injury 1.27%, myocarditis 0.56%, abnormal ventricular function 6.71%, edema 2.12%, coronary disease 0.41%, ischemic heart disease 1.43%, valve abnormality 2.91%, pericardial effusion 0.76%, atrial fibrillation 2.56%, and diastolic dysfunction 4.92%. Details of summary prevalence estimates and 95% CI using fixed-effect and random-effects models are presented in Additional file 2: Fig. S2.

Fig. 3

<sub>Prevalence estimates of 17 long-term cardiac symptoms based on meta-analysis with and without stratifications

Footnote: Prevalence estimates were calculated based on random-effects models. Long-term cardiac complications were ordered by the number of studies included in the meta-analysis. This figure shows both summary prevalence estimates with and without stratifications by study quality and characteristics, highlighting systematic differences in reported findings across studies by these factors</sub>
(..)
Our study also has several limitations. First, studies included in our systematic review and meta-analysis are highly heterogeneous. We, therefore, performed subgroup analyses by multiple characteristics, and we believe that existing heterogeneity across studies makes it difficult to generalize our results to the general population. Second, we were unable to stratify our meta-analysis by the length of follow-up because of widely varying follow-up times and different index dates of follow-up across studies. We intended to report the meta-analysis results by hospitalization status; however, most studies have a mixed cohort of inpatients and outpatients, and some studies did not report this information. Such variations in design and lack of detailed data made the stratified results hard to interpret. Finally, we could not stratify our analyses based on prior comorbidities, history of cardiovascular diseases, treatment or medication use for cardiac complications, or COVID-19 vaccination status due to limited reporting of such information, particularly in the studies published during the initial stages of the pandemic. This is because much of the related information was not clearly given in most existing studies. We plan to conduct these analyses once more data on these factors becomes available.

As the pandemic comes to an end worldwide, we may live together with COVID-19 in the coming years, and the epidemiology of long-term cardiac manifestations of COVID-19 might change over time. We think that multiple factors may strongly influence the prevalence or rate of long-term cardiac complications of COVID-19, including a shift in the demographic affected from primarily older people with comorbidities at the beginning to the general population, the availability of vaccination, treatment, and in-home testing, and the emergence of new COVID-19 variants [5, 37]. In future studies, how these factors may influence long-term cardiac complications of COVID-19 should be carefully examined.

In conclusion, we found there were diverse manifestations of cardiac complications, and many can last for months and even years.
(..)

quote:

In october of 2019 I had an encounter with a racoon that caused the county health department to recommend I get the rabies vaccine. In case you didn't know rabies is 99% fatal if not treated before symptoms. I have ACA insurance which is crap, but how much would a few shots be right? Receiving the shots involved one completely unnecessary visit to the ER, and 3 visits to an outpatient facility to receive a single shot a week apart each. Atrium health charged my insurance $20,000, for which they �negotiated� down to them (insurance) paying $2,000 and me owing $5,500. One might say, �wow you only have to pay $5,500 of a $20,000 bill�, and that was the line the Atrium and BCBSNC both told me, it made me furious!

The rabies treatment is essentially the same since the 1800�s, there are 2 parts the vaccine itself and the immunoglobulin (RIG) which is a blood product from someone that has already had the vaccine to kick start your immune response. This treatment used to be about $1000 totally and health departments gave it for free, that was only like 10 years ago. The wholesale cost of RIG in the US has gone up 3000% in the last 8 years. In Cambodia the cost for the treatment is literally $100, that�s not subsidized, that is the cost.

I know this all seems like a pointless discussion about healthcare costs, but I just wanted to make the point that what is being charged for the service has absolutely no connection to it�s cost in even the most basic way.

The questions I have is how is it legal to be obligated to pay a theoretically infinite amount for a service which your life depends on. I can find nothing that would have stopped them from charging me a million dollars. Also at no point are they or my insurance company able to or obligated to provide pricing. You may get some numbers if you beg, but they are not bound to them.

Also in several articles the manufacturer of the RIG was asked why it was so expensive, and they said part of the expense was because of the �life saving nature� of RIG.

So how is legal to become obligated to infinite debt over threat of death?

gradenko_2000 posted:

I just finished watching this Netflix documentary on Dr Paolo Macchiarini, who perpetrated an atrocious, I would say inhumane con by selling people on the idea of plastic prosthetic tracheas, which he'd then allegedly coat with stem cells so that they'd integrate into the patient's body and become living tissue

of course, none of this was real - he never did any animal trials, never even had stem cells, and basically just stitched plastic tubes into peoples's throats and then they died of rot and infection. He did this to at least eight patients, of which only one survived and only because they had their prosthetic removed

what raised my eyebrows beyond the regular amount was that Macchiarini worked for the Karolinska Institute, the premier medical facility in Sweden, and supposedly a globally recognized and prestigious medical center. When Macchiarini's colleagues uncovered the fraud that he was perpetrating, they went to the Karolinska's Chancellor about it, and nothing ever happened. They stonewalled and ignored the allegations.

When the report made to Karolinska's leadership was leaked and it became front-page news on the New York Times, the chancellors circled the wagons around Macchiarini, made a public statement that he had committed no wrongdoing, and set the police to harass the whistleblowers under the premise that this was all a case of professional jealousy

the whole coverup aspect of it really did not sit well with me, but I sort of brushed it off and chalked it up to the fact that I was deep into a podcast series about the Olof Palme assassination and maybe I was just being paranoid

but then, in the final act of the documentary, a camera crew that's following around Macchiarini for yet another chronicle of his work manages to puzzle out the fraudulent practice themselves, and they turn their documentary into an expose about him, and that leads to the doctor being charged with three counts of aggravated assault

Macchiarini is convicted on one count, but the court acquits him on two others, citing that those patients were already dying anyway

and that's what really shocked me and took me to another place, mentally, because it's Deaths Pulled From the Future, and it's being cited by the same country that was the world leader in letting 'er rip on COVID

I don't know. It bothered me a lot, and I'm writing this all down in an attempt to process.

Platystemon posted:

How is this not extortion? (self.Ask_Lawyers)

gradenko_2000 posted:

I just finished watching this Netflix documentary on Dr Paolo Macchiarini, who perpetrated an atrocious, I would say inhumane con by selling people on the idea of plastic prosthetic tracheas, which he'd then allegedly coat with stem cells so that they'd integrate into the patient's body and become living tissue

of course, none of this was real - he never did any animal trials, never even had stem cells, and basically just stitched plastic tubes into peoples's throats and then they died of rot and infection. He did this to at least eight patients, of which only one survived and only because they had their prosthetic removed

what raised my eyebrows beyond the regular amount was that Macchiarini worked for the Karolinska Institute, the premier medical facility in Sweden, and supposedly a globally recognized and prestigious medical center. When Macchiarini's colleagues uncovered the fraud that he was perpetrating, they went to the Karolinska's Chancellor about it, and nothing ever happened. They stonewalled and ignored the allegations.

When the report made to Karolinska's leadership was leaked and it became front-page news on the New York Times, the chancellors circled the wagons around Macchiarini, made a public statement that he had committed no wrongdoing, and set the police to harass the whistleblowers under the premise that this was all a case of professional jealousy

the whole coverup aspect of it really did not sit well with me, but I sort of brushed it off and chalked it up to the fact that I was deep into a podcast series about the Olof Palme assassination and maybe I was just being paranoid

but then, in the final act of the documentary, a camera crew that's following around Macchiarini for yet another chronicle of his work manages to puzzle out the fraudulent practice themselves, and they turn their documentary into an expose about him, and that leads to the doctor being charged with three counts of aggravated assault

Macchiarini is convicted on one count, but the court acquits him on two others, citing that those patients were already dying anyway

and that's what really shocked me and took me to another place, mentally, because it's Deaths Pulled From the Future, and it's being cited by the same country that was the world leader in letting 'er rip on COVID

I don't know. It bothered me a lot, and I'm writing this all down in an attempt to process.

quote:

https://absolutelymaybe.plos.org/20...-vax-update-12/
Advancing Past Early Trials � Plus Shooting for Lifelong Immunity (Next Generation Covid Vax Update 12)
...
The 3 vaccines from the USA chosen for Project NextGen are:

Gritstone Bio�s self-amplifying mRNA vaccine aiming to be �variant-proof�;
Covi-Vac/CoviLiv: A live virus intranasal vaccine from Codagenix; and
Castlevax viral vector intranasal vaccine, from a Mount Sinai Hospital spin-off.
...

quote:

...
The numbers are too small to assess efficacy, especially against moderate or severe Covid. However, for 2 of the trials they report that mild Covid was common. In the UK trial, when Omicron emerged, 8 of the 17 participants got mild Covid. In the US trial, 23 of 48 people got mild Covid. No one became so ill that they needed hospitalization. The rate for the third trial wasn�t reported.
...

Rescue Toaster posted:

Nothing ever feels better than your first. That's part of why they're stingy with pain meds, it slows your guts down.

gradenko_2000 posted:

I just finished watching this Netflix documentary on Dr Paolo Macchiarini..

I don't know. It bothered me a lot, and I'm writing this all down in an attempt to process.

Goddamn Particle posted:

Take care Shazbot and USF, hope you're both feeling ok soon.

Insanite posted:

https://www.wtrf.com/ohio/ohio-first-state-to-report-white-lung-syndrome-outbreak/

this is fine as long as you have neither children nor lungs

Nocturtle posted:

Hilda Bastian put together another excellent update on next-generation vaccine development on their blog. These are always worth reading to get a sense for whether improved vaccine protection might eventually become available and the associated timeline. The main news this update is that three US Project Nextgen candidates will enter phase 2B trials in 2024, two of which are intranasal vaccines. From the update:

The "Gritstone" vaccine is interesting because it allegedly leads to a more durable immune response. However the claims of it being "variant-proof" appear flimsy, also from the update:

None of the vaccines proceeding to phase 2b seem designed to address the fact that the SAR-COV-2 virus continues to evolve around immunity much much faster than vaccines can be updated. It is not even clear whether mucosal vaccines provide any significant additional protection against infectin without addressing this more fundamental issue, and there are already some clinical trials suggesting they don't (see the Pneucolin trial result). As a result it doesn't seem a given that any of these candidates will be able to demonstrate superiority over existing vaccine options. In the event that one of these vaccines work out it appears the relevant timescale to become available to the public would be at least 3+ years away, given they need to progress through the phase 2B trial, subsequent phase 3 trial, then the approval + distribution process. Presumably double that for when next-generation pediatric vaccines might become available, but fortunately children do not get COVID.

The so-called "pancoronavirus" vaccines that might address COVID's rapid evolution are much more theoretical at this point and apparently all still only at the phase 1 stages. Probably not worth paying attention to at present.

Insanite posted:

quote:

(..)
According to the news outlet, so far, patients have tested positive for mycoplasma pneumonia, a bacterial lung infection that is mostly resistant to antibiotics, strep, and normally benign infection, adenovirus.

The ages of the patients range from 8 to 3, and there are several theories as to why children are more susceptible to the illness. Some suggest it is caused by lockdowns that have weakened the immune system or mask-wearing and school closures leaving children vulnerable during seasonal illnesses.
(..)

Pingui posted:

Those are the options, no other options possible. Lockdowns, masks or school closures... If you are an idiot incapable of pattern recognition and basic statistics, otherwise the answer is clear:

The Oldest Man posted:

A PCR or LAMP test won't work unless the sample also contains human DNA and admitting you pooled your own sample with a dog's to bypass that issue as a medical professional of any stripe would be problematic

TheMopeSquad posted:

I work for a lab that does tests on samples from animal hospitals and there is a test for COVID afaik but it's sent to a specialist so probably takes a day or two. The article said it was urgent so probably not enough time for results? Also, incidentally, once a doctor sent in their own blood to test, that was pretty weird, lol.