skooma512 posted:

I'm slowly regaining the ability to smell and taste. It has as least reminded me never to take that for granted. I smelled the sulfur from a boiled egg yesterday and was so happy just because I could perceive it.

Soap Scum posted:

friend of mine in NYC who is very scared of covid but follows zero news on it has typically been a good bellwether re: covid getting super bad

she messaged me yesterday and said "wow everyone in my office has covid. is it bad now?" lol

for ref she's masks well and hasn't gotten covid yet so she's doing good but just kinda funny how she interfaces with it

(e: and before anyone says she's gotten covid and hasn't told me, she's the type who tells me every time she has a sniffle and gets all bent out of shape about it, i tell her to test, she does, it's negative, she feels better 12 hours later. so i legit think she's covid free)

JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:

i dipped into a holiday party at an employer last night. they've been on the "covid ain't real" boat for a while

maybe 1/4 of people were masked? I was really surprised. my anecdotal experience is that people only do that when "it" has been around

hospitalizations have been on a steady rise for a month. it's the only number i look at anymore

Indoor Dying posted:

Disney's Urgent Care

ok cool, just checking that the world is still an actual nightmare on fire

Cup Runneth Over posted:

That's the way I like it cause I never get bored

Soap Scum posted:

some new maskers are definitely just sick lol but some new maskers just do it "when things get bad." i know someone who's kinda moderate re: masking most of the time but started masking indoors absolutely everywhere minus her house starting the day after thanksgiving because, as she more or less put it, it's covid season. yes yes it's covid season all the time but i think there is some truth that it's super extra covid season right now, and i think that explains some of the uptick we'll see probably from now til like february in lots of places.

I'm Crap posted:

Doing great, thank you!

(wastewater data, mid-2020 to present)

Bruce Hussein Daddy posted:

Why didn't the Netherlands get the giant spike around Dec/Jan 2021 with Omicron I the way everybody (US only?) else did.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/pfizers-2024-revenue-forecast-below-wall-street-estimate-2023-12-13/ posted:

Pfizer shares sink after it resets 2024 COVID expectations

Pfizer (PFE.N) on Wednesday forecast 2024 sales that could be as much as $5 billion below Wall Street expectations, a move top executives said provided a more reliable view of its COVID-19 business than it had this year, driving shares down to a 10-year low.

Revenue from Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine and treatment, which peaked at $57 billion in 2022, are now expected to be $8 billion in 2024, a further drop from the $13 billion analysts' forecast and Pfizer's own lowered view of $12.5 billion for this year.
(..)
Pfizer used some of its COVID windfall to acquire companies, including a $43 billion deal for cancer drugmaker Seagen it expects to close this week, and launched a new RSV vaccine. But the recent RSV launch has been disappointing, trailing a rival's shot, and shares have fallen 44% so far this year.

In addition, COVID vaccination in the U.S. have dropped sharply with just about 17% of the eligible population getting the most recent updated boosters due in part to declining concern about the virus, as well as vaccine fatigue.
(..)
The COVID-19 vaccine and antiviral treatment Paxlovid helped Pfizer bring in over $100 billion in revenue in 2022. Pfizer had originally forecast sales of $21.5 million [ed. billion] in COVID sales for 2023, but later cut that forecast by more than 40%.

The COVID-19 sales targets "likely represent a floor for 2024 sales," said J.P. Morgan analyst Chris Schott.

The precipitous drop in COVID product sales had also forced Pfizer to launch a program to cut jobs and expenses, which is now expected to save at least $4 billion a year by the end of 2024.
(..)

I'm Crap posted:

Doing great, thank you!

(wastewater data, mid-2020 to present)

https://academic.oup.com/ehjopen/article/3/6/oead120/7439882?login=false posted:

Abstract
Aims
COVID-19 increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, especially thrombotic complications. There is less knowledge on the risk of arrhythmias after COVID-19. In this study, we aimed to quantify the risk of arrhythmias following COVID-19.

Methods and results
This study was based on national register data on all individuals in Sweden who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 1 February 2020 and 25 May 2021. The outcome was incident cardiac arrhythmias, defined as international classification of diseases (10th revision) codes in the registers as follows: atrial arrhythmias; paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardias; bradyarrhythmias; and ventricular arrhythmias. A self-controlled case series study and a matched cohort study, using conditional Poisson regression, were performed to determine the incidence rate ratio and risk ratio, respectively, for an arrhythmia event following COVID-19.A total of 1 057 174 exposed (COVID-19) individuals were included in the study as well as 4 074 844 matched unexposed individuals. The incidence rate ratio of atrial tachycardias, paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardias, and bradyarrhythmias was significantly increased up to 60, 180, and 14 days after COVID-19, respectively. In the matched cohort study, the risk ratio during Days 1–30 following COVID-19/index date was 12.28 (10.79–13.96), 5.26 (3.74–7.42), and 3.36 (2.42–4.68), respectively, for the three outcomes. The risks were generally higher in older individuals, in unvaccinated individuals, and in individuals with more severe COVID-19. The risk of ventricular arrhythmias was not increased.

Conclusion
There is an increased risk of cardiac arrhythmias following COVID-19, and particularly increased in elderly vulnerable individuals, as well as in individuals with severe COVID-19.

Graphical Abstract

Platystemon posted:

Biden should use back channels to strongly suggest that AstraZeneca withdraw application for emergency use.

Platystemon posted:

There’s just no way to win here.

The FDA is under intense pressure, explicit or otherwise, not to deny authorization and summon the wrath of QCS feed antivaccine sentiment abroad, but the U.S. doesn’t need the doses. Within the U.S., approval can only taint the three vaccines already in use by association, and especially taint future vaccines like Novavax. People will ask, not entirely baselessly, if it was a strictly medical judgement or if political concerns put a thumb on the scale.

AstraZeneca’s voluntary withdrawal would create ripples of its own, but it’s the least bad option at this point.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06809-8 posted:

Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has fostered major advances in vaccination technologies; however, there are urgent needs for vaccines that induce mucosal immune responses and for single-dose, non-invasive administration. Here we develop an inhalable, single-dose, dry powder aerosol SARS-CoV-2 vaccine that induces potent systemic and mucosal immune responses. The vaccine encapsulates assembled nanoparticles comprising proteinaceous cholera toxin B subunits displaying the SARS-CoV-2 RBD antigen within microcapsules of optimal aerodynamic size, and this unique nano–micro coupled structure supports efficient alveoli delivery, sustained antigen release and antigen-presenting cell uptake, which are favourable features for the induction of immune responses. Moreover, this vaccine induces strong production of IgG and IgA, as well as a local T cell response, collectively conferring effective protection against SARS-CoV-2 in mice, hamsters and nonhuman primates. Finally, we also demonstrate a mosaic iteration of the vaccine that co-displays ancestral and Omicron antigens, extending the breadth of antibody response against co-circulating strains and transmission of the Omicron variant. These findings support the use of this inhaled vaccine as a promising multivalent platform for fighting COVID-19 and other respiratory infectious diseases.

RembrandtQEinstein posted:

Yeah, please do. I bought one on Black Friday that is still in the box, so if I need to return it it’s nbd.

quote:

As the following sentence from your email is in the past tense, can you verify that Levoit is currently making Levoit Core 400S 3-Stage Replacement Filters to HEPA standards? And if "yes" then please verify what HEPA standard(s) are being used to currently manufacture the filters in question.

"The Levoit filters were tested as manufactured to meet HEPA standard, IEST RP CC001.6 Class H, tested per IEST RP CC007.3."

quote:

At the moment, I don't have any further information about these changes. If your product is still within the return window, I will provide you with instructions for returning it and you will receive a full refund.

Indoor Dying posted:

Disney's Urgent Care

ok cool, just checking that the world is still an actual nightmare on fire

U-DO Burger posted:

The Canadian government has released some new Long Covid statistics: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2023001/article/00015-eng.htm

It's great, filled with fun little quotes like this one:

The percentage of adults experiencing long-term symptoms increased with the number of COVID-19 infections reported

The potential impact of re-infections on the risk of developing or exacerbating pre-existing long-term symptoms is important considering the endemic nature of COVID-19. However, studies providing evidence of increased risk are limited in number and generalizability. As seen in Chart 2, Canadians reporting two known or suspected COVID-19 infections (25.4%) were 1.7 times more likely to report prolonged symptoms than those reporting only one known or suspected infection (14.6%), and those with 3 or more infections (37.9%) 2.6 times more likely.



[...]

Almost half of Canadians who reported that they continue to experience long-term symptoms also reported no improvement over time

Many Canadians with long-term symptoms experience a protracted symptom duration. As of June 2023, 58.2% of infected Canadians who ever reported long-term symptoms continue to experience them. Among Canadian adults who continued to experience long-term symptoms, 79.3% had been experiencing symptoms for 6 months or more, including 42.2% with symptoms for one year or more (Figure 1).



hmm sounds bad, maybe we shouldn't be letting ourselves get infected over and over.

Zantie posted:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2812721 posted:

Key Points
Question What are the rates, risk factors, clinical settings, and symptoms associated with documentation of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, code U09.9 for post–COVID-19 condition?

Findings In this cohort study of 388 980 US veterans with positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 during the Omicron era (October 1, 2021, to January 31, 2023), 5% had U09.9 documentation by 12 months after infection. Patterns varied by geographic location and clinical setting; risk factors included older age, female sex, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, hospitalization within 30 days of the first positive SARS-CoV-2 test result, receipt of mechanical ventilation, lack of vaccination, and a higher number of symptoms at presentation.

Meaning Accurate and consistent documentation of U09.9 is needed to maximize its utility in tracking patients for clinical care and research.

Abstract
Importance A significant proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals experience post–COVID-19 condition months after initial infection.

Objective To determine the rates, clinical setting, risk factors, and symptoms associated with the documentation of International Statistical Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision (ICD-10), code U09.9 for post–COVID-19 condition after acute infection.

Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study was performed within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. Veterans with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result between October 1, 2021, the date ICD-10 code U09.9 was introduced, and January 31, 2023 (n = 388 980), and a randomly selected subsample of patients with the U09.9 code (n = 350) whose symptom prevalence was assessed by systematic medical record review, were included in the analysis.

Exposure Positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.

Main Outcomes and Measures Rates, clinical setting, risk factors, and symptoms associated with ICD-10 code U09.9 in the medical record.

Results Among the 388 980 persons with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, the mean (SD) age was 61.4 (16.1) years; 87.3% were men. In terms of race and ethnicity, 0.8% were American Indian or Alaska Native, 1.4% were Asian, 20.7% were Black, 9.3% were Hispanic or Latino, 1.0% were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; and 67.8% were White. Cumulative incidence of U09.9 documentation was 4.79% (95% CI, 4.73%-4.87%) at 6 months and 5.28% (95% CI, 5.21%-5.36%) at 12 months after infection. Factors independently associated with U09.9 documentation included older age, female sex, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, comorbidity burden, and severe acute infection manifesting by symptoms, hospitalization, or ventilation. Primary vaccination (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.78-0.83]) and booster vaccination (AHR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.64-0.69]) were associated with a lower likelihood of U09.9 documentation. Marked differences by geographic region and facility in U09.9 code documentation may reflect local screening and care practices. Among the 350 patients undergoing systematic medical record review, the most common symptoms documented in the medical records among patients with the U09.9 code were shortness of breath (130 [37.1%]), fatigue or exhaustion (78 [22.3%]), cough (63 [18.0%]), reduced cognitive function or brain fog (22 [6.3%]), and change in smell and/or taste (20 [5.7%]).

Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study of 388 980 veterans, documentation of ICD-10 code U09.9 had marked regional and facility-level variability. Strong risk factors for U09.9 documentation were identified, while vaccination appeared to be protective. Accurate and consistent documentation of U09.9 is needed to maximize its utility in tracking patients for clinical care and research. Future studies should examine the long-term trajectory of individuals with U09.9 documentation.
(..)
Variation in U09.9 Documentation by VISN and Facility
There was great variability across VISNs in U09.9 documentation. In VISN 8 (the Sunshine Healthcare Network in Florida), there was a 12-month incidence of U09.9 documentation of 3.39% (95% CI, 3.20%-3.58%), compared with 24.90% (95% CI, 24.26%-25.53%) in VISN 17 (Heart of Texas). Compared with VISN 8, many VISNs had significantly higher likelihood of U09.9 documentation, including VISN 20 (Pacific Northwest; AHR, 2.22 [95% CI, 2.03-2.42]) and VISN 17 (AHR, 7.60 [95% CI, 7.14-8.10]). There was even greater variability by facility (medical center) ranging from less than 3% to 58.86%. (Figure). Greater U09.9 code documentation was observed in VA facilities and VISNs that had established dedicated PCC clinics and escalated even further by PCC telephone-administered screening efforts that took place at some VA facilities (captured as telephone case management visits in Table 3), for example, the 2 outlier facilities in the Figure with U09.9 documentation rates of 46.14% (San Antonio, Texas) and 58.86% (Harlingen, Texas) (both in VISN 17). Associations of race and ethnicity with U09.9 documentation are shown for the region with a dedicated screening program (VISN 17) and the rest of the VA in eTable 3 in Supplement 1.
(..)
Figure. Caterpillar Plot of Documentation of Code U09.9 for Post–COVID-19 Condition (PCC) by Veterans Affairs Facility

_{Data are expressed as proportion of patients with positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 and documented International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, code U09.9. Veterans Affairs facilities are stratified by those in Veterans Integrated Service Networks that have established dedicated clinics for the follow-up of patients with PCC and those that do not.}
(..)

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20231212/US-veterans-study-reveals-key-insights-into-Long-COVID-and-protective-role-of-vaccination.aspx posted:

U.S. veterans' study reveals key insights into Long COVID and protective role of vaccination
(..)

(..)

Pingui posted:

Wastewater

That first peak is the initial Omicron, the dotted line is when SSI (the Danish CDC) took over the monitoring.

Source data: https://www.ssi.dk/sygdomme-beredskab-og-forskning/sygdomsovervaagning/c/covid-19---spildevandsovervaagning

gently caress COREY PERRY posted:

gently caress COREY PERRY caught up on COVID thread

genericnick posted:

Get the gently caress out of here and come back when you have real number
(..)

Pingui posted:

But... the initial Omicron wave isn't on your graph

RandomBlue posted:

why would you have ancient history on a graph?

Mola Yam posted:

nine billion names of god, but with covid thread posts

gently caress COREY PERRY posted:

covid so over that qcs posters no longer dogpile

gently caress COREY PERRY posted:

covid so over that qcs posters no longer dogpile