fosborb posted:

talked about it with Jeffery and i'll be going through each megathread to reboot them

The Demilich posted:

Yeah I've been looking for stuff related to post recovery sudden death & related information hoping it would ping something related, but there's been no dice as of yet

quote:

Methods: We undertook within-person comparisons, using the case-series method, to study the risks of myocardial infarction and stroke after common vaccinations and naturally occurring infections. The study was based on the United Kingdom General Practice Research Database, which contains computerized medical records of more than 5 million patients.

Results: A total of 20,486 persons with a first myocardial infarction and 19,063 persons with a first stroke who received influenza vaccine were included in the analysis. There was no increase in the risk of myocardial infarction or stroke in the period after influenza, tetanus, or pneumococcal vaccination. However, the risks of both events were substantially higher after a diagnosis of systemic respiratory tract infection and were highest during the first three days (incidence ratio for myocardial infarction, 4.95; 95 percent confidence interval, 4.43 to 5.53; incidence ratio for stroke, 3.19; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.81 to 3.62). The risks then gradually fell during the following weeks. The risks were raised significantly but to a lesser degree after a diagnosis of urinary tract infection. The findings for recurrent myocardial infarctions and stroke were similar to those for first events.

Conclusions: Our findings provide support for the concept that acute infections are associated with a transient increase in the risk of vascular events. By contrast, influenza, tetanus, and pneumococcal vaccinations do not produce a detectable increase in the risk of vascular events.

quote:

Background: Few studies have analyzed the incidence and the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the post-acute phase of COVID-19 infection.

Objective: To assess the incidence and risk of AMI in COVID-19 survivors after SARS-CoV-2 infection by a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available data.

Methods: Data were obtained searching MEDLINE and Scopus for all studies published at any time up to September 1, 2022 and reporting the risk of incident AMI in patients recovered from COVID-19 infection. AMI risk was evaluated using the Mantel-Haenszel random effects models with Hazard ratio (HR) as the effect measure with 95% confidence interval (CI) while heterogeneity was assessed using Higgins and Thomson I2 statistic.

Results: Among 2765 articles obtained by our search strategy, four studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for a total of 20,875,843 patients (mean age 56.1 years, 59.1% males). Of them, 1,244,604 had COVID-19 infection. Over a mean follow-up of 8.5 months, among COVID-19 recovered patients AMI occurred in 3.5 cases per 1.000 individuals compared to 2.02 cases per 1.000 individuals in the control cohort, defined as those who did not experience COVID-19 infection in the same period). COVID-19 patients showed an increased risk of incident AMI (HR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.65-2.26, p < 0.0001, I2 = 83.5%). Meta-regression analysis demonstrated that the risk of AMI was directly associated with age (p = 0.01) and male gender (p = 0.001), while an indirect relationship was observed when the length of follow-up was utilized as moderator (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: COVID-19 recovered patients had an increased risk of AMI.

quote:

Abstract

Data regarding the occurrence of venous thromboembolic events (VTE), including acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in recovered COVID-19 patients are scant. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the risk of acute PE and DVT in COVID-19 recovered subject. Following the PRIMSA guidelines, we searched Medline and Scopus to locate all articles published up to September 1st, 2022, reporting the risk of acute PE and/or DVT in patients recovered from COVID-19 infection compared to non-infected patients who developed VTE over the same follow-up period. PE and DVT risk were evaluated using the Mantel-Haenszel random effects models with Hazard ratio (HR) as the effect measure with 95% confidence interval (CI) while heterogeneity was assessed using Higgins I2 statistic. Overall, 29.078.950 patients (mean age 50.2 years, 63.9% males), of which 2.060.496 had COVID-19 infection, were included. Over a mean follow-up of 8.5 months, the cumulative incidence of PE and DVT in COVID-19 recovered patients were 1.2% (95% CI:0.9-1.4, I2: 99.8%) and 2.3% (95% CI:1.7-3.0, I2: 99.7%), respectively. Recovered COVID-19 patients presented a higher risk of incident PE (HR: 3.16, 95% CI: 2.63-3.79, I2 = 90.1%) and DVT (HR: 2.55, 95% CI: 2.09-3.11, I2: 92.6%) compared to non-infected patients from the general population over the same follow-up period. Meta-regression showed a higher risk of PE and DVT with age and with female gender, and lower risk with longer follow-up. Recovered COVID-19 patients have a higher risk of VTE events, which increase with aging and among females.

quote:

In addition, intense, vigorous exercise, weightlifting, and competitive sports or aerobic activity should be avoided for 3–6 months until resolution of myocardial inflammation by CMR, or troponin normalization is recommended for patients with myocarditis due to COVID-19 (Fig. ​(Fig.3)3) [9, 195].

quote:

Asymptomatic (Subclinical) Myocardial Involvement
Asymptomatic myocardial involvement has been reported following SARS-CoV-2 infection (eg, following CMR screening of athletes as part of a RTP protocol). Because most asymptomatic individuals do not undergo cardiac testing, however, this group is likely to be quite
small. Recognizing that the long-term consequences of this condition are not known, it is still reasonable to manage these individuals expectantly, with instruction to share any worrisome symptoms or signs (eg, chest pain, shortness of breath, syncope, edema) should they
occur. For those interested in resuming physical activity, further recommendations are provided in the RTP section.

RTP section:
For individuals with mild non-cardiopulmonary symptoms, exercise training should generally be withheld until symptom resolution. One exception is isolated anosmia or ageusia, which may have a more prolonged course. For athletes with cardiopulmonary symptoms, intense exercise training should be limited until symptoms resolve, self-isolation is complete, and further cardiac testing can be obtained. In addition, a graded RTP regimen should be emphasized in all individuals with prior COVID-19 to ensure close monitoring for new cardiopulmonary symptoms. For those participating in organized competitive sports, graded exercise programs should be individualized and implemented, with support by athletic trainers and primary care sports medicine clinicians. For most individuals participating in high-level recreational athletics, a graded return-to-exercise program equates to more qualitative gradual increases in effort. This remains a point of key emphasis, as many high-level recreational exercise enthusiasts do not have immediate access to cardiac testing and sports cardiology referrals, regardless of symptom severity.

quote:

Symptom burden is the key. Cases that are asymptomatic at time of testing positive, may develop symptoms over subsequent days. Where individuals have significant symptoms, they should rest and avoid exercise. Those who remain asymptomatic or whose symptoms have resolved or diminished, can commence a graded return to pre-infection activity levels. Resumption of exercise is based on the exercise habits of the individual, prior to infection. As a starting point, individuals should attempt 15 to 30 min of exercise at about 50 % of the intensity that they were used to, prior to infection. If this is well-tolerated, the same should be repeated for the subsequent two days (Days 2 & 3). All going well, exercise intensity can then be increased to about 75 % of the intensity that the individual was used to, prior to infection, from Day 4. The duration can also be increased to 30 or more minutes. If well-tolerated, this again should be repeated on the two subsequent days (Days 5 & 6). If there has been absolutely no adverse response to attempted exercise, the individual could consider resumption of normal pre-COVID-19 exercise habits from Day 7 (see Fig. 1). In elite sport, where athletes have the benefit of close medical supervision, the number of days that each step may be modified. Any unusual exercise intolerance should trigger a pause for 24–48 h, before resuming a graded increase in activity. Persistent exercise intolerance warrants a medical review.

If by 30 days post-infection, an individual is having persistent difficulty with attempted return to pre-infection exercise levels, then review by a medical practitioner for a possible cardiac assessment is recommended, including consideration of ECG, cardiac biomarkers and echocardiography. However, it is possible to have a reduced exercise capacity as part of “Long COVID” even in the presence of a completely normal cardiac workup.26

While myocarditis and other cardiac conditions related to COVID-19 are rare, any cardiac symptoms such as pressure, tightness, squeezing pain in chest, arms, neck jaw or back, cold sweat, difficulty breathing, collapse or sudden dizziness, whether occurring during exercise or at rest, should be treated as a medical emergency.

quote:

GoodRx health

Home
Health Conditions
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Exercise After COVID: How to Safely Get Back to Your Normal Workout
Brian Clista, MD
Patricia Pinto-Garcia, MD, MPH
Written by Brian Clista, MD | Reviewed by Patricia Pinto-Garcia, MD, MPH
Published on January 9, 2023

Key takeaways:

People with mild COVID illness can safely return to their usual workout routine within 7 to 14 days.

It’s best to return to exercise gradually. Experts recommend starting at 50% of your usual routine and increasing activity every 3 days until you reach your pre-illness baseline.

People who experienced more severe COVID illness should not start exercising again without clearance from their healthcare providers.

A young woman is working out with a personal trainer and kettlebells. Both of them are wearing face masks.
DuxX/iStock via Getty Images

Getting sick with COVID-19 isn’t easy. Whether you had a mild illness or needed significant support, you’re excited to feel better and get back to your normal life.

Once the quarantine period is over, many people can’t wait to get back to their usual workouts. While exercise can boost your physical and mental wellness, you’ll want to ease yourself back into your usual routine after COVID illness. Here’s how to safely get back to exercising.
How do you know you’re fully recovered from COVID?

It probably seems obvious that you shouldn’t go back to working out until you’re fully recovered. But knowing whether you’ve recovered can be tricky.

It can take anywhere from a few days to several weeks to fully recover from COVID, depending on how sick you are and whether you have any underlying medical conditions.

Most people are fully recovered once they no longer have any symptoms of COVID illness, like:

Fever

Chills

Cough

Nasal congestion or runny nose

Headache

Sore throat

Nausea or vomiting

Diarrhea

Body aches

Shortness of breath with activity

If you lose your sense of taste or smell, don’t worry if it’s taking a while to come back. This symptom can last for weeks, and experts don’t count it as part of recovery.

You also need to be able to do your usual activities, like:

Walking around the house or outside

Preparing food and eating

Bathing and completing basic grooming

If these basic activities make you feel tired or give you a fast heart rate or trouble breathing, then you’re not fully recovered from COVID — even if all your other symptoms have gone away.
Does a negative COVID-test result mean your body is ready to exercise?

Not necessarily. A negative test means you are longer shedding the COVID virus. But your body may still be feeling the effects of the illness.
Is it OK to work out if you’re past your quarantine period but still have COVID symptoms?

Probably not. Once you’re past your quarantine period, you probably are not contagious with COVID. That means it’s safe for other people to be around while you’re working out. But that doesn’t mean that it’s safe for you to work out. You should wait until you’re fully recovered to start exercising again.
When is it safe to start exercising after having COVID?

Once you’re no longer contagious with COVID and you are fully recovered, you can use the American Academy of Cardiology (AAC) consensus guidelines to figure out when to return to exercise.

These guidelines are for adults only — there are separate children’s guidelines on how to safely return to sports and physical activity.

Before you can use the guidelines, you’ll need to know the type of COVID illness you had. The types of COVID illness are:

Asymptomatic: You had asymptomatic illness if you had a positive COVID test but didn’t experience any COVID symptoms.

Mild illness: You had mild COVID illness if you had symptoms like cough, sore throat, and fever — but you didn't have any trouble breathing or unusual findings on a chest X-ray (if you had one).

Moderate illness: You had moderate illness if COVID attacked your lungs and you developed a lower respiratory tract infection like COVID pneumonia. You also had moderate illness if COVID worsened an underlying lung condition like asthma or COPD.

Severe illness: You had severe illness if COVID attacked your lungs and you also needed oxygen therapy to help you recover. You were likely cared for in a hospital.

Critical illness: You had critical illness if you needed help breathing from a ventilator or other type of device when you were sick with COVID. COVID may have also affected other organs in your body, not just your lungs. You may have needed care in an intensive care unit.

Now that you know which type of illness you had, here’s a breakdown of when you can get back to working out.
When is it safe to exercise after asymptomatic COVID illness?

You can start exercising again after 3 days of rest. You should gradually return to your usual pre-illness activity. You don’t need to see a healthcare provider before returning to your usual activity unless you have an underlying medical condition.

Stop exercising if you experience chest pain, shortness of breath, chest pounding, or irregular heartbeat. You should also stop if you feel like you're going to faint. Don’t start exercising again until you see your healthcare provider.
When is it safe to exercise after mild or moderate COVID illness?

You need to get the OK from your healthcare provider before getting back to working out if you had moderate COVID illness or if you had mild illness and have an underlying medical condition.

You can start exercising after all of your COVID symptoms resolve. You need to gradually return to your usual pre-illness activity levels.

Stop exercising if you experience chest pain, shortness of breath, chest pounding, or irregular heartbeat. You should also stop if you feel like you're going to faint. Don’t start exercising again until you see your healthcare provider.
When is it safe to exercise after severe or critical COVID illness?

Do not exercise until you’ve had a full evaluation by a cardiologist. You will need an ECG (electrocardiogram), echocardiogram, and blood tests to make sure your heart is healthy after your COVID illness. If these tests are normal, your cardiologist will give you a plan to follow on how to gradually return to your usual activity level.

Stop exercising if you experience chest pain, shortness of breath, chest pounding, or irregular heartbeat. You should also stop if you feel like you're going to faint. Don’t start exercising again until you see your cardiologist.
How do you gradually get back into working out after COVID?

Experts recommend that adults “gradually” return to activity after having COVID. Unfortunately, there’s no exact parameters for what this means. In general, you want to start slowly and build up the time and intensity of your exercise.

Experts also recommend starting with recumbent activities first — like cycling and rowing. These sitting activities make you less likely to experience any dizziness until your body adjusts to exercise again.

A graduated exercise routine can look like this:

Start at 50% of your usual exercise intensity for 15 minutes for 3 days.

Increase to 75% of your usual exercise intensity for 15 minutes for 3 days.

Increase to 100% of your usual exercise intensity for 15 minutes for 3 days.

Increase your exercise time by 15 minutes every 3 days until you’re back at your baseline.

As you go through each stage, pay close attention to your body. Stop exercising right away if you develop chest pain, shortness of breath, chest pounding, or irregular heartbeat. And be sure to stop if you feel like you’re going to faint.

Don’t push through your symptoms, and don’t keep advancing your activity. You should see a healthcare provider as soon as possible and wait for their “all clear” before going back to working out.

Buffer posted:

She was masking religiously but I don't think it's realistic on our part to think she's going to keep it up. She was the only kid in her middle school doing it so far this week and she's social butterflying hard atm - it was really alienating to her to do it in a way it wasn't last year.

I mean you can see the messaging from LA county now.

Rochallor posted:

We all watched the CDC bow to the antacids lobby and reduce the number of gallbladders per person from 10 to 5.

Fun fact, I asked the surgeon if I could have my gallbladder after they removed it from my body, and he said no because they needed to present it to some insurance guy to prove they weren't just performing fake surgeries. Then they charged me 100,000 dollars. Which I'm never going to pay.

PoundSand posted:

Appreciate this post, kind of a bummer because this is the first semester my wife has to go back to teach in person. 2021 Was distance due to covid protocals, she got fall 2022 off from fmla, and her department let her do spring virtually too cause she was still in chemo, but we wrapped up treatments this summer and now they all expect her to go back. Fortunately it's university teaching and she only has a couple classes a week and can stay home otherwise, but they always find ways to pull people in for meetings (and love to have them over lunch!) so we're a bit worried.

U-DO Burger posted:

in the article, the cost to equip their employees with non-disposable PPE was a little over $11 per year per employee. By contrast, providing each employee with disposable respirators cost $258 per year per employee. i don't think you're going to bridge that difference in cost unless your employees are extremely gung-ho about pitching non-disposable hospital property. And if they are then you have much bigger problems at your facility

mawarannahr posted:

neither Flonase nor betadine brand has done this, and I believe they might have the same or higher active ingredient concentration.

never got epothex. but Betadine is a brand name that's been around forever and I trust them a little more probably

mawarannahr posted:

here's epothex

flo travel nasal spray says it's preservative free but don't have the ingredients handy

and here's betadine

so epothex has a ton of preservatives in it. but I can't say if that's good or bad.

quote:

Can cause itching for some people: "As is the case for most preservatives, benzyl alcohol can, unfortunately, be an irritant and cause itching for some people," says Krant.

Pillowpants posted:

Why are these new variants worse than the other ones? My brain is having trouble comprehending this..perhaps because I am a walking COVID magnet, so could someone tell me what makes Eris and the other one terrible?

Zugzwang posted:

If we pushed it out of the US in the mid-20th century, surely we can all come together and get rid of it again

Tzen posted:

Went to the mall and visited my favorite store,



And then ate at the food court

ibid posted:

steriwave

https://ondinebio.com/photodisinfection-cuts-covid-in-meat-processing-plant/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666535223000393?via%3Dihub

quote:

In an effort to mitigate the transmission and consequences of the disease among such workers and the community at large, aPDT was added to a well-established bundle of pre-existing pandemic safety measures (e.g., mask-wearing, testing, contact tracing, workplace-engineered barriers, increased paid sick leave).

quote:

Prior to and running concurrently with this intervention, the plant also proactively implemented multiple safety measures that became the standard within the food processing industry [2,5]. For example, beginning in March 2020, increased paid sick leave, additional outdoor break rooms, third-party cleaning teams to disinfect high-touch surfaces three times per shift (after each break), engineered barriers, testing, social distancing during breaks, and pre-shift temperature and health screening were implemented. Furthermore, during the same period, participants were encouraged to continue to maintain high compliance with all CDC-recommended safety measures through the use of reminders, internal education videos, and trained staff available to answer any questions or concerns.

quote:

Furthermore, while industry standard SARS CoV-2 safety measures were established prior to the introduction of aPDT, the impact of the additional nasal photodisinfection can only be associated with the outcomes. Also, while other food processing plants that did not deploy aPDT continued to experience outbreaks, a direct causal relationship associated with the addition of aPDT was not definitively concluded. Lastly, employees were aware they were being observed and were incentivized to adhere to all safety measures which could have increased compliance and led to the Hawthorne effect (participant observation awareness).

Glumwheels posted:

Yes I know, she put on a n95 and took a hepa filter to our bedroom to isolate. I have the other hepa outside the room and we just installed a new furnace with a/c and put in a hepa filter there too. We don’t have pets but we do have two little kids so it’s all on me now along with working too.

Glumwheels posted:

What’s the listerine for?

quote:

How do I obtain that nose spray in the US?

quote:

Polysaccharides-based nasal spray

It has been demonstrated that complex structural sulfated polysaccharides, which are present in large amounts in many species of marine algae, can prevent the replication of enveloped viruses. Compounds from red algae like phycocolloid carrageenan as well as sulfated polysaccharides derived from brown and green algae have been viewed as potential antivirals against SARS-COV-2 [64]. Iota-carrageenan-based nasal spray can suppress SARS-CoV-2 in vitro at levels as low as 6 μg/ml, according to Bansal et al. [65]. Grover et al. formulated a nasal spray containing gellan and λ-carrageenan. When tested for both prophylaxis and spreading prevention, spray systems showed extremely strong antiviral abilities that completely inhibited the virus [66]. Marino med Biotech engineered iota carrageenan a nasal spray formulation to suppress the coronavirus-2. It has been demonstrated to inactivate novel, rapidly spreading variants. In vitro testing showed that the compound was successful in combating the SARS-CoV-2 wild type and three variants identified as the British, South African, and Brazilian varieties. Carragelose, a sulfated polymer derived from the red seaweed, the company's recent discovery acts to create layer on the mucosa which coats invading viruses, making them inactive [67].

ajkalan posted:

Does anyone happen to have the picture of a sign that said something like "Pool closed due to David-19" that was posted in one of the earlier threads a year or two ago? Wanted to text it at someone.

gandlethorpe posted:

https://twitter.com/jenniferTVTweet/status/1691810685456462028

Schmeichy posted:

I've heard so little about it. Like what variant is it supposed to train against? When will it be available? Are they going to stagger rollout?

Glumwheels posted:

Lmfao the insurance wouldn’t accept the prescription because it was written by my clinics pharmacist and not the doctor?? I don’t even know that loving means.

The dude at Walgreens at least came through and found an override.

Rosalind posted:

I was like 90% sure this was going to send me to anime catgirl porn but it's not--thank you!


Nebraska Wastewater Surveillance Reports:

https://files.catbox.moe/ge6wtu.pdf

https://files.catbox.moe/biaftv.pdf

Glumwheels posted:

That makes no sense then. She prescribed all my meds, so why are they having a problem now with paxlovid? The doctor signed off on it.

Garbage loving gate keeping system

Baddog posted:

I appreciate your posts!

And it did make me feel better to know you got the NE wastewater information relatively quickly. My cynical side was convinced they would bill you for several thousand dollars!

Interesting that they show a drop in eg5. Wastewater data does seem to be *extremely* variable, maybe contingent on just a few super-shedders? I haven't seen much discussion on that.

Sentinel testing in Colorado has eg5 at 30% as of the end of July.

NeonPunk posted:

A college just reinstated mask mandates on campus.

https://twitter.com/CovidDataReport/status/1693468249709523308

fosborb posted:

speaking of, can pharmacists still prescribe pax? did anyone actually do that?

quote:

What’s more, even though Paxlovid is now fully approved for use, that doesn’t change who can prescribe it. Pharmacists, physicians, and other licensed providers can all still prescribe it for eligible people.

quote:

For patients seeking COVID-19 treatment through pharmacy channels, many community pharmacies offer the option to self-screen for COVID-19 symptoms and make an appointment, or they may visit a pharmacy. Pharmacists must first determine whether a patient is eligible for Paxlovid. This includes assessing for potential drug interactions, as well as renal and hepatitic function that may contraindicate prescribing Paxlovid. However, unlike other health care providers, patient self-reporting does not suffice under the FAQs for pharmacists to assess renal and hepatitic function. Instead, according to the FAQs, a pharmacist must rely solely on health records. Health records include “an electronic health record system containing this information in progress notes of laboratory records” within the past 12 months. This may include a printed laboratory report provided by the patient or reviewing records “the patient may have access to through a phone app or other means.”

For several reasons, these requirements may be unmanageable at the pharmacy counter.

First, lack of access to patient health information in the pharmacy setting is a known barrier. The pharmacist may attempt to contact an office-based provider to obtain patient health records, but that provider must have “an established provider-patient relationship with the individual patient.” Twenty-five percent of Americans do not have an established relationship with a primary care provider. Even if the patient does have a primary care provider “cumbersome communication between pharmacists and prescribers” is known to hinder pharmacist access to patient health information.

Second, patient lab values within the past 12 months may not exist or they may not be readily accessible to the patient. Many patients have in fact delayed primary care during the pandemic, and 34 percent of patients with a primary care provider do not have labs within the past 12 months. Even if they do have recorded lab values, patients may not have ready access to lab reports or a patient portal. Indeed, a recent news report observed, “vulnerable populations, such as those that are minority populations who maybe are undocumented or who don’t have regular access to healthcare, unfortunately, and may not have those updated records.” Attempting to access a patient portal at the pharmacy counter may entail the need to retrieve a forgotten password or register for portal access, perhaps wait for an email to reset the password, or confirm the registration. The infected patient’s phone may even be passed over the counter to the pharmacist to help navigate an application or portal.

If no record can be provided, a pharmacist is required under the FAQs to refer a patient to a physician, advance practice registered nurse, or physician assistant; never mind that the patient may have chosen to seek care at a pharmacy because they do not have a primary care provider or due to difficulty scheduling an appointment. Unable to care for the patient due to these barriers, the pharmacist may also not be able to provide a referral. The risk of patient attrition under these circumstances—especially considering the patient is suffering from COVID-19 symptoms while actively seeking treatment and encountering multiple barriers—is particularly problematic given the short five-day window from symptom onset in which the Paxlovid course should begin.

Adding insult to injury, all other, non-pharmacist providers, should the patient reach them, are given the discretion to rely on patient history or health records or to initiate testing, and they need not have a prior established patient-provider relationship. Given the short time frame for beginning Paxlovid, those providers may very well opt to take the patient’s word for it rather than adding the delay of lab testing. Pharmacists are not permitted this flexibility. HHS efforts to increase telemedicine access to Paxlovid may lead to many first-time patient-provider encounters wherein the provider has no access to the patient’s medical history. Moreover, these visits may result in patient out-of-pocket costs they would otherwise not incur at the pharmacy, potentially exacerbating inequities.

quote:

Pharmacy access to Paxlovid is a critical health equity issue. Just as vaccines and masks have played an outsized role in mitigating the spread and severity of COVID-19, effective treatment is now central to stemming COVID-19’s morbidity and mortality, especially as masking and vaccination requirements are relaxed. According to CDC data, since the Paxlovid program began, 220,000 people have died from COVID-19 and thousands have been hospitalized daily. Underscoring the disparities in these deaths, 1,076,762 oral antiviral prescriptions were dispensed in the United States between December 23, 2021 and May 21, 2022, yet dispensing rates were lowest in the highest vulnerability ZIP codes despite these ZIP codes having the largest number of dispensing sites. Nine out of 10 Americans live within five miles of a pharmacy. Pharmacy access to Paxlovid ultimately stands to ensure the sickest COVID-19 patients start therapy on time, reducing hospitalizations and deaths.

quote:

Previously, a positive COVID test was also required in order to dispense Paxlovid. However, on February 1, 2023, the FDA removed this requirement. Now, it’s only a recommendation. This opens the door to treatment for people who test negative for COVID but have symptoms and are at high risk for severe illness.

quote:

When should Paxlovid not be prescribed?

Paxlovid should not be prescribed:

To patients who need to be hospitalized because of severe COVID

For either pre-exposure or post-exposure prophylaxis

For longer than a 5-day duration

To patients with severe renal impairment, or an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of less than 30 mL/min

To patients with severe hepatic impairment, or Child-Pugh class C or greater

To patients taking certain interacting medications

salient posted:

https://twitter.com/microbeminded2/status/1693276066700280228 https://twitter.com/HelenBranswell/status/1693756745070325763

Weka posted:

Anyway, what's the deal with seaweed nose spray?

Buffer posted:

The thing that prompted kiddo to not want to mask anymore is apparently she was getting bullied on the bus. We had cut a deal but on thursday, she took it off to not deal with it and today we are having symptoms and testing positive on a Luciria / negative on a RAT.

One day. This virus does not gently caress around.

But hey, bullying works.

I wasn't aware of the xylitol. That's in my sweet spot for not harmful and cost / possible efficacy.

Lib and let die posted:

unfortunately for my wife, every covid shot she's gotten has put her on her rear end for, minimum, 3 days. a shot now and a shot in a few more months just...isn't gonna happen. she's not even the type to take a flu vaccine, so getting her on board with even semi regular 'rona refreshes was a big win (it 'helps' that her parents are both immunocompromised to some degree [according to what they tell us their doctors tell us so lmao])

Jort Fortress posted:

Amazing to me that schools would refuse better air quality in the classroom.

My Corsi anecdote:
My aunt teaches in a red-as-gently caress school district in rural Southern IL (so rural that kids are allowed to be absent when hunting season starts). I hipped my uncle to the Corsi-Rosenthal Box 2 years ago, he built one and it's been running in her classroom since. They change the filters every semester and they're dirty as hell. She claims that no one has complained, which admittedly surprised me.

Another note, for any teachers or relatives of teachers in IL. The IDPH is offering free HEPA purifiers for every classroom and daycare:
https://dph.illinois.gov/resource-center/news/2023/march/idph-launches--30-million-program-to-distribute-air-purifiers-in.html
https://www.illinois.gov/news/press-release.26746.html

quote:

The program is funded by the CDC through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and is targeted for school districts that serve lower income communities and counties that have elevated air pollution counts. IDPH estimates almost 3,000 schools will be eligible for the program, covering 68 percent of school districts in the state. It will cover schools throughout the state, including Cook County, with the exception of Chicago, which has received a separate federal grant.

Rosalind posted:

As someone who was working in an academic setting and had some very wrong ideas at the start of the pandemic, it was very difficult to know who exactly to trust. Many epidemiologists I respected said some very bad and wrong things (and some were even intentionally downplaying the pandemic for political reasons a la Ioannidis).

I knew enough to start warning people to prepare for the pandemic in February, even though this was considered a very fringe belief at my institution! A distinguished professor of public health referred me to student mental health services after I met with him in late February 2020 about preparing one of our studies for an imminent school closure. A fellow student and I conducted an air flow audit of the classrooms where we found that basically every classroom would be dangerous. That got us an email from a Vice Dean telling us that students accessing classrooms for "non-educational purposes without permission" was a violation of campus safety rules. Even the week before the school closed in March 2020, I said we should bring as much study materials home as we could and I was told "the Dean has said he will not close the school except if ordered to by the state and that's not going to happen."

Let me tell you my views did not endear me to the administration of my school and I still have a reputation as a troublemaker. One of the vice deans, having had a glass of wine or two at a campus picnic last summer, told me that the Dean had sent emails before that just had my name as the subject line. She would not tell me what those emails contained.

This is all to say that you're right. The fact is that a lot of people who reach these distinguished positions in public health do so because they are willing to play ball with the system. I don't think most of them are malicious but they are cognitively biased toward recommendations that are more politically palatable.

Lest I sound like I knew all the answers from the start, I was super wrong about a lot of things. I have a lot of regrets about the advice I gave early on, but I was doing the best I could with the knowledge I had and using the advice from the experts I trusted at the time.

mawarannahr posted:

I would like to, personally. I got all the other rounds as fast as possible but it's gonna be about a year since my last dose of Moderna and I am not excited. I've almost never felt so hosed up. it you add up all the days I guess I've been on my rear end for 9-10 days from all the shots so far. I didn't get COVID yet though.

I feel like I developed a mild tickle in my heart that persisted for like a month after my second round of Moderna (although my first vaccination series was Pfizer). A doctor in America and a doctor on turkey said "oh yeah it's probably the Moderna," Turkish doctor told me never to take Moderna again. Lol

Lib and let die posted:

it's very weird seeing posts like this, as a person that still occasionally watches broadcast TV.

"If it's COVID, paxlovid" is an incredibly common refrain in pharma commercials.

eXXon posted:

A lot of my otherwise smart coworkers who abandoned precautions in the last year are getting it now, some for the first time. My bold prediction is that the next 6-8 weeks will be critical to determine if anyone does something about it in the subsequent 6-8 weeks.

Animal-Mother posted:

Normies at work are expressing concern about the wave that is happening slash upcoming. These are individuals who I can't recall ever being openly worried before. I think it's dawning on a lot of people now that this is the rest of our lives, barring a pharmaceutical miracle.

nexous posted:

So I got my MRI, had to take off my Vflex and they had no surgical so I raw dogged it. Then apparently they messed up my IV so they injected the contrast into not a vein and it burned like the dickens. I mashed the alert button but the MRI tech said that was normal and it took me 5 minutes to convince them it was not normal because I’ve had it before. They went and asked the radiologist and all of a sudden there’s several new unmasked people in the room telling me to sign some document and that this happens sometimes just ice it down when you get home. They re-IV the other arm and complete the MRI and glad to get out of the maskless hellhole.

Petey posted:

did i miss anything of clinical significance (read that i would update the google doc for) in the last 1000 posts

hosed with the start of semester; covid going around and the student email lists are lighting up urging each other to mask and test, but none of them can find free antigen tests anymore

Zugzwang posted:

I remember when people were worried about the immune-evasive Mu in 2021, then Delta grabbed a few infectivity power-ups and Juggernaut-charged its way through the vaccines and to the top.

It's good news that BA 2.86 doesn't appear especially infectious, but still bad that it's so antigenically distant from a recent dominant variant/upcoming vaccines. No reason something couldn't be both in the future, I don't think.

Zugzwang posted:

That and, I doubt there's any reason people can't be infected by multiple variants at once, particularly if they're going maskless to places with lots and lots of people. Then the viral RNA soup in their cells can do all sorts of fun recombining.

Zugzwang posted:

Doesn't everyone who goes near Biden need to test first? Test limitations aside, she might be the way he's most vulnerable to getting it.

Pingui posted: