Covid-19

[wrenhal]

There are significant risks other than death, particularly for the young. COVID myocarditis can take a young healthy person and turn them into a cardiac disability case. Not dead, but shorter life span and lower life quality.
Interestingly, despite the fact that getting COVID is higher risk and causes more severe myocarditis, if you google "covid myocarditis" virtually every link is about vaccination myocarditis. No wonder people are inappropriately fearful. Just think if "seatbelt accident" brought up millions of articles about the rare times that seatbelts entrap people in a fiery crash or underwater instead of saying that they save lives.

I am willing to be educated. How many youth have been effected by myocarditis after COVID? If this is happening more than minimal I would assume it would be documented. The best thing I can find is an American Heart Association document about a month old that says it is "rare and uncommon" for myocarditis in youth after COVID.

BTW, you are right. Tried searching for data and stats on myocarditis and COVID and nearly everything was about after a person gets the vaccine ---- even on the CDC site.

I thought that after the initial push about myocarditis, that several doctors came out saying that the risk of getting it after covid was no higher than with any other virus, like I think they mentioned strep? And then the ivy league athletic physician that initially raised the concerns, backtracked on them?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[Binman4OSU]

https://twitter.com/Forbes/status/1418741635844816897?s=19

 

[Binman4OSU]

https://twitter.com/Forbes/status/1418742753039687682?s=19

 

[Binman4OSU]

Patriots OL coach resigns over NFL COVID rules

 

[cowboyinexile]

Very fair question about lives lost, but hard to answer a number without being able to quantify what deaths could be stopped by wearing a mask in school. Or in the lunch room, or in the gym, or on the bus, on during vocal music.

You have been clear that even one death in the nation is too much. I respect your opinion and understand it, but I disagree. We can’t and..at least IMO shouldn’t be having a goal for zero risk. As stated previously, we experience more deaths with school-age kids with influenza than COVID. Since the flu has been here since I’ve been alive and I don’t think going anywhere, are you advocating for masks in school from now going forward? What is the end game? Because if you are advocating masks to reduce even one additional death with kids, then the flu is your bigger culprit.


BTW, I am not opposed to wearing masks, but not an advocate for most situations - especially for vaccinated people. Honestly, if I was in charge I would require masks on the bus. Masking in confined spaces makes sense.

EDIT: @steross brought up good points about potential long-term effects. If there is good reliable data on that …that points to a higher probability of severe negative outcomes like myocarditis then it certainly could change the decision making on masks in school. I’m interested to learn more.

Your highlighted point is a good one.

Your argument is mandates are bad especially when science says they are unnecessary and the people debating it with you are saying we have a public health crisis that isn't over yet. It's a situation where everyone is right but you are talking about two different things.

To your point, I agree. The last time I wore a mask outside of work in the public was a few days after our mandate ended and people were trying to figure out if we should still be doing it. I went in to pay for an oil change and was fully vaccinated. I was the only person wearing one, was in the building for 3 minutes tops and figured what's the point of protecting them from getting this when I'm 3 weeks after my 2nd Moderna.

With the variants I sort of get it because there is a higher chance I'll become an asymptomatic carrier and infect someone who hasn't been vaccinated yet, but in public I'm not there yet. If we get another mask mandate I'll do it but question if it's really scientifically based.

For schools though it's a different story. Anyone under the age of 12 isn't eligible for the vaccine. I was hoping 5 and up would be available by now which would cover my kids but that isn't going to happen before the school year starts. We are on year 3 of quarantine times for grace schoolers now. My oldest lost 2 months of education in spring 2020 and both spent a significant amount of quarantine time dealing with it last year. Part of me wants to deal with this as a normal illness where we don't do contract tracing and if your kid gets it they are our a couple of days until they don't have a fever or cough, but that isn't going to happen. 2 weeks at home versus just watch them if they are wearing a mask-they wear a mask.

 

[steross]

I thought that after the initial push about myocarditis, that several doctors came out saying that the risk of getting it after covid was no higher than with any other virus, like I think they mentioned strep? And then the ivy league athletic physician that initially raised the concerns, backtracked on them?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

I think you are misinterpreting what has been said.

Strep is a bacteria. It causes a pan-carditis that mostly affects the endocardium and valves (Rheumatic fever) more than the myocardium. I would be shocked if a doctor mentioned that as an example of another virus. Some viruses cause myocarditis, others do not. COVID 19 has caused the clinical symptoms, echo, cardiac MRI, and troponin results consistent with myocarditis but has not yet been proven histologically to cause myocarditis.

The closest comparison I could find was a rate of clinical findings of myocarditis in screened covid positive professional athletes of 0.4%. The rate of clincal myocarditis in males age 12-29 after vaccination is 0.0041%. It is far lower than that in females and other age groups.

 

[RxCowboy]

mRNA hasn't been used in a marketed drug before correct? I can see where, in the public eye, that seem as if they are experimental.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

This is the first time that mRNA has been used to encode a coat protein to stimulate an immune response to a virus, but mRNA has been used in cancer treatment since 2009 or so.

"Seem as if" can be used to explain away a lot that just isn't true. For instance, it "seems as if" @wrenhal is a moron whose IQ is too low for him to do anything but lay on plastic sheets all day. Facts matter. People calling this "experimental" because it doesn't yet have full FDA approval are just plain wrong.

 

[RxCowboy]

"Gaslighting"??
You stated I was making anti-vax arguments --- which I clearly have never --- because I am not remotely anti-vax. I will ask again --- what post have I made that you interpreted to mean I was anti-vax?? Are you confusing me for someone else?
I am open to debate on policies and opinions, but I am not going to debate something I neither said nor support.

Straight from the antivaxxers handbook: "Are many unvaccinated kids dying? If that is true then I am not aware and it is news to me."

As I said, it doesn't matter what the death rate in kids is, the R0 is the only thing that matters.

 

[RxCowboy]

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery volume 13, pages759–780 (2014)

 

[RxCowboy]

 

[cableok]

Straight from the antivaxxers handbook: "Are many unvaccinated kids dying? If that is true then I am not aware and it is news to me."

As I said, it doesn't matter what the death rate in kids is, the R0 is the only thing that matters.

Now you are being purposely dense. You continue conflating and confusing different discussions. Your confusion on the subject is like when you claimed COVID hospitalizations cost the country $31 trillion - and then instead of dropping the argument you doubled-down on the figure.

We disagree on risk assessment and risk management, we don’t disagree on the importance of being vaccinated.

I am sure I am guilty on being called a lot of things, but calling me anything remotely associated with anti-vaxx is the equivalent as claiming I am anti-tax cut, anti-cold beer, anti-Charlize Theron, or anti-OSU sports.

 

[RxCowboy]

Now you are being purposely dense. You continue conflating and confusing different discussions. Your confusion on the subject is like when you claimed COVID hospitalizations cost the country $31 trillion - and then instead of dropping the argument you doubled-down on the figure.

We disagree on risk assessment and risk management, we don’t disagree on the importance of being vaccinated.

I am sure I am guilty on being called a lot of things, but calling me anything remotely associated with anti-vaxx is the equivalent as claiming I am anti-tax cut, anti-cold beer, anti-Charlize Theron, or anti-OSU sports.

Care to white knight MTG some more? You are what your arguments say you are.

 

[wrenhal]

I thought that after the initial push about myocarditis, that several doctors came out saying that the risk of getting it after covid was no higher than with any other virus, like I think they mentioned strep? And then the ivy league athletic physician that initially raised the concerns, backtracked on them?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

I think you are misinterpreting what has been said.

Strep is a bacteria. It causes a pan-carditis that mostly affects the endocardium and valves (Rheumatic fever) more than the myocardium. I would be shocked if a doctor mentioned that as an example of another virus. Some viruses cause myocarditis, others do not. COVID 19 has caused the clinical symptoms, echo, cardiac MRI, and troponin results consistent with myocarditis but has not yet been proven histologically to cause myocarditis.

The closest comparison I could find was a rate of clinical findings of myocarditis in screened covid positive professional athletes of 0.4%. The rate of clincal myocarditis in males age 12-29 after vaccination is 0.0041%. It is far lower than that in females and other age groups.

I meant to say the word infection not virus because yeah you're right strep is a bacteria. But my point was the same. They made a big deal out of it before football started, but then backtracked because it didn't seem to be any higher than the rates of any other infection. I mean yeah I got my wording incorrect but I specifically remember the backtracking happening.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[wrenhal]

mRNA hasn't been used in a marketed drug before correct? I can see where, in the public eye, that seem as if they are experimental.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

This is the first time that mRNA has been used to encode a coat protein to stimulate an immune response to a virus, but mRNA has been used in cancer treatment since 2009 or so.

"Seem as if" can be used to explain away a lot that just isn't true. For instance, it "seems as if" @wrenhal is a moron whose IQ is too low for him to do anything but lay on plastic sheets all day. Facts matter. People calling this "experimental" because it doesn't yet have full FDA approval are just plain wrong.

Look I don't go around insulting people on here, and your little backhanded insult right there was really uncalled for. I'm simply trying to make a point that people who believe it's experimental have reason. Because it's being used for something it's never been used for before. The fact that all you people want to come on here and constantly down grade others is ridiculous. Dude I'm friends with you on Facebook You're a great guy I know you but why even go to the insults.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[RxCowboy]

Look I don't go around insulting people on here, and your little backhanded insult right there was really uncalled for. I'm simply trying to make a point that people who believe it's experimental have reason. Because it's being used for something it's never been used for before. The fact that all you people want to come on here and constantly down grade others is ridiculous. Dude I'm friends with you on Facebook You're a great guy I know you but why even go to the insults.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

And I'm trying to make the point that they do not have a reason to believe so because they simply don't understand it. It isn't a matter of opinion, belief, it is a matter of fact.

Incidentally, in case you didn't notice, which apparently you didn't, I was making the case that you aren't a moron and that such an opinion/belief would also be factually incorrect.

 

[HacklemanPoke]

Now you are being purposely dense. You continue conflating and confusing different discussions. Your confusion on the subject is like when you claimed COVID hospitalizations cost the country $31 trillion - and then instead of dropping the argument you doubled-down on the figure.

We disagree on risk assessment and risk management, we don’t disagree on the importance of being vaccinated.

I am sure I am guilty on being called a lot of things, but calling me anything remotely associated with anti-vaxx is the equivalent as claiming I am anti-tax cut, anti-cold beer, anti-Charlize Theron, or anti-OSU sports.

Simple question. We were heading towards 10k cases/d in May and June. Now we are trending higher than we were this time last summer. Why?

 

[steross]

I meant to say the word infection not virus because yeah you're right strep is a bacteria. But my point was the same. They made a big deal out of it before football started, but then backtracked because it didn't seem to be any higher than the rates of any other infection. I mean yeah I got my wording incorrect but I specifically remember the backtracking happening.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

You keep saying "isn't any higher than the rates of any other infection" and that simply is not an accurate statement. And, it is a pandemic. Even if the same rate, during a pandemic that can cause orders of magnitude more prevalence of disease.

There is no "backtracking" and this is still a big deal. They have done screening of symptomatic and asymptomatic athletes and have more data now. But, you are going to have to link me to something other than your opinion that this went from a potential problem backtracked to no big deal because that isn't what I am finding.

Thus, the totality of data provides us with substantially more information to inform our thinking about screening and return to play than even just 6 months ago. We can be reasonably certain that the prevalence of signs on CMR imaging of myocarditis using the modified Lake Louise criteria is in the range of 1% to 3% in athletes following positive COVID-19 test results. Screening only on the basis of COVID-19 symptoms is insensitive. Sensitivity is improved by an algorithm combining the presence of symptoms as well as ECG, echocardiography, and troponin testing results. However, this approach will likely miss individuals who would be found to have CMR imaging evidence of myocarditis. While much has been learned, questions remain.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2780549

 

[cableok]

Simple question. We were heading towards 10k cases/d in May and June. Now we are trending higher than we were this time last summer. Why?

My guess: Delta variant, still high percentage of unvaccinated, the fact that many events were still shutdown last year compared to this year.
What do you think?

 

[wrenhal]

Look I don't go around insulting people on here, and your little backhanded insult right there was really uncalled for. I'm simply trying to make a point that people who believe it's experimental have reason. Because it's being used for something it's never been used for before. The fact that all you people want to come on here and constantly down grade others is ridiculous. Dude I'm friends with you on Facebook You're a great guy I know you but why even go to the insults.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

And I'm trying to make the point that they do not have a reason to believe so because they simply don't understand it. It isn't a matter of opinion, belief, it is a matter of fact.

Incidentally, in case you didn't notice, which apparently you didn't, I was making the case that you aren't a moron and that such an opinion/belief would also be factually incorrect.

In that case, I take it back. I'm having a conversation with some other people who are so hyper obsessed with covid that they don't understand why Shrum made her post about ou instead of making one about covid. So I've been a little jumpy.

I understand what you are saying and pointing out. They just don't see it that way. If it weren't for the PR issues that J&J was having, they'd probably take that one.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[wrenhal]

I meant to say the word infection not virus because yeah you're right strep is a bacteria. But my point was the same. They made a big deal out of it before football started, but then backtracked because it didn't seem to be any higher than the rates of any other infection. I mean yeah I got my wording incorrect but I specifically remember the backtracking happening.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

You keep saying "isn't any higher than the rates of any other infection" and that simply is not an accurate statement. And, it is a pandemic. Even if the same rate, during a pandemic that can cause orders of magnitude more prevalence of disease.

There is no "backtracking" and this is still a big deal. They have done screening of symptomatic and asymptomatic athletes and have more data now. But, you are going to have to link me to something other than your opinion that this went from a potential problem backtracked to no big deal because that isn't what I am finding.

Thus, the totality of data provides us with substantially more information to inform our thinking about screening and return to play than even just 6 months ago. We can be reasonably certain that the prevalence of signs on CMR imaging of myocarditis using the modified Lake Louise criteria is in the range of 1% to 3% in athletes following positive COVID-19 test results. Screening only on the basis of COVID-19 symptoms is insensitive. Sensitivity is improved by an algorithm combining the presence of symptoms as well as ECG, echocardiography, and troponin testing results. However, this approach will likely miss individuals who would be found to have CMR imaging evidence of myocarditis. While much has been learned, questions remain.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2780549

So you don't remember the backtrack that happened? I remember them saying it wasn't as big a deal, than just watching them for any of the signs of myocarditis due to any other infection.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk