[M T]

This virus infects cells in various parts of the body.  It seems that different cases have different effects, possibly due to the virus being (primarily?, originally?) in different organs, or perhaps due to different reactions to the body's defense mechanisms.

This article (regarding research from King's College London) describes 6 different "types" of the disease based on clusters of symptoms, but I tend to see them all as what I'll call early-stage symptoms.

• flu-like with no fever
  
• flu-like with fever
  
• gastrointestinal
  
• severe level one, fatigue
  
• severe level two, confusion
  
• severe level three, abdominal and respiratory
  

This (mostly) doesn't include later symptoms of cytokine storm phase, coagulation phase (strokes & such), and late stage hyperinflammatory phase (Guillain Barre, "brain fog", etc).

Here's a CNN report about people in Europe dealing with post-COVID health issues  (Of the cases in a particular study, "Fifty percent have psychological problems, 15% PTSD", "Most show a serious muscle weakness" (but most recover).  Another doctor reports "fatigue, chronic breathlessness, palpitations and fast heart rate, poor sleep, headaches, poor concentration,"  In general, chronic debilitating conditions for some.)

I am very anxious about whether a seemingly mild first case of a child leaves long-term effects that aren't yet known.  Even if some long-term effect only occurs in one in 10K cases, that's a lot of kids that may have long-term effects (and, society will be helping to care for them).  We just don't know yet, but there are a lot of longer-term effects being seen in adults.

[M T]

This virus infects cells in various parts of the body.  It seems that different cases have different effects, possibly due to the virus being (primarily?, originally?) in different organs, or perhaps due to different reactions to the body's defense mechanisms.

This article (regarding research from King's College London) describes 6 different "types" of the disease based on clusters of symptoms, but I tend to see them all as what I'll call early-stage symptoms.

• flu-like with no fever
  
• flu-like with fever
  
• gastrointestinal
  
• severe level one, fatigue
  
• severe level two, confusion
  
• severe level three, abdominal and respiratory
  

This (mostly) doesn't include later symptoms of cytokine storm phase, coagulation phase (strokes & such), and late stage hyperinflammatory phase (Guillain Barre, "brain fog", etc).

Here's a CNN report about people in Europe dealing with post-COVID health issues  (Of the cases in a particular study, "Fifty percent have psychological problems, 15% PTSD", "Most show a serious muscle weakness" (but most recover).  Another doctor reports "fatigue, chronic breathlessness, palpitations and fast heart rate, poor sleep, headaches, poor concentration,"  In general, chronic debilitating conditions for some.)

I am very anxious about whether a seemingly mild first case of a child leaves long-term effects that aren't yet known.  Even if some long-term effect only occurs in one in 10K cases, that's a lot of kids that may have long-term effects (and, society will be helping to care for them).  We just don't know yet, but there are a lot of longer-term effects being seen in adults.

[lex24]

Another non peer reviewed study. We’ve had way too many of those. With all sorts of conclusions.  So many unknown unknowns.

[lex24]

Another non peer reviewed study. We’ve had way too many of those. With all sorts of conclusions.  So many unknown unknowns.

[M T]

Another non peer reviewed study. We’ve had way too many of those. With all sorts of conclusions.  So many unknown unknowns.

Boy, if you don't like that, I wonder what you think of tweets?  Who peer-reviews them?  They are mostly fire-and-forget.

I wasn't quoting the 6 groupings of (early-stage) symptoms as anything definitive and suggesting anyone base treatment regimes by this article. I actually would trust it more than the quote of a doctor in a CNN article, which I also referenced.   News articles are never peer-reviewed, and as we've seen, doctors may say things that aren't actually true, and reporters sometimes take things out of context.

My point was that this disease has many aspects.   It isn't just a cough and pneumonia.  There are reports from around the globe of different impacts on people.  The longest survivors are just 7 months past their infection.    A lot of this we haven't talked about here.   At least, I can't remember anyone here working through a study, or giving incidence figures, for coagulation issues.    I think it would be good to start paying attention to the longer term effects being reported.

But, some people have expressed opinions about the safety and importance of getting back to work or sending kids back to school.   Reputedly, kids are less likely to get the disease (vs have gotten the disease less) and some seem to think that's all that matters.

[M T]

Another non peer reviewed study. We’ve had way too many of those. With all sorts of conclusions.  So many unknown unknowns.

Boy, if you don't like that, I wonder what you think of tweets?  Who peer-reviews them?  They are mostly fire-and-forget.

I wasn't quoting the 6 groupings of (early-stage) symptoms as anything definitive and suggesting anyone base treatment regimes by this article. I actually would trust it more than the quote of a doctor in a CNN article, which I also referenced.   News articles are never peer-reviewed, and as we've seen, doctors may say things that aren't actually true, and reporters sometimes take things out of context.

My point was that this disease has many aspects.   It isn't just a cough and pneumonia.  There are reports from around the globe of different impacts on people.  The longest survivors are just 7 months past their infection.    A lot of this we haven't talked about here.   At least, I can't remember anyone here working through a study, or giving incidence figures, for coagulation issues.    I think it would be good to start paying attention to the longer term effects being reported.

But, some people have expressed opinions about the safety and importance of getting back to work or sending kids back to school.   Reputedly, kids are less likely to get the disease (vs have gotten the disease less) and some seem to think that's all that matters.

[Snorlax94]

Another non peer reviewed study. We’ve had way too many of those. With all sorts of conclusions.  So many unknown unknowns.

It’s a fast-moving pandemic, a crisis. What should we do with so many unknowns and so much information not yet confirmed — hide under a rock and cover our eyes and ears? We don’t know, so I’d rather be aware of the papers — even if not yet peer-reviewed. A lot of the pre-prints on the spread of Covid were helpful as they came out. It’s legitimate research, and MT disclosed the paper’s source and status.

[Snorlax94]

Another non peer reviewed study. We’ve had way too many of those. With all sorts of conclusions.  So many unknown unknowns.

It’s a fast-moving pandemic, a crisis. What should we do with so many unknowns and so much information not yet confirmed — hide under a rock and cover our eyes and ears? We don’t know, so I’d rather be aware of the papers — even if not yet peer-reviewed. A lot of the pre-prints on the spread of Covid were helpful as they came out. It’s legitimate research, and MT disclosed the paper’s source and status.

[lex24]

Another non peer reviewed study. We’ve had way too many of those. With all sorts of conclusions.  So many unknown unknowns.

It’s a fast-moving pandemic, a crisis. What should we do with so many unknowns and so much information not yet confirmed — hide under a rock and cover our eyes and ears? We don’t know, so I’d rather be aware of the papers — even if not yet peer-reviewed. A lot of the pre-prints on the spread of Covid were helpful as they came out. It’s legitimate research, and MT disclosed the paper’s source and status.

 Did I say anything about covering my eyes?  Im not hiding under a rock and covering my ears. I said it was non-peer reviewed. I have said there’s a ton of reports out there which there are. And there’s a hell of a lot of unknowns which they’re also are. It doesn’t mean I’m hiding my head in the sand or anything else. Sorry next time I won’t suggest anything but yes sir you’re correct.

---

Another non peer reviewed study. We’ve had way too many of those. With all sorts of conclusions.  So many unknown unknowns.

Boy, if you don't like that, I wonder what you think of tweets?  Who peer-reviews them?  They are mostly fire-and-forget.

I wasn't quoting the 6 groupings of (early-stage) symptoms as anything definitive and suggesting anyone base treatment regimes by this article. I actually would trust it more than the quote of a doctor in a CNN article, which I also referenced.   News articles are never peer-reviewed, and as we've seen, doctors may say things that aren't actually true, and reporters sometimes take things out of context.

My point was that this disease has many aspects.   It isn't just a cough and pneumonia.  There are reports from around the globe of different impacts on people.  The longest survivors are just 7 months past their infection.    A lot of this we haven't talked about here.   At least, I can't remember anyone here working through a study, or giving incidence figures, for coagulation issues.    I think it would be good to start paying attention to the longer term effects being reported.

But, some people have expressed opinions about the safety and importance of getting back to work or sending kids back to school.   Reputedly, kids are less likely to get the disease (vs have gotten the disease less) and some seem to think that's all that matters.

 Some think all sorts of stuff. I’ve been somebody who’s been talking about trying to find a way to get school open so that disadvantaged kids from poor homes  can have some way of getting an education during this pandemic. I’m not suggesting  school as normal I’m not suggesting necessarily that even teachers be physically there there. What I have said is that this is a time maybe to try to get creative. There are a whole lot of aspects to this disease - and one of it is going to be the damage it does to underprivileged kids educationally. 

And who on this board thinks this is “pneumonia or a cough”

As for the tweet comment I don’t even understand your point. But I’ll answer the question - I dislike them. Intensely. I avoid Twitter.

Finally, I wasn’t criticizing you for posting it.

[lex24]

Another non peer reviewed study. We’ve had way too many of those. With all sorts of conclusions.  So many unknown unknowns.

It’s a fast-moving pandemic, a crisis. What should we do with so many unknowns and so much information not yet confirmed — hide under a rock and cover our eyes and ears? We don’t know, so I’d rather be aware of the papers — even if not yet peer-reviewed. A lot of the pre-prints on the spread of Covid were helpful as they came out. It’s legitimate research, and MT disclosed the paper’s source and status.

 Did I say anything about covering my eyes?  Im not hiding under a rock and covering my ears. I said it was non-peer reviewed. I have said there’s a ton of reports out there which there are. And there’s a hell of a lot of unknowns which they’re also are. It doesn’t mean I’m hiding my head in the sand or anything else. Sorry next time I won’t suggest anything but yes sir you’re correct.

---

Another non peer reviewed study. We’ve had way too many of those. With all sorts of conclusions.  So many unknown unknowns.

Boy, if you don't like that, I wonder what you think of tweets?  Who peer-reviews them?  They are mostly fire-and-forget.

I wasn't quoting the 6 groupings of (early-stage) symptoms as anything definitive and suggesting anyone base treatment regimes by this article. I actually would trust it more than the quote of a doctor in a CNN article, which I also referenced.   News articles are never peer-reviewed, and as we've seen, doctors may say things that aren't actually true, and reporters sometimes take things out of context.

My point was that this disease has many aspects.   It isn't just a cough and pneumonia.  There are reports from around the globe of different impacts on people.  The longest survivors are just 7 months past their infection.    A lot of this we haven't talked about here.   At least, I can't remember anyone here working through a study, or giving incidence figures, for coagulation issues.    I think it would be good to start paying attention to the longer term effects being reported.

But, some people have expressed opinions about the safety and importance of getting back to work or sending kids back to school.   Reputedly, kids are less likely to get the disease (vs have gotten the disease less) and some seem to think that's all that matters.

 Some think all sorts of stuff. I’ve been somebody who’s been talking about trying to find a way to get school open so that disadvantaged kids from poor homes  can have some way of getting an education during this pandemic. I’m not suggesting  school as normal I’m not suggesting necessarily that even teachers be physically there there. What I have said is that this is a time maybe to try to get creative. There are a whole lot of aspects to this disease - and one of it is going to be the damage it does to underprivileged kids educationally. 

And who on this board thinks this is “pneumonia or a cough”

As for the tweet comment I don’t even understand your point. But I’ll answer the question - I dislike them. Intensely. I avoid Twitter.

Finally, I wasn’t criticizing you for posting it.

[Mick]

One of my close friends works at my former law firm. He's 6'3", 325 pounds, Type-2 diabetes, hypertension.  BMI over 40.  His wife and children have similar co-morbidities.  They tested for COVID-19 antibodies last week, and they were shocked to find that they were all positive.  Go figure.

[Mick]

One of my close friends works at my former law firm. He's 6'3", 325 pounds, Type-2 diabetes, hypertension.  BMI over 40.  His wife and children have similar co-morbidities.  They tested for COVID-19 antibodies last week, and they were shocked to find that they were all positive.  Go figure.

[burger]

Another non peer reviewed study. We’ve had way too many of those. With all sorts of conclusions.  So many unknown unknowns.

I only skimmed the study but it looks careful with a relatively sophisticated and appropriate analysis.  That's not to say that these results will replicate in other study populations, but they split their sample into testing and training pools and got fairly good replication of the results.  That's about as good as you can get for this kind of research.  And it could provide an interesting way to assess patients who might be headed for bad outcomes for early intervention.  That could, if this holds up, save lives.

More generally, disbelieving everything not peer reviewed is not a tenable approach to assessing covid 19 research. There are some bad preprints for sure. But a few of the peer reviewed covid studies are also crap, so even peer review does not guarantee good results.  Everything should be evaluated on its own merits.

[burger]

Another non peer reviewed study. We’ve had way too many of those. With all sorts of conclusions.  So many unknown unknowns.

I only skimmed the study but it looks careful with a relatively sophisticated and appropriate analysis.  That's not to say that these results will replicate in other study populations, but they split their sample into testing and training pools and got fairly good replication of the results.  That's about as good as you can get for this kind of research.  And it could provide an interesting way to assess patients who might be headed for bad outcomes for early intervention.  That could, if this holds up, save lives.

More generally, disbelieving everything not peer reviewed is not a tenable approach to assessing covid 19 research. There are some bad preprints for sure. But a few of the peer reviewed covid studies are also crap, so even peer review does not guarantee good results.  Everything should be evaluated on its own merits.

[lex24]

Another non peer reviewed study. We’ve had way too many of those. With all sorts of conclusions.  So many unknown unknowns.

I only skimmed the study but it looks careful with a relatively sophisticated and appropriate analysis.  That's not to say that these results will replicate in other study populations, but they split their sample into testing and training pools and got fairly good replication of the results.  That's about as good as you can get for this kind of research.  And it could provide an interesting way to assess patients who might be headed for bad outcomes for early intervention.  That could, if this holds up, save lives.

More generally, disbelieving everything not peer reviewed is not a tenable approach to assessing covid 19 research. There are some bad preprints for sure. But a few of the peer reviewed covid studies are also crap, so even peer review does not guarantee good results.  Everything should be evaluated on its own merits.

Please tell me where I indicated I “disbelieved” any part of the study. I neither “disbelieve” nor “believe”.  I don’t have the ability to separate the “right” studies from the “wrong” studies.  I’m neither a Dr nor a scientist. And I never sleep at Holiday Inns.

[lex24]

Another non peer reviewed study. We’ve had way too many of those. With all sorts of conclusions.  So many unknown unknowns.

I only skimmed the study but it looks careful with a relatively sophisticated and appropriate analysis.  That's not to say that these results will replicate in other study populations, but they split their sample into testing and training pools and got fairly good replication of the results.  That's about as good as you can get for this kind of research.  And it could provide an interesting way to assess patients who might be headed for bad outcomes for early intervention.  That could, if this holds up, save lives.

More generally, disbelieving everything not peer reviewed is not a tenable approach to assessing covid 19 research. There are some bad preprints for sure. But a few of the peer reviewed covid studies are also crap, so even peer review does not guarantee good results.  Everything should be evaluated on its own merits.

Please tell me where I indicated I “disbelieved” any part of the study. I neither “disbelieve” nor “believe”.  I don’t have the ability to separate the “right” studies from the “wrong” studies.  I’m neither a Dr nor a scientist. And I never sleep at Holiday Inns.