Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday July 13 2020, @10:50PM   Printer-friendly

The SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 pandemic has been with us for over six months. A recent check of https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ reveals just over 13 million cases, with over a half million deaths, and 4.9 million of which are listed as active. On a positive note, 7.6 million are listed as recovered.

Unfortunately, recovered does not necessarily mean being back to the same shape someone was in pre-infection (see below).

Statistically, there are bound to be some Soylentils who have been infected (or had friends or family members who were).

I'd like to offer an opportunity for us to pull together and share our collective experiences. If you've made it through, telling others of how it went can be helpful both for the one who shares, and also for those who were recently diagnosed. Fears, doubts, and worries act to drain energy better directed to recovery.

NB: Please be mindful that "the internet never forgets". I encourage all who respond to make use of posting anonymously.

With that caution, what has been your experience? How long between time of infection and onset of symptoms? How bad was it? How are things now? What do you know now that you wish you knew earlier? What did you hear about earlier but didn't realize they meant that?

Penultimately, I realize words are inadequate, but I sincerely wish and hope that all can be spared from this malady, and those who have been afflicted may have a speedy and full recovery.

Unfortunately, it looks like that may not be as likely as we would all hope and wish for...

Ars Technica has results of an analysis of COVID-19 victims' recovery. Be aware it was from a relatively small sample of patients who had been infected and then deemed to be recovered. Two months after infection, COVID-19 symptoms persist:

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues unabated in many countries, an ever-growing group of people is being shifted from the "infected" to the "recovered" category. But are they truly recovered? A lot of anecdotal reports have indicated that many of those with severe infections are experiencing a difficult recovery, with lingering symptoms, some of which remain debilitating. Now, there's a small study out of Italy in which a group of infected people was tracked for an average of 60 days after their infection was discovered. And the study confirms that symptoms remain long after there's no detectable virus.

[...] Roughly 60 days later, the researchers followed up with an assessment of these patients. Two months after there was no detectable virus, only 13 percent of the study group was free of any COVID-19 symptoms. By contrast, a bit over half still had at least three symptoms typical of the disease.

The most common symptom was fatigue, followed by difficulty breathing, joint pain, and chest pain. Over 10 percent were still coughing, and similar numbers hadn't seen their sense of smell return. A large range of other symptoms were also present.

Journal Reference:
Angelo Carfì, Roberto Bernabei, Francesco Landi. Persistent Symptoms in Patients After Acute COVID-19 [open], JAMA (DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.12603)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @01:40AM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @01:40AM (#1020907)

    Couldn't get the link to work. But it was definitely not common until recently: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12839580/ [nih.gov]

  • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday July 14 2020, @02:46AM (9 children)

    by MostCynical (2589) on Tuesday July 14 2020, @02:46AM (#1020968) Journal

    AS/NZS 2604:2012 Australian/New Zealand Standard™Sunscreen products—Evaluation and classification AS/NZS 2604:2012
    AS/NZS 2604:2012 This Joint Australian/New Zealand Standard was prepared by Joint Technical Committee CS-042, Sunscreen Agents. It was approved on behalf of the Council of Standards Australia on 9 May 2012 and on behalf of the Council of Standards New Zealand on 9 May 2012. This Standard was published on 30 May 2012. The following are represented on Committee CS-042: Accord Australasia Australasian College of Dermatologists Australasian Faculty of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Australian Food and Grocery Council Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency Australian Self Medication Industry Australian Society of Cosmetic Chemists Cancer Society of New Zealand Consumers Federation of Australia Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association of New Zealand Measurement Standards Laboratory of New Zealand Medicines Australia National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme New Zealand Employers and Manufacturers Association (Central) Testing Interests, Australia The Cancer Council, Australia Therapeutic Goods Administration University of Sydney Keeping Standards up-to-date Standards are living documents which reflect progress in science, technology and systems. To maintain their currency, all Standards are periodically reviewed, and new editions are published. Between editions, amendments may be issued. Standards may also be withdrawn. It is important that readers assure themselves they are using a current Standard, which should include any amendments which may have been published since the Standard was purchased. Detailed information about joint Australian/New Zealand Standards can be found by visiting the Standards Web Shop at www.saiglobal.com.au or Standards New Zealand web site at www.standards.co.nz and looking up the relevant Standard in the on-line catalogue. For more frequent listings or notification of revisions, amendments and withdrawals, Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand offer a number of update options. For information about these services, users should contact their respective national Standards organization. We also welcome suggestions for improvement in our Standards, and especially encourage readers to notify us immediately of any apparent inaccuracies or ambiguities. Please address your comments to the Chief Executive of either Standards Australia or Standards New Zealand at the address shown on the back cover. This Standard was issued in draft form for comment as DR AS/NZS 2604.

    AS/NZS 2604:2012 Australian/New Zealand Standard™Sunscreen products—Evaluation and classification COPYRIGHT © Standards Australia Limited/Standards New Zealand All rights are reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or copied in any form or byany means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without the writtenpermission of the publisher, unless otherwise permitted under the Copyright Act 1968(Australia) or the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand). Jointly published by SAI Global Limited under licence from Standards Australia Limited,GPO Box 476, Sydney, NSW 2001 and by Standards New Zealand, Private Bag 2439,Wellington 6140. ISBN 978 1 74342 118 5

    Originated in Australia as AS 2604—1983. Originated in New Zealand as AS/NZS 2604:1993. Previous edition 1998. Sixth edition 2012.

    --
    "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:01AM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:01AM (#1020990)

      Not seeing anything about broad spectrum in 1983.

      • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:31AM (7 children)

        by MostCynical (2589) on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:31AM (#1021014) Journal

        given in this Standard are included for the purpose of determining whether ornot a sunscreen can be classified as ‘broad-spectrum’.

        SCOPE
        This Standard sets out procedures for determining the performance of sunscreen products in terms of their mean protection factors. It includes test methods for both broad-spectrum and water- resistant sunscreen products. This Standard also specifies appropriate detailed labelling requirements

        --
        "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:39AM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @03:39AM (#1021019)

          Not even sure where that text is coming from but anyway it still doesn't say anything about how common broad spectrum sunblock was in Australia in 1983. I'd be surprised if it was common since the research on the UVA problem really only came out 2000-2010.

          • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:08AM (4 children)

            by MostCynical (2589) on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:08AM (#1021032) Journal

            was from
            https://infostore.saiglobal.com/preview/293355528983.pdf?sku=117193_SAIG_AS_AS_245202 [saiglobal.com]

            Also see this [saiglobal.com]

            Sets out procedures for determining the performance of sunscreen products in terms of their mean protection factors. Includes test methods for broad spectrum and water-resistant sunscreen products. It also specifies appropriate detailed labelling requirements. The Standard applies to topical products intended for dermal application, which are represented as suitable for topical use to protect human skin from the adverse effect of solar ultraviolet rays. It applies to both primary and secondary sunscreen products as defined.

            Australia was regulating use of broad spectrum sunscreen as far back as 1983, and has been tightening the definition ever since.

            How common? Australia's skin cancer rates [wikipedia.org] would suggest "still not common enough"..

            --
            "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:32AM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:32AM (#1021045)

              I still haven't seen that they were worried about UVA in 1983 from your sources. But it's not like it was unknown, just people thought that was a "bonus". Now we know blocking only UVB is a big net negative because it removes the natural signal to limit sun exposure without offering protection against cancer. If you bought sunscreen before 2010 or so you were harmed by this.

              • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday July 14 2020, @05:23AM (2 children)

                by MostCynical (2589) on Tuesday July 14 2020, @05:23AM (#1021066) Journal

                As scientific opinion on an optimum method for determining the UV-A blocking capabilities of a sunscreen is also still developing, the limits and test procedures for UV-A transmittance given in this Standard are included for the purpose of determining whether or not a sunscreen can be classified as ‘broad-spectrum’

                same standard linked above

                --
                "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @05:47AM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @05:47AM (#1021070)

                  That isn't from 1983...

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @01:50PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @01:50PM (#1021225)

                    Yes, it references something from 1983, but laws regularly do that. Especially when they're being modified in one fashion or another, it doesn't say anything about what the standards were back then. You'd have to read the referenced item.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:24PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 14 2020, @04:24PM (#1021323)

          Off topic, but love your sig. I am excited for the final book in the series to finally come out in August!