rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
From ‘brain fog’ to heart damage, COVID-19’s lingering problems alarm scientists
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...ovid-19-s-lingering-problems-alarm-scientists
Since that small but very remarkable blip of a post-viral cohort is "alarming", what does that make of a patient population many times larger, made up of tens of millions, with the same problems? What was is again that we saw recently in how they perceive us? "Laughable"? "Made-up"? "Conspiracy"? Yeah, definitely "used to deal with this problem".
Anyway, it's a good article and signals progress. But it's frustrating to see people describe a bunch of trees, saying they know all about bunches of trees, but can't see the forest or know anything about what a forest is.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/202...ovid-19-s-lingering-problems-alarm-scientists
Yeeeeeaaaah, I'm gonna go ahead and strongly disagree with that. Maybe "used to" telling people to get lost. At the very least it has been very selective in "dealing with".Despite the novelty of SARS-CoV-2, its long-term effects have precedents: Infections with other pathogens are associated with lasting impacts ranging from heart problems to chronic fatigue. “Medicine has been used to dealing with this problem” of acute viral illness followed by ongoing symptoms, says Michael Zandi, a neurologist at UCL.
"Medicine has been used to". Also "nobody knows". Anybody see a problem here? I mean, now there is a problem because it can't be brushed aside but surely the fact of having done nothing and have nothing more than ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ to offer is a problem in itself? One that needs systemic fixes?Separately, doctors are starting to see a class of patients who, like Akrami, struggle to think clearly—another outcome physicians have come upon in the past. After some severe viral infections, there are “those people who still don’t feel quite right afterward, but have normal brain scans,” Brown says. Some neurologists and patients describe the phenomenon as “brain fog.” It’s largely a mystery, though one theory suggests it’s similar to a “postviral fatigue related to inflammation in the body,” Brown says.
Could that be happening here? “Who knows, really?” Brown asks. “These patients need to be followed.”
Not very promising on the whole "learning from the past" thing. If that thinking right here had been applied decades ago we wouldn't be in this mess.The most bedeviling and common lingering symptom seems to be fatigue, but researchers caution against calling it chronic fatigue syndrome. That’s “a specific diagnosis,” Marks says. “You might have fibrosis in the lungs, and that will make you feel fatigued; you might have impaired heart function, and that will make you feel fatigued.” Trying to trace symptoms to their source is critical to understanding and ultimately managing them, he says.
Since that small but very remarkable blip of a post-viral cohort is "alarming", what does that make of a patient population many times larger, made up of tens of millions, with the same problems? What was is again that we saw recently in how they perceive us? "Laughable"? "Made-up"? "Conspiracy"? Yeah, definitely "used to deal with this problem".
Anyway, it's a good article and signals progress. But it's frustrating to see people describe a bunch of trees, saying they know all about bunches of trees, but can't see the forest or know anything about what a forest is.
Last edited: