This is an article about a Mt. Sinai ICU doctor who had shortness of breath and episodes of her heart racing after mild Covid. She got an echo and her ejection fraction was 45% (normal for her was about 65%). She was treated with steroids (DH said he would have recommended a 10 day treatment of steroids).
After “at least two and a half months”, she felt better and her ejection fraction returned to normal. Of course, this is anecdotal, but I thought it was still potentially helpful.
What we don’t know is how long the heart problems last, right? My BIL had a post viral myocardial inflammation about 6 years ago and he was in bad shape for a a couple months but now is fine. I suppose there could be damage, but he is totally back to life as normal.
Yet, I remember someone I worked with who had Scarlet Fever as a kid and had lifelong heart problems. My own grandfather died of a heart attack in his 40s when my Mom was 12. Family lore says that he was a ‘sickly’ child who spent months indoors while his siblings played, and I have wondered if he had long term impact from a childhood illness that ended in his premature death. That said, he also smoked…
I just pray these COVID heart issues resolve like my BIL’s did.
I’m angry at the headline of that press release about the children spreading coronavirus. That is not what the study discovered, at all. The headline is deeply misleading.
The study found that kids with coronavirus have high viral loads, which is not a new result; we’ve already seen it in other studies of children.
It might be that children are good spreaders, but the study didn’t study that. The study didn’t do any epidemiology or contact tracing, to discover whether any of the children had infected anyone else. Instead, the study concluded, “This study reveals that children may be a potential source of contagion in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in spite of milder disease or lack of symptoms…” (my italics)
I don’t fault the study, which seems good and valuable work. But the reporting is irresponsible.
Yeah, that and the known lung problems that are ongoing - for how long? A few reports I’ve read from doctors say they look similar to known permanent damage, but it’s unknown at this point because it’s a different source of the problem.
My lad is a guinea pig from back in March when not nearly so much was known. As more people are willing to be guinea pigs (coupled with those who get it in spite of trying not to), I’m hoping we learn more.
I’m also hoping what we learn shows that bodies eventually heal themselves.
Since clotting is involved in pretty much everything, I’m not so sure how solid that hope is, but being a mom, I never lose hope.
Are any of you following the Pandemic Response Catalyst Conversations series of webinars? Because I share a browser with Happydad the biochemist, I end up with lots of interesting stuff in my Facebook feed, and clicked on a link for this back in May. Thursday’s was about diagnostics and detection. https://app.sli.do/event/bptwuogb/live/questions
Glad that there are studies like this happening, as we will need to learn to live with the virus (even if we have vaccines and/or treatments and/or rapid saliva tests):
UIUC did a bridging study to Yale’s SalivaDirect product, so UIUC’s product now has EUA approval as well. UIUC has performed 10K+ tests each day for several days already, with a target of 20K/day starting this week:
After reading this, I understand better the power of Yale’s product and open sourcing their info. Even though these tests still have to go to a CLIA certified lab, for schools (and other institutions) with their own CLIA lab, this is an important development.
Dr. Steven Hahn of the FDA is a hack. During a news conference today touting the FDA issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for convalescent plasma, he said that the plasma’s claimed 35% reduction in mortality meant that for every 100 people who got the drug, 35 people’s lives would be saved. This is poppycock and he knows or at least should know it.
There is a good deal of skepticism about the study the FDA used as a basis for the EUA, because it didn’t have a control group that didn’t get the treatment. But 11.9% of the patients in the study who got the treatment late died, versus 8.7% of the patients who got it early. My ace mathematical ability allows me to subtract 8.7 from 11.9 and conclude that 3.2 people per hundred is the correct number of lives saved.
So Hahn said 35 people per hundred would be saved, but actually the (questionable) data says 3.2 per hundred would be saved. These are not the same. Either Hahn is a hack or he’s innumerate. Either way he’s unqualified for his job. (The third hypothesis, that he just made a mistake, can be discarded. If he made a mistake he would have corrected it by now. It’s a very bad mistake to make.)
@“Cardinal Fang” I think he made a mistake and didn’t want to bring more attention to it. It’s hard to believe this was intentional.
It surprised me there were no good studies about the plasma as we have been hearing about it for months. Although it’s clearly not a panacea, if it helps some people, why hasn’t there been more research?
The statement was noticed immediately and was all over health care Twitter. There’s no covering it up, so if it was an unintentional error Hahn should correct it at once.
I agree we need more and better studies on convalescent plasma. An EUA is unlikely to help with that goal.
It’s hard to standardize the plasma. Some is high in antibodies, some low. Some has neutralizing antibodies, some doesn’t (difficult to test for). That makes it hard to compare outcomes because all patients receiving plasma are not getting the same treatment.
People don’t want to enroll in the study because they (or their loved one) believe in plasma, so they don’t want to risk getting placebo.
If convalescent plasma were some kind of miracle cure, the data would show a benefit despite the shortcomings of the studies. It still might be marginally beneficial—there are ongoing studies. Hopefully, they will reach their enrollment goals. Trials outside the US may be the best bets to get more evidence (such as the UK’s Recovery Trial).
I don’t buy that for a second. He said the words 35 saved in 100- that’s not a mistake an expert makes. They were clearly pressured by the president to make some big announcement. Its shameful.
He probably saved his job by saying that and not contradicting what the president and Azar had said too. Why would he be fired? The intention of the announcement was just this, and he followed along to save himself. This is the country we live in now.
Sorts tongue in cheek but these agencies need to be independent of the white house. They don’t work for them they work for us. They shouldn’t succumb to pressure. They should reveal facts not myths or maybes. It should be based purely on science and not pressure to create science.
Can anyone share insights on when a cheap, take at home ‘strip’ type saliva test will be available? I feel like that will be the game changer for schools and colleges getting back closer to normal while we wait for vaccines.
Everyone tests themselves every morning or every other morning or such. Is this on the horizon? If so, how long is that horizon? Or am I just waiting for Godot on this?
I for one, am more concerned now about any vaccine that comes to market [says the pro-vaccine advocate].
At this point we have to rely on the manufacturers rather than the FDA to bring forth a safe and effective product. And of course, long-term safety is likely to be unknown, assuming a vaccine makes it to market in the next 6-12 months. I hope the manufacturers are up to the task.