It is indeed a compelling theory, and I commented on this research when it was released before being peer-reviewed. That piece generated a lot of buzz, and so did this article by Drs. Ghandi and Rutherford. In response, several scientists wrote to the New England Journal of Medicine to respond to the article, and the Journal published those correspondences along with Dr. Ghandi’s response.

In the first letter, scientists from Columbia, New York, and Virginia wrote,

There is insufficient evidence to support the claim that masks reduce the infectious dose of SARS-CoV-2 and the severity of Covid-19, much less that their use can induce protective immunity. Substantial knowledge gaps must be addressed before claims are made about the efficacy of face masks in reducing morbidity or eliciting immune responses.

Masks are used primarily to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission rather than reduce the dose of infectious particles or mitigate the severity of Covid-19. The suggestion that masks offer an alternative to vaccination without evidence that the benefits outweigh the great risks implicitly encourages reckless behavior.

The second letter was a lot longer, written by scientists from New Orleans and Minneapolis:

Gandhi and Rutherford’s theory regarding the potential for variolation by means of facial masking is not consistent with the emerging science of transmission of SARS-CoV-2. This virus does not appear to follow a classic dose–response relationship (i.e., the lower a viral inoculum exposure, the less severe the disease). Experimental infection studies involving healthy adult macaques have shown that severe clinical disease rarely occurs after respiratory infection in SARS-CoV-2, which would be the expected pathophysiological consequence if the dose–response assumption were valid (1). Viral replication is related to dose, but disease severity is not. The epidemiology indicates that the occurrence of severe Covid-19 is associated with preexisting conditions and other risk factors, such as age, sex, and pregnancy status (2).

They made good points, and so I was very interested in seeing what Drs. Ghandi and Rutherford had to say in response:

We agree that well-described host characteristics, including age and coexisting conditions, influence disease severity. However, more evidence is accruing to support the idea that the viral inoculum of SARS-CoV-2 (lowered by means of masking or social distancing) is associated with disease severity (1–4). Direct experimentation in humans to support this theory is not feasible, but studies in animals have shown the association; in addition to the hamster model, which we cited in our Perspective article, a new model in ferrets shows the same dose–response relationship (3). The association between viral inoculum and disease severity may be related to an overwhelmed innate immune response and has been seen in other viral infections in which the host immune response contributes prominently to viral pathogenesis, such as in SARS-CoV-2, measles, influenza, and dengue.

The use of the term “variolation” refers to the fact that strong T-cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2 appears to be generated with asymptomatic or mild infection, as shown in multiple recent studies; the duration of that immunity is unknown, and we stress the need for a safe and effective vaccine. We did not mean to imply in our Perspective article that people should be deliberately infected with SARS-CoV-2. In fact, as practicing infectious disease physicians, we counsel very strongly against deliberate infection, given the case fatality rate and the complicated interplay between host and pathogen. However, because vaccine trials are also examining strategies for reducing the severity of infection, we are interested in any public health strategy (including masking or social distancing) (4) that could reduce disease severity.

Although the evidence regarding reduced transmission and acquisition of infection with the wearing of cloth masks was originally mixed, there is increasing evidence both from physical sciences and from epidemiologic investigations that cloth masks (if worn properly) reduce both transmission and acquisition (5). The data have evolved on cloth and surgical masks, leading the state of California, for instance, to change its public health messaging to “masks protect you and others.” We hope our article encourages investigators to conduct further studies of the relationship between viral inoculum and disease severity with SARS-CoV-2. Although proving this hypothesis by means of experiments in humans will never be feasible, further studies in animals and observational studies will strengthen the evidence base.

These letters to the editor in medical journals are a great window into the discussions between scientists, and they don’t make the news headlines or press releases. That’s why I shared them in this piece.

Now, notice, none of the scientists — not one — claimed that masks should not be worn or that masks are not effective, unlike the “expert” the White House has enlisted. They simply took issue with the claims of Drs. Ghandi and Rutherford as lacking scientific evidence. And their response to the letters made me even more comfortable with the theory that masks can indeed act as crude vaccines.

Also notice that Drs. Ghandi and Rutherford did not say that masks are the be-all and end-all. They also agree that a vaccine is essential to ending this pandemic once and for all. While we await the trials to be completed to ensure the vaccines’ safety and efficacy, however, everyone needs to be wearing a mask. That’s what the science says. We need to listen to the science.

The post Inside a Debate Between Scientists on Facial Masking for Covid-19 appeared first on Medika Life.

Wave 1, Wave 2 and so on, or just all the same wave with peaks and troughs? Covid hasn’t just exposed flaws in countries health systems, it’s also highlighted our global inability to deal with a pandemics at a governmental level. Part of the problem is the Covid virus itself and its severity. 

Yes, Covid can kill you, but the odds, if you’re healthy, are massively in your favor. Even if you are old. The virus, although deadly to certain groups, isn’t that dangerous to the general population. I’m not going to delve into the aspects of comorbidities and quantifying risk, there’s more than enough written on that topic already. This article will instead look at possible solutions moving forward and why our current strategy (we really only have lockdowns) is fundamentally flawed and often deadly in it’s own right to our societies. 

What has become clear is that our lockdown mentality and isolating entire cities, communities and even countries hasn’t and isn’t working. If anything, we may simply have prolonged the pain. 

Yes, you can argue lockdowns slow the spread of the virus and allow hospitals the opportunity to provide beds and respirators for the seriously ill and that is wonderful, if that were all lockdowns did. But that isn’t the actual result of lockdowns. Their consequences and impact on our communities have been immense and have and will result in massive damage to mental health, societal health and fiscal health. We are engaged in digging a bottomless pit.

I have medical associates and friends who work on the front lines of Covid. They experience the horrors of the pandemic first hand. They get to see the really ugly side of a disease that kills slowly, suffocating its victims as it overpowers their lungs and attacks other organs. With limited treatment options, these doctors are forced, day after day, to watch patient after patient die. These doctors are angry, frustrated and many feel abandoned to their lots. Justifiably so.

There are NO BULLETPROOF TREATMENTS FOR COVID! That is an indisputable fact. Lets get that out the way first. If you are hospitalized and you take a turn for the worse, it is still a crap shoot as to whether or not you survive, and then, the odds we mentioned earlier are no longer in your favor. You may or may not respond to a variety of treatments your desperate doctor is going to ply you with to try and save your life. Like I said, its a crap shoot. 

There are two important take-aways from this paragraph.

For patients it is this. Seek medical attention early if you suspect you are infected. Existing treatment protocols seem most effective if delivered early in the life cycle of the infection. Wait too long and, well, you may not be around for too long. Sorry to be blunt, but that’s the truth of it. Covid is not something to be trifled with. Ask the millions of grieving family members.

The second point to be drawn from the above is directed at health care workers embedded on the front lines. It may not be a popular view but I believe it to be the truth. The health of your patients matters as does your ability to provide them with the best care possible. The cost of that life and that care however, cannot be exacted from the innocent casualties of lockdowns. Every life has value and this is where the crux of our societal problem starts to rear it’s ugly head.

If you are a doctor on the front lines of Covid, you are engaged in a war, one you’ve been poorly equipped to fight and your batting average ain’t great right now. It is human nature to want to do everything you can to improve that batting average, to ensure that you are able to save more lives than you lose. 

That desire to improve the lot of your patient cannot however outweigh the social wellbeing of the society outside of the doors of your hospital. Cutterntly it does.

A life for a life

What is the value of your patient’s life as he lies gasping for air in an isolated ward, cut off from his loved ones? What if the indirect cost of treating that patient comes at the expense of a child’s life, three blocks away. A child who has starved to death in her cot, abandoned and alone. Her young mother, recently unemployed, lies motionless beside the cot, having taken her own life. An eviction order lies unopened on a small battered table, the only remaining piece of furniture in the families cramped lounge. They are victims of the lockdown policy and their lives have been lost to Covid, as surely as if the disease itself infected them.

All across the length and breadth of our planet the fictitious scenario I’ve outlined above is played out again and again in real time as millions suffer, not from the virus itself, but from our ill-conceived responses. There is no daily list broadcast across the planet publicizing these deaths. They are the silent victims of Covid-19 and our flawed policies and their numbers cannot be quantified. Not now and perhaps never. Pre-Covid we already had nearly 28 million homeless children globally according to Unicef. It’s safe to assume that number will double by the time the pandemic passes.

This inability on our part to put numbers (quantify) to the lives we are destroying or losing from lockdown is one of lockdowns greatest immediate strengths. History will show it up for the flawed response it has been, but for now, it continues unabated as our sole management strategy; a reflection of just how powerless we are in the face of an unknown enemy against which we have no defenses.

Another inescapable fact of the Pandemic is this. Millions are suffering and the cost in human life is unacceptable. Children literally starving to death, widespread hunger, even in first world countries, as unemployment soars and levels of depression and suicide skyrocket. Solutions, always, should be commensurate with the problems they attempt to resolve. Lockdowns are clearly not fit for purpose. They never were. What good saving the few at the expense of the many?

Are there alternatives?

There is no sense in criticizing a woefully inadequate solution without offering viable alternatives. Until recently, there wasn’t much on the table and those with alternate mindsets had been vociferously silenced by the majority. That is gradually changing and it is thanks to members of the scientific community who have chosen to take a moral stand on the damages enforced lockdowns are having on our societies. An example of this is the Great Barrington Declaration, more on them below.

Before we examine their suggestions in more detail, lets quickly recap. We know now that we aren’t dealing with an extinction level pandemic here. Far from it. Covid is, as I have stressed above, a dangerous and nasty virus that can kill you, but it is, based on statistics you can freely google, only marginally more fatal than influenza. It is also more targeted in the individuals and groups it poses a real threat to, which makes it eminently manageable. We know WHO to protect.

These facts would suggest that our current lockdown strategies and their debilitating and often fatal outcomes, warrant an immediate alternative. Clearly we cannot simply end one response without something to offer in its stead and one such alternative has been tabled by a group of concerned scientists and doctors.

Who or what is the Great Barrington Declaration?

Who better to explain this than the founders, The following statement is taken directly from their website.

Great Barrington Declaration — As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

So what exactly is Focused Protection and who supports it? To answer the second question first, their website currently displays the following information regarding signatories to the declaration.

The three primary signatories listed are

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.

Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.

The list of medical figures that have signed this document is impressive and growing daily. Let me be the first to admit that I have no way of currently validating these numbers. The signatures are however of secondary concern. We don’t live in a democratic world where the public get to decide global health protocols. These are decided for us on our behalf by governments who supposedly take into consideration the voices of their experts and the numbers. Numbers matter, statistics matter and our ability to quantify something influences our decisions. We use numbers as yardsticks.

Lockdown uses the table of Covid infections and deaths to justify itself. It is aided in this process by the media. It is the only table of numbers ever presented to the public and in much the same way we buy into it, so do the politicians. Projection, projections, projections. It’s what drives our policies and decision making processes.

As stated earlier, the silent victims of the pandemic, those who suffer the consequences of lockdown, have no public face, they are legion, but as of now, exist as an unquantified force with little or no voice. The real gravity of their situation in the aftermath of global lockdowns is only now starting to emerge, months after the initial strategies were implemented. It may take years to fully understand just how wrong we got it. 

These emergent consequences have not however stopped countries from seriously considering and even implementing new or secondary lockdowns. There are no countering numbers to provide to the strategists, so lacking in the basic tools they depend on for policy, they ignore the plights of their societies and forge ahead with yet more destruction.

I have written articles before on this topic and have been an outspoken critic of the lockdown strategy. Anyone with a modicum of foresight could see the consequences of lockdown unfolding in real time and the actual risk posed by Covid NEVER warranted our lockdown response. 

It still doesn’t and even less so now that evidence of lockdown’s failures are beginning to emerge. We can no longer ignore that evidence. It is no longer convenient or politically expedient to do so, not at the expense of innocent lives.

Examining the Focused Protection strategy

For those who don’t wish to move between browsers windows, I have reproduced sections of the basic premise of the strategy below, but to read the full version, please visit this link. It should be noted that their concerns raised are made from a medical perspective and largely avoid issues such as rampant poverty, unemployment and hunger, all of which can be directly ascribed to the current lockdown policies.

Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health — leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all — including the vulnerable — falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity — i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable — and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

I can hear the moans and groans relating to the use of the term ‘herd immunity.’ This overly politicized term and its inclusion in their statement may yet come to haunt them. It is indicative of how we have allowed volatile language and the appropriation of medical terms by the lay community to affect our decision making processes when it comes to Covid. My advice to the Great Barrington group would be the removal of this term in favor of less contentious English.

Strictly speaking, in medical terms ‘herd immunity’ refers to a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. You can read more about this term and its appropriate scientific use in this brilliant thread on Twitter by Dt Tedros, Direct General of the WHO. Read the thread for the correct use of the term herd immunity.

Just how practical is Focused Protection?

The logic underpinning their solution is sound and sensible. We have a known pathogen with a clearly identified target. Protecting entire populations when only segments are at risk makes no sense, especially not when this “protection” is detrimental to the wellbeing of said populace.

Imagine if the trillions of dollars poured into US public spending to support the public and the economy during lockdown had instead been spent on buffering healthcare and protecting the at risk. Only a fraction of the money would have been required and would have returned far more beneficial results, immediately in terms of quality of care and in the long term, medical healthcare in the US would have been revolutionized.

Instead we are now left with growing numbers of infected faced with ever shrinking numbers of hospital beds in hospitals that are short staffed and manned by exhausted, disheartened personnel. Then there’s the flu season, about to kick into full swing in the US. 

Reapportioning support to where it is most needed and shifting the public mindset may by now be impossible. The hole we’ve dug may already be beyond the scope of our abilities to escape it. Should we be able to acknowledge the mistake of lockdown and look to embrace new solutions, one of which may very well be Focused Protection in one form or another, the media will be integral to the success of any future Covid campaign.

Their desire to protect and promote the health of their audience through honest, unbiased reporting that isn’t politically or financially motivated may yet still determine how many people die from Covid-19. In the meanwhile I’m off to sign a certain document. feel welcome to add your voice.

On a political note. I await with interest the Biden camp’s official plan to combat the pandemic. Vocal criticism of Donald Trump and the Republicans, mostly deserved, does not obviate the Democrats need for a clear and transparent Covid policy. They seem to awfully quiet on that front. Perhaps, they too, along with Trump, are praying for that miracle respite that wont come. 

We need to deal with this, humanely this time, with due concern for all segments of our society, particularly the segments we are tasked with protecting…

The post The Uninfected Victims of Covid. In Search of Pandemic Solutions appeared first on Medika Life.

Nutritional science, aging, and the laws of physics inhibit my ability to get what I want.

Science is very inconvenient.

Everyone has opinions about science these days. Our social media feeds are full of vitriolic opinions. I miss the days of puppy dogs, nostalgic high school photos, and our children’s latest achievement pics. Now we have neighbors screaming at each other about masks and school re-openings.

When it comes to COVID-19, everyone has an opinion.

But here is the deal.

COVID-19 does not care about our opinions. It is a virus.

Specifically, SARS-CoV-2 is an 80 nanometer enveloped, non-segmented, RNA virus containing single strands of RNA with crown-like spikes on the outer surface.

SARS-CoV-2 has no brain or thoughts. It does not think about anything at all. The virus is a random bit of fragmented RNA that attaches itself to a respiratory droplet and spreads from one person to another… and kills people.

The virus has no motivations. It is programmed to replicate. That is it. SARS-CoV-2 has no desires, intentions, or strategies. The only purpose of this small bit of genetic code is to reproduce itself as efficiently as possible.

We are entitled to our opinions

Everyone has a right to their own opinions. Adults may choose to believe anything they want.

Many Americans do not agree on the value of facemasks…except for scientists, epidemiologists, hospitals, The Center for Disease Control, The World Health Organization, The Joint Commission,The American Medical Association, and The National Institute of Health.

Some endorse the idea masks do not work, the virus is a hoax, and COVID-19 is no worse than the flu.

The thing is, science does not care what we think.

When we read a coronavirus story and react with emotions and feelings, SARS-CoV-2 pays no attention. The viral proliferation pathway is unswayed by our well-thought-out responses.

I have many personal feelings about the pandemic.

• I wish COVID-19 would magically disappear.
• I would like the simple act of coming home from work to stop being a potential threat to my family.
• I want my kids to go back to school and to live a normal life.
• I would like teachers to be safe to return to the classroom.
• I want to eat inside a restaurant, hop on a plane, and enjoy a weekend in Las Vegas.
• I do not enjoy wearing a grimy, sweaty mask all day at work.
• I wish everyone would wear a mask and stop the spread of the virus.
• I desperately do not want any of my pregnant patients to catch COVID-19, get sick, or die.

My wants, desires, and preferences do nothing to change the scientific reality. Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson once said, “The thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”

We can not be dismissive of scientific evidence

The tension between opinions and science are on full display in the #reopenschools debate. There is a bipartisan agreement to find a way to get kids back in the classroom. The open question is how to do it safely.

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said, “The science should not stand in the way” of reopening schools.

But if science is not going to guide decision making regarding the US Education system, how will we decide? Gut-instinct, coin toss, fortune tellers, or tarot cards? Or should we reopen schools based on intuition, faith, polling data, or political party?

Bending the science to match our desires will not work. The virus does not care whether we open schools or not. SARS-CoV-2 has no opinion.

The virus is not liberal or conservative. It is not a Republican or a Democrat. SARS-CoV-2 does not watch Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow.

The virus will simply hop on board a respiratory particle and pass indiscriminately from one person to another. The virus’s spike proteins attach to cell surface ACE2 receptors, hijack the cell, and reproduce thousands of copies of itself.

Our political beliefs have no impact on viral function.

Scientists do not decide what we want the truth to be and then search for evidence to support our beliefs. Instead, we use the scientific method to answer the unknown. We generate a hypothesis, runs tests, and then prove or disprove the theory

Science is a search for the truth, not an effort to bolster our belief system.

SARS-CoV-2 is a bipartisan killer

Planet Earth has been exposed to a novel virus. No human is immune to COVID-19. Until a vaccine or an effective treatment is available, the safest course of action is for every American to live as though we are all asymptomatic carriers.

The current scientific evidence demonstrates the coronavirus pandemic is not a hoax or a left-wing conspiracy.

COVID-19 is a bipartisan killer.

Our Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC friends, families, and coworkers are catching COVID-19. Many will be hospitalized. Others will die. Each day the chances are increasing; each of us will be exposed to or know someone with coronavirus.

The evidence-based data shows the best way to fight the pandemic is to cover our face, respect social distancing, and wash our hands.

My strong opinions wanting the virus to go away will not change reality.

In the meantime, perhaps my life-saving mask will deter me from eating another Tiff’s Treat cookie.

The post SARS CoV-2: A Virus That Does Not Care About Your Opinion appeared first on Medika Life.

We need to talk about what to do if you’ve been in contact with someone with COVID-19 or begin to experience symptoms. Our gut instinct is to run off and get tested. But for the majority of those with viral symptoms, this is the wrong thing to do.

Testing may verify Covid-19, but a positive test for Covid-19 does not change the management. A negative does not change the recommendations either.

When a nonelderly patient without underlying medical conditions or respiratory distress has COVID-19 or has been exposed, the recommendations are home quarantine. Regardless of the test results, the management is two weeks of home isolation and supportive measures such as fluids, rest, and acetaminophen.

Unfortunately, Covid-19 is a new virus for which we don’t have a vaccine, effective medication, or baseline immunity.

What counts as exposure?

You have been exposed after any close contact with anyone who tested positive for COVID-19 or anyone who has symptoms of the disease. According to the CDC close contact means:

• You were within 6 feet of someone who has COVID-19 for at least 15 minutes
• You provided care at home to someone who is sick with COVID-19
• You had direct physical contact with the person (touched, hugged, or kissed them)
• You shared eating or drinking utensils
• They sneezed, coughed, or somehow got respiratory droplets on you

What do you do after an exposure?

Stay home and monitor your health.

• Stay home for 14 days after your last contact with a person who has COVID-19
• You do not need to get tested automatically. You and your doctor should make testing decisions together. After exposure or if you have symptoms, you will be placed on a 14-day quarantine regardless of the test results. Going to get a test exposes you and others to more potential spread. Contact a medical provider to determine if testing is warranted and to make arrangements for testing according to local availability and capacity.
• Watch for fever (100.4◦F), cough, shortness of breath, or other symptoms of COVID-19
• If possible, self-isolate away others, especially people who are at higher risk for getting very sick from COVID-19
• Look for emergency COVID-19 warning signs and seek immediate emergency medical care.
• Communicate with your doctor to evaluate any new onset of symptoms
• Avoid public transportation, ride-sharing, or taxis
• If you become sick, wear a face cover over your nose and mouth if you must be around other people. Masks should not be placed on young children under the age of two.

What are emergency warning signs indicating the need for immediate care?

The CDC provides guidance on when to seek emergency medical attention. If someone shows any of these signs, seek emergency medical care immediately after first calling ahead to let the office or hospital know you are coming.

• Trouble breathing
• Persistent pain or pressure in the chest
• New confusion
• Inability to wake or stay awake
• Bluish lips or face

What do I do if my child has been exposed or has symptoms?

Having a sick child is terrifying for parents. Parents’ first instincts may be to take your child to an Emergency Department to get tested, but management at home is safe in most pediatric cases. The treatment is isolation, fluids, and rest. The concept that testing does not change management is especially challenging when parents are faced with a sick child.

Emergency care is needed if the child shows severe illness symptoms such as high fever or very low body temperature, shortness of breath, fainting, or confusion. If a trip to the emergency department is required, remember to call ahead and let the staff know you are coming.

Otherwise, the child should receive supportive treatment at home. Parents should contact their doctor or pediatrician for advice and continued monitoring of symptoms.

What are the symptoms of COVID-19?

Many patients have no symptoms at all. The safest course of action is for every American to live as though we are asymptomatic carriers. The sad truth is any one of us may be shedding the virus and putting others at risk.

About 80% of COVID-19 cases show mild symptoms or are asymptomatic. Symptoms include typical viral problems such as fever, body aches, dry cough, fatigue, chills, congestion, runny nose, and sore throat.

Many develop gastrointestinal symptoms such as loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

Others develop neurological symptoms such as loss of smell, loss of taste, muscle weakness, numbness, tinglingly in the hands and feet, dizziness, confusion, delirium, seizures, and stroke.

Approximately 20% of COVID-19 patients develop severe symptoms requiring hospitalization. Severe symptoms include high fever, severe cough, shortness of breath, pneumonia, and low blood pressure. Those over age 60 and people with underlying medical conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, respiratory disease, or hypertension are at higher risk of developing severe illness.

The case fatality rate is decreasing, indicating we are getting better at treating those who get sick. But as testing increases around the country, we must remember the positivity rate is also rising. The increase in cases is not due to the increased testing capacity. A higher percentage of people getting tested have the virus.

Recent data from UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas shows an increase in admissions of young patients without risk factors. This shift towards the younger and healthier is an important reminder to all of us to continue handwashing, social distancing, and wearing a mask.This Is the Single Easiest Way to Help During the Pandemic.

How do you get tested to know if you have COVID-19 right now?

To detect the virus, a test must be performed to identify viral genetic material. A PCR test, from saliva or a nasal swab, is used to detect the virus’s active presence. There are multiple technologies available in the US, and each has varying degrees of accuracy.

The key thing to know is a positive test is reliable. If a test result comes back positive, it is almost certain that the person has COVID-19. If a test returns a negative result, then you are not off the hook.A negative test does mean you do not have COVID-19.

Regardless of your test results, if you have COVID-like symptoms self-isolate at home, rest, hydrate, and wear a mask when interacting with family members.

If your symptoms do worsen, contact your doctor for further guidance.

How do you get tested to know if you had COVID-19 in the past?

Our bodies develop antibodies after we are exposed to a virus. Antibodies are special proteins our immune system uses to fight infection. We are hopeful that our immense systems will develop neutralizing antibodies to provide long term protection against coronavirus. We have not proven if this is true with COVID-19, but many studies are in progress.

Blood tests can be done to try and detect Coronavirus specific antibodies. Unlike nasal swabs and saliva tests, blood tests are not used to detect active infection. The antibodies do not appear until at least 5–10 days after infection. Antibody testing detects a past infection.

People who have neutralizing antibodies may donate plasma. Antibodies from plasma can be used to treat some patients sick with COVID-19. We are hopeful these antibodies will prove to provide long term immunity.

Each day scientists learn more about this virus. Until we develop a vaccine, effective medication, or a cure, we all must do our part. Social distancing, hand hygiene, and face coverings are our most effective tools to protect ourselves and each other.

These steps may be a small inconvenience, but these minor alterations may potentially save someone else’s life.

We all must do our part.

The post You and Your Child Were Exposed to COVID-19; Now What? appeared first on Medika Life.

An expert, Dr. Bruce Aylward, from the World Health Organization, is of a similar mind. But there is hope for stemming the spread now.

Patients who have “recovered” from the virus produce antibodies in their blood plasma. These antibodies may protect them from further infection and can be used as a treatment for other current patients. But this, also, is questionable.

If the antibodies provide any protection, they might be a stop-gap measure before the availability of a vaccine. How long will that protection last before a viable treatment is devised?

Vaccines currently in clinical trials around the world may be one response to stave off contracting the virus, but not everyone will be vaccinated. The lack of total world immunization will result in clusters of either asymptomatic or symptomatic individuals spreading the disease in unprotected areas. Then, too, no one knows if the vaccines will work or how long their effectiveness will last.

To extinguish an ongoing epidemic and obviate the need for any other measures (e.g., social distancing), the vaccine has to have an efficacy of at least 80% with a 75% vaccine coverage.

As vaccines become available and are introduced into world populations, those who have had COVID19 may not benefit from them. Cleared and identified as recovered, these patients are now exhibiting a wide-ranging array of previously unknown symptoms. Could a vaccine negate these symptoms in a patient now recovered? Are the symptoms permanent?

Unusual, long-lasting or transient symptoms

The lungs were thought to be the primary area of attack of the virus, but it soon became apparent that there were other, unusual and unnoticed, manifestations of the disease. Only now is the medical community coming to grips with a virus that appears to come in more than one form and with new symptoms.

COVID19 attacks the entire body in its process that affects all the organs in the body in its mechanism causing blood clotting.

Scientists think these clotting complications may stem from the virus’s attack on cells that line the blood vessels. When the virus attacks blood vessel cells, inflammation increases, and blood begins to form clots, big and small. These blood clots can travel all over the body and wreak havoc on organs, perpetuating a vicious cycle of thromboinflammation.

Skin Changes

In Spain, a study of patients found “…skin manifestations in 18 patients in Italy with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), describing “erythematous rash,” “widespread urticaria,” and “chickenpox-like vesicles.”

Rashes, known as COVID toes, presented as discolorations of pink or purple, developed toward the ends of patients’ toes. As they began to appear, they were a further sign of the virus’ encroachment on parts of the body unassociated with the lungs.

Dr. Sarah Young of The Cleveland Clinic noted, “The symptoms of COVID-19 are evolving, but do not yet include rash. At this point, when we see rashes in patients, we should still follow the standard protocol to determine — based on symptoms, risk factors and exposures — if screening for COVID-19 is appropriate.”

Hair Loss Is Noted

The link between hair loss and COVID is just starting to be reported and recognized in research. Sara Hogan, MD, a health sciences clinical instructor at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, says this timeline makes sense because hair loss often happens to patients 3 to 5 months after a stressful illness or experience.

Heart Damage

The circulatory system and the heart show damage caused by COVID19. In the heart, one study found “our findings reveal that significant cardiac involvement occurs independently of the severity of original presentation and persists beyond the period of acute presentation, with no significant trend toward reduction of imaging or serological findings during the recovery period.”

Initial symptoms of COVID19 may not include lung issues but “evidence of myocardial injury in 20–40% of hospitalized cases manifesting as cardiac chest pain, fulminant heart failure, cardiac arrhythmias, and cardiac death. Indeed, symptoms of cardiac chest pain and palpitations are the presenting features in some patients.”

Abnormal blood clotting was also noted. The clots can cause stroke, psychosis, and a dementia-like condition. Usually occurring elsewhere in the body, the clots travel to the lung, causing death. In covid19, this wasn’t the case.

So it’s not the pulmonary embolism which is the major cause of severe illness but the inflammation of the blood vessels and a change in the clotting system of the blood.

The Long-Term Effects Now Known

The litany of symptoms associated with COVID19 may still require additions, but we do know that damage is in the whole body. The lungs may be cratered and require transplants, but other symptoms may not be as apparent at this time.

COVID19 also perpetuated its damage via neurologic and psychiatric syndromes. “Altered mental status was the second most common presentation, comprising encephalopathy or encephalitis and primary psychiatric diagnoses, often occurring in younger patients.” Symptoms included psychosis, delirium, visual hallucinations, and peripheral nerve damage.

An additional concern has now cropped us, known as the “post-COVID19 syndrome,” concern has been expressed by Dr. Fauci. The symptoms in many of these unrecovered patients are “highly suggestive” of myalgic encephalomyelitis, the disabling illness also commonly called chronic fatigue syndrome or ME/CFS. “This is something we really need to seriously look at,” said Fauci.

The appearance of some of these symptoms as a result of COVID19 isn’t new. After the 1918 influenza pandemic, approximately one million people were diagnosed with a brain disorder called encephalitis lethargica or “sleepy sickness.” It was seen again in the 20s and 30s.

The cohort of worldwide patients recovering or being reinfected with the virus is growing, and new symptoms will crop up. The task now is to recognize neurologic and psychiatric disorders related to COVID19 and take appropriate measures. But the question of what are “appropriate measures” remains to be answered with trial-and-error efforts against a quickly morphing disease.

The post The Long Arm of COVID19 appeared first on Medika Life.