The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Folks with allergies, sinus issues, etc.: Can you generally tell when you have a cold, or no?
I'd say it really depends. The worse the symptoms of allergies, sinuses and other issues, the harder it is to tell. Worse, not all colds are the same. So you could get a very minor cold and write it off as just the same shit from the usual allergies, sinuses or whatever else would normally be causing such symptoms. Also there is the other issue, where if it's something caused by chronic health that isn't seasonal, that if one has to work, they might not have much time to spare to take time off; especially, if they can't be sure they have a cold or not. As some with a chronic health issue, depending on what all is going on, it's really fucking easy to end up in a situation where you have a fuck ton of appointments for the month and more two or more during the same week.
Folks with allergies, sinus issues, etc.: Can you generally tell when you have a cold, or no?
Sometimes. To be honest bad allergy days are more debilitating to me than a mild to moderate cold. If it's just a head cold I might not notice that it's not the usual crap unless I'm really on the lookout for the slightly different order of symptom appearance.
I have allergies, asthma, and nasal polyps. I'm almost always having issues with my sinuses and cannot tell the difference between a cold and a sinus problem. I just assume a cold and avoid people.
No wonder BA.2 is causing so much transmissibility trouble
— ~175,000 nasopharyngeal samples analyzed for viral load
— BA.2 nearly twice as much as BA.1 Article Link
Eric Topol is a professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research.
No wonder BA.2 is causing so much transmissibility trouble
— ~175,000 nasopharyngeal samples analyzed for viral load
— BA.2 nearly twice as much as BA.1 Article Link
Eric Topol is a professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research.
This is odd since it's also evading the rapid test results more. You'd think if there were twice as much viral load then it'd be easier to detect using a swab.
+2
TetraNitroCubaneNot Angry...Just VERY Disappointed...Registered Userregular
No wonder BA.2 is causing so much transmissibility trouble
— ~175,000 nasopharyngeal samples analyzed for viral load
— BA.2 nearly twice as much as BA.1 Article Link
Eric Topol is a professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research.
This is odd since it's also evading the rapid test results more. You'd think if there were twice as much viral load then it'd be easier to detect using a swab.
The rapid tests don't check for viral load. They check to see if your body is generating the antigens against the virus. If your body is not yet generating antigens, the rapid tests will come back negative regardless of infection status.
No wonder BA.2 is causing so much transmissibility trouble
— ~175,000 nasopharyngeal samples analyzed for viral load
— BA.2 nearly twice as much as BA.1 Article Link
Eric Topol is a professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research.
This is odd since it's also evading the rapid test results more. You'd think if there were twice as much viral load then it'd be easier to detect using a swab.
The rapid tests don't check for viral load. They check to see if your body is generating the antigens against the virus. If your body is not yet generating antigens, the rapid tests will come back negative regardless of infection status.
Interesting! I 100% thought they were checking for viral load.
Makes sense now that it's called Rapid Antigen Test lmao. Some days I'm literally the dumbest person.
Minor quibble, antigens aren't against the virus, they are subparts of the virus. The test has antibodies in it that bind them. So, it is measuring if a detectable number of virus pieces are spewing out of your cells, which may or may not be infectious particles depending on how good a job your immune system is doing roughing them up. The rapid antigen tests are qualitative (postive/negative, designed to change color beyond a threshold). You could do a quantitative antigen test via ELISA on a 96 well plate.
An antibody test can be performed to see if you've had prior exposure to the virus (qualitative) or to measure your titer (quantitative).
Real time PCR is usually performed quantitatively (Ct number) on the instrument and then reported qualitative (Ct number > threshold: positive).
Each technology is telling you something a little bit different than the others if you're looking at quantitative numbers vs the qualitative 'Positive'.
Aside for further upthread: While sneezing in a mask is unpleasant, sneezing in a PAPR is deeply shameful.
Comparisons of the risk of myopericarditis between COVID-19 patients and individuals receiving COVID-19 vaccines: a population-based study
Results: This study included 11,441 COVID-19 patients from Hong Kong, four of whom suffered from myopericarditis (rate per million: 326; 95% confidence interval [CI] 127-838). The rate was higher than the pre-COVID-19 background rate in 2019 (rate per million: 5.5, 95% CI 4.1-7.4) with a rate ratio of 55.0 (95% CI 21.4-141). Compared to the background rate, the rate of myopericarditis among vaccinated subjects in Hong Kong was similar (rate per million: 5.5; 95% CI 4.1-7.4) with a rate ratio of 0.93 (95% CI 0.69-1.26). The rates of myocarditis after vaccination in Hong Kong were comparable to those vaccinated in the United States, Israel, and the United Kingdom.
population study finds vaccines cause of myopericarditis (inflammation of pericardium and myocarditis) to be equal to background noise with a significant sample size. The difference being several orders of magnitude when compared to covid-19 patients.
Jubal77 on
+12
thatassemblyguyJanitor of Technical Debt.Registered Userregular
* A second booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine or Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine may be administered to individuals 50 years of age and older at least 4 months after receipt of a first booster dose of any authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccine.
* A second booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine may be administered to individuals 12 years of age and older with certain kinds of immunocompromise at least 4 months after receipt of a first booster dose of any authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccine. These are people who have undergone solid organ transplantation, or who are living with conditions that are considered to have an equivalent level of immunocompromise.
* A second booster dose of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine may be administered at least 4 months after the first booster dose of any authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccine to individuals 18 years of age and older with the same certain kinds of immunocompromise.
+11
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
Comparisons of the risk of myopericarditis between COVID-19 patients and individuals receiving COVID-19 vaccines: a population-based study
Results: This study included 11,441 COVID-19 patients from Hong Kong, four of whom suffered from myopericarditis (rate per million: 326; 95% confidence interval [CI] 127-838). The rate was higher than the pre-COVID-19 background rate in 2019 (rate per million: 5.5, 95% CI 4.1-7.4) with a rate ratio of 55.0 (95% CI 21.4-141). Compared to the background rate, the rate of myopericarditis among vaccinated subjects in Hong Kong was similar (rate per million: 5.5; 95% CI 4.1-7.4) with a rate ratio of 0.93 (95% CI 0.69-1.26). The rates of myocarditis after vaccination in Hong Kong were comparable to those vaccinated in the United States, Israel, and the United Kingdom.
population study finds vaccines cause of myopericarditis (inflammation of pericardium and myocarditis) to be equal to background noise with a significant sample size. The difference being several orders of magnitude when compared to covid-19 patients.
Are those unvaccinated Covid patients? Or just anyone who had managed to catch Covid at all?
Comparisons of the risk of myopericarditis between COVID-19 patients and individuals receiving COVID-19 vaccines: a population-based study
Results: This study included 11,441 COVID-19 patients from Hong Kong, four of whom suffered from myopericarditis (rate per million: 326; 95% confidence interval [CI] 127-838). The rate was higher than the pre-COVID-19 background rate in 2019 (rate per million: 5.5, 95% CI 4.1-7.4) with a rate ratio of 55.0 (95% CI 21.4-141). Compared to the background rate, the rate of myopericarditis among vaccinated subjects in Hong Kong was similar (rate per million: 5.5; 95% CI 4.1-7.4) with a rate ratio of 0.93 (95% CI 0.69-1.26). The rates of myocarditis after vaccination in Hong Kong were comparable to those vaccinated in the United States, Israel, and the United Kingdom.
population study finds vaccines cause of myopericarditis (inflammation of pericardium and myocarditis) to be equal to background noise with a significant sample size. The difference being several orders of magnitude when compared to covid-19 patients.
Are those unvaccinated Covid patients? Or just anyone who had managed to catch Covid at all?
Patients who tested positive for COVID-19 by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) at any of the Hong Kong public hospitals or outpatient clinics between 1st January 2020 and 30th June 2021 were included.
But recognize that the majority of the people getting tested for Covid at a hospital are gonna be unvaccinated folks. But not everyone.
Edit: That said, they go further in to describe that the testing practices in Hong Kong are less likely to miss folks due to a lot of contact tracing and such. So, you would expect that this is actually "most people who got Covid in Hong Kong" according to the study.
So, their conclusion is basically "maybe the vaccines cause myopericarditis, our study isn't saying conclusively that they don't. But Covid causes it a lot more. And Covid is running rampant and so getting the vaccine is the best way to reduce the risk of myopericarditis."
Comparisons of the risk of myopericarditis between COVID-19 patients and individuals receiving COVID-19 vaccines: a population-based study
Results: This study included 11,441 COVID-19 patients from Hong Kong, four of whom suffered from myopericarditis (rate per million: 326; 95% confidence interval [CI] 127-838). The rate was higher than the pre-COVID-19 background rate in 2019 (rate per million: 5.5, 95% CI 4.1-7.4) with a rate ratio of 55.0 (95% CI 21.4-141). Compared to the background rate, the rate of myopericarditis among vaccinated subjects in Hong Kong was similar (rate per million: 5.5; 95% CI 4.1-7.4) with a rate ratio of 0.93 (95% CI 0.69-1.26). The rates of myocarditis after vaccination in Hong Kong were comparable to those vaccinated in the United States, Israel, and the United Kingdom.
population study finds vaccines cause of myopericarditis (inflammation of pericardium and myocarditis) to be equal to background noise with a significant sample size. The difference being several orders of magnitude when compared to covid-19 patients.
Are those unvaccinated Covid patients? Or just anyone who had managed to catch Covid at all?
Patients who tested positive for COVID-19 by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) at any of the Hong Kong public hospitals or outpatient clinics between 1st January 2020 and 30th June 2021 were included.
But recognize that the majority of the people getting tested for Covid at a hospital are gonna be unvaccinated folks. But not everyone.
Hong Kong didnt start administering doses until end of Feb '21. By June 21 the representative population of one dose only accounted for ~20%. So the representation would heavily lean towards unvaccinated in the study.
There was an outbreak in the Alaskan Legislature, and the House required all members to wear masks and some Republicans refused, so now floor session has been canceled for two consequtive days now.
I mean it's not like Alaska has the highest rate of covid in the US per capita right now, so why mask up?
There was an outbreak in the Alaskan Legislature, and the House required all members to wear masks and some Republicans refused, so now floor session has been canceled for two consequtive days now.
I mean it's not like Alaska has the highest rate of covid in the US per capita right now, so why mask up?
Shit sounds like they got some free paid time off.
[...] A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial involving symptomatic SARS-CoV-2–positive adults [...,] Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19.
Research has shown that ventilation and filtration can do a lot for SARS-CoV-2:
A study last summer found that open windows in classrooms can have up to a 14.1 fold reduction in COVID19 transmission. This was highly dependent on the time of year (summer, spring, winter), number of windows, and how frequently those windows are open.
A Johns Hopkins study found that HEPA filters were responsible for a 65% drop in COVID-19 transmission.
Another study found that one HEPA filter is as effective as two windows partly open all day during the winter (2.5-fold decrease in transmission). Two HEPA filters are even more effective (4-fold decrease in transmission).
And, most recently, a data analysis in Italy found ventilation in schools can reduce the risk of infection up to 82%.
It's a good discussion, and something we all need to think about moving forward desperately. It's a huge part of public health that's gone neglected for too long.
Research has shown that ventilation and filtration can do a lot for SARS-CoV-2:
A study last summer found that open windows in classrooms can have up to a 14.1 fold reduction in COVID19 transmission. This was highly dependent on the time of year (summer, spring, winter), number of windows, and how frequently those windows are open.
A Johns Hopkins study found that HEPA filters were responsible for a 65% drop in COVID-19 transmission.
Another study found that one HEPA filter is as effective as two windows partly open all day during the winter (2.5-fold decrease in transmission). Two HEPA filters are even more effective (4-fold decrease in transmission).
And, most recently, a data analysis in Italy found ventilation in schools can reduce the risk of infection up to 82%.
It's a good discussion, and something we all need to think about moving forward desperately. It's a huge part of public health that's gone neglected for too long.
It's definitely going to be a part of new ASHRAE guidelines (though that's slow to take effect, but it is also like a tsunami that never ends) and even better, air handlers can get retrofitted for HEPA filters fairly easily and also, it looks like there are some non-cancerous UV lights that might also work well and probably wouldn't need as expensive shielding.
A lot of these sorts of things already exist to some extent in hospitals and labs, it would just be a matter of bringing cost down to implement/ require them in other settings without making new construction even more difficult.
+3
webguy20I spend too much time on the InternetRegistered Userregular
Research has shown that ventilation and filtration can do a lot for SARS-CoV-2:
A study last summer found that open windows in classrooms can have up to a 14.1 fold reduction in COVID19 transmission. This was highly dependent on the time of year (summer, spring, winter), number of windows, and how frequently those windows are open.
A Johns Hopkins study found that HEPA filters were responsible for a 65% drop in COVID-19 transmission.
Another study found that one HEPA filter is as effective as two windows partly open all day during the winter (2.5-fold decrease in transmission). Two HEPA filters are even more effective (4-fold decrease in transmission).
And, most recently, a data analysis in Italy found ventilation in schools can reduce the risk of infection up to 82%.
It's a good discussion, and something we all need to think about moving forward desperately. It's a huge part of public health that's gone neglected for too long.
It's definitely going to be a part of new ASHRAE guidelines (though that's slow to take effect, but it is also like a tsunami that never ends) and even better, air handlers can get retrofitted for HEPA filters fairly easily and also, it looks like there are some non-cancerous UV lights that might also work well and probably wouldn't need as expensive shielding.
A lot of these sorts of things already exist to some extent in hospitals and labs, it would just be a matter of bringing cost down to implement/ require them in other settings without making new construction even more difficult.
Large scale adoption would probably help drive cost through volume. One place we cant neglect is schools, which will be hard because so many already are neglected.
Research has shown that ventilation and filtration can do a lot for SARS-CoV-2:
A study last summer found that open windows in classrooms can have up to a 14.1 fold reduction in COVID19 transmission. This was highly dependent on the time of year (summer, spring, winter), number of windows, and how frequently those windows are open.
A Johns Hopkins study found that HEPA filters were responsible for a 65% drop in COVID-19 transmission.
Another study found that one HEPA filter is as effective as two windows partly open all day during the winter (2.5-fold decrease in transmission). Two HEPA filters are even more effective (4-fold decrease in transmission).
And, most recently, a data analysis in Italy found ventilation in schools can reduce the risk of infection up to 82%.
It's a good discussion, and something we all need to think about moving forward desperately. It's a huge part of public health that's gone neglected for too long.
It's definitely going to be a part of new ASHRAE guidelines (though that's slow to take effect, but it is also like a tsunami that never ends) and even better, air handlers can get retrofitted for HEPA filters fairly easily and also, it looks like there are some non-cancerous UV lights that might also work well and probably wouldn't need as expensive shielding.
A lot of these sorts of things already exist to some extent in hospitals and labs, it would just be a matter of bringing cost down to implement/ require them in other settings without making new construction even more difficult.
Large scale adoption would probably help drive cost through volume. One place we cant neglect is schools, which will be hard because so many already are neglected.
It would, but still will constitute a bump in costs from the current standard that doesn't rely it and that will be 100% pass through. Assuming it doesn't even just get VE'd down to technically compliant.
0
Librarian's ghostLibrarian, Ghostbuster, and TimSporkRegistered Userregular
Imagine being in a school that had opening windows.
Imagine being in a school that had opening windows.
Not as bit of an issue as you might think. If there's a HVAC system, there's almost certainly an inline HEPA grade filter you can add. If there isn't, you can stick stand-alone HEPA filters in rooms instead. Neither is perfect, but both will drastically cut down on virus aerosols. And that's ignoring UV lights; a UV light in a box and a fan can have similar effects, for potentially less money.
Unsurprising, education about racial disparity can often have unintended effects. Eg, one study found that teaching about white privilege didn't increase sympthy towards a hypothetical poor black person but it did decrease sympathy towards a hypothetical poor white person. People seem predisposed to take the worst lesson from a learning opportunity.
What's kind of funny in an ironic way. When those same people would ignore the science white people died as a higher % of the population than minorities. Their racism literally ended up killing them.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Americans are programmed to dismiss all social problems the moment they hear it primarily affects black people. I'm pretty sure Covid hit black people harder initially because they tend to live in densely populated cities. This did not mean that it was some sort of "black people mainly disease" like sickle cell. Subsequent waves hit the countryside, suburbs and white people hard.
Posts
I'd say it really depends. The worse the symptoms of allergies, sinuses and other issues, the harder it is to tell. Worse, not all colds are the same. So you could get a very minor cold and write it off as just the same shit from the usual allergies, sinuses or whatever else would normally be causing such symptoms. Also there is the other issue, where if it's something caused by chronic health that isn't seasonal, that if one has to work, they might not have much time to spare to take time off; especially, if they can't be sure they have a cold or not. As some with a chronic health issue, depending on what all is going on, it's really fucking easy to end up in a situation where you have a fuck ton of appointments for the month and more two or more during the same week.
Or a persistent scratchy throat. Like, if that's still there after coffee, it's probably not from the radiators/ pollen
Sometimes. To be honest bad allergy days are more debilitating to me than a mild to moderate cold. If it's just a head cold I might not notice that it's not the usual crap unless I'm really on the lookout for the slightly different order of symptom appearance.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
not really. Like, are allergy counts high? Are other people complaining about it on social media? Am I not running a fever?
Then it's probably allergies.
Symptom wise, not really.
Allergies respond to antihistamines, eventually, most of the time.
Also burping.
Wait, am i wearing my mask wrong?
Eric Topol is a professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research.
Is there a Covid Queen we can take out?
If I get alternating sweats and chills, I’m sick, but one upper respiratory and another is hard to determine.
This is odd since it's also evading the rapid test results more. You'd think if there were twice as much viral load then it'd be easier to detect using a swab.
The rapid tests don't check for viral load. They check to see if your body is generating the antigens against the virus. If your body is not yet generating antigens, the rapid tests will come back negative regardless of infection status.
Interesting! I 100% thought they were checking for viral load.
Makes sense now that it's called Rapid Antigen Test lmao. Some days I'm literally the dumbest person.
An antibody test can be performed to see if you've had prior exposure to the virus (qualitative) or to measure your titer (quantitative).
Real time PCR is usually performed quantitatively (Ct number) on the instrument and then reported qualitative (Ct number > threshold: positive).
Each technology is telling you something a little bit different than the others if you're looking at quantitative numbers vs the qualitative 'Positive'.
Aside for further upthread: While sneezing in a mask is unpleasant, sneezing in a PAPR is deeply shameful.
Comparisons of the risk of myopericarditis between COVID-19 patients and individuals receiving COVID-19 vaccines: a population-based study
Results: This study included 11,441 COVID-19 patients from Hong Kong, four of whom suffered from myopericarditis (rate per million: 326; 95% confidence interval [CI] 127-838). The rate was higher than the pre-COVID-19 background rate in 2019 (rate per million: 5.5, 95% CI 4.1-7.4) with a rate ratio of 55.0 (95% CI 21.4-141). Compared to the background rate, the rate of myopericarditis among vaccinated subjects in Hong Kong was similar (rate per million: 5.5; 95% CI 4.1-7.4) with a rate ratio of 0.93 (95% CI 0.69-1.26). The rates of myocarditis after vaccination in Hong Kong were comparable to those vaccinated in the United States, Israel, and the United Kingdom.
population study finds vaccines cause of myopericarditis (inflammation of pericardium and myocarditis) to be equal to background noise with a significant sample size. The difference being several orders of magnitude when compared to covid-19 patients.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-second-booster-dose-two-covid-19-vaccines-older-and
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Are those unvaccinated Covid patients? Or just anyone who had managed to catch Covid at all?
MWO: Adamski
Skimming through the full text (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8951670/), it looks like the latter:
But recognize that the majority of the people getting tested for Covid at a hospital are gonna be unvaccinated folks. But not everyone.
Edit: That said, they go further in to describe that the testing practices in Hong Kong are less likely to miss folks due to a lot of contact tracing and such. So, you would expect that this is actually "most people who got Covid in Hong Kong" according to the study.
So, their conclusion is basically "maybe the vaccines cause myopericarditis, our study isn't saying conclusively that they don't. But Covid causes it a lot more. And Covid is running rampant and so getting the vaccine is the best way to reduce the risk of myopericarditis."
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Hong Kong didnt start administering doses until end of Feb '21. By June 21 the representative population of one dose only accounted for ~20%. So the representation would heavily lean towards unvaccinated in the study.
I mean it's not like Alaska has the highest rate of covid in the US per capita right now, so why mask up?
Shit sounds like they got some free paid time off.
[...] A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial involving symptomatic SARS-CoV-2–positive adults [...,] Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115869
It's a good discussion, and something we all need to think about moving forward desperately. It's a huge part of public health that's gone neglected for too long.
It's definitely going to be a part of new ASHRAE guidelines (though that's slow to take effect, but it is also like a tsunami that never ends) and even better, air handlers can get retrofitted for HEPA filters fairly easily and also, it looks like there are some non-cancerous UV lights that might also work well and probably wouldn't need as expensive shielding.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-08462-z
A lot of these sorts of things already exist to some extent in hospitals and labs, it would just be a matter of bringing cost down to implement/ require them in other settings without making new construction even more difficult.
Large scale adoption would probably help drive cost through volume. One place we cant neglect is schools, which will be hard because so many already are neglected.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
It would, but still will constitute a bump in costs from the current standard that doesn't rely it and that will be 100% pass through. Assuming it doesn't even just get VE'd down to technically compliant.
Not as bit of an issue as you might think. If there's a HVAC system, there's almost certainly an inline HEPA grade filter you can add. If there isn't, you can stick stand-alone HEPA filters in rooms instead. Neither is perfect, but both will drastically cut down on virus aerosols. And that's ignoring UV lights; a UV light in a box and a fan can have similar effects, for potentially less money.
LA Times reporter
Everyone probably already knew this, but a study literally found it. But remember racism is not an issue in america.
pleasepaypreacher.net
pleasepaypreacher.net