Lung damage due to Covid 19

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

And the cornucopia of wonderful things CV19 can do continues...

Outcomes of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients Recently Recovered From COVID-19

Let's hope that is not a long term trend in recovering patients
These are concerning findings. There are several viruses that can cause cardiac muscle inflammation and even heart failure. COVID maybe working at attacking the blood vessels...
There is probably a genetic predisposition to how we respond to this virus. Some get no symptoms even at older age and some little kids get vasculitis from COVID. Generally speaking, vast majority doesn’t even get symptomatic. Survival of the fittest... We as humans will adapt and the ones that don’t will perish. And then another pandemic will come along. Meteorite may hit earth and most may die, but then some will live to dive cenotes that were formed by it.

Screw corona.
 

Thanks uncfnp,

Key sentence:
"The vast majority of hospitalized COVID-19 patients show lung damage 6 weeks after discharge, but this proportion drops significantly after 12 weeks, suggesting that the lungs have a self-repair mechanism, researchers report."

Other than some hospitalized and cytokine storm survivors, I think most pros assumed the lungs would heal. Of my relatives and friends who got 19 and survived, (I believe I had it in February) our lungs recovered. It took some time though.

The general population has a one in 2 million chance of dying from Covid-19. The iCFR is around .26 to .35%. Those who wrote of Farr's Law appear to have been smart. The U.S. is approaching EOS for cases and deaths combined (date-of-death, not reported deaths). For cases we are below EOS. HR (herd resistance, not herd immunity) is now somewhere between 14% to 18%. We still have hot spots.

Thankfully, now we have enough data to start forming some educated assumptions.

uncfnp, when you wrote to me regarding your experience with your patients, combined with people I know who had it, I stopped worrying too much. "We treat them and then street them" is what I think you communicated.

Cheers,
m
 
Thanks uncfnp,

Key sentence:
"The vast majority of hospitalized COVID-19 patients show lung damage 6 weeks after discharge, but this proportion drops significantly after 12 weeks, suggesting that the lungs have a self-repair mechanism, researchers report."

Other than some hospitalized and cytokine storm survivors, I think most pros assumed the lungs would heal. Of my relatives and friends who got 19 and survived, (I believe I had it in February) our lungs recovered. It took some time though.

The general population has a one in 2 million chance of dying from Covid-19. The iCFR is around .26 to .35%. Those who wrote of Farr's Law appear to have been smart. The U.S. is approaching EOS for cases and deaths combined (date-of-death, not reported deaths). For cases we are below EOS. HR (herd resistance, not herd immunity) is now somewhere between 14% to 18%. We still have hot spots.

Thankfully, now we have enough data to start forming some educated assumptions.

uncfnp, when you wrote to me regarding your experience with your patients, combined with people I know who had it, I stopped worrying too much. "We treat them and then street them" is what I think you communicated.

Cheers,
m
I didn’t read more than a few pages but the number of people who show damage after 12 weeks does not seem negligible, isn’t it ?

They may still continue to heal though.
 
Thankfully, now we have enough data to start forming some educated assumptions.
YES! (YES, YES, YES)

The prevalence of ignorance has been one of the biggest challenges we have had to face. And, ignorance is not a judgement, rather a statement of fact. 'Ignorance' is defined as 'lack of knowledge or information'. And, that characterizes our situation quite accurately. Not only have we been confronted with a 'new' virus, we have been confronted with an enormous amount of supposition masquerading as 'information', that has actually clouded our ability to see fact. Data-driven behavior will ultimately help us better understand what is real (vs supposed, or even merely anecdotal), what is correct (vs fanciful), and what is optimal (vs expedient).

The best summary of our knowledge of this virus to date has often been 'we don't know'. And, there is nothing wrong with saying that, when it is true. Time, and DATA, will - as is usually the case - be our best guide to action.
 
uncfnp, when you wrote to me regarding your experience with your patients, combined with people I know who had it, I stopped worrying too much. "We treat them and then street them" is what I think you communicated.
That phrase is more the general philosophy of urgent care. For covid suspects it’s more “test them and quarantine them” or ship them to the hospital if needed.

It is interesting that one side benefit, except that we lost revenue, is that people have finally realized a quick trip to the urgent care for an antibiotic will not cure all the problems of the world. But I don’t expect this new enlightenment to last much longer.
 
YES! (YES, YES, YES)

The prevalence of ignorance has been one of the biggest challenges we have had to face. And, ignorance is not a judgement, rather a statement of fact. 'Ignorance' is defined as 'lack of knowledge or information'. And, that characterizes our situation quite accurately. Not only have we been confronted with a 'new' virus, we have been confronted with an enormous amount of supposition masquerading as 'information', that has actually clouded our ability to see fact. Data-driven behavior will ultimately help us better understand what is real (vs supposed, or even merely anecdotal), what is correct (vs fanciful), and what is optimal (vs expedient).

The best summary of our knowledge of this virus to date has often been 'we don't know'. And, there is nothing wrong with saying that, when it is true. Time, and DATA, will - as is usually the case - be our best guide to action.
The suspension of peer review before publication has had questionable benefit and has certainly harmed our credibility. And the admittedly mixed messages from the CDC, WHO and our government leave even medical professionals unsure how to proceed :facepalm::banghead:
 
I saw a notice from DAN on LinkedIn the other day but I'm not able to find it on their website.

DAN was asking for covid sufferers current and/or recovered to sign up for a 5 year study.
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/

Back
Top Bottom