Deadly Wuhan Coronavirus

AD1184

Celestial
It's to be expected, I am afraid. The Pfizer vaccine is a two-dose vaccine, and the doses are to be taken at least three weeks apart. There may be some immunity conferred from the first dose, but this is expected to take at least a few weeks to take effect.
 

AD1184

Celestial
A group of more than 100 medical experts has written an open letter earlier this month to governments asking them to provide vitamin D supplements for all in the fight against Covid-19. Vitamin D deficiency correlates strongly with obesity, higher latitudes, darker skin and many other risk factors for severe Covid.

#VitaminDforAll: 100+ Authorities Call For Vitamin D To Combat COVID19

To all governments, public health officials, doctors, and healthcare workers,

[Residents of the USA: Text “VitaminDforAll” to 50409 to send this to your state’s governor, free.]


Research shows low vitamin D levels almost certainly promote COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Given its safety, we call for immediate widespread increased vitamin D intakes.


Vitamin D modulates thousands of genes and many aspects of immune function, both innate and adaptive. The scientific evidence1 shows that:

  • Higher vitamin D blood levels are associated with lower rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
  • Higher D levels are associated with lower risk of a severe case (hospitalization, ICU, or death).
  • Intervention studies (including RCTs) indicate that vitamin D can be a very effective treatment.
  • Many papers reveal several biological mechanisms by which vitamin D influences COVID-19.
  • Causal inference modelling, Hill’s criteria, the intervention studies & the biological mechanisms indicate that vitamin D’s influence on COVID-19 is very likely causal, not just correlation.

Vitamin D is well known to be essential, but most people do not get enough. Two common definitions of inadequacy are deficiency < 20ng/ml (50nmol/L), the target of most governmental organizations, and insufficiency < 30ng/ml (75nmol/L), the target of several medical societies & experts.2 Too many people have levels below these targets. Rates of vitamin D deficiency <20ng/ml exceed 33% of the population in most of the world, and most estimates of insufficiency <30ng/ml are well over 50% (but much higher in many countries).3 Rates are even higher in winter, and several groups have notably worse deficiency: the overweight, those with dark skin (especially far from the equator), and care home residents. These same groups face increased COVID-19 risk.


It has been shown that 3875 IU (97mcg) daily is required for 97.5% of people to reach 20ng/ml, and 6200 IU (155mcg) for 30ng/ml,4 intakes far above all national guidelines. Unfortunately, the report that set the US RDA included an admitted statistical error in which required intake was calculated to be ~10x too low.4 Numerous calls in the academic literature to raise official recommended intakes had not yet resulted in increases by the time SARS-CoV-2 arrived. Now, many papers indicate that vitamin D affects COVID-19 more strongly than most other health conditions, with increased risk at levels < 30ng/ml (75nmol/L) and severely greater risk < 20ng/ml (50nmol/L).1

______________________________

1 The evidence was comprehensively reviewed (188 papers) through mid-June [Benskin ‘20] & more recent publications are increasingly compelling [Merzon et al ‘20; Kaufman et al ‘20; Castillo et al ‘20]. (See also [Jungreis & Kellis ‘20] for deeper analysis of Castillo et al’s RCT results.)

2 E.g.: 20ng/ml: National Academy of Medicine (US, Canada), European Food Safety Authority, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Nordic Countries, Australia, New Zealand, & consensus of 11 international organizations. 30ng/ml: Endocrine Society, American Geriatrics Soc., & consensus of scientific experts. See also [Bouillon ‘17].

3 [Palacios & Gonzalez ‘14; Cashman et al ‘16; van Schoor & Lips ‘17] Applies to China, India, Europe, US, etc.

4 [Heaney et al ‘15; Veugelers & Ekwaru ‘14]

______________________________


Evidence to date suggests the possibility that the COVID-19 pandemic sustains itself in large part through infection of those with low vitamin D, and that deaths are concentrated largely in those with deficiency. The mere possibility that this is so should compel urgent gathering of more vitamin D data. Even without more data, the preponderance of evidence indicates that increased vitamin D would help reduce infections, hospitalizations, ICU admissions, & deaths.


Decades of safety data show that vitamin D has very low risk: Toxicity would be extremely rare with the recommendations here. The risk of insufficient levels far outweighs any risk from levels that seem to provide most of the protection against COVID-19, and this is notably different from drugs & vaccines. Vitamin D is much safer than steroids, such as dexamethasone, the most widely accepted treatment to have also demonstrated a large COVID-19 benefit. Vitamin D’s safety is more like that of face masks. There is no need to wait for further clinical trials to increase use of something so safe, especially when remedying high rates of deficiency/insufficiency should already be a priority.


Therefore, we call on all governments, doctors, and healthcare workers worldwide to immediately recommend and implement efforts appropriate to their adult populations to increase vitamin D, at least until the end of the pandemic. Specifically to:

  1. Recommend amounts from all sources sufficient to achieve 25(OH)D serum levels over 30ng/ml (75nmol/L), a widely endorsed minimum with evidence of reduced COVID-19 risk.
  2. Recommend to adults vitamin D intake of 4000 IU (100mcg) daily (or at least 2000 IU) in the absence of testing. 4000 IU is widely regarded as safe.5
  3. Recommend that adults at increased risk of deficiency due to excess weight, dark skin, or living in care homes may need higher intakes (eg, 2x). Testing can help to avoid levels too low or high.
  4. Recommend that adults not already receiving the above amounts get 10,000 IU (250mcg) daily for 2-3 weeks (or until achieving 30ng/ml if testing), followed by the daily amount above. This practice is widely regarded as safe. The body can synthesize more than this from sunlight under the right conditions (e.g., a summer day at the beach). Also, the NAM (US) and EFSA (Europe) both label this a “No Observed Adverse Effect Level” even as a daily maintenance intake.
  5. Measure 25(OH)D levels of all hospitalized COVID-19 patients & treat w/ calcifediol or D3, to at least remedy insufficiency <30ng/ml (75nmol/L), possibly with a protocol along the lines of Castillo et al ‘20 or Rastogi et al '20, until evidence supports a better protocol.

Many factors are known to predispose individuals to higher risk from exposure to SARS-CoV-2, such as age, being male, comorbidities, etc., but inadequate vitamin D is by far the most easily and quickly modifiable risk factor with abundant evidence to support a large effect. Vitamin D is inexpensive and has negligible risk compared to the considerable risk of COVID-19.


Please Act Immediately

This is after medical authorities, like the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, formerly the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, with the same acronym), have insisted that there is insufficient "direct evidence" that vitamin D supplementation is beneficial for Covid-19 specifically, either as a treatment or as a preventative. After the publishing of the open letter, NICE re-iterated its position as "there is currently not enough evidence to support taking vitamin D solely to prevent or treat COVID-19".

A letter to the British Medical Journal points out the absurdity of NICE's position, and perhaps that of a rigid adherence to the principles of 'evidence based medicine' in general:

Re: vitamin D and COVID-19 – this is no time for procrastination

Re: vitamin D and COVID-19 – this is no time for procrastination

Dear Editor,
The recently updated NICE guideline on vitamin D and COVID-19 concludes that adults and children over 4 years should consider taking 10 micrograms (400 IU) per day of vitamin D “to maintain bone and muscle health”, but that they should not be offered a vitamin D supplement “solely to prevent COVID-19 except as part of a clinical trial”.[1,2] This is despite a large body of evidence that links COVID-19 risk and severity with ultraviolet exposure/latitude/seasonality, obesity, ethnicity – all factors associated with vitamin D deficiency; observational studies correlating vitamin D deficiency with more severe outcomes, and a positive randomised trial of calcifediol (25(OH)D) supplementation in hospitalised patients.[3]

NICE “agreed that there is a need for research into vitamin D supplementation for preventing COVID-19”. However, although this was a reasonable position during the “first wave”, preferably coupled with the incorporation of a vitamin D arm in the RECOVERY trial, there is now a need for much greater urgency. Calls for further randomised trials are simply procrastination.

The “ideal” trial to assess the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in preventing COVID-19 would need to identify people with vitamin D deficiency (since there will likely be no benefit in supplementing people who are already replete) and then to invite a proportion of these to be randomised to placebo. Whilst this is perfectly reasonable when testing a new drug with unknown efficacy or safety, it may not be reasonable when testing a vitamin.

Consequently, the major UK trial currently underway – CORONAVIT NCT04579640 – does not have a rigorous placebo arm. It is comparing “standard of care” – national recommendation of 10 micrograms (400 IU) /day, with higher doses (800 IU/day and 3200 IU/day). However, the trial is primarily powered to assess impact of vitamin D supplementation on risk for acute respiratory infection of any cause, and it remains to be seen whether it will be adequately powered in respect of COVID-19 severity. Moreover, if as the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition has concluded, 400 IU/day is adequate to ensure sufficiency, [4] then this trial might be destined to be negative. Finally, NICE may be unlikely to recommend vitamin D supplementation on the basis of a trial that has no clear placebo arm.

NICE notes that there are currently four other trial protocols registered world-wide that are addressing this topic: NCT04476680; NCT04483635; NCT04386850; NCT04535791.[5] Of these only two: NCT04386850 in Iran and NCT04535791 in Mexico are placebo-controlled and addressing COVID-19 severity. They are planned to complete in March and July 2021, respectively. If, as currently hoped, the pandemic may be waning by Easter, these trials, if successfully completed, will tell us retrospectively whether or not many lives might have been saved by a stronger promotion of vitamin D supplements that cost pence and are extremely safe. Is that really what evidence-based medicine is meant to be about?

So waiting for the completion of placebo-controlled trials, as NICE insists, would leave the result to be known definitively only after the Covid emergency is expected to have passed, and possibly after many thousands will have died who did not need to had action been taken earlier. When vitamin D supplements cost only pennies, the risks are minute, the benefits potentially very large, and there being a wealth of indirect circumstantial evidence that it does something, what possible objection could there be to recommending it?

The British medical authorities also promote the idea of 'vitamin D toxicity', which many experts dispute is a thing, suggesting an upper limit of 4000 international units (IU) per day is safe, and recommending supplementation of only 400 IU per day in deficient people. The authors of the Vitamin D for all open letter state their daily intake of vitamin D with their signature. Many are on doses over 4,000 IU per day, with some as high as 10,000 IU. Dr Anthony Fauci, the director of the American NIAID, reportedly takes 6,000 IU per day.

I was taking 4,000 IU per day, as per the recommended maximum safe limit in this country, but had my vitamin D levels tested in some blood tests in the autumn. I was given an automated message by the doctor's surgery to say that my vitamin D levels were low, and that I should begin to take 1,000 IU supplements per day. I phoned the office to say that I was already on 4,000 IU, so what do they recommend I do? I then got a message from a doctor recommending that I increase my daily intake to 5,000 IU per day. I had been recommended to increase to 2,000 IU per day last winter, when 1,000 IU per day had not seemed to be particularly effective then, and I went up to 4,000 IU per day due to the Covid pandemic, and I had read of its potential benefits as a preventative against severe Covid.
 

August

Metanoia
UK approves Oxford University and AstraZeneca's COVID-19 'vaccine for the world' (9news.com.au)

https%3A%2F%2Fprod.static9.net.au%2Ffs%2Fdf623d05-9ac5-4b5f-9d47-0532f9430829

 

nivek

As Above So Below
A group of more than 100 medical experts has written an open letter earlier this month to governments asking them to provide vitamin D supplements for all in the fight against Covid-19. Vitamin D deficiency correlates strongly with obesity, higher latitudes, darker skin and many other risk factors for severe Covid.

#VitaminDforAll: 100+ Authorities Call For Vitamin D To Combat COVID19

This is after medical authorities, like the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, formerly the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, with the same acronym), have insisted that there is insufficient "direct evidence" that vitamin D supplementation is beneficial for Covid-19 specifically, either as a treatment or as a preventative. After the publishing of the open letter, NICE re-iterated its position as "there is currently not enough evidence to support taking vitamin D solely to prevent or treat COVID-19".

A letter to the British Medical Journal points out the absurdity of NICE's position, and perhaps that of a rigid adherence to the principles of 'evidence based medicine' in general:

Re: vitamin D and COVID-19 – this is no time for procrastination

So waiting for the completion of placebo-controlled trials, as NICE insists, would leave the result to be known definitively only after the Covid emergency is expected to have passed, and possibly after many thousands will have died who did not need to had action been taken earlier. When vitamin D supplements cost only pennies, the risks are minute, the benefits potentially very large, and there being a wealth of indirect circumstantial evidence that it does something, what possible objection could there be to recommending it?

The British medical authorities also promote the idea of 'vitamin D toxicity', which many experts dispute is a thing, suggesting an upper limit of 4000 international units (IU) per day is safe, and recommending supplementation of only 400 IU per day in deficient people. The authors of the Vitamin D for all open letter state their daily intake of vitamin D with their signature. Many are on doses over 4,000 IU per day, with some as high as 10,000 IU. Dr Anthony Fauci, the director of the American NIAID, reportedly takes 6,000 IU per day.

I was taking 4,000 IU per day, as per the recommended maximum safe limit in this country, but had my vitamin D levels tested in some blood tests in the autumn. I was given an automated message by the doctor's surgery to say that my vitamin D levels were low, and that I should begin to take 1,000 IU supplements per day. I phoned the office to say that I was already on 4,000 IU, so what do they recommend I do? I then got a message from a doctor recommending that I increase my daily intake to 5,000 IU per day. I had been recommended to increase to 2,000 IU per day last winter, when 1,000 IU per day had not seemed to be particularly effective then, and I went up to 4,000 IU per day due to the Covid pandemic, and I had read of its potential benefits as a preventative against severe Covid.

I have been taking 5000 IU a day and after reading your post I've begun doubling that amount per day, one pill in the morning and one in the afternoon, 5000 IU each pill...

...
 

nivek

As Above So Below
West Virginia accidentally gives 42 people COVID-19 treatment instead of vaccine

The West Virginia National Guard admitted Thursday that 42 people expecting to receive the Moderna vaccine for COVID-19 were instead accidentally given the Regeneron antibody used to treat infections.

The mistake occurred at a vaccination clinic hosted by staff at the Boone County Health Department, and all of the people who accidentally received the wrong product are being contacted by the department, the National Guard said in a statement.

Medical experts with the Joint Interagency Task Force said they do not believe the individuals given the wrong injection are at risk of any harm.

"The moment that we were notified of what happened, we acted right away to correct it, and we immediately reviewed and strengthened our protocols to enhance our distribution process to prevent this from happening again," Maj. Gen. James Hoyer, adjutant general of the West Virginia National Guard, said in a statement.

Regeneron has been touted by President Trump as helping to cure him of COVID-19 when he contracted the virus in November.

Shortly after, the Food and Drug Administration greenlighted emergency use of the experimental treatment, which involves monoclonal antibodies or manufactured copies of antibodies created by the human body to help fight infections.

"The products administered are antibodies that fight COVID-19," Dr. Clay Marsh, the state's COVID-19 czar, said in a statement. "While this injection is not harmful, it was substituted for the vaccine. But this occurrence provides our leadership team an important opportunity to review and improve the safety and process of vaccination for each West Virginian."

.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
I have been taking 5000 IU a day and after reading your post I've begun doubling that amount per day, one pill in the morning and one in the afternoon, 5000 IU each pill...

...

I've wondered and not really sure how much of that is actually being absorbed and utilized, so I think giving the body plenty so it can absorb all it needs and discharge the rest would not hurt anything...These vitamins are also so inexpensive, at a local store in town I pay $4.16 USD for 90 pills at 5000 IU each...I think I'm going to increase intake to 3 per day and making each bottle of 90ct a month's supply and getting 15,000 IU per day...

...
 

nivek

As Above So Below
I wondered if there were going to be mandates for the vaccine for the employed workforce and if those mandates would violate any employment laws or Constitutional laws...I don't have a problem with any insistence that employees must be vaccinated to keep their job or upon being hired for a new job, as long as the vaccinations prove to be effective as claimed...If these vaccines prove otherwise then there's likely to be problems with any employment mandates, you cannot rightfully force someone to get vaccinated with a vaccine that doesn't work effectively enough to justify a mandate...

...

Fact check: COVID-19 vaccine mandates don't violate US employment law

On Dec. 22, Chipotle Mexican Grill CEO Brian Niccol told CNBC that the company will “strongly encourage” but not require its employees to receive the coronavirus vaccine.

"As of right now, we’re not going to mandate it,” he said. He also said that the company will cover costs associated with the vaccine for employees who choose to receive it.

Some people — like the account Freedom Angels — took to Instagram to laud Chipotle for its choice and claim that mandating vaccines violates federal law.

"Hell ya! Great to see a company choosing to NOT violate ADA, OSHA & Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rights of employees. It is an inalienable human right to NOT be coerced or forced to take a V," the post states.

Freedom Angels has not responded to a request from USA TODAY for comment.

Employers have the legal right to mandate coronavirus vaccines

It's not true that companies who mandate coronavirus vaccines are in violation of federal laws — including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Employers have the legal right to mandate that their employees receive a COVID-19 vaccination, according to guidance released by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Dec. 16.

That's because employers are allowed to set "a requirement that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of individuals in the workplace" — which includes some vaccines.

There are exceptions for employees with disabilities or "sincerely held" religious beliefs, categories of workers who are protected by the ADA and Title VII.

In those instances, employers must prove that an unvaccinated employee poses a “significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others" in the workplace and attempt to provide them with "reasonable accommodation."

If there is no reasonable accommodation, though, it is lawful for the employer to "exclude the employee from the workplace" — and in some cases, terminate them, per USA TODAY.

As for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, a regulatory agency that sets and enforces protective workplace safety and health standards, the agency has not yet issued guidance on mandatory coronavirus vaccines.

In the past, though, both the EEOC and OSHA have ruled that it is legal for employers to mandate flu vaccines, per the National Law Review.

There is no indication that they will decide differently on coronavirus vaccines.

Our rating: False

Based on our research, the claim that companies mandating COVID-19 vaccines violate federal law is FALSE. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued guidance earlier this month that states that employers have the legal right to require that their employees receive coronavirus vaccines. As long as companies obey exceptions for employees with disabilities or "sincerely held" religious beliefs, vaccine mandates do not violate federal law.

Our fact-check sources:
.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
 

pepe

Celestial



Dissaprin.

Remember them dragging people out of their homes and in South Africa when they were being slapped back indoors from the street while the Indians were whipping them and humiliating them by making them sit in circles all nicely chalked out by the local high street so passers by could spit on them.

That's how, freedom comes at a price.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
That's odd, I recently heard the governor of New York say that he didn't trust the vaccine and that it would have to be vetted before it would be distributed. Then suddenly it was OK because you know, he had no problem whistling up the right people to actually conduct the testing to verify all that real fast. Maybe that's what the term 'political science' really means. He was far from the only empty head that yabbered about that - he's just one of the loudest.

I really don't know how I feel about it and can absolutely see why people are hesitant. I've never taken a flu shot and if I need this now really don't appreciate all the political tripe it comes along with. I think there's a better than good chance I've already been exposed and would love to know for sure

You know one of the only good things about absolute dictatorships? You can line people up against a wall and have them shot, maybe with one of those nifty anti-aircraft guns. In this case we really would have to build a wall - a long one.








 

nivek

As Above So Below
I really don't know how I feel about it and can absolutely see why people are hesitant. I've never taken a flu shot and if I need this now really don't appreciate all the political tripe it comes along with. I think there's a better than good chance I've already been exposed and would love to know for sure

I've never taken a flu shot either and I can count the times I've actually had the flu in all my years on one hand and with one finger...That being said I realize this covid is a nasty one, really nasty however it can also be quite mild, really mild...I know a 66yo woman in Florida, a sister of a friend, who caught covid and had less issues than a cold can give her and she got over covid in a couple weeks, tested negative and went back to work in the nursing home she works in...Then on the flip side my uncle who got hit hard by covid, spewing green and yellow slime from his lungs instead of air and died a horrible death of suffering...I totally agree, for a government who wants us all to get a vaccine they sure used it for political leverage and a political tool, we don't need none of that shyte, seriously and look at the results of such immature political banter about the vaccine...It has so many questioning the validity such a thing, after all those on the left wanted us to question it whilst Trump’s reelection was up in the air but now that Trump is out of the picture its all okay...Now we have all these healthcare workers refusing the vaccine and they use medicines and medical tech every day and they don't trust these vaccines, how can we who aren't remotely close to such things?...I've read extensively on the makeup of both vaccines and I'm of the opinion that the Moderna is safer than the other...That's only 'reading knowledge' though, I have no idea how my body is going to react when that cold medicine is forced into my bloodstream...

Then I read stuff like this below, shocking stuff to read to say the least and similar to what I heard my uncle had to go through, but what's the percentages of such a thing occurring to others?...It seems we have two 'games of russian roulette' going here, for lack a better term...One with covid and the other with the vaccine...

...

He Was Hospitalized for COVID-19. Then Hospitalized Again. And Again.

The routine things in Chris Long’s life used to include biking 30 miles three times a week and taking courses toward a Ph.D. in eight-week sessions.

But since getting sick with the coronavirus in March, Long, 54, has fallen into a distressing new cycle — one that so far has landed him in the hospital seven times.

Periodically since his initial five-day hospitalization, his lungs begin filling again; he starts coughing uncontrollably and runs a low fever. Roughly 18 days later, he spews up greenish-yellow fluid, signaling yet another bout of pneumonia.

Soon, his oxygen levels drop and his heart rate accelerates to compensate, sending him to a hospital near his home in Clarkston, Michigan, for several days, sometimes in intensive care.

“This will never go away,” he said, describing his worst fear. “This will be my going-forward for the foreseeable future.”

Nearly a year into the pandemic, it’s clear that recovering from COVID-19’s initial onslaught can be an arduous, uneven journey. Now, studies reveal that a significant subset of patients are having to return to hospitals, sometimes repeatedly, with complications triggered by the disease or by the body’s efforts to defeat the virus.

Even as vaccines give hope for stopping the spread of the virus, the surge of new cases portends repeated hospitalizations for more patients, taxing medical resources and turning some people’s path to recovery into a Sisyphean odyssey that upends their lives.

“It’s an urgent medical and public health question,” said Dr. Girish Nadkarni, an assistant professor of medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, who, with another assistant professor, Dr. Anuradha Lala, is studying readmissions of COVID-19 patients.

Data on rehospitalizations of coronavirus patients are incomplete, but early studies suggest that in the United States alone, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands could ultimately return to the hospital.

A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of 106,543 coronavirus patients initially hospitalized between March and July found that 1 in 11 was readmitted within two months of being discharged, with 1.6% of patients readmitted more than once.

In another study of 1,775 coronavirus patients discharged from 132 VA hospitals in the pandemic’s early months, nearly a fifth were rehospitalized within 60 days. More than 22% of them needed intensive care, and 7% required ventilators.

And in a report on 1,250 patients discharged from 38 Michigan hospitals from mid-March to July, 15% were rehospitalized within 60 days.

Recurring admissions don’t just involve patients who were severely ill the first time around.

“Even if they had a very mild course, at least one-third have significant symptomology two to three months out,” said Dr. Eleftherios Mylonakis, chief of infectious diseases at Brown University’s Warren Alpert Medical School and Lifespan hospitals, who co-wrote another report. “There is a wave of readmissions that is building, because at some point these people will say ‘I’m not well.’”

Many who are rehospitalized were vulnerable to serious symptoms because they were over 65 or had chronic conditions. But some younger and previously healthy people have returned to hospitals, too.

When Becca Meyer, 31, of Paw Paw, Michigan, contracted the coronavirus in early March, she initially stayed home, nursing symptoms such as difficulty breathing, chest pain, fever, extreme fatigue and hallucinations that included visions of being attacked by a sponge in the shower.

Meyer, a mother of four, eventually was hospitalized for a week in March and again in April. She was readmitted for an infection in August and for severe nausea in September, according to medical records, which labeled her condition “long haul COVID-19.”

Because she couldn’t hold down food, doctors discharged her with a nasal feeding tube connected to protein-and-electrolyte formula on a pole, which, she said, “I’m supposed to be attached to 20 hours a day.”

Feeding tube issues required hospitalization for nearly three weeks in October and a week in December. She has been unable to resume her job in customer service, spent the summer using a walker, and has had a home health nurse for weeks.

“It’s been a roller coaster since March and I’m now in the downswing of it, where I’m back to being in bed all the time and not being able to eat much, coughing a lot more, having more chest pain,” she said.

Readmissions strain hospital resources, and returning patients may be exposed to new infections or develop muscle atrophy from being bedridden. Long and Meyer said they contracted the bacterial infection C. difficile during rehospitalizations.

“Readmissions have been associated, even before COVID, with worse patient outcomes,” Mylonakis said.

Some research suggests implications for hospitals currently overwhelmed with cases. A Mount Sinai Hospital study of New York’s first wave found that patients with shorter initial stays and those not sick enough for intensive care were more likely to return within two weeks.

Lala, who co-wrote the study, said the thinking at overstretched hospitals was “we have a lack of resources, so if the patients are stable get them home.” But, she added, “the fact that length of stay was indeed shorter for those patients who return is begging the question of: Were we kicking these people out the door too soon?”

Many rehospitalized patients have respiratory problems, but some have blood clots, heart trouble, sepsis, gastrointestinal symptoms or other issues, doctors report. Some have neurological symptoms like brain fog, “a clear cognitive issue that is evident when they get readmitted,” said Dr. Vineet Chopra, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Michigan, who co-wrote the Michigan study. “It is there, and it is real.”

Dr. Laurie Jacobs, chairwoman of internal medicine at Hackensack University Medical Center, said causes of readmissions vary.

“Sometimes there’s a lot of push to get patients out of the hospital, and they want to get out of the hospital and sometimes they’re not ready,” so they return, she said. But some appropriately discharged patients develop additional problems or return to hospitals because they lack affordable outpatient care.

Long’s ordeal began on March 9. “I couldn’t stand up without falling over,” he said.

His primary physician, Dr. Benjamin Diaczok, immediately told him to call an ambulance.

“I crawled out to the front door,” recalled Long. He was barefoot and remembers sticking out his arm to prop open the door for the ambulance crew, who found him facedown.

He awoke three days later, in the hospital, when he accidentally pulled out the tubes to the ventilator he had been hooked up to. After two more days, he had stabilized enough to return to the apartment where he lives alone, an hour north of Detroit.

Long had some previous health issues, including blood clots in his lungs and legs several years ago and an irregular heartbeat requiring an implanted heart monitor in 2018. Still, before COVID-19, he was “very high-functioning, very energetic,” Diaczok said.

Now, Long said: “I’ve got scarred lungs, pulmonary fibrosis, and I’m running right around 75-80% lung capacity.”

He was rehospitalized in April, May, June, July, August and September, requiring oxygen and intravenous antibiotics, potassium and magnesium.

“Something must have happened to his lungs that is making them more prone for this,” Diaczok said.

Long, a former consultant on tank systems for the military, is also experiencing brain fog that has forced a hiatus from classes toward a Ph.D. in business convergence strategy.

“I read 10 pages in one of my textbooks and then five minutes later, after a phone call, I can’t remember what I read,” he said.

“It’s horrible,” Diaczok said. “This is a man that thinks for a living, and he can’t do his job.”

And his heart arrhythmia, controlled since 2018, has resurfaced. Unless Long, who is 6-foot-7, sleeps at an incline on his couch, his heart skips beats, causing his monitor to prompt middle-of-the-night calls from his doctor’s office. Unable to lie in bed, “I don’t sleep through the night.”

Small exertions — “just to stand up to go do the dishes” — are exhausting. In July, he tried starting physical therapy but was told he wasn’t ready.

In August, he got up too fast, fell and “I was very confused,” he recalled. During that hospital readmission, doctors noted “altered mental status” from dehydration and treated him for pneumonia and functional lung collapse.

In late October, Long developed pneumonia again, but under Diaczok’s guidance, managed at home with antibiotics.

In December, when a pulmonologist administered a breathing test, “I couldn’t make it six seconds,” he said.

Long repeatedly measures his temperature and pulse oxygen, and can feel in his chest when “trouble’s coming,” he said. Determined to recover, he tries to walk short distances. “Can I make it to take out the trash?” he’ll ask himself. On a good day, he’ll walk 8 feet to his mailbox.

“I’m going to be around to walk my daughters down the aisle and see my grandkids,” said Long, voice cracking. “I’m not going to let this thing win.”

.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
I think there's a better than good chance I've already been exposed and would love to know for sure

Get an antibody test performed, I think they need to draw blood for that one but it will show if you've had covid previously or not...I've thought about taking that test myself, my issue right now is that I don't have health insurance and haven't had it since June 2020 when I stopped working for someone...Since I'm self-employed once again I have workers compensation insurance and liability insurance coverage but no health insurance...I can pay out of pocket for some small things on the spot if needed and if not too expensive and I'm not sure what an antibody test would cost me...I think anyone who has had covid previously does not need to take the vaccine...

...
 

Standingstones

Celestial
I spoke to my nephew, who is a doctor, yesterday. He had the first COVID shot two weeks ago. He is supposed to get the second shot this upcoming week. He said that the general population should be able to get first Covid shot in February. This is what he was told. It’s not written in stone however.
 
Top