I think I may have said this before here, but my experience is that lots of people are willing to drive to overlooks, and maybe get out and walk around for fifteen minutes. Very few people want to hike more than even a mile or two. I was in RMNP during peak season and even the popular trails thinned out quickly once you got into them a ways. Granted, this was pre-pandemic, but still. M and I did a lot of kayaking and some hiking close to home last summer and it wasn't hard to avoid people at all.
Coronavirus
- Thread starter amk3
- Start date
In the first month or two trying to get sober, I was at a Michigan football game. 'Im one of those people who often stays until the very end of the game and even sticks around to watch the band play in the post-game show. But on this particular day I hated it. It was the middle of the first quarter, and all I could hear around me was people b*tching about this or that and thought to myself "This isn't fun, why am I here?" I walked out after maybe seven minutes of game time, total.
That was my first clue that maybe I was clinically depressed.
Strangeite
Well-known member
I have suffered from depression for years and finally asked for help three or four years ago. This past year has been a challenge to say the least. However, I lost my best friend to depression a year and half ago, so when the debacle of the past 12 months really got rolling, I made a point to stay on top of it, including asking for loved ones to periodically make sure I am doing the things I am supposed to be doing.
Not That Josh
Well-known member
I wish I saved it somewhere but I remember Yellowstone released some information about park visitors a year or two ago. One thing that stuck with me is that around 90% of people don't get more than 100 feet away from the trails. My memory may be off on the specifics, but the general idea is that Yellowstone's data agrees with what you experienced.
(There was probably information on how far people hike too, but I don't remember)
Anne
Well-known member
I don't know of specific data or a study answering this question. The health department and hospital here are making that assumption. For example, if you have had COVID in the last 90 days and are then exposed to a COVID positive individual you are not instructed to quarantine by the health department. It's being assumed you will neither get symptomatic COVID or spread it in that first 90 days. And in the hospital if you have had mild to moderate (not bad enough to be hospitalized) COVID in the last 90 days and test positive (more than14 days out from the initial positive test) you do not go on the COVID unit or have additional respiratory precautions. The assumption is made that you cannot be reinfected or asymptomatically spread virus in those 90 days after the initial quarantine period. Those in the 90 day window are still asked to follow normal COVID procedure and wear a mask.
thank you so much for that information.
day 90 for our family falls on the last day of spring break, so I think we are going to book something just for a change of scenery. I definitely don’t want to go through having COVID again, but I also don’t want to be part of the problem.
DopeyRunr
the jeweled acrobats only perform amazing stunts f
Our college just announced they're doing virtual commencement in May. Meanwhile our high school is still undecided on prom and graduation, but I don't see how those could possibly happen. I have quickly resigned myself to the notion that when our kid starts college in the fall her first semester will probably be almost the same experience-wise as this spring semester is, with virtual classes whenever possible, many dining venues closed or takeout only, and building/dorm restrictions by keycard access.
The images of post-COVID lung are frightening, and the fact that even the lung tissue of people who caught it but had no (or minor) symptoms looks worse than a life-long smoker's lungs, really emphasizes how important it is NOT to catch this damn thing, even though the mortality rate is "only" between 1-2%. And I am increasingly resentful of people, even friends and family, who I see behaving like the pandemic is over.
The images of post-COVID lung are frightening, and the fact that even the lung tissue of people who caught it but had no (or minor) symptoms looks worse than a life-long smoker's lungs, really emphasizes how important it is NOT to catch this damn thing, even though the mortality rate is "only" between 1-2%. And I am increasingly resentful of people, even friends and family, who I see behaving like the pandemic is over.
That is really scary. I pray that the lung damage does heal over time, at least somewhat. I know a lot of people now who have gotten COVID, including some who took every reasonable precaution available to them (as well as some who didn't, naturally).
Art Vandelay
that's a shame
The hurdle is going to be the anti-vaxxer misinformation. It already seems like the Venn diagram for anti-mask/anti-vax is nearly a perfect circle.
Anne
Well-known member
I completely agree with the sentiment that we need to take into account the significant long-term impact of COVID on multiple organ systems. Minimally symptomatic healthy individuals also have a high rate of post-COVID cardiac changes. We now have guidelines for cardiac screening child athletes post-COVID before they can return to sport. No doubt, it's unlike any virus we've seen previously and looking at the mortality figures is the tip of the iceberg and does not tell the complete story. And I agree with her point that the vaccine is unlikely to have even close to the long-term negative outcomes as getting COVID disease (even mild).
Here comes the but...the article/video is misleading (see below for how) and I think that type of paternalistic approach in medicine is problematic. I was hesitant to even comment on this because I agree with her desire to make people aware that mild COVID isn't necessarily mild. But then this morning's NYT email newsletter really resonated with me and how I felt when I read the linked article,
For those who don't get the newsletter (it's not a regular article so I'm not sure how to link it), they addressed the idea of the medical community not being completely transparent in order to sway behavior because they don't trust people to make the "right" decisions. For example, we are under-selling the vaccine to get people to continue to wear masks. Or the original recommendations not to wear masks (because CDC wanted them conserved for health care workers). Unfortunately there end up being unintended consequences and it erodes trust.
I've given up reading most mainstream coverage of COVID. I think I will scream if my husband sends me another yahoo news covid article link. The exceptions are NYT and the Atlantic. What I've read from WSJ has been good but most of their stuff is behind a pay wall. Those sources have mostly impeccable research and intelligent discussion and analysis. In regards to the specific article above, to my knowledge there are no studies of incidence of post-COVID lung disease for those who are asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic. Cardiac changes, there is some data in the 10-30% range (depending on when, how, and in what population you look). Her anecdotal citing of 70-80% "bad xray" (I don't even know what that means) post-mild COVID is misleading, unscientific, and unlikely to be true. My anecdotal experience is I have more people with lingering symptoms but normal looking x-rays. But then I'm uniformly seeing young people. I don't have a representative sample. As a trauma surgeon she certainly doesn't have a representative sample either. Finally the 3 x-rays she shows as examples are different exposure and technique and aren't great apples to apples comparisons. That last x-ray is not a person who had asymptomatic COVID and feels fine. It's someone hospitalized and bedridden just based on the leads and technique/positioning. I get that it makes for a more striking comparison but it's misleading.
Anne
Well-known member
Absolutely. We just need people to take the vaccine.
As an example, chicken pox vaccine came out when I was an intern. That vaccine has similar efficacy to what we're seeing with Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, in the 90+%. As an intern we always had someone hospitalized with chicken pox complications. Two years later as a senior resident I had interns who had never seen a case of chicken pox, let alone hospitalized chicken pox. It's a little different because the incidence was much lower and the baseline vulnerable population was lower. But chicken pox vaccine acceptance was also lower at that time than what we are hoping for the covid vaccines.
lovett1979
Active member
Sadly, I think the anti-vax circle is actually larger than the anti-mask one. I know people who are happy to wear masks, but very hesitant to get the vaccine. This includes medical professionals, SMH.
Not That Josh
Well-known member
I know they are still working on trying to figure what percentage is needed for herd immunity. If it ends up being 90%, I don't think there is any chance of getting there. I'm basing that guess solely on what has happened with the measles vaccine.
Strangeite
Well-known member
I haven't seen any solid figures from January 6th yet, but based on footage, I can't imagine a bigger super-spreader event.
Nia
Well-known member
About 83% of Irish people want to get the vaccination. Airlines are even advertising vax & go, not that they are providing vaccine but encouraging you to get one and get back to travel. We are fed up with the Irish weather, and desperate for a week on the sun! I am no spokesman for the country but everyone I know wants the vaccine
@Anne Where would I go to find out more about the cardiac screening for children post-COVID? My 17yo was asymptotic positive on 12/17, and started up intense pre-season soccer workouts 1/4 (supervised by the HS athletic department) plus his own cardio and weight training. I honestly had not considered this, but now am concerned about putting him in harms way.