Amazon. Here are the two that I ordered for the 11 y.o. and 6 y.o. I can't say I did a ton of research or comparison shopping, other than making sure they had good ratings, but we've been happy with both.where are you finding the kids ones?
I have some KN95s for kids, but I suspect they are ####.
small uptick today in Positive % and Ro![]()
I posted this a few days ago. Like Krista, I guess no one reads my posts.Heart-disease risk soars after COVID — even with a mild case
Massive study shows a long-term, substantial rise in risk of cardiovascular disease, including heart attack and stroke, after a SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35132265/
Nature Article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00403-0#ref-CR1
Even a mild case of COVID-19 can increase a person’s risk of cardiovascular problems for at least a year after diagnosis, a new study1shows. Researchers found that rates of many conditions, such as heart failure and stroke, were substantially higher in people who had recovered from COVID-19 than in similar people who hadn’t had the disease.
What’s more, the risk was elevated even for those who were under 65 years of age and lacked risk factors, such as obesity or diabetes.
“It doesn’t matter if you are young or old, it doesn’t matter if you smoked, or you didn’t,” says study co-author Ziyad Al-Aly at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, and the chief of research and development for the Veterans Affairs (VA) St. Louis Health Care System. “The risk was there.”
Al-Aly and his colleagues based their research on an extensive health-record database curated by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The researchers compared more than 150,000 veterans who survived for at least 30 days after contracting COVID-19 with two groups of uninfected people: a group of more than five million people who used the VA medical system during the pandemic, and a similarly sized group that used the system in 2017, before SARS-CoV-2 was circulating.
Troubled hearts
People who had recovered from COVID-19 showed stark increases in 20 cardiovascular problems over the year after infection. For example, they were 52% more likely to have had a stroke than the contemporary control group, meaning that, out of every 1,000 people studied, there were around 4 more people in the COVID-19 group than in the control group who experienced stroke.
The risk of heart failure increased by 72%, or around 12 more people in the COVID-19 group per 1,000 studied. Hospitalization increased the likelihood of future cardiovascular complications, but even people who avoided hospitalization were at higher risk for many conditions.
“I am actually surprised by these findings that cardiovascular complications of COVID can last so long,” Hossein Ardehali, a cardiologist at Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois, wrote in an e-mail to Nature. Because severe disease increased the risk of complications much more than mild disease, Ardehali wrote, “it is important that those who are not vaccinated get their vaccine immediately”.
----
Carries the usual caveats associated with observational studies, but scale is significant. As always, the smart strategy is to not get COVID via vaccination and mitigation efforts like Masking/Distancing where appropriate.![]()
Where is Culdeus when you need him?This isn't fully over by any stretch.
Very sorry... I've been running around like crazy. Skipped a couple pages and didn't see it. My bad, GB!I posted this a few days ago. Like Krista, I guess no one reads my posts.![]()
Thanks for posting. I wonder if Omicron will have the same impact as pre-Omicron variants. i sure hope not, as I did catch Omi myself.Heart-disease risk soars after COVID — even with a mild case
Massive study shows a long-term, substantial rise in risk of cardiovascular disease, including heart attack and stroke, after a SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35132265/
Nature Article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00403-0#ref-CR1
Even a mild case of COVID-19 can increase a person’s risk of cardiovascular problems for at least a year after diagnosis, a new study1shows. Researchers found that rates of many conditions, such as heart failure and stroke, were substantially higher in people who had recovered from COVID-19 than in similar people who hadn’t had the disease.
What’s more, the risk was elevated even for those who were under 65 years of age and lacked risk factors, such as obesity or diabetes.
“It doesn’t matter if you are young or old, it doesn’t matter if you smoked, or you didn’t,” says study co-author Ziyad Al-Aly at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, and the chief of research and development for the Veterans Affairs (VA) St. Louis Health Care System. “The risk was there.”
Al-Aly and his colleagues based their research on an extensive health-record database curated by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The researchers compared more than 150,000 veterans who survived for at least 30 days after contracting COVID-19 with two groups of uninfected people: a group of more than five million people who used the VA medical system during the pandemic, and a similarly sized group that used the system in 2017, before SARS-CoV-2 was circulating.
Troubled hearts
People who had recovered from COVID-19 showed stark increases in 20 cardiovascular problems over the year after infection. For example, they were 52% more likely to have had a stroke than the contemporary control group, meaning that, out of every 1,000 people studied, there were around 4 more people in the COVID-19 group than in the control group who experienced stroke.
The risk of heart failure increased by 72%, or around 12 more people in the COVID-19 group per 1,000 studied. Hospitalization increased the likelihood of future cardiovascular complications, but even people who avoided hospitalization were at higher risk for many conditions.
“I am actually surprised by these findings that cardiovascular complications of COVID can last so long,” Hossein Ardehali, a cardiologist at Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois, wrote in an e-mail to Nature. Because severe disease increased the risk of complications much more than mild disease, Ardehali wrote, “it is important that those who are not vaccinated get their vaccine immediately”.
----
Carries the usual caveats associated with observational studies, but scale is significant. As always, the smart strategy is to not get COVID via vaccination and mitigation efforts like Masking/Distancing where appropriate.![]()
I hope not, but it may be hard to tease that out since most people don’t get their variant confirmed and it’s not listed in a database such as the one used for this study. Perhaps the best way to know would be to do an analysis in about 18 months of people who got sick in late Dec 2021 or Jan 2022, since most of those were probably due to Omicron.Thanks for posting. I wonder if Omicron will have the same impact as pre-Omicron variants. i sure hope not, as I did catch Omi myself.
That’s not exactly what that study showed. It recruited unvaccinated people via Facebook and/or Twitter, asked them about prior infection, then followed up with antibody levels, to test for immunity. Of those who had previously been diagnosed with infection (ie., positive NAAT or antigen test), 99% had anti-covid antibodies.For me, its always been reassuring hearing from a voice of reason like Makary and others on Fox, especially when confronted with some of the illogical decisions being made by politicians and other medical experts. Like maybe not fire people who have had previous infections who refuse a vaccine. They have natural immunity, they should be in the front line and praised not vilified. Makary and Johns Hopkins did a study showing that 99% of those previously infected have natural immunity that lasted at least 650 days. As he put it, it should be a discussion about the immune and non-immune, not vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Exactly.That’s not exactly what that study showed. It recruited unvaccinated people via Facebook and/or Twitter, asked them about prior infection, then followed up with antibody levels, to test for immunity. Of those who had previously been diagnosed with infection (ie., positive NAAT or antigen test), 99% had anti-covid antibodies.
Ignoring issues with recruiting via social media (clearly not a generalizable sample), the problem with that study is delineating why they were diagnosed with covid in the first place. In all likelihood, they had symptoms which prompted testing.
In crude terms, the more symptomatic you are, the more likely you are to generate an immune response, and vice versa. So asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic people who’ve had covid are less likely to have demonstrable, durable immunity. Other studies looking at more random population sampling have shown variable antibody response, with ~5-15%+ people not generating antibodies at all. Moreover, countries like Denmark performed widespread population NAAT surveillance earlier in the pandemic, which showed ~80% protection against reinfection between surges (approximately 6-9 months apart), which dropped to under 50% for people age 65 and older.
And all that overlooks omicron’s significantly altered spike protein, which hampers immunity further.
tl;dr It’s a stretch to say 99% of people infected with covid will remain immune ~2 years later.
If it makes you feel better, I read it and thought “wait, didn’t Pip just post this recently? It seems like the same info…..”I posted this a few days ago. Like Krista, I guess no one reads my posts.![]()
It took a lot of time but you are correct.Exactly.
My folks had >2500 antibodies (off the charts) and got omicron 2 weeks later. I once believed in those quantitative antibody tests despite @Terminalxylem's suggestion to not put too much weight in them. As usual he was right.
Testing positive for antibodies is NOT the same as having "immunity"
https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/having-antibodies-to-the-novel-coronavirus-is-not-the-same-thing-as-having-immunity-to-covid-19[icon] said:Exactly.
My folks had >2500 antibodies (off the charts) and got omicron 2 weeks later. I once believed in those quantitative antibody tests despite @Terminalxylem's suggestion to not put too much weight in them. As usual he was right.
Testing positive for antibodies is NOT the same as having "immunity"
Yep. Wise FBGs like @Terminalxylem and others have covered the complex facets of immune protection in here several times.
This. Im in a study and my doctors track my antibodies but its simply to see if the vaccine took. If it doesnt and no antibodies develop thats where immunocompromised folks need to be more careful and/or get boosted. Its just a guide. But helpful to know. They also use it as a guide as to when to get boosted. I could get my 4th but my docter usually wants me to wait 8 months after the last shot or if the antibody level drops very low. Just got mine checked on Friday im curious what mine look like.[icon] said:Exactly.
My folks had >2500 antibodies (off the charts) and got omicron 2 weeks later. I once believed in those quantitative antibody tests despite @Terminalxylem's suggestion to not put too much weight in them. As usual he was right.
Testing positive for antibodies is NOT the same as having "immunity"
I hope you can still read posts even if you're on a TO.
This past Wednesday, February 2, Pfizer applied for emergency use authorization to supply vaccines for children aged six months to five years old (CBS News, 2/2/2022).
Some are estimating around the end of February for FDA authorization to be granted. That's the best estimate we have for now.
Ignoring the person clearly starved for attention…under 5 doses are expected to be approved within the next few weeks. I don’t have dates but typically they meet on Friday and the additional committees meet the following week with full approval the following Thursday or Friday.
It’s not a guarantee that it will be approved. The reason for the delay has been the Pfizer’s initial trials didn’t show enough rise in antibodies with two shot. Antibodies are the best measure we have right now but it’s tough to quantify amount of protection from antibody levels. So what they’re doing now is testing a third dose similar to immunocompromised individuals while also gathering more real world data on prevention of infection, symptoms and serious Illness.
It drops a solid bit but is still extremely effective (70% range)Saw anNY Times headline that said CDC data shows booster immunity plunges after 4 months. Just in time for when I was going back to the office again.
I just cant wrap my head around living like this , its almost like you enjoy it, the drama of it all . Sorry if im reading this post wrong[icon] said:It drops a solid bit but is still extremely effective (70% range)
Also: "An earlier CDC study found unvaccinated adults were 23 times more likely to be hospitalized during the omicron wave than adults who were boosted. Unvaccinated people were 5.3 times more likely to be hospitalized than people who were vaccinated but not boosted."
Its up to Individuals to determine their COVID risk tolerance and timing of boosters... I am 6 months out from a Moderna super-boost (100mcg) and still have not contracted COVID despite multiple exposures.
I'm rolling the dice and heading to Nicaragua/Costa Rica for 5 weeks without w boost because I'm awaiting full Omicron optimized data. Other more high risk folks may opt for a boost. That's why freedom of choice here is important, IMO.
In any event, the evidence of vaccine benefit and favorable safety profile (vs COVID infection) is clear to all but the full-on flat earth crazies at this point.
Yeah, you're the guy "not-joking" about vaccine junkies and didn't know there are several posters who post valuable information directly from their work on the front lines, in hospitals.I just cant wrap my head around living like this , its almost like you enjoy it, the drama of it all . Sorry if im reading this post wrong
Yeah and to honest, I’m not sure if my soon to be 4 year old will be in line once it does get approved. The postponements worry me more then the lack of antibody levels. I’ll wait to see the data they present before making the decision.PinkydaPimp said:appreciate the info thats what i was trying to gauge as the articles were unclear. Looks like it got pushed back on Friday however so now its back to who knows when as they are waiting on the 3rd dose trial data i believe.
I feel ya. Ill be getting it and trusting they are doing their due diligence. If they just wanted to get it out there they could put it out now but they are waiting to do it right. Ultimately myself and my son are high risk so for us its a no brainier but i get wanting to see what it looks like when its official.Yeah and to honest, I’m not sure if my soon to be 4 year old will be in line once it does get approved. The postponements worry me more then the lack of antibody levels. I’ll wait to see the data they present before making the decision.
I get being cautious, and certainly am not going to judge anyone when it comes to young children, who face a very low risk from Covid, but am I correct that the delay with the vaccine is entirely over the optimal dosage rather than its safety?Yeah and to honest, I’m not sure if my soon to be 4 year old will be in line once it does get approved. The postponements worry me more then the lack of antibody levels. I’ll wait to see the data they present before making the decision.
''who da fook is dat guy? ''Yeah, you're the guy "not-joking" about vaccine junkies and didn't know there are several posters who post valuable information directly from their work on the front lines, in hospitals.
It's not just this post you're reading wrong.
This from the guy who's out-posting me 4 to 1 lately?I just cant wrap my head around living like this , its almost like you enjoy it, the drama of it all . Sorry if im reading this post wrong
im a newbie,im trying to catch upThis from the guy who's out-posting me 4 to 1 lately?
Yeah, that's not the only thing you're reading wrong![]()
Yeah but you're very busy guy. You keep telling usThis from the guy who's out-posting me 4 to 1 lately?
Yeah, that's not the only thing you're reading wrong![]()
Heart-disease risk soars after — even with a mild case
Massive study shows a long-term, substantial rise in risk of cardiovascular disease, including heart attack and stroke, after a SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35132265/
Nature Article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00403-0#ref-CR1
Mainly but it’s more finding an effective dose. The two dose regiment didn’t produce a high enough increase in antibodies, so they’re going to add a third dose. I’ll pay more attention to the clinical endpoints - prevention of serious illness, hospitalizations and to a lesser extent case prevention. They’re likely to approve it as long as it’s safe, so I’m thinking they don’t have the clinical endpoints either. We’ll probably end up having our daughter vaccinated but I’m going into it with healthy skepticism.I get being cautious, and certainly am not going to judge anyone when it comes to young children, who face a very low risk from Covid, but am I correct that the delay with the vaccine is entirely over the optimal dosage rather than its safety?
Wow.
Copied from RedditHeart-disease risk soars after "'vaccinations"
I'll call your 2 lame, biased studies and raise ya 1000.
https://www.informedchoiceaustralia.com/post/1000-peer-reviewed-studies-questioning-covid-19-vaccine-safety
Imagine the thread on thatLove seeing mRNA tech already in human trials for a genetically targeted cancer vaccine now as well.![]()
Just got the call from the Hospital. My hernia surgery scheduled for Tuesday has been cancelled. When we scheduled it they were still doing elective surgery as long as it was out patient. Kind of expected this when I saw the National Guard has showed up at the hospital I was going to have it done at last week to help out. :(
Washington State ending requirement for proof of vaccination for large gatherings on March 1, and ending indoor mask mandate including schools on March 21. If I remember right, the TSA mask mandate expires March 18.
Until the next variant, we're pretty much done in my neck of the woods.
It sure sounds like you got it. Why you need a test to prove it to yourself and why go out to Walgreens spreading it around. Just quarantine like you're supposed to.Covid is officially in the KP household. I've been sick for a week, but tested negative with a couple at-home tests Sunday and Monday night. The 15yo was sick Weds morning and his test came back today positive. Wife not feeling well, but her clinic told her just to wash her hands a little more and get in to work. (they've never really believed in this virus stuff much). I will go to Walgreens for a test tomorrow am for a test since I am still symptomatic and I am the one that drives him around the most and has been around him the most. The little one had a close contact at school as well, and we got that notification again today, so she will also have to go to Walgreens on Sunday for a test.
BA.2 represents about 100% of cases in South Africa right now and the trajectory is still down.Well this doesn't sound like good news. Will this crap ever end?
CNN: As BA.2 subvariant of Omicron rises, lab studies point to signs of severity.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/17/health/ba-2-covid-severity/index.html
Spikes is shining a light on something important: We're at the point in COVID response where what the variants actually do is more important than what variants look like they might do based on lab analysis (e.g. in vitro or animal experiments). Present and future COVID variants are no longer moving through a totally COVID-naive population -- and that makes a difference.BA.2 represents about 100% of cases in South Africa right now and the trajectory is still down.Well this doesn't sound like good news. Will this crap ever end?
CNN: As BA.2 subvariant of Omicron rises, lab studies point to signs of severity.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/17/health/ba-2-covid-severity/index.html
But there was a bright spot: Antibodies in the blood of people who'd recently had Omicron also seemed to have some protection against BA.2, especially if they'd also been vaccinated.
And that raises an important point, Fuller says. Even though BA.2 seems more contagious and pathogenic than Omicron, it may not wind up causing a more devastating wave of Covid-19 infections.
"One of the caveats that we have to think about as we get new variants that might seem more dangerous is the fact that there's two sides to the story," [Deborah Fuller, a virologist at the University of Washington School of Medicine] says.
The virus matters, she says, but as its would-be hosts, so do we.
"Our immune system is evolving as well. And so that's pushing back on things," she said.