health

1 in 3 COVID survivors suffer long-term health issues: review

20 Comments
By Patrick GALEY

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2021 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

20 Comments
Login to comment

one in three patients hospitalised with COVID-19 suffers long-term health, mainly fatigue and shortness of breath.

In a cohort of 402 survivors in Italy one month after they were hospitalised, 56 percent tested positive for at least one psychiatric condition such as PTSD, depression or anxiety.

Quarantining and constant media fear porn will do that to people.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

one in three patients hospitalised with COVID-19 suffers long-term health, mainly fatigue and shortness of breath.

And also included multiple organ problems, mental abilities deterioration etc. This goes completely against the science deniers that keep focusing only on deaths as if that was the only negative outcome and everybody that survived went back to 100% health. It is clear this is not true.

Quarantining and constant media fear porn will do that to people.

No, the viral infection is the one that does it. There are no results that show that equivalent number of non-infected people can be diagnosed with a psychiatric condition, even when everybody was under the same conditions.

"Media" is not the one that is urging people to take care and avoid unnecessary risk, health care professionals are, science deniers always try to deflect as if the media was pulling things out of the air and contradicting the scientific consensus, that is also not true. The ones that are actually doing that is the people that try to minimize the importance of a disease that has produced close to 3 millions deaths already.

5 ( +12 / -7 )

In a cohort of 402 survivors in Italy one month after they were hospitalised, 56 percent tested positive for at least one psychiatric condition such as PTSD, depression or anxiety.

A survey of any group of humans on anywhere on the planet would yield a high percentage of psychiatric conditions. They are far more common than you seem to think.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

My friend was not hospitalised when he had Covid as he had a “mild” case that could be managed at home. He lost his senses of taste and smell, which have not returned, and has chronic fatigue. Most days he can’t get up the stairs to bed, he spends his days on the sofa and has not been able to return to work. He is a teacher and caught the virus at school.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

At least one in three patients hospitalized.

What might be the number or percent hospitalized?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Can't wait to get vaccinated on reading all this. Had a perfectly healthy colleague who suddenly passed away due to a heart attack last year and it was suspected that he had COVID but was never detected because there were no symptoms.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Who said that? The Japanese government did a good job of separating severe cases and deaths from general 'cases' to avoid panic as it's still fairly rare when you consider the total number of cases.

And what do that have to do with what you quote? the government was not focused only on the deaths and even if incomplete and mild the measures put forward have helped. There has never been a campaign from the government saying that everybody that survived was perfectly healthy.

No, the problem is not histerical people, the problem are science deniers that try to manipulate and mislead others into believing there is no danger from the pandemic, that only old people die and that everybody else recovers completely, this is completely false, young people do die from the disease, sometimes without any comorbidity to justify it. And for those that survive long term problems are extremely frequent. That is the real risk from the infection.

A bad flu is not correlated with long term health problems with the frequency observed from COVID-19, so the risk of death is a gross understimation of the risks involved in getting the infection.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

I have mentioned this before, but we lost a 57-year-old neighbor in January to Covid-19. He first was hospitalized last March, when he was in a coma and intubated. He seemed to get better. He came home and after a period of recuperation and building up his strength, he went back to work. He had to change employers, as the one he had would not believe that he was occasionally too weak to work. As he was very skilled, he had no problem finding another job. He kept going downhill. Finally, he passed away at home, ten months after having been in a coma.

I think that if our neighbor had had available to him the full range of treatments that Trump got at Walter Reed, then he might still be alive.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Here’s another COVID study.

"The most striking fact is that 87 percent of the U.S. stories are classified as negative, whereas 51 percent of the non-US stories are classified as negative," according to the study by Dartmouth economics professor Bruce Sacerdote, Dartmouth’s Ranjan Sehgal and Brown University’s Molly Cook.

Why Is All COVID-19 News Bad News?

*Bruce Sacerdote, Ranjan Sehgal and Molly Cook**

Abstract

We analyze the tone of COVID-19 related English-language news articles written since January 1, 2020. Eighty seven percent of stories by U.S. major media outlets are negative in tone versus fifty percent for non-U.S. major sources and sixty four percent for scientific journals. The negativity of the U.S. major media is notable even in areas with positive developments including school re-openings and vaccine trials. Media negativity is unresponsive to changing trends in new COVID-19 cases or the political leanings of the audience. As evidenced by most viewed and most shared major media readers in the U.S. and U.K. strongly prefer negative stories about COVID- 19, and negative stories in general. But the U.S. major media is more willing to satisfy this demand for negativity in both COVID and pre-COVID years. We suggest that this American exceptionalism stems from the lack of fair and balanced media laws and a lack of a large public option in the U.S. media. The causal impacts of this negative COVID coverage are less obvious; counties in the U.S. that rely more heavily on the major media are as likely to re-open schools .

https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.dartmouth.edu/dist/4/2318/files/2021/03/Why-Is-All-Covid-News-Bad-News-3_22_21.pdf

CNN is mentioned 13 times in this. Go figure

2 ( +4 / -2 )

More pharma money in US media.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

More pharma money in US media.

That is just the endless excuse, media do not need any incentives to do what it always has done, people consume more news that grab the attention, so the media produces more of that. Reality is simple, no need of world conspiracies to explain obvious things.

The note says nothing about the media being selectively positive about new treatments or the effect of the vaccines, so it is obviously not being paid to increase pharma earnings.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Are you saying there is not more pharma money in US media? Have you watched any US media? Have you noticed the adverts?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Are you saying there is not more pharma money in US media? Have you watched any US media? Have you noticed the adverts?

I am saying that the conspiracy theory makes no sense. The report makes it clear there is no special positive news about treatments and vaccines. So the negativity is obviously not something being promoted with the money, the hugely more likely explanation is that the media is doing what it always has done.

What do you think would give more money to a pharmaceutical company? news that make people take exaggerated care of avoiding contagions? or news that make people behave irresponsibly and getting themselves a long vacation in the ICU paying thousands of dollars a day?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

What do you think would give more money to a pharmaceutical company? news that make people take exaggerated care of avoiding contagions? or news that make people behave irresponsibly and getting themselves a long vacation in the ICU paying thousands of dollars a day?

What is more likely to convince someone to get the vaccine?

Just compare the posts on this forum. They can be roughly divided into two groups. One group has an extremely negative view of this pandemic, denying the effectiveness of certain cheap and effective measures (vitamin D, HCQ, zinc...), insisting on locking down, and expecting big pharma to come to the rescue with these rushed experimental vaccines.

Another group has (I believe) a more realistic view of this pandemic, realizing the very low death rate for healthy people and the many unknowns regarding the rushed experimental vaccines, as well as having a better understanding and faith in our own immune system to do exactly what it is designed to do. This group also includes people who are well aware of the corruption in government regulatory agencies and in big pharma, which have many times been fined billions for data falsification and bribes.

Now, which of the two groups is more likely to be linked to big pharma?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

What is more likely to convince someone to get the vaccine?

And what makes more money for a pharmaceutical company? one vaccine or the ICU stay?

Vaccines are safe and effective, there is no need to push them, that is just an excuse for people that like to misrepresent COVID-19 as something that is not serious when in reality the scientific consensus is that it is a very serious disease that people should avoid even if that means taking extra prevention steps.

Which group of comments is in line with what all the medical and scientific organizations of the world say? and what group is in line with conspiracy theory sites that have been known to present false and misleading information repeatedly?

Being actively in denial of very real risks is the opposite of being realistic. Specially when trying to misrepresent their attitudes as if the medical community defends when it is clearly the opposite.

Which of the two groups is more likely to be wrong? the one that said the pandemic was no big deal and have endlessly predicted it was over since a year ago or the ones that listen to the experts?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

share

www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/12/china-covid-misinformation-li-meng-yan/

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Recent studies have consistently shown that the vaccines don’t just protect against symptoms — they reduce the risk that someone will get infected with the coronavirus, a signal that they’ll reduce the spread of the virus, not just prevent sickness.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/30/22358085/covid-vaccines-effective-real-world-infection-protection-cdc

So they really are vaccines, not just symptom reduction tools. Nice.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites