CV and mad panic behaviour

[LP]

If someone else wrote this and changed the word covid to vaccination you would have went to town on them.

And I'd be justified.

You made an erroneous assumption, to be valid to travel you have to be fully vaccinated for some period before departing, you can't get the jab and fly out tomorrow. If a vaccine is going to cause myocarditis it's not going to be weeks or months after you get the jab, it'll be a day or two, a few days at most.

Secondly, vaccine induced myocarditis in 50+ year olds is almost completely absent from global data, the occurrence is so rare in mature adults it's barely counted, the main problem is youth and 20 somethings.

The scientists are actually saying the cause is likely quite complex, COVID might make someone more susceptible to some secondary infection, a comorbidity. For that reason it is very wise to remain vigilant, just because someone got mild symptoms doesn't mean they have escaped harm. I'm working today with people who are acting like clowns because they recently had COVID and "can't get it again", out on the piss overnight, complaining about hangovers and headaches.

It may still be that the Senator was very recently vaccinated, the media and social media coverage is premature, which was my point when I highlighted how alarmist the latest media commentary is becoming.

[Mav]

‘This is our biggest killer’: Shock deaths put spotlight on heart disease, The Age.

Cardiovascular doctors and researchers are trying to ascertain whether COVID-19 infections have long-term effects on the heart, with a major study published in Nature Medicine finding incidents of serious cardiac and cardiovascular problems were higher among people infected with the virus.

The study analysed the health records of more than 150,000 patients from the US Department of Veterans Affairs and found that COVID-19 patients were 63 per cent were more likely to have a heart attack and 52 per cent more likely to have a stroke than control groups.

Cardiologist Stephen Nicholls, from Monash University’s Victoria Heart Institute, said it was plausible that heart disease could result from a COVID-19 infection, but the science was still evolving.

“We know that COVID can cause inflammation of the heart muscle and the pericardium ... it also can cause an increased clotting tendency,” he said.

Peter Barlis, a cardiologist at the Northern and St Vincent’s hospitals in Victoria, said patients suffering a heart attack while infected with COVID-19 tended to have worse outcomes, including a higher chance of clots and injury to the heart muscle.

However, he said the link between COVID-19 and cardiovascular disease should not be overstated, as there were still many unknowns. It was crucial to monitor the heart conditions of people with acute COVID-19 infections to study any long-term effects, he said.

The other problem noted is that Covid restrictions and caution reduced the number of people getting heart checks and also had an effect on mental health.

[Mav]

The NFL has been using an unproven measure to get players with Covid back on the field fast, Salon.

Interesting article which highlights the lack of a diagnostic test that is able to give a timely indication that an infected player has ceased to be infectious. PCR tests will report infection even after the player ceases to be infectious. That will no doubt be an issue the AFL has to tackle too and it might adopt the NFL's policy as more players will be available to play under it.

To determine whether a player remained infectious, the NFL adopted a threshold of 2 negative PCR tests or 2 "faintly positive" PCR tests or 1 of each. They defined "faintly positive" as having a cycle threshold (or Ct value) of 35 or higher. The Ct value reports "how many times the [PCR] machine had to copy the genetic material of the virus in the sample before it yielded enough to actually see". A high Ct value suggests there's so little genetic material in the sample that the PCR machine needed to copy it over and over until there was enough to detect. That would suggest the person who provided the sample didn't have enough Covid to be infectious.

But that test remains controversial as it isn't a standardised measure and is affected by how the sample is taken; e.g. did the patient cough before the sample was taken or did the person who took the sample hit the right spots.

It seems it's halfway between solid science and witchcraft but it may well be a good halfway solution.

[LP]

GP's here are telling people they are basically no longer infectious 7 days after first developing symptoms and testing positive, not sure how that has come about but it seems to be widely applied. The idea is that 7 days after symptoms appear you are already past shedding live virus.

The researchers seem to think people are most likely highly infectious just before symptoms appear, that sort of makes sense because symptoms are actually a sign that someone's body has detected the virus and begun defending itself. This also explains how Sars-CoV-2 is so readily and widely transmitted, you've spread it well before you get sick.

Tough gig being a medical professional and virologist, you almost have to predict the future.

[Mav]

Players may well test positive after taking routine Covid tests without displaying symptoms. Then the "7 days from first symptoms" test wouldn't apply.

And even 7 days would be too long for AFL clubs. Say a player displayed symptoms on the Friday and tests positive. He'll miss the weekend game, but the 7 day rule would mean he couldn't train with the team in the following week. Depending on how established that player is in the team, that may mean he isn't considered available for selection for the 2nd week in a row. AFL clubs would prefer to be able to conduct a couple of PCRs to get the player back in training mid-week.

[LP]

Players may well test positive after taking routine Covid tests without displaying symptoms. Then the "7 days from first symptoms" test wouldn't apply.

And even 7 days would be too long for AFL clubs. Say a player displayed symptoms on the Friday and tests positive. He'll miss the weekend game, but the 7 day rule would mean he couldn't train with the team in the following week. Depending on how established that player is in the team, that may mean he isn't considered available for selection for the 2nd week in a row. AFL clubs would prefer to be able to conduct a couple of PCRs to get the player back in training mid-week.

I don't think the AFL will care, it's no worse than a minor injury, there is luck in the timing especially if players have to be tested on game day.

I believe in the education sector staff test twice weekly, Monday and Thursday or something similar.

As I see it club's can't have it both ways, the relaxed regime and the extra list numbers, they need to commit to one strategy or the other rather than have a bob each way!

All this is going down in under the assumption Omicron is the end game, I think that it is 50/50 at best, I wouldn't want to put my faith in modified testing only to have a new variant surface and scupper everything, I'd be going the extra numbers from day dot!

[kruddler]

Players may well test positive after taking routine Covid tests without displaying symptoms. Then the "7 days from first symptoms" test wouldn't apply.

And even 7 days would be too long for AFL clubs. Say a player displayed symptoms on the Friday and tests positive. He'll miss the weekend game, but the 7 day rule would mean he couldn't train with the team in the following week. Depending on how established that player is in the team, that may mean he isn't considered available for selection for the 2nd week in a row. AFL clubs would prefer to be able to conduct a couple of PCRs to get the player back in training mid-week.

Just throwing it out there that the AFL already have a policy in place and we've seen it in place for the AFLW so far.

[Mav]

But what does it say about returning after a positive test? I know there's a protocol just as I know there are secret sauces used by McDonalds. My casual Googling doesn't give me any details of either.

[madbluboy]

Once I registered my positive test I hot a message saying I have to isolate for 7 days and are not required to test again for 30 days.

Of course I tested myself after 7 days and I was still positive. Even 10 days later I was still positive. Haven't tested since.

[Gointocarlton]

Once I registered my positive test I hot a message saying I have to isolate for 7 days and are not required to test again for 30 days.

Of course I tested myself after 7 days and I was still positive. Even 10 days later I was still positive. Haven't tested since.

In the old days of contact tracing and isolation for 14 days after a positive test, it was not recommended to retest (PCR at the time) at the end of the 14 days as they said you could test positive for many months. The key was that you were no longer infectious. Many bosses wanted a negative test before allowing workers to return by the gov advice was that it was not necessary and not enforceable for the reason given above and being infectious.