Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19) and Tinnitus

This makes no sense. As FGG has already pointed out, the flu is a different strain of virus. It’s like comparing an apple to a banana and saying they’re the same. There are good arguments to be made about the actions that are being taken, but that still doesn’t make COVID-19 a type of influenza.

At this point, my personal opinion is that a second lockdown would be a waste of time. We are likely much better off shielding those who are most at risk whilst allowing everyone else to carry on as normal. The impact of constantly locking everything down is akin to kicking the can down the road, for me at least. Originally it was to flatten the curve - which is what we did - and since this virus is here to stay, we could repeat these lockdowns indefinitely as cases will always rise once we end them. We need to get back to some form of normality in order to resurrect the economy or we risk even bigger problems.

With that said, however, make no mistake that this coronavirus should be taken seriously. The longterm effects are still unknown but more and more information is coming to light. As I said in a previous post, my mom is part of a study because of the effect it had on her heart and kidneys. I have also had discussions with many doctors about this who have confirmed to me that they have seen many of these after-effects first-hand. Little is known about the longterm ramifications.

There are also studies which have shown that around 10-30% of hospitalised cases had high levels of troponin, which is a protein that is released when the heart is damaged in some way. It has also been noted that many who were completely asymptomatic went on to develop inflammation of the heart, usually in the form of myocarditis or pericarditis. This in turn can potentially lead to heart failure if it remains unresolved. There is even talk of it being a risk for sudden death syndrome in athletes.

There’s a lot we don’t know about this virus when it comes to the longterm effects on our organs.

 

the view you are arguing against is not fact-based, and is one of several arguments made here over and over by the same couple posters who have never been making any kinds of appeal to reason from fact based viewpoints on this issue, and have shown the same stubborn unwillingness to accept the basic science and reality of the situation on the ground, which has turned what should be a health issue into a political one some places. (It's not very political here in Vermont, people believe our scientists and health advisories, and so this is one of the few places you'll run into people wearing both MAGA hats and n95 masks).

More or less, to quote an old Thrill Kill Kult song, "you're wasting your time trying to help those who cannot be saved", and this must be especially maddening for you given your direct proximity to the virus in your life and substantial first hand information on how it compares to the influenzas and other coronaviruses that have circulated for our whole lives.

If the signal to noise ratio of a conversation thread is an asymptote approaching zero, it's probably good to just stand back and stand by :-P

 

It is always 'political'!

You may have 10 scientists and have 10 different answers. The world needs more Jonas Salks!

 

Sure, any catastrophic event invariably takes on political overtones, that's not avoidable.

you may have 10 reasonable and different scientific takes, but in this case you don't.

That is, some aspects of this are still very unknown, but the basic science of masks reducing transmission has been demonstrated in repeated lab and real world studies, yet mask use remains a focal point of the politicization of this issue, only in a few select countries.

No one is making a strong scientific case that mask use in public doesn't reduce coronavirus transmission, because nearly all of the evidence we have so far indicates yes, they very much do. People are making anti-mask arguments based on political ideas, perceptions of "freedom", misinformation that's being echoed by well funded lobbyist armies, etc.

To me, a silly/amusing part is, if people had just been more on board with mask use early on, and that messaging had been strongly echoed from the top -- the economic consequences would likely have been a lot less dire? Regal just announced they are closing all US theaters "indefinitely", etc. Large parts of the service economy are unlikely to recover from this. In the case of stuff like restaurants, some of that may have been unavoidable -- who in their right mind wants to spend a bunch of money to eat indoors with other people if they know they live in a pandemic hotspot?

When I said "it's not very political" here in Vermont, what I meant was: regardless of party affiliation, we have basically no protests about masks, everyone wears them, and actually we've had very little protest or upheaval of any kind during one of the most tumultuous periods of US history in the last 100 years. We're not actually some liberal utopia, we reliably vote ~30% rep. I expect 30% of VT voters may be voting Trump this year, but most of those people are wearing masks in public, distancing, etc. People are divided on the politics of this issue, sure, but we're (mostly) not divided on the basic science. In a lot of states you can guess someone's party affiliation based on what precautions they are approaching COVID with.... to me that speaks to a broken society run on misinformation.

Yes, we can always use more brilliant people with a strong and rigorous scientific approach finding new solutions to serious health problems, no disagreement there.

What we need less of is Ron Mercolas, as well as citizens who cannot differentiate between the Salks and the Mercolas of the world. Most of what's wrong with American media and information right now, can be understood as a vast interlocking network of grifter types all vying to suck the most dollars out of the wallets of the scared and naive.

This is neat because you can see the initial spread in cities, followed by reductions because initially of lockdowns and then, probably ongoing mask use, leading us to the current situation where things are somewhat controlled in a lot of cities but large swaths of rural areas are lighting up

You can also pretty clearly see the (probable) spread impact of the Sturgis rally if you look 12-20 days out from it. At least, spread occurred in a timeframe and along travel paths which trace back to Sturgis as a spreader event.

 

Man, I wish I was in the middle of nowhere with you. Where I am most people are still shaking hands, not doing any social distancing and many don't wear masks in shops even though there is a big fuck off sign that says "WEAR MASKS OR YOU WILL NOT BE SERVED".

 

The important part is how many people die and how many people get complications. It is my understanding that even if those indicators are higher for the flu this year, they're just slightly higher.

Since the later in life one catches it, the deadlier it is, one would want to catch it and get immunity to it sooner rather than later.

Thank you for this analogy.

Originally they deceived us and said that 20% of the sufferers need to be hospitalized and that That was the reason why we had to flatten the curve. This has never materialized. Instead of admitting to making a mistake, they doubled down and now demand a never-ending lockdown, in the hope (and the tactic seems to be working...) that the people forget about all of the original motivations.

Yes, just like a flu ought to be taken seriously - do what you can to not get infected.

The flu can also cause complications in some people. Currently we are being told that complications can happen. Nobody talks about whether this happens more often for this year's flu compared to the flu that we've had in the past.

Ask them about how it compares to the flu say back in 2019.

The same has been true for each of the new strains of flu that we get every single year.
===

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Says the man who can't come up with any arguments to address the FACT that the excess mortality is closer to a bad flu than it is to the plague that people seem to think of when they think of this year's flu. Carry on. You do you. LOL!

Here's an appeal to reason for you - how do you explain the shockingly low excess mortality figures? Or is looking at that metric to determine how serious this year's flu is isn't "basic science"?

 

In which case this is worse than the flu by all accounts.

Nobody knows how much immunity we are left with once we are exposed to it. Most other coronaviruses are around 3-6 months, but that doesn’t mean the same will be true for this. It could be more or less.

To be fair, nobody has a clue how to deal with this. However, further lockdowns are not the answer, in my humble opinion.

We know everything there is to know about the flu and by comparison, we know hardly anything about this novel virus. The data that we do have shows that the complication rates are significantly higher with COVID-19 than with the seasonal flu. The flu does not regularly cause heart and lung damage in the young and healthy, for example.

This is surely true of any virus? If only it were that simple.

I already have. I’ve spoken in-depth about this with various Dr’s and medical professionals, and to paraphrase one GP in particular, he said: “I’ve never seen anything like this. We are only just learning about the array of problems that people are left with after contracting COVID-19.” He then went on to reel off a load of clinical examples that he’d personally dealt with.

This is a bit disingenuous, in my opinion. We know what to expect with the flu whereas the longterm effects of this are currently unknown, but from the information we currently have, COVID-19 is significantly worse.

It’s already far surpassed a bad flu year but we all know it’s nowhere near as deadly as something like the plague. The fact is that it’s not a particularly lethal virus, but its propensity to cause potentially permanent damage to vital organs in fit and healthy people deserves a certain degree of respect.

For someone who is as risk-averse as you are, this seems to go against every grain of your character and this change is evidenced by your earlier posts on this thread. You seem more politically motivated in this instance whereas real science doesn’t (or shouldn’t) have a political bias or motivation.

 

Not according to:
https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps

We can learn to not trust anything the people who told us about that "20% hospitalization rate" tell us ever again. They could have told us about the uncertainly associated with that estimate, but they didn't. We need to learn from our mistakes.

I've never seen any studies that compare these complication rates. Perhaps the problem is with me and I am not aware of the studies that are actually out there.

This year's flu doesn't Regularly do that in the young and healthy either - I know that much!

That was my point...

It would be interesting to know about the fraction of the patients who experience complications for the two flu types.

I wonder whether as many people got tested for possible complications in the past, compared to 2020.

What we know is that something like 1 in 1000 or 1 in 100 flu patients get serious complications. This year we know that Some people (of the millions who've had it) got complications.

It might have surpassed 2009 swine flu (although back then people who died with it weren't counted as dying of it, and also nursing homes weren't forced to house contagious patients). It is my understanding that it is a lot less deadly than
1957-58 Asian Flu: "Approximately 1.1 million people died worldwide, according to the CDC; of those deaths, 116,000 were in the US. Most of the cases affected young children, the elderly and pregnant women."

Note, that back then they weren't inflating the numbers like they do now, and also back in 1957 the world population was 2.9 billion, which is 37% or about a third of what the world population is now. that means that the mortality per million of population was 2.7 times the death toll. To match that mortality, we would need about 3 million people to die worldwide.

The flu this year is also less deadly than 1968 “Hong Kong Flu” Pandemic. My mom caught the flu back in 1969 and came close to death.

"It started in 1968 and lasted until 1969-70. The virus responsible for the pandemic is believed to have evolved from the strain of influenza that caused the 1957 pandemic through “antigenic shift” — an abrupt, major change in the virus that results in new surface proteins, creating a virus subtype that humans have little or no immunity to because the body doesn’t recognize its surface proteins. According to the CDC, approximately 1 million people around the world died from this pandemic"

The quotes above are from
https://weather.com/health/cold-flu/news/2020-01-31-5-worst-flu-outbreaks-in-recent-history

The population back in 1968 was 3.5 billion, which is 44% of today's population. To reach the same mortality rate per million of population, a flu would have to kill 2.2 million people worldwide.

So it isn't nearly as deadly, yet back then nobody has even considered lockdowns, and I am pretty sure that back in 1957 and 1968 most people weren't even aware of those pandemics.

People carry on as if this were something like the Spanish flu. Back in 1918, it killed between 50 and 100 million people. The world population in 1919 was 1.8 billion, 23% of what it is now. So to match the rate of mortality, 2020 flu has to kill at least 50 million times 7.8/1.8 = about 220 MILLION people (over 400 million, if we go with the upper estimate of 100 million). So what we have (despite all of the overestimation going on) is more than 200 times (or even more than 400 times!) Less deadly than the Spanish Flu of 1918...

 

Not going to get involved too much, but besides the risk it poses for at risk patients (elderly, obese, etc.) one of the main problems of COVID-19 is the long-term effects a not so negligible fraction of patients are experiencing, namely long-term shortness of breath and chronic fatigue symptoms. Going by reports it is something that is reported with some regularity. Middle-aged women seem to be most at risk (2-3 times more than men). A couple months ago I met a guy the same age as me (30) who had developed terrible hyperacusis and severe brain fog (besides the usual symptoms) back in February due to corona and he was still disabled at the end of July, though he was better. Better by meaning instead of not doing anything (not even thinking), he was at least able to speak at low voice with me for an hour. After that he was mentally exhausted and had to rest.

It's up to everybody themselves how they want to deal with this. This might mean that those worrying about getting it have to seclude themselves if the state doesn't mandate sufficient measures or when people are not following the measures. It might also mean that those who don't want to follow the mandated measures have to wear masks/whatever or risk a fine. I don't want to get it, so I'll seclude myself a bit more.

Can't deny that I have nasty thoughts now and then. If this were Ebola the critics would literally be silenced after a few months of pandemic.

 

So I’ve been seeing articles of how COVID-19 survivors are getting tinnitus... I got my onset of tinnitus after a loud car alarm although I also had very a mild COVID-19 case a month before tinnitus onset as well.. now I’m not sure which one caused my tinnitus, maybe both?

Anyone else have information on this or going through the same thing?

 

When did we lose our way?!

How the news media played down the pandemics of yore, from Spanish flu to Swine flu

 

Молодцы! Good for them.

 

When this thread was still young you were the one telling me it was not like the flu at all, when I stupidly compared it to the flu, based on the info I had access to at that time. Boy was I wrong. But I don't understand why you changed your opinion on this.

Everything points in the direction of not developing any lasting immunity at all.

As for what measures should be taken, I think no one knows.
What I see in my country is that they're wrongly comparing recent figures with the ones during the first peak in march, when testing wasn't available and consistent. Now we have more thorough testing so the numbers are more accurate, but we're still some ways off from the peak in march even though the numbers say otherwise.

The only thing that should be compared is the number of occupied hospital beds. Given that the hospitalization rate is more or less the same across the board it can at least give some indication of the actual infection rate among the population. But let's not forget that this disease totally overwhelmed the capacity of medical care in many countries, something the flu doesn't do.

Numbers are on the rise again here in Western Europe, which isn't surprising given the behaviour of most people, and the total indecisiveness of the government, which has led to a certain fatigue amongst the people. Most people don't know what the actual rules are, as they're ever-changing and bear little relation to the actual status.
Schools being open doesn't help either. The infection rate in September was at a low point, and it took a while to wind up as is the cases with exponential curves, but now it's getting pretty bad. This slow but steady rise in infections is mistaken for proof that it was indeed a good idea to open up schools under the normal regime.

 

@Ed209 was trying to tell you that COVID-19 could potentially damage your heart and lungs. That is usually not the case in regular flu strains, plus we have flu shots.

 

I’ve been told that the admission rates at our local hospital are nowhere near the March/April peak rates yet.

I’m on nobody’s side here. I’m just stating the facts as I see them, and I always believed those numbers were too high. Go back to my early posts. I said I believed that COVID-19’s mortality rate would likely end up being less than 1%, but I’m no expert or epidemiologist. That was just my lay opinion. At the time, you were arguing against me saying we should be afraid and I believe you compared it to the boulder in Indiana Jones, saying it was coming towards us and that we should fear it. Fear is good you said, (or something along those lines, I may be wrong). Now you’ve gone in completely the other direction, and if I’m being honest, you seem to have been swept up by the political/conspiracy narrative that has engulfed social media and many other media outlets.

I believe locking down again would be a big mistake, but again, I’m not an expert in virology or epidemiology. I believe the economic hit within the UK would be far more devastating than the virus itself and we are dangerously close to wiping out entire industries at the moment, particularly the hospitality and arts sectors. Millions of businesses and jobs will be lost and we know there is a strong correlation between one’s health and one’s economic outlook. Getting the balance right is going to be critical to the wellbeing of millions in this country and I hope that our government gets it right.

I believe we have to accept that this virus isn’t going away anytime soon, and so we must learn to adapt and live with it or risk even bigger problems.

There is no doubt that COVID-19 can lead to all sorts of health problems that may be permanent, and the early data suggests that this is a lot more common than many people realise. Don’t be led by the media, do your own research and talk to people who have direct access to clinical data.

 

I am ashamed of the fact that I believed what I read in the newspapers. I will not make that mistake again. We were told that 20% of the people who catch it require being hospitalized, and if I remember correctly 1% require intensive care. If that were the case, it would be very different from the flu. As it turned out, none of that had materialized - it was just another flu after all.

Surely the policymakers who are making those comparisons are smart people who must be aware of the fact that this is like comparing apples to oranges. Their intent has got to be to deceive us. It is insulting that they think that we can't see through it, but then again many people seem to be unwilling to see through it...

Yes, that and the total number of deaths. Both of those figures are hard to mess with.

I am aware of it happening in the north of Italy and in the state of New York in the US. I know little about the north of Italy, but I know that what happened in New York was partially due to the authorities forcing flu patients to be housed in nursing homes.

I said that it makes sense to fear scary things that have the potential to do a lot of damage. I wrote that because I believed that our hospital system might not be able to handle all of the cases. The latest evidence seems to confirm that this is less deadly than the flu back in 1957 and 1967. Back in 57 and 67, most people hadn't even been aware that the flu had been bad that year. The authorities didn't make a big deal out of it, because it wasn't a big deal. Of course the flu is Capable of being worthy of being on one's radar, as was demonstrated to us by the flu back in 1918. Our authorities behave as if this is the kind of threat we have been facing, but in reality we are not anywhere Near that level of a threat...

This is like the trolley problem. A trolley is about to kill one person, but a politician can pull the level and force it to go down another track where it will kill 10 people. The politician feels compelled to pull the lever, as that way the politician can claim to have done something.

I am certainly not being led by the media...

In any case, it was nice talking to you. We seem to have independently arrived at similar conclusions...

 

Are you saying that the flu can't have complications? Or are you saying that this year's flu usually damages the heart?

 

The point is that this is completely unlike Ebola.

As for complications, many of the "regular flu" patients get complications.

Here is an overview
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/symptoms.htm

Let's look at some numbers!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5596521/

Hopefully you will agree that the regular flu has a surprisingly high rate of serious complications. In the past, it has never occurred to anyone to murder the country in an attempt to do something about these complications.

Given the information above, you will agree that there is no reason to think that this year's flu has complications that are more prevalent or more dangerous than the complications we have been seeing for the regular flu.

 

Incredible - the Average age of those that died is 82.4.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12...s-communist-propaganda-writ-small-in-my-study

 

I’m saying I’m used to getting the flu in the past. I usually get a flu shot every year. With COVID-19 we’re in more uncharted waters, so that scares me more. I never really hear much about heart or lung damage from regular flu strains. It may happen, but I never hear about it.

 

The three studies quoted in the study that I quoted mention 11%, 13% and 24% of hospitalized flu patients being found to have had heart damage. The kidney injury was found in 18%-66% of the flu patients who make it to ICU.
You can see more facts about the flu in my post above underneath

"Let's look at some numbers!"

The hidden burden of influenza: A review of the extra‐pulmonary complications of influenza infection

It makes sense that you wouldn't hear about it, as complications due to flu are just a fact of life.

 

I'm not sure about the 20% but that 1% seems about right?
It doesn't matter what the percentages are. The consequences are plain to see for everyone.

I think everyone sees things from his own neck of the woods, so perception may vary. It has ravaged in China early on, and we failed to acknowledge that. Italy has served as a warning sign for the rest of Europe as to how bad it can get, but we only just averted an overwhelmed health system in Belgium, France, the Netherlands,...
Sweden had the sweats with their group immunity strategy, the UK seems to have had it bad...

I agree most of the governments have a track record of bad decisions, though most of them in hindsight once we continued to learn more about COVID-19. People are quick to point out the flaws and inconsistencies in general.
When the health crisis has been succesfully managed, people will wrongly remember it as if it hasn't been all that bad and make most decisions seem like they have been a gross overreaction to the threat.

But the reason why a government would choose to shut down half of its economy over a made-up threat doesn't seem plausible to me.
What I see now is our government making calculated risks to keep the economy afloat in the face of the threat of the pandemic. It's failing at this point as the numbers go up, so the bars and restaurants have been put on curfew again. It also seems that people weren't that compliant with the rules from what I hear left and right.

These things are just not something that happens with the flu.
And please, can we stop comparing it to the flu? It's clearly not the same even though flu has the potential to be bad, proof of which are the efforts of the government to get the people vaccinated.

 

Nah, they are falling like flies, but the figures are being fiddled.

I'll stick with my masks, social distancing and keeping away from people.

 

Are you using the fact that the government is responding to this year's flu differently than in the past, as Evidence that this year the flu is different?!

In what way is it not the same (not counting the government's response to it)?

It makes sense to embrace social distancing, but not because of the flu.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html#table-1



Ignore the "%" sign in the second column.

 

If you have any ability to do any kind of work you can do remotely you should m0ve here, I'd love to form a Quiet Tinnitus Community in the woods.

The data seems to support that if a community is, broadly, using masks @ 80% or more, engaging in distancing, and avoiding high-risk behaviors, then many things can re-open. Eating inside in restaurants, bars, indoor concerts, movie theaters and stuff like that are going to remain pretty high risk and I can't imagine those industries really rebounding in a short time frame.

My point is, I basically agree: we have a lot more data now, and, "l0ckdowns" aren't especially effective if a large percentage of the population is fighting them. And, if you have > 80% mask usage, then you can re-open things which aren't bars and movie theaters and concerts without extraordinary risk. If you're in an area where the population is going to fight mask usage and continue to throw parties and go to bars, then you're in an area where you're going to see a lot of spread and death this winter.

We're in a fucked up situation in the US, in that, right now, the virus is endemic and growing in all 50 states, but the states being worst afflicted now have huge rural swaths and are politically disinclined to believe that COVID is "real", or wear masks. We have a president who quite possibly would have died from COVID if they hadn't had access to state-of-the-art treatment that I could not get access to at basically any price point, and is now downplaying the severity of the virus.

Reality is broken. I am happy to be in the woods.

Everyone agreeing to this this would lead to the most broke-brained views here having literally nothing to say, or worse, having to actually reevaluate their objectively wrong and socially toxic opinions, so... good luck!

You can lead a whore to culture, and all that. Er, is that how that saying goes? My 11th grade art teacher may have misled me

 

He is not an American.

Are you talking about yourself?

You accused me of "opposing science". I guess you view "science" as Sages telling us what to think.

I love it how you make your accusations and are incapable of addressing the nonexistent excess mortality (see my post above) as well as nonexistent differences (see my post above) with the past flu seasons (e.g., this year's flu being a lot less deadly than the flu back in 1957 and 1968, when it hasn't occurred to anyone to make a big deal out of it), together with the nonexistent differences of the rate of complications (see my post above that links to the relevant Scientific paper), so you pretend that I haven't asked you about it. You're a clown.

I am familiar with and like the other version of this saying.

 

Thanks for posting this. Can't believe some are still believing everything the media tells them. I loved this one, too:

What It's Like to Believe Everything the...

 

Yes, among other things such as an overwhelmed health systems, elderly people dying. Young people getting severe cases. I like to think that when most scientists agree on something, it's probably right.

Because of what I hear from people that had it for a known fact, and articles like this. To be honest the potential for lasting lung damage is what scares me the most.

I also think it's different because of what most scientists agree on and that a government has no benefit in shutting down half of its economy.

But what makes you think this is all a big lie somehow? I haven't been following this thread, genuine question.

 

This is one of the problems. I’d go as far as to say that most people believe the virus is fake in the UK as the sheer amount of conspiracy posts across social media and elsewhere is staggering.

A second national lockdown in this country would take many jobs and industries to breaking point, and this would lead to millions of job losses and businesses going bust (there are already local lockdowns, including where I live). The first lockdown came with financial support to help people get through. This included the job furlough scheme, grants for businesses, grants for the self-employed, and more money for those who were on benefits. This time they are expecting people to stay at home with no financial support, so I can't see how it can possibly work. Nobody is going to allow themselves to become destitute and/or starve to death. So, without further financial aid, people will continue to go out and earn a living.

The virus is now endemic. It will still be here waiting to infect us when the next lockdown is lifted, so it’s akin to kicking the can down the road. It doesn’t solve anything but rather delays the inevitable, in my opinion. Only a vaccine at this point can stop its spread and we know they take years to develop safely. I wouldn’t trust anything that affects my immune system this early on, in all honesty. Nobody knows how safe a vaccine will be without seeing some kind of mid to longterm data on its effects.

The first lockdown was about flattening the curve to stop our healthcare system from becoming overwhelmed, which was successful. I fear there is now a bigger risk to the public because of the huge waiting times that are developing for all those with serious health conditions. We still can’t directly access a GP over here. There are many hoops to jump through. In fact, my father-in-law has a suspicious mark on his forehead that could potentially be cancerous, but unbelievably, when he rang his Dr he said he couldn’t see him and asked him to describe it over the phone (and he wouldn’t refer him). All appointments here are now via phone and it’s caused us problems with our kids as well. It’s been a nightmare. I asked a GP friend of mine to have a look at my father-in-law’s head and she told him he needs to be referred as it could be a rodent ulcer (basal cell carcinoma). My wife’s follow-up appointments were cancelled because of the coronavirus (she had a third degree tear following the birth of our son and lost two and a half litres of blood), and they also said that her physio sessions would be done over the phone (then they cancelled those as well).

This pandemic is a difficult situation with no clear solutions. I have noticed that there are now experts petitioning our government not to go through with another lockdown.