Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 298 posts

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#201

Post by pmiller2 »

GuB-42 wrote: post #176
headsupftw wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my coworkers, who is a staunch supporter for wearing face masks to protect against coronavirus, wears an N95 the entire time he's in the office. Yesterday he claimed he's having chest discomfort (which is what some people will feel when they wear N95 24x7 awake) and went to a hospital to demand a test for coronavirus infection. Needless to say his request got declined and he's doing just fine but I am simply s…

Nocebo effect? If you are thinking about coronavirus, you are more likely to feel the symptoms of a coronavirus infection, or what you think are the symptoms.

Paranoia is more like it. N95 masks make it harder to breathe, which can lead to mild chest pain.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#202

Post by nopinsight »

odyssey7 wrote: post #185
aazaa wrote: post #10

From the paper: > If the neuroinvasion of SARS-CoV-2 does take a part in the development of respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, the precaution with masks will absolutely be the most effective measure to protect against the possible entry of the virus into the CNS. It may also be expected that the symptoms of the patients infected via facal-oral or conjunctival route will be lighter than those infected intranasa…

Why not use a cheap noseclip for swimming? Perfectly leak-free. The paper suggests intranasal transmission is what you most want to avoid. > It may also be expected that the symptoms of the patients infected via facal-oral or conjunctival route will be lighter than those infected intranasally.

Self-infection is very plausible. Once someone has it in their body, some minor action can transfer it from one organ to another. No one can stay vigilant of their own body 24-7.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#203

Post by el_benhameen »

fooey wrote: post #144
Proziam wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen very different estimates. I'm gonna go off on a limb and say that there's probably more misinformation out there than real information. People should remain calm, take [0]reasonable precautions, and make decisions based on the latest information from credible sources such as the [1]CDC - rather than the media. [0] https://twitter.com/eugenegu/status/1235247642814214145 [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/20…

The 40-70% number is from a Harvard Professor of Epidemiology https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-many-people-might-one-perso... > “I think it is likely we’ll see a global pandemic,” said Marc Lipsitch, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “If a pandemic happens, 40% to 70% of people world-wide are likely to be infected in the coming year. What proportion of those will be symptomatic…

He has since revised his estimate down to 20-60%. Which is still a lot, of course, but I think reflects the uncertainty here. He's also been very clear about mitigating factors and the uncertainty on his twitter account.

https://twitter.com/mlipsitch/status/1234879949946814464

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#204

Post by _rrnv »

aazaa wrote: post #10

From the paper: > If the neuroinvasion of SARS-CoV-2 does take a part in the development of respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, the precaution with masks will absolutely be the most effective measure to protect against the possible entry of the virus into the CNS. It may also be expected that the symptoms of the patients infected via facal-oral or conjunctival route will be lighter than those infected intranasa…

This! It really boggles the mind that officials would discourage wearing masks (even surgical masks). You see, the best way to stop COVID-19 is to thwart its infectious potential. And this is done by two things: everybody wears masks (since nobody knows they are contagious until it's too late) and everybody washes hands constantly. But nooo, no need to panic, this is not Asia, this is The West... Freedom!... x_x

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#205

Post by empath75 »

Symmetry wrote: post #147
tjt wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is super scary. Before I read this I was happily thinking hey it's no worse than flu. Now... I'm wishing I didn't live in a huge city riding the subway daily.

Learning about the mechanism by which it kills shouldn't change our estimates of the lethality of the disease. We already knew that for most people it was just a bad flue but a noticeable fraction of those infected needed to get to an ICU. Now we just have a better idea of why.

we actually have no idea what the long term effects are.

Some people seem to be bothered by it for months after.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#206

Post by droithomme »

morpheuskafka wrote: post #15
aazaa wrote: post #10

From the paper: > If the neuroinvasion of SARS-CoV-2 does take a part in the development of respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, the precaution with masks will absolutely be the most effective measure to protect against the possible entry of the virus into the CNS. It may also be expected that the symptoms of the patients infected via facal-oral or conjunctival route will be lighter than those infected intranasa…

Yes, only a N95 or better mask would protect you from incoming, as opposed to outgoing, viruses, and these masks are both impractical for everyday wear and need to be conserved for public health users.

> only a N95 or better mask would protect you from incoming

That is not only completely false but is extremely dangerous misinformation.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190903134732.h...

> The study reported 'no significant difference in the effectiveness' of medical masks vs. N95 respirators for prevention of influenza or other viral respiratory illness.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#207

Post by sebazzz »

sndean wrote: post #153
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably their effectiveness is reduced then, rather than negated. Aren't they just close bound fibres that form a filter?

Yeah probably reduced, but it may be more to do with them becoming contaminated. The link points to a study saying > One study found that nurses averaged 25 touches per shift to their face, eyes, or N95 respirator during extended use. How problematic that touching is probably scales with how problematic your environment is. They're pretty sponge-like. Wearing a surgical mask over an N95 would help a lot. In a control…

> Yeah probably reduced, but it may be more to do with them becoming contaminated.

How effective is the virus after the mask has been unused for a while (so "cold", like a doorknob or a desk)? If it is not, the mask should be good to go then, doesn't it?

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#208

Post by tguedes »

vorticalbox wrote: post #37

Question what effect is vaping having on the spread? Walking in a city in the UK I see people leave large plumes of vaper which seems to me be an excellent transport system. Warm and wet.

There have been some theories (that has not been tested at all) that hot and humid climates might be less susceptible to the virus due to the virus not surviving in the air as long. Not sure if this can be applied to small vapor clouds though.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#209

Post by whatshisface »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #179
mobilefriendly wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to see the NIH summary though. Gives the study credibility.

Which is actually a problem. Not uncommon to see obvious sham science propagated with an official-looking PubMed link at nih.gov. "I'm allergic to WiFi." "No, you're not. Nobody is allergic to WiFi." "Yes, I am. Here's an official PubMed citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26372109 . Why do you hate science?"

>Provocation studies on EMF have yielded different results, ranging from where people with EHS cannot discriminate between an active RF signal and placebo, to objectively observed changes following exposure in reactions of the pupil, changes in heart rhythm, damage to erythrocytes, and disturbed glucose metabolism in the brain.

The paper you linked admits that there are studies that show it's the same as a placebo. Just because most people aren't qualified to realize that the studies in the first half of the sentence might be more reliable than the studies in the second half doesn't mean the paper shouldn't be published.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#210

Post by endorphone »

It is interesting how absolutely passionate some people are about masks. There is a pretty heady contingent here that seems to be of the "I DID MY PART" sort (by mindlessly pushing an absurd anti-science anti-mask angle -- I was one of the silly minority countering it a few days ago, to very little effect).

"If you wear a mask your testicles will shrink and everyone will hate you!"

But the more important question: Is it time to stop trimming nose hairs?

Post reply on HN