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

81–90 of 298 posts

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#81

Post by DantesKite »

shanxS wrote: post #51
jxy wrote: post #26

I see a lot of "may", "possible", "if", ... Is this how people typically write a paper to Medical Virology?

> Is this how people typically write a paper to Medical Virology? I wont assume that (I am software engg.) I see where you are coming from. Here is my perspective, think of this like a outage of your service. No one has exact answers so team starts to dive in and starts sharing what they find. These findings mostly prune the "solution space" of the problem.

I love that phrase: "...prune the 'solution space' of the problem."

Feels like a new weapon was added to my cognitive toolkit.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#82

Post by aqme28 »

thijsvandien wrote: post #32

As a side observation: most reporting seems rather binary, i.e. you either die or survive, period. What interests me the most, however, is how often survival means full recovery, especially now that the nervous system comes up. Are there any long term effects? Should one generally expect to come out of it worse, the same, or stronger? I'm much less afraid to die from this than to end up with chronic respiratory and/o…

This is also something I'm curious about.

SARS caused permanent lung damage in a large proportion of the survivors, sometimes to a debilitating extent. How common is that with nCov?

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#83

Post by Proziam »

mobilefriendly wrote: post #79
Proziam wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT - Just to be clear, I'm not saying that people shouldn't take precautions or that it's not worth protecting vulnerable groups. I'm simply suggesting that perhaps there is news coverage about other things (remember the whole Hong Kong situation that we aren't hearing about suddenly?) that might still deserve some air time. The media is profiting off this story big time. It's like when the plane went missing and a…

SARS, which is closely related to Covid-19, has caused chronic problems in some patients. Here's a reputable source on that from 2010: https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2010/09/02/sars...

I appreciate the source. I'm still hopeful that the long-term effects of Covid-19 will turn out to be less dramatic than SARS but only time will tell I suppose.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#85

Post by NhanH »

Proziam wrote: post #63
thijsvandien wrote: post #32

As a side observation: most reporting seems rather binary, i.e. you either die or survive, period. What interests me the most, however, is how often survival means full recovery, especially now that the nervous system comes up. Are there any long term effects? Should one generally expect to come out of it worse, the same, or stronger? I'm much less afraid to die from this than to end up with chronic respiratory and/o…

EDIT - Just to be clear, I'm not saying that people shouldn't take precautions or that it's not worth protecting vulnerable groups. I'm simply suggesting that perhaps there is news coverage about other things (remember the whole Hong Kong situation that we aren't hearing about suddenly?) that might still deserve some air time. The media is profiting off this story big time. It's like when the plane went missing and a…

It is getting annoying that people keeps comparing different numbers to make their points. If you are using 0.2% mortality rate in a healthy population, you have to compare it with the flu mortality's rate in a healthy population, which is still a magnitude lower. It's disgraceful, to be honest, to compare mortality rates on different population at all. And I'm just gonna quote your link directly to make my point, I'm fairly upset at people calling it a bad flu at this point.

"While this correction does not change the assessment that COVID-19 exhibits severe pandemic potential in the absence of effective interventions, the shift in framing brought about by this three-fold revision from ‘possibly comparable to the 1957 flu but not 1918’ to ‘possibly comparable to 1918’ may meaningfully impact risk perception."

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#86

Post by pbhjpbhj »

jrandm wrote: post #52
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a legitimate question here. Intuitively, if a non-N95 mask only stops 25% or 50% of incoming viruses, that still seems helpful? It's worth noting that in countries where wearing masks is normalized, making sure the general public can get some is a top priority.

My layman's understanding is that any barrier will stop some percent of most things. In the case of small, airborne particles, this stopped percentage of already-dry, floating material is very small. That means inhaling through them is relatively ineffective at stopping you from inhaling the particles. When you exhale it is more wet and the moisture causes the barrier to catch more of the airborne particles. The barr…

Would you agree a fair corollary of that is: if everyone wears masks then spreading of the contagion would be reduced considerably.

It may primarily be about preventing spread from those infected, but that's still super helpful.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#88

Post by allendoerfer »

Proziam wrote: post #63
thijsvandien wrote: post #32

As a side observation: most reporting seems rather binary, i.e. you either die or survive, period. What interests me the most, however, is how often survival means full recovery, especially now that the nervous system comes up. Are there any long term effects? Should one generally expect to come out of it worse, the same, or stronger? I'm much less afraid to die from this than to end up with chronic respiratory and/o…

EDIT - Just to be clear, I'm not saying that people shouldn't take precautions or that it's not worth protecting vulnerable groups. I'm simply suggesting that perhaps there is news coverage about other things (remember the whole Hong Kong situation that we aren't hearing about suddenly?) that might still deserve some air time. The media is profiting off this story big time. It's like when the plane went missing and a…

Also is Australia still burning? A burning continent seemed important before the virus, not anymore.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#89

Post by T-A »

thijsvandien wrote: post #32

As a side observation: most reporting seems rather binary, i.e. you either die or survive, period. What interests me the most, however, is how often survival means full recovery, especially now that the nervous system comes up. Are there any long term effects? Should one generally expect to come out of it worse, the same, or stronger? I'm much less afraid to die from this than to end up with chronic respiratory and/o…

There's a "nice" damage report here:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/02/here-is-w...

If it gets to the point of causing pneumonia, you may end up with permanent loss of lung tissue. If it spreads to the rest of the body, liver and kidney damage are also on the menu.

Re: The neuroinvasive potential of SARS-CoV2

#90

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

sombremesa wrote: post #66

I've only read the abstract, and it seems to clearly say that the virus can get to the brain via the lungs. So I have no idea what people ITT are on about regarding purposeful infection or masks for prevention. Regardless, this abstract also does not explain the mildness of the disease except for the immunocompromised and elderly, which to me renders the link between how you get the infection and fatality a bit suspi…

If you read more than the abstract, it explains that animals that are infected nasally have much higher rates of brain infection than the fecal-oral route of infection.

Edit: changed "oral/fecal" to "fecal-oral," thanks calmworm. Also removed a period.

Post reply on HN