Getting closer but still not there.
First of all the claim made by that quoted doctor is simply incorrect- no we don’t “know that SARS-CoV-2 viral particles can remain dormant in neurons for many years”. It literally is not something that we can know yet as the virus has not been around for many years. Secondly the claim quoted is not claiming reactivation in those cells occurs.
FWIW the Medscape article you linked to is referencing this review. Here’s what the source article actually says:
[Continued due to post size restrictions.]
So let’s be very clear. The source review makes no claim that reactivation in neuron occurs, does speculate that direct invasion of neurons is plausible albeit with little to no evidence that it happens. But maybe possible.
And following the cite trail, that author’s reference for the claim that SARS-CoV2 “can remain inside some neurons without being acutely toxic” leads to this article, which in fact says nothing of the kind. Not even remotely. (Some reviewer did not do their job there.)
As of now there the evidence is that most brain impacts seem to be immune mediated or stroke related, not directly viral-mediated, some evidence of the ability to cross the blood brain barrier but mostly NOT finding SARS-CoV2 in CSF except very rarely, and NO evidence of brain neurons with SARS-CoV2 in them, let alone evidence that such infections stay dormant and reactivate. Everything from it can in some cases cross the blood brain barrier is speculations as to what might theoretically be possible.
There is a well recognized syndrome called Post-ICU Syndrome or PICS. Here’s a layperson accessible article, but you can google up pages more of them: Post-intensive Care Syndrome (PICS) | SCCM
COVID as such doesn’t cause PICS, but if COVID puts you into an ICU on a ventilator, at least some aspects of PICS are more likely than not to be part of your future.
I believe the implication in the article is that some aspects of SarsCovid2 are identical to other diseases. I realize this doesn’t constitute firm evidence in your book. It seems you’re unwilling to accept anything about this that’s based on logical reasoning and the evidence we have so far as opposed to years of hard evidence. We don’t have years of hard evidence amassed yet on this virus, yet many of the decisions–reopening schools, the conditions under which businesses can operate–have to be made now, hopefully based on the evidence we do have and the sound reasoning of scientists.
Yeah, those claims about blood-brain and reactivation are definitely speculative, and quite possibly wrong.
78% of COVID-19 patients show signs of heart damage after recovery
Not necessarily long term damage but goes along with some posts in the thread.
How can you have confirmed long-term effects of anything that hasn’t existed for even a year yet?
Your post in the thread on July 1.
My last post in consistent with your post on July 1. Since I’m the only person to reply to this thread in 25 days, are you responding to my post?
No-I had forgotten I had already responded to the OP. Sorry.
In a sense we can have confirmed long term effects already.
To name a ridiculous example, if COVID made people’s left leg fall off 4 months after they recover from acute COVID, they’d certainly have long-term consequences for the rest of their lives. And we’ve had enough people with 4 months post-COVID under their belt today to see this effect. So we could accurately predict the impact of one-leggedness on their QOL e.g. 10 years from now even though we don’t have 10 years’ experience with COVID.
Ref @Heffalump_and_Roo’s cited article: Heart damage doesn’t heal all that well. So we can start to predict the long term consequences for that cohort for that cause already. The error bars are large, but shrinking.
I’m not a doctor.
From the article linked above:
“Our findings demonstrate that participants with a relative paucity of preexisting cardiovascular condition and with mostly home-based recovery had frequent cardiac inflammatory involvement, which was similar to the hospitalized subgroup with regards to severity and extent. Our observations are concordant with early case reports in hospitalized patients showing a frequent presence of late gadolinium enhancement, diffuse inflammatory involvement, and significant rise of troponin T levels.”
What does this actually mean in context? How concerned should people be? Here’s the full article:
Question What are the cardiovascular effects in unselected patients with recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?
Findings In this cohort study including 100 patients recently recovered from COVID-19 identified from a COVID-19 test center, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging revealed cardiac involvement in 78 patients (78%) and ongoing myocardial inflammation in 60 patients (60%), which was independent of preexisting conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness, and the time from the original diagnosis.
Meaning These findings indicate the need for ongoing investigation of the long-term cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19.
I find reading the actual abstract of articles related to COVID-19 is usually superior to reading headlines/news articles. To me, again not a doctor, this paper doesn’t seem to be something we can draw any firm conclusions from.
I was wondering about this as I was reading the article. I don’t know how much heart damage can heal, and the article didn’t specify. I’ve also seen articles about relatively high levels of brain damage after people have had covid-19. That’s another organ that may not heal as readily or as much as other parts of the body.