Interesting article re Covid and age it effects

[Baileysforchristmas]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55586994

That is indeed interesting. The article clearly states that the pattern of risk across age groups has not changed during the pandemic.

So, as stated in the article the risk of death is still 0.1% for people under 40, rising to 5% for people over 80.

The risk of death might not have changed, but it's still really hard to find information about the risk of Long Covid and who it's more likely to affect - which is more of a concern for younger people (say under 60).

I do find this reassuring. It is still awful but the odds aren't stacked against most of us🤞🤞

Thanks for sharing it. It helps to put worries about the children at rest. I think I will be fully assured till she gets the vaccine, if that ever happens!
The graph for admissions follow a clear age pattern, but the one for critical care does not follow.
Is this because the majority of those 85+ admitted do not even make it to that stage?

@MushMonster it'll be because at that age they won't survive ventiatlion I think.

I would like them to present the information about long covid by age groups too indeed. Maybe including severity or defining it after a certain point.
Some people seems t be weak for months. Others for around one month. Not sure from which point is classed as long covid?

@MushMonster

Thanks for sharing it. It helps to put worries about the children at rest. I think I will be fully assured till she gets the vaccine, if that ever happens! The graph for admissions follow a clear age pattern, but the one for critical care does not follow. Is this because the majority of those 85+ admitted do not even make it to that stage?

My reading of the critical care graph was of clear evidence of 'rationing / prioritisation' based ion age. Younger ages appear to be being prioritised for ICU treatment.

Thanks January and cantkeep.

@RedskyAtnight

The risk of death might not have changed, but it's still really hard to find information about the risk of Long Covid and who it's more likely to affect - which is more of a concern for younger people (say under 60).

Becayse it’s still relatively rare irrelevant of the media scare stories of folks claiming to have it. And for those who do seek treatment there is an element that some of it at least is very likely to be psychosomatic.

Of course if you are severely ill with it, then longer term damage to your body is a given, but much of the stories folks habe isn’t that, they basically said they got ill. Never needed hospital and then just never got better. However no evidence can be found of why that is, hence why there is a concern it is in their heads.

However no evidence can be found of why that is, hence why there is a concern it is in their heads.

I would be a bit wary of that conclusion. Severe ME / CFS patients have symptoms very, very similar to long Covid (I suspect they may end up being recognised as variants of the same disease), and false dismissal of ME / CFS as psychosomatic has plagued that very real illness forever.

Psychosomatic for an illness that takes people into critical care needing ventilation does not add up to me at all.
Also, they have already published the reason for long covid, with the lungs cells merging after covid. Also clots. They found a good number of clots in the lungs during autopsies. Not sure if this applies to all patients. Maybe someone medical can help.
But surely it is a real illness, I have zero doubts of this.

@Bluntness100 In their heads?!

@Bluntness100, the latest ONS study shows up to 1 in 4 get long Covid.
And multi organ damage has been found in sufferers.
So no, not in their heads - although it can affect the brain - in their hearts, kidneys, lungs etc.

There 100% are people long term affected.
Whether that is everyone that thinks so is another matter. Obviously exacerbated by the lack of health cafe right now so some people probably had something else in march for eg that could have been identified if they had been able to see gp.

For some could be strees over the covid situation it has been a horrible year. And diet and exercise habits have changed.

Unfortunately some of the long covid issues are probably hard to treat
Fast heart rate
Stomach issues
Muscle twitches
Fevers
Breathing issues

Too many people with the same problems to be coincidence.I

There was that dr xand or other one who had a heart problem after.

There was a study from china and found long term issues there when they checked recently. Insomnia and i think fatigue.
Just hoping there wont later be things like MS diabetes, heart attacks. Dementia even (from brain fog). Some women gone into earlier menopause.

www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.19.20214494v1.full-text

Reports of “Long-COVID”, are rising but little is known about prevalence, risk factors, or whether it is possible to predict a protracted course early in the disease. We analysed data from 4182 incident cases of COVID-19 who logged their symptoms prospectively in the COVID Symptom Study app. 558 (13.3%) had symptoms lasting >28 days, 189 (4.5%) for >8 weeks and 95 (2.3%) for >12 weeks. Long-COVID was characterised by symptoms of fatigue, headache, dyspnoea and anosmia and was more likely with increasing age, BMI and female sex. Experiencing more than five symptoms during the first week of illness was associated with Long-COVID, OR=3.53 [2.76;4.50]. A simple model to distinguish between short and long-COVID at 7 days, which gained a ROC-AUC of 76%, was replicated in an independent sample of 2472 antibody positive individuals. This model could be used to identify individuals for clinical trials to reduce long-term symptoms and target education and rehabilitation services.

Of the 4182 COVID-19 swab positive users, 558 (13.3%) met the LC28 definition with a median duration of 41 days (IQR[33,63] of whom 189 (4.5%) met LC-56, and 95 (2.3%) LC94. In contrast 1591 (38.0%) had short disease duration (median 6, IQR[4-8]). The proportion with LC28 were comparable in all three separate countries (GB 13.3%, USA 16.1%, Sweden 12.1% p=0.35) and for LC56 (GB 4.7%, USA 5.5%, Sweden 2.5% p=0.07).

Table 1summarises the descriptive characteristics of the study population overall and stratifying by symptom/disease duration. Age was significantly associated with Long-COVID (LC28) rising from 9.9% in 18-49 year olds to 21.9% in those aged >=70 (p < 0.0005), with a clear escalation in OR by age decile (Figure 1b), although females aged 50-60 had the highest odds. (ST2). Individuals with Long-COVID were more likely to have required hospital assessment in the acute period. LC28 disproportionately affected women (14.9%) compared to men (9.5%), although this sex effect was not significant in the older age-group. Long-COVID affected all socio-economic groups (assessed using Index of Multiple Deprivation), (Supplementary Figure 2). Asthma was the only/unique pre-existing condition providing significant association with long-COVID-19 (OR = 2.14 [1.55-2.96]).

The Coverscan study has been conducting MRI scans of heart, lungs, liver, and pancreas of people who have had a confirmed case of COVID. They’ve found that a very high proportion of those they scanned had some degree of organ damage, some to multiple organs. The rate of cardiac damage especially was higher in those who were still reporting long COVID type symptoms at the time of the scan.

Anyone interested in long COVID should Google Coverscan. The organisation running the study is called perspectum and they have a series of webinars on YouTube giving information about their findings.

Here is a link to the Coverscan study www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4470

It makes for worrying reading however it is not a proper trial, there was no control group and although impacts on multiple organs were found it is impossible at this stage to say they were definitely becuase of the covid infection. It will be worth following to see if more robust results emerge.

Never needed hospital and then just never got better. However no evidence can be found of why that is, hence why there is a concern it is in their heads.

Anyone who thinks that way should visit forums where you find CFS/ME sufferers. Trying to minimise and deny that CFS exists or that it's all 'in your head' has been commonplace and is a very damaging attitude. Long Covid is pretty similar. Even those of us with hypothyroidism who don't recover with the standard treatment fall into that category, i.e. of being told it must be 'in your head'. It isn't. One's metabolism has gone awry, for want of a better word. The ability of mitochondria to make sufficient energy is often affected so that chronic fatigue is a result. There's nothing worse than being ill, and you know you are, then being told by the medical profession that you aren't and it's all in your head.

/end rant

The NHS is running out of ICU beds and oxygen. It will prioritise those with the best chance of survival - usually younger people but not always. In London it's war mode so you cant guarantee getting the care that would enable you to survive covid.

The longer this goes on the more damage is found in those who appear to have had "mild" infection. Initially people dont look for damage, after a while they realise they are seeing a lot of sick people, eventually they start counting. Neurological damage has been observed, lower testostorene has been observed, impacts on fertility are possible but have not been studied. So if you do survive dont count on avoiding reduced health and reduced life expectancy.

@weepingwillow22 I’m still suffering symptoms 10 months in, this is terrifying to me if true

@Frickinfreezinginthishouse Sorry I didn't mean to terrify anyone. Coverscan is a private company who will benefit from revenue from scanning so the independence of the research is questionable. I hope things improve for you soon.

Cant fuck an economy over for long covid though.

I wouldn't have expected the risk of death to have changed. Most viruses have a pattern as such.

It's the fact that hospital are getting overwhelmed because despite excellent survival rates those in 20-45 age group are still being admitted at much higher rates than is usual for a virus.

Those 45-65 are also being admitted at higher rates and seem to be very hit and miss over the outcome.

This is why the vaccination programme is designed as it is with priority groups. Once you've got those people vaccinated we should see much less level of hospitalisation and ICU use.

Of course the younger generation will still have the risk of hospitalisation but there will be a level the nhs can cope with. As Chris Whitty said "there is a socially acceptable level of death from virus"

@Flyonawalk

That is indeed interesting. The article clearly states that the pattern of risk across age groups has not changed during the pandemic.

So, as stated in the article the risk of death is still 0.1% for people under 40, rising to 5% for people over 80.

That's the average risk of death for those catching it. This is an important distinction.

Also, are we ignoring the content that has obviously been scripted in as positive light as possible?

There are more people of all ages in hospital with Covid now than in the first wave last spring - that includes the young and old.

Infections have been highest in teenagers, students and people in their 20s and 30s in recent months.

Adults aged 18-64 have accounted for 40% of daily Covid admissions to hospitals, data from Public Health England shows.
Twenty-seven deaths have occurred among under-19s who tested positive for Covid-19, according to NHS England, and 317 among 20 to 39-year-olds. That's 6 children with no underlying issues and 63 20-39 year olds! Diabetes type 2 frequently, which wouldn't be expected to "kill" this age group. Hardly a major underlying issue! Please don't underplay this report.
While most seriously ill men in intensive care were in their 60s, around 5% were in their 40s and 15% in their 50s.