People who have had COVID more than once are two to three times more likely to have a variety of serious physical disorders than those who have had them just once, according to the first primary study on the topic.
Multiple infections are increasing as the pandemic rumbles and the virus mutates into new strains, the effects of reinfection on long-term fitness are unclear.
U. S. researchers U. S. officials said their new study published in the journal Nature Medicine was the first to read about how reinfection increases the risk of fitness disorders similar to acute and prolonged cases of COVID.
Researchers analyzed the anonymized medical records of another 5. 8 million people in the U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ national health care database. U. S.
More than 443,000 more people tested positive for COVID at least once between March 1, 2020, and April this year.
Nearly 41,000 of this organization have had COVID more than once. More than 93% had a total of two infections, while 6% had 3 and only about 1% had four.
The remaining 5. 3 million never COVID.
When the researchers analyzed the fitness results of other groups, they found that “people who have been reinfected have a greater threat of all sorts of unwanted fitness problems,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington in St. Louis and leader of the study. author, told AFP.
People with repeated infections were twice as likely to die and three times as likely to be hospitalized for an illness as those who had not been reinfected, according to the study.
Heart and lung disease were more than three times more common in other people who had been reinfected.
Reinfection also contributes to brain conditions, kidney disease and diabetes, according to the study. And the threat of such disorders could simply pile up with infection, he suggested.
Al-Aly warned that this means continued reinfections “would likely increase the burden of disease in the population. “
Before a dreaded COVID spike in the holiday season, he asked other people to wear masks to protect themselves.
He also suggested the government do more to save it from the flow of COVID.
“The explanation for why reinfection exists is that our existing vaccine strategy does not block transmission,” he said. “I think reinfections will continue until we have vaccines that block transmission, offer longer-lasting coverage and are variant-proof. “
The authors said the limitations of the study included the fact that most of the veteran participants were older white men.
When the study was published as a preprint in June, US expert Eric Topol described the findings as “concerning”.
In a Substack article, Topol noted that reinfections are “much more common” after April, when the era of testing ended, due to new, more transmissible variants of Omicron.
In more positive news, earlier this week, Al-Aly published a pre-printed study, which has not been peer-reviewed, that found that other people who took Pfizer’s Paxlovid drug within five days of testing positive had a lower risk of contracting COVID long-term.
The explanation for why reinfection exists is that our existing vaccine strategy does not block transmission,” he said. “I think reinfections will continue until we have vaccines that block transmission, provide longer-lasting coverage, and are variant-proof.
Reinfection can be prevented with these masks. Everyone in Japan is masked to the teeth, at least 4 times vaccinated, and yet contracting covid is alarming. This shows how effective masks and vaccines are.
“The explanation for why reinfection occurs is that our existing vaccine strategy blocks transmission. “
I guess not every single one vaccinated needs to hear that.
But I hope that those other people in spite of everything wake up and see and perceive this reality, and in spite of everything they also perceive that when it was and is discussed here before in some posters, that it was not and is not false information.
And I also hope that other vaccine-dependent people now also realize that the increased number of cases reported every day is not due to the fact that other people are not getting vaccinated.
Our existing vaccination strategy blocks transmission. “
until we have vaccines that block transmission, offer longer-lasting protection,
Everything is ready and you’re done!
Reinfection can be prevented with these masks. Everyone in Japan is masked to the teeth, at least 4 times vaccinated, and yet contracting covid is alarming. This shows how effective masks and vaccines are.
This is incorrect, for this you want a comparable population in demographics that does not use masks and vaccines and has no more instances, without this parameter, it is so you know if not using those measures would end up with 2, 3 or 10 times more instances than currently.
I guess not every single one vaccinated needs to hear that.
You are confused, the other people who try to live in denial are the ones who have a strong anticlinical bias and think that their own private party is the only valid evidence. For the rest of the people who can be rational and open, clinical evidence is not something to avoid, on the contrary it is the only thing that will allow us to make better decisions.
But I hope that those other people in spite of everything wake up and see and perceive this reality, and in spite of everything they also perceive that when it was and is discussed here before in some posters, that it was not and is not false information.
What has been called incorrect information is when other people say that vaccines (or masks or other measures) surely have no effect on transmission, which is false. any problems
And I also hope that other vaccine-dependent people now also realize that the increased number of cases reported every day is not due to the fact that other people are not getting vaccinated.
Who said that? Not being vaccinated increases the threat of infection, however, this is not the only obvious explanation for why to have cases, especially since vaccination aims to basically reduce the chances of infection, which is included in the article here, in the last component that you are looking for notoriously very difficult to mention.
At this point, we have options.
One is to pay attention to the experts and do anything that reduces the risk, whether it’s infection and after it.
Another is to reject expert recommendation and do what you think is right based on your private experience, which for many means not taking covid seriously and even refusing vaccination due to an irrational confidence that things can only be one hundred percent or 0% effective. .
Correction, vaccination and medication are those that can reduce either of the two types of dangers (infections and complications) as indicated in the last section of the article.
I don’t know if that includes asymptomatic reinfection. I mean, if you don’t have any symptoms, are you at a much lower risk of later health problems?
I don’t know if that includes asymptomatic reinfection. I mean, if you don’t have any symptoms, are you at a much lower risk of later health problems?
The main source indicates that the cases were collected from a medical database, which would mean that the positive cases did not come from random or universal testing, but from other people who had an explanation for why they should undergo selective testing (had symptoms). This means that the effects of the article would apply to symptomatic patients (both from infection and reinfection) without knowing whether the same conclusions can be applied to others who have never had symptoms.
That vaccines are not enough to absolutely prevent transmission
Do you perceive the “do not blocks”?
* “The explanation for why reinfection occurs is that our existing vaccination strategy * blocks transmission”,
It has nothing to do with “not enough to prevent transmission”,
It obviously says:* “It does NOT block transmissions”. *
This word obviously debunks everything that you and all vaccine addicts have been here for many months.
Before a dreaded COVID spike in the holiday season, he asked other people to wear masks to protect themselves.
I guess other people shouldn’t listen to that. And this:
Earlier this week, Al-Aly published a pre-printed study, which was not peer-reviewed, that found that other people who took Pfizer’s Paxlovid drug within five days of testing positive had a lower risk of contracting COVID long-term.
You base your ideals on a phrase
This word obviously debunks everything that you and all vaccine addicts have been here for many months.
Proof that you what to believe.
Do you perceive the “do not blocks”?
Is your assumption that anything that doesn’t work perfectly mean it has no use for that goal invalid, as evidenced by the knowledge experts use to conclude that vaccines can transmit, even if not completely?There is clear evidence that vaccines specifically transmit.
It has nothing to do with “not enough to prevent transmission”,
Yes, this means that vaccines alone are not sufficient for transmission, but not because the erroneous conclusion is reached that they do not help at all.
This word obviously debunks everything that you and all vaccine addicts have been here for many months.
No, it’s your non-public bias that seeks to replace anything very transparent to mean what you need to believe. Nothing in the article means that vaccines do not help, it is the same thing that has been said since the appearance of variants and that is that past immunity (of any kind) is not enough to save you from infection or reinfection in all cases.
The unfortunate thing is that other people who concentrate only on studies and forget about reality, Array. . . And even now, there is a study whose conclusion obviously shows before your eyes as, * “Our current vaccine strategy does not block transmission. “Array. . . Even so, those other people are still looking for excuses to keep the bubble they live in running.
And that’s one of the reasons why so much incorrect information about vaccines and their opposition to the spread of the virus continues to circulate among the population.
Because those other people will never settle for what is obviously displayed and demonstrated before their eyes because it puts everything in their bubbles, and they will never admit the fact and remain consistent with all kinds of excuses.
But yes, this is the moment we are in. . .
The unfortunate thing is that there are other people who concentrate only on studies and forget about reality.
If a smoker tells you the same thing so that you don’t let him smoke all day in the presence of your child, would you settle for this argument?
Even so, those other people still have excuses to make the bubble they live in work.
This applies more to other people who seek to force a meaning even when the argument is transparent and they can’t do anything about it, insisting on the same debunked argument surely does nothing to make it less invalid. Vaccines have shown a transmission-reducing effect, nothing in the article contradicts this.
And that’s one of the reasons why so much incorrect information about vaccines and their opposition to the spread of the virus continues to circulate among the population.
Misinformation is easily recognizable, it opposes clinical consensus. When no official communication can be found saying that vaccines do nothing to slow transmission, a single user saying “do not block” can only mean “totally opposite to this end,” which is enough to see that he opposes what can be objectively tested.
Because those other people will never settle for what is obviously displayed and demonstrated before their eyes.
Exactly, they will then insist on a forced meaning of a word and put non-public conclusions in the mouths of experts who have said no such thing to validate their own non-public bias in an invalid appeal to authority. It’s the same as saying that eating healthy nutrition is helping to decrease the threat of cancer and some other user says that nutrition is dead because it doesn’t “eliminate” that possibility.
And @Elvis. . .
I hope you now understand that what we were talking about about the other 60,000 infected people, that the “probably” we were talking about, has now been replaced by “almost certain. “
You can now be pretty sure that many of the 60,000 inflamed people are vaccinated.
Because they offer longer-lasting coverage and are variant-proof and the existing vaccination strategy blocks transmission. “
Thanks for your reply, virusrex. I wonder why a bunch of thumbs down.
Paper:
“The dangers were evident regardless of vaccination status. “Both for those who provide protection. . .
“The explanation for why it’s reinfection is that our existing vaccination strategy* doesn’t block transmission. “
It has nothing to do with “not enough to prevent transmission”,
It obviously says:* “It does NOT block transmissions”.
In fact, the “not enough to prevent transmission” gives the false impression that the relief in transmission is still very high, when in fact all knowledge shows that it is very close to 0% relief.
Paper:
“The dangers were evident regardless of vaccination status. “Both for those who provide protection. . .
Since the benefits of vaccination come with the relief and elimination of symptoms from which they would benefit (since screening is not random or systematic, regardless of symptoms)
Therefore, his conclusion is completely invalid. If vaccines at the same time reduced the risk of fitness disorders and covid symptoms, this study would not be able to stumble upon it, so no, as the authors clearly say in the study limitation of this report. be used to succeed in the conclusion you draw.
Repeated infections. . . Despite all those that vaccination will prevent the virus from running its course
You mean that all the promises you mention can never be fulfilled because they were never made?Well, since those aren’t genuine things said by experts, you’re just refuting your own false argument. Vaccines are very effective at doing what they do. Truly promised, and better yet, because they still have a risk-reducing effect even when infection occurs through variants that were not intended when vaccines were developed, anything that has been made transparent would probably not happen.