My best friend is a pediatric neurologist and he tells me looking at the images of children who had severe covid - the amount of brain damage is disheartening. It's hard to tell what the long term effects are but he says the images show the same type of scarring you'd see in early onset Parkinson disease and he thinks that in 15 years there is going to be a lot of cases of this amongst young adults. Keep in mind that brain damage is not uncommon in anyone with COVID - all those cases of people losing their sense of smell - that's brain damage.
Loss of smell (temporary) is likely due to impact on the olfactory receptors in the nose (from the immune system attacking covid19 virus). But the same mechanism (disruption of chromosomal regulation of gene expression) that causes the loss of smell is believed to cause neurological problems. We still don't know the full impact of covid, but we know that covid isn't just a respiratory disease. It likely alters the body permanently and for some, the impact is very severe immediately and continues for months (long covid). For others, the impact might not be as obvious or might show up later (the mechanism suggests this is possible). My general take is it's foolish to gamble with this. Go get vaccinated and boosted. There is now a new covid Bivalent booster that is specifically designed for the current predominant strain (plus the initial strain) for 12+. Everyone should get it. When it's approved for under 12, all of them should get it too. Non-cell-autonomous disruption of nuclear architecture as a potential cause of COVID-19-induced anosmia: Cell SARS-CoV-2 infects less than 1% of cells in the human body, yet it can cause severe damage in a variety of organs. Thus, deciphering the non-cell-autonomous effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection is imperative for understanding the cellular and molecular disruption it elicits. Neurological and cognitive defects are among the least understood symptoms of COVID-19 patients, with olfactory dysfunction being their most common sensory deficit. Here, we show that both in humans and hamsters, SARS-CoV-2 infection causes widespread downregulation of olfactory receptors (ORs) and of their signaling components. This non-cell-autonomous effect is preceded by a dramatic reorganization of the neuronal nuclear architecture, which results in dissipation of genomic compartments harboring OR genes. Our data provide a potential mechanism by which SARS-CoV-2 infection alters the cellular morphology and the transcriptome of cells it cannot infect, offering insight to its systemic effects in olfaction and beyond.
I can see @AroundTheWorld points around lockdowns even I don't 100% agree with him - there are times when I think it's been overzealously applied by gov'ts that want to appear to be doing something or afraid of the risks of looking bad if an outbreak gets out of hand. I understand the pushback against masks even. But I don't understand the pushback against the vaccine - especially when the mrna COVID vaccine was tested as part of one of the largest human trials for a drug in the history of of this planet. It's safe. The biggest risk is an allergic reaction but outside even the myocardial issues are simply milder forms of what you get when you get COVID. I'm truly puzzled at the pushback against vaccines. People say they don't know the long term effects of the vaccine. We do! What we don't know is the long-term impact on our health that COVID has, and given the number of long-Covid cases and the cardiovascular / neurological damage we are seeing from this disease, death is not the only downside of getting covid.
DeSantis is 100 % right. The same goes for nurses, doctors, teachers, etc. Nobody should have ever lost their job because of vax mandates.
Dereliction of duty. If they can't be relied upon during times of crisis, they should not be welcomed back.
Nonsense. The vaccine - at best - increases your own protection from a severe progression of the disease. It doesn't prevent transmission. All these mandates were inappropriate, ineffective, and disproportionate.
Not to vaccines, but to mandates in cases where the vaccine does not prevent transmission - yes. It's amazing that that is even still being debated at all. Data and science clearly show that these vaccines do not prevent transmission. Hence, the whole basis of "protecting others" to justify a mandate is gone.
Nope. We already have a standard of certain vaccines to to participate in certain societal activities. You are certainly free to not engage in those mandates, but there are consequences.
Legally, you are wrong. If the vaccine does not fulfill the stated purpose of why a mandate is enacted, then the justification for the consequences is gone.
It is. It might take some time to go to the Supreme Court, but that is what would ultimately be decided. If you looked outside the US, you would see a lot of countries already quietly rolling back their vax mandates. They are indefensible (and counter-productive - taking valuable healthcare workers out of the system when they are urgently needed).
I assume you understand that "prevent transmission" is an ambiguous phrase. It could mean prevents any transmission, or it could mean prevents some transmission (i.e., makes one less infectious). Which meaning are you using? I don't think data and science clearly show vaccines have zero effect on infectiousness, if that's your meaning. Can you point to a study that says this?
That's not the legal standard to institute a mandate for a forced medical intervention without which you lose your job.
It seems to me that if your job is to care for vulnerable, sick people in a hospital, following general vaccine recommendations to reduce risk of infecting patients is a reasonable occupational requirement during a pandemic. But who says legal standards have to be reasonable.
