Posted on 03/17/2020 12:40:25 PM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
A Belgian doctor working to battle the coronavirus says he’s treated several seriously ill young patients — and their lung scans were “nothing short of terrifying,” according to reports.
Dr. Ignace Demeyer, who works at a hospital in Aalst, said an increasing number of people between the ages of 30 and 50 have presented with severe symptoms, despite having “blank medical records” that show no underlying conditions that would make them high-risk, the Brussels Times reported.
“They just walk in, but they are terribly affected by the virus,” Demeyer told the Belgian broadcaster VRT.
He said CT scans indicated they were suffering from severe lung damage.
“The images we took yesterday are nothing short of terrifying,” the doctor told the station.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
OMG DON’T even try debating Travis he is DOOM AND GLOOM all the way!! Just ignore him!!
Actually Travis, I think you want everyone to be a deer in the headlights.
Exactly. Being young is a factor but not a guarantee of a healthy immune system. Without our immune response, there would be no animal life on this planet. Only microorganisms would exist. Everyone fights off, usually successfully, a myriad of microbial intrusions every day.
The efficacy of the immune system can be compromised by many factors, one of which is an unhealthy diet. Many young people could have sub-par immune systems because of diet.
“Slight problem is that the statistics on who has died just don’t bear this out.”
WHAT! You doubt what ONE Belgian doctor says! Your supposed to panic. Haven’t you heard that there are 1,000,000 dead!
Make that 500,000 dead.
Make it 100,000 dead.
Would you believe there are 50,000 dead?
10,000 dead! In which state? Washington? It has been there a month already.
These young people will all be high-risk for the next round of infection
To classify something like lung damage as permanent you need to go out about 6 months and then assess.
Some survivors get ILD and chronic lung scarring, never recovering fully.
Probably chronic vapers.
I posted the same on the thread that was pulled.
How likely is ground glass opacity to resolve without damage?
LOL,
That I why I posted this:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Like all things unknown, the impatience of the human being and their desire to know the outcome of all things unknowable until the outcome leads them to that inevitable, unquestionable instrument of fortune telling known as the model.
And what a better thing to put into a model when you don’t know what to by that other wonderful tool of modeling know as “assumption.”
Gee, I wonder what pops out the other end.
You need to pray that FDA hurries the few new studies on the vaccinations.
Then, volunteer for a study after phase I is finished.
Quote: “OMG DON’T even try debating Travis he is DOOM AND GLOOM all the way!! Just ignore him!!”
But how can one ignore the power of a cute ostrich cartoon. It’s a debate ender. Whip out the cartoons and go bugs bunny on their arses and its all over.
Its Corona Season, Its Panic Season, its Corona Season, its panic season.
Remember, half of the doctors were in the bottom half of their graduating class.
Absent verification and with all evidence to date pointing to almost ZERO infections with young folks I am calling this pure BS and a lame attempt for someone to get his name in the paper.
Most scientific papers are probably wrong!:
30 August 2005, By Kurt Kleiner
Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new analysis. Assuming that the new paper is itself correct, problems with experimental and statistical methods mean that there is less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper are true.
John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, says that small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false. But even large, well-designed studies are not always right, meaning that scientists and the public have to be wary of reported findings.
“We should accept that most research findings will be refuted. Some will be replicated and validated. The replication process is more important than the first discovery,” Ioannidis says.
In the paper, Ioannidis does not show that any particular findings are false. Instead, he shows statistically how the many obstacles to getting research findings right combine to make most published research wrong.
Massaged conclusions:
Traditionally a study is said to be “statistically significant” if the odds are only 1 in 20 that the result could be pure chance. But in a complicated field where there are many potential hypotheses to sift through – such as whether a particular gene influences a particular disease – it is easy to reach false conclusions using this standard. If you test 20 false hypotheses, one of them is likely to show up as true, on average.
Odds get even worse for studies that are too small, studies that find small effects (for example, a drug that works for only 10% of patients), or studies where the protocol and endpoints are poorly defined, allowing researchers to massage their conclusions after the fact.
Surprisingly, Ioannidis says another predictor of false findings is if a field is “hot”, with many teams feeling pressure to beat the others to statistically significant findings.
But Solomon Snyder, senior editor at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore, US, says most working scientists understand the limitations of published research.
“When I read the literature, I’m not reading it to find proof like a textbook. I’m reading to get ideas. So even if something is wrong with the paper, if they have the kernel of a novel idea, that’s something to think about,” he says.
“Good Lord man! Have you never met someone with lung damage?”
When I had a full physical including a stress test and that test when you blow into a tube I was told I had a 35% diminished lung capacity (probably from my earlier smoking days). This was confirmed by xrays showing the bottom part of my lungs to have a “leathery” look to them.
I took a stress test and lasted about 6 minutes and I walk 3-4 miles daily, always take the stars when available.
I’m 78 yrs old, 6’3”and weigh 185 lbs
So yes I have met someone with lung damage....me.
What’s your point?
Very good point.
i mean, this is belgium. I have no idea what they were doing. But in the United States, we have a free press that loves bad news.
If we were seeing ANY people in the 30-50 age bracket going to hospital and testing positive for CV, and showing anything like bad lungs, it would be front page news.
So I’m guessing not. It is one time when I appreciate how anti-trump our media is, I’m pretty sure they are not hiding anything from us that is bad.
Almost every death we’ve had are old people, mostly with serious pre-conditions. But I can’t find any paper that has actually published the full numbers, I don’t know why nobody is collecting and distributing that information, except taht it might quell the panic.
I think that if I saw that my doctor had used the word “terrifying” about conditions of lungs of young people to a reporter during a worldwide lung health scare I’d change doctors.
There are lots of other words to choose which are more medical and not listed in the thesaurus alongside “frightening” or “scary”.
A person might even think that someone is trying to scare people - maybe young people who have heard that they’re not especially susceptible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.