easyrowrdw
Well-Known Member
I have been wondering if there could potentially be another public health impact with the asymptomatic population... I have seen some stories here and there (like this one) that indicate there may be some lasting organ damage in the asymptomatic group:
There hasn’t been a lot of coverage on this angle yet. This is something that, along with the true % of asymptomatic cases, we apparently know next to nothing about... but it strikes me as something that could have a huge impact on recovery efforts. If it turns out there are potential longer term health impacts even in those that show no immediate symptoms, then testing and tracing become even more important to minimize the population affected in that way. It may not be a good plan to just let most of the population get it, count on them being asymptomatic, and that not having consequence.
Also confusing the ‘asymptomatic’ issue is that apparently many ‘asymptomatic’ cases, when interviewed, do actually report being affected by mild symptoms. Those mild symptoms can vary substantially from the ‘fever and cough’ that most have been clued to be alert to. One way that it can manifest is by affecting the heart, and potentially in ways that might not be immediately obvious to a patient as a symptom but would show up on advanced cardiac diagnostics:
COVID-19's consequences for the heart
Heart damage has recently emerged as yet another grim outcome in the virus's repertoire of possible complications.news.harvard.edu
That's interesting, though I'm a little confused by the sample. They're referred to as asymptomatic, but everyone in the sample had been admitted to the hospital. Most people aren't admitted so there may be issues of a non-representative sample. I'd be interested in knowing the practical implications of having 2.8 "affected lung segments" and how that compares to other lung conditions. Thanks for sharing the article.