Working From Home - Impacts of Coronavirus

[paulca]

I watched an interesting video with GPs discussing things you can do to make CovId infections less severe.

There were no surprises.  It was basically a GP top list of "healthy living".  Diet, sleep, exercise, reduce stress, blood pressure, alcohol, drugs, mental health etc. etc.

In particular "Fat" or adipose tissue was mentioned to contain a protein which was very similar to the spikes on Covid, which was suspected to cause the immune system to overreact leading to potential liver and or kidney complications, leading to more severe reactions in obese people.... allegedly.

Can we stop saying "boost your immune system".  It doesn't work like that.  You don't "boost" your immune system.  To do so would cause auto-immune syndromes.  What you can do is make sure you are not suppressing your immune system with poor diet, alcohol, drugs, vitamin deficiency, over weight, stress etc. etc. etc.

The other thing that I still don't think gets mentioned enough is "getting covid" is not digital.  It's analogue.  It depends on your initial viral dose or over sustained exposure your viral load.  Obvious proof of this will take months to boil down if it ever can be, but data suggested that households who got infections tended to get the same "level" of infection.  When one person had a severe reaction the people they lived with had a potential of a severe reaction too.  So if, like a health worker in PPE you got a very minimal exposure (but some exposure) you might not even get sick as the virus might not get a hold.  However if a person with a severe case coughed in your face and you inhaled a lung full, you are more likely to have a severe reaction.

The reason this should be mentioned more often is to stop people shrugging and saying, "I'm probably
being/been exposed, I'll stop taking care."  So even if social distancing and good hygiene might not ultimately stop you getting covid, it could lower your overall exposure and give your immune system more of a fighting chance early on and lead to a less severe reaction.

[bd139]

Spot on. Nice to hear some sanity.

[SilverSolder]

I watched an interesting video with GPs discussing things you can do to make CovId infections less severe.

There were no surprises.  It was basically a GP top list of "healthy living".  Diet, sleep, exercise, reduce stress, blood pressure, alcohol, drugs, mental health etc. etc.

In particular "Fat" or adipose tissue was mentioned to contain a protein which was very similar to the spikes on Covid, which was suspected to cause the immune system to overreact leading to potential liver and or kidney complications, leading to more severe reactions in obese people.... allegedly.

Can we stop saying "boost your immune system".  It doesn't work like that.  You don't "boost" your immune system.  To do so would cause auto-immune syndromes.  What you can do is make sure you are not suppressing your immune system with poor diet, alcohol, drugs, vitamin deficiency, over weight, stress etc. etc. etc.

The other thing that I still don't think gets mentioned enough is "getting covid" is not digital.  It's analogue.  It depends on your initial viral dose or over sustained exposure your viral load.  Obvious proof of this will take months to boil down if it ever can be, but data suggested that households who got infections tended to get the same "level" of infection.  When one person had a severe reaction the people they lived with had a potential of a severe reaction too.  So if, like a health worker in PPE you got a very minimal exposure (but some exposure) you might not even get sick as the virus might not get a hold.  However if a person with a severe case coughed in your face and you inhaled a lung full, you are more likely to have a severe reaction.

The reason this should be mentioned more often is to stop people shrugging and saying, "I'm probably
being/been exposed, I'll stop taking care."  So even if social distancing and good hygiene might not ultimately stop you getting covid, it could lower your overall exposure and give your immune system more of a fighting chance early on and lead to a less severe reaction.

It makes sense that the total quantity of "poison" that you inhale matters to the immune system's ability to deal with it.

[Zero999]

If there was a significant risk from taking the standard dose sold in pharmacies, then it would only be available on prescription.

That is wishfull thinking. A while ago I read a test in a consumer magazine and they found that there where several types of vitamin tablets which had harmful doses. If it isn't regulated it isn't regulated.

In the UK and perhaps the EU, vitamin supplements are regulated. They mustn't contain anything harmful or make any false claims. No doubt there are harmful doses available, but there are plenty of people selling things which are dangerous and don't comply with the relevant regulations. Buy from a reputable pharmacy and you should be fine.
https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/foodsupplementsenglish_0.pdf

If you're in a country which lacks proper regulations, then import from a reputable pharmacy in country which does.

[Buriedcode]

Can we stop saying "boost your immune system".  It doesn't work like that.  You don't "boost" your immune system.  To do so would cause auto-immune syndromes.  What you can do is make sure you are not suppressing your immune system with poor diet, alcohol, drugs, vitamin deficiency, over weight, stress etc. etc. etc.

Thank you.  This myth simply will not die.  A "boosted" immune system is an inflammatory immune system: good in the short term for dealing with infection/injury, but causes collateral damage, and in the long term can significantly damage the circulatory system.  Thankfully, one cannot actually "boost" it, short of being exposed to lots of pathogens.   As as you alluded to, taking a supplement isn't going to improve an immune system that is hindered by poor diet, sleep etc..

[Buriedcode]

If there was a significant risk from taking the standard dose sold in pharmacies, then it would only be available on prescription.

That is wishfull thinking. A while ago I read a test in a consumer magazine and they found that there where several types of vitamin tablets which had harmful doses. If it isn't regulated it isn't regulated.

In the UK and perhaps the EU, vitamin supplements are regulated. They mustn't contain anything harmful or make any false claims. No doubt there are harmful doses available, but there are plenty of people selling things which are dangerous and don't comply with the relevant regulations. Buy from a reputable pharmacy and you should be fine.
https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/foodsupplementsenglish_0.pdf

If you're in a country which lacks proper regulations, then import from a reputable pharmacy in country which does.

They don't have to make claims - notice how an ad in the UK says "now with Turmeric!".  Or " added magnesium to support normal functioning.  The fact these ingredients are added implies that they have a purpose and some efficacy.  Water supports normal functioning. CO2 supports normal functioning.  My point is, supplements are not medicine in a legal sense, and provided no specific claims are made, they can be implied.  This is why you no longer hear about "anti-oxidants" "helping to protect against cancer" but rather the more subtle "as part of a healthy diet". 

The regulations aren't particularly strict - I mean you can buy homeopathic "remedies" at pharmacies still, because ultimately, its peoples choice, and it isn't in any way a medicine, just lactose and colouring.

In the US, some have found to contain contaminants: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-warns-homeopathic-firms-putting-patients-risk-significant-violations-manufacturing-quality

I@m not anti-supplement.  Just that they are supplements, not a substitute for a poor diet, merely there to prevent severe deficiency for those who cannot get enough through diet.
The other myth I rant about (sorry) is the idea that with nutrients... not enough is bad, some is good... so more must be better? 

[nctnico]

Can we stop saying "boost your immune system".  It doesn't work like that.  You don't "boost" your immune system.  To do so would cause auto-immune syndromes.  What you can do is make sure you are not suppressing your immune system with poor diet, alcohol, drugs, vitamin deficiency, over weight, stress etc. etc. etc.

Thank you.  This myth simply will not die.  A "boosted" immune system is an inflammatory immune system: good in the short term for dealing with infection/injury, but causes collateral damage, and in the long term can significantly damage the circulatory system.  Thankfully, one cannot actually "boost" it, short of being exposed to lots of pathogens.   As as you alluded to, taking a supplement isn't going to improve an immune system that is hindered by poor diet, sleep etc..

This reminds me... Someone I talk to in the local swimming pool every now and then pointed me to a (what turned out to be) anti-carbohydrates video (which is utter nonsense BTW). One of the things they brought up in the video is that a shocking number of people have absolutely no clue what a healthy diet is. They showed some people who where eating food which could be best described as sweetened & salted card board. No wonder these people started to feel better when they started eating real food and not stomage filling. Another example: a while ago I read an article about a teenage boy somewhere in the UK which got permanently blind because he was only eating hamburgers. IOW: don't assume people know what they should eat to stay healthy.

[SiliconWizard]

If there was a significant risk from taking the standard dose sold in pharmacies, then it would only be available on prescription.

That is wishfull thinking. A while ago I read a test in a consumer magazine and they found that there where several types of vitamin tablets which had harmful doses. If it isn't regulated it isn't regulated.

In the UK and perhaps the EU, vitamin supplements are regulated. They mustn't contain anything harmful or make any false claims. No doubt there are harmful doses available, but there are plenty of people selling things which are dangerous and don't comply with the relevant regulations. Buy from a reputable pharmacy and you should be fine.
https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/foodsupplementsenglish_0.pdf

Yes, same over here. There are some vitamin supplements that are not regulated (sold as food basically), but I'm sure there is a regulation about doses, and whatever else that can classify them as food complements instead. (Would have to look that up.)

I may be wrong, but the typical food complements containing vitamins usually contain vitamins B*, C, maybe E, but I think I've rarely seen them containing vitamin D.

Anyway, I don't know for sure about the UK, but over here, another factor is that if under a prescription, vitamin supplements will be at least partly reimbursed by social security, so that's one more incentive to seek medical advice instead of self-medicating.

[paulca]

I@m not anti-supplement.  Just that they are supplements, not a substitute for a poor diet, merely there to prevent severe deficiency for those who cannot get enough through diet.

I have a collection of "supplementary vitamins and mineral".  Except for the vitamin C they are very lose doses and I don't take them everyday, actually maybe once a fortnight.

I use them to supplement my diet.  Just in case for whatever reason I didn't quite get all the rarer ones.

I have Vitamin C, which are like 3000% recommended daily requirement. LOL  So they make you pee Vitamin C.  I rarely use these and maybe have one if I feel run down or a bad hangover, not that they help.

I also have mixed vitamins and a specific iron supplement.  These I "use", in frequently, but it's because I know I don't eat enough greens.

I also have vitamin D, which I try to take at least once a week during winter when I barely see the sun for weeks at a time.

If I ate more greens and more veg and got outside more often I could probably do without any of them.  For what I use of them these days, the same bottles have lasted me for several years.

[nctnico]

I@m not anti-supplement.  Just that they are supplements, not a substitute for a poor diet, merely there to prevent severe deficiency for those who cannot get enough through diet.

This is getting slightly off-topic. The Dutch government health department does advice colored people to take vitamin D supplements from the age of 4 and all women from 50 and all men from 70 (ofcourse this is localised advice influenced by the Dutch climate).

[Zero999]

If there was a significant risk from taking the standard dose sold in pharmacies, then it would only be available on prescription.

That is wishfull thinking. A while ago I read a test in a consumer magazine and they found that there where several types of vitamin tablets which had harmful doses. If it isn't regulated it isn't regulated.

In the UK and perhaps the EU, vitamin supplements are regulated. They mustn't contain anything harmful or make any false claims. No doubt there are harmful doses available, but there are plenty of people selling things which are dangerous and don't comply with the relevant regulations. Buy from a reputable pharmacy and you should be fine.
https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/foodsupplementsenglish_0.pdf

If you're in a country which lacks proper regulations, then import from a reputable pharmacy in country which does.

They don't have to make claims - notice how an ad in the UK says "now with Turmeric!".  Or " added magnesium to support normal functioning.  The fact these ingredients are added implies that they have a purpose and some efficacy.  Water supports normal functioning. CO2 supports normal functioning.  My point is, supplements are not medicine in a legal sense, and provided no specific claims are made, they can be implied.  This is why you no longer hear about "anti-oxidants" "helping to protect against cancer" but rather the more subtle "as part of a healthy diet". 

The regulations aren't particularly strict - I mean you can buy homeopathic "remedies" at pharmacies still, because ultimately, its peoples choice, and it isn't in any way a medicine, just lactose and colouring.

In the US, some have found to contain contaminants: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-warns-homeopathic-firms-putting-patients-risk-significant-violations-manufacturing-quality

I@m not anti-supplement.  Just that they are supplements, not a substitute for a poor diet, merely there to prevent severe deficiency for those who cannot get enough through diet.
The other myth I rant about (sorry) is the idea that with nutrients... not enough is bad, some is good... so more must be better?

I'm not talking about silly added ingredients which some believe have health benefits, or homeopathic remedies, but plain old vitamin supplements, i.e. pills containing chemicals which are essential for the human body to function properly. Yes, they are covered by food, rather than medical regulations, which state they must not contain anything harmful. Consumer protection laws state that anything sold, must be as described, so they can't legally sell pills stating they contain 5µg of D3, when they're just potato starch, colouring and beeswax. And duh, some bad actors sell contaminated products and the same has been true for food: remember the Chinese baby milk scandal?

Of course one should eat a balanced diet, but most foods are a poor source of vitamin D, so you won't get enough if you hardly go outside, or if you have dark skin and live far away from the equator. Why do you think people living at higher latitudes evolved lighter coloured skin? Vitamin D of course. If it was readily available from food, we'd all be black, because the protection from the sun would still be important, especially in summer. The only evolutionary advantage to being white is extra vitamin D.

The site links below lists 7 foods high in vitamin D, well not quite, in reality it's four, since few foods in the UK are fortified with vitamin D, cod liver oil is more of a supplement, than a food and most mushrooms sold in shops are grown in the dark, thus contain virtually no vitamin D. Note that it's nearly all seafood, which is quite expensive here. Unless you mostly eat fish, as your main protein source, you wont meet your vitamin D requirements from food. It's just not practical. For those who can't make up the rest of their vitamin D requirements from sunlight, supplements are the only way.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/9-foods-high-in-vitamin-d

Yes, there is such thing as too much, especially the fat soluble vitamins which don't get excreted from the human body, but as long as one sticks to the recommended dose, there's no risk of having too much.

[Buriedcode]

I agree I've helped steer this off topic a bit.  But there is so much bull around supplements and diet, I'm surprised not more companies have used this pandemic to promote their products.

Zero999, whilst I don't doubt many supplements contain the stated ingredients (which says nothing about bio-availability, efficacy, or any actual health benefits, such as magnesium oxide, which can't be absorbed), not all contain what they claim: https://www.which.co.uk/news/2019/03/revealed-vitamin-supplements-that-dont-contain-what-they-say/  If they don't contain the specified ingredients, it isn't really a scandal, as there is no direct harm, except perhaps the idea that taking supplements is somehow a substitute for a reasonable healthy lifestyle, preventing people from making changes.

You've pointed out quite a bit of info about vitamin D, its sources, and deficiency, but that implies that you/we know what a deficiency is.  I agree those with darker skin or those less exposed to sunlight will make lower amounts, but, does that means that many people are deficient? How many? And what effects does a mild or moderate deficiency have? These are questions I haven't found answers to (either because we just don't know, or I'm crap at googling).   Again, I just don't know, I'm not talking about severe deficiency, which in modern times is extremely rare.
The only websites I've seen claiming that there's an epidemic of Vitamin D deficiency were either "wellness" pseudoscience blogs, or ones promoting...ta dah..  their own brand of supplements.  So I haven't found what constitutes a deficiency, because quoted blood serum levels vary wildly from less-than-trustworthy websites.

nctnico: That boy in the UK did indeed lose his sight.  It was a scandal, and national news because it is so rare that someone would have a deficiency for so long as to cause such harm.  You could live on junk food and pretty much get  "enough" nutrients to at least not cause severe problems. But apparently had such a restrictive diet that lived on crisps and chips (other food would make him vomit), refused to take supplements (which would have been enough to save his sight at least).  But it's also a scandal because the medical authorities let it happen.  There could have been many interventions taken, but no-one kept track of the patient for years.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49551337

As for COVID-19, in terms of health myths, this pandemic has had some positive effect - it seems many of those who believe in woo like essential oils have been highlighted as being dangerous by those who are genuinely worried.  It won't stop the media and social media jumping the gun with fad diets and "ways to beat covid 19!", but hopefully the seriousness of the situation will make the public less inclined to swallow such crap.

[Zero999]

I agree I've helped steer this off topic a bit.  But there is so much bull around supplements and diet, I'm surprised not more companies have used this pandemic to promote their products.

Zero999, whilst I don't doubt many supplements contain the stated ingredients (which says nothing about bio-availability, efficacy, or any actual health benefits, such as magnesium oxide, which can't be absorbed), not all contain what they claim: https://www.which.co.uk/news/2019/03/revealed-vitamin-supplements-that-dont-contain-what-they-say/  If they don't contain the specified ingredients, it isn't really a scandal, as there is no direct harm, except perhaps the idea that taking supplements is somehow a substitute for a reasonable healthy lifestyle, preventing people from making changes.

Well we're talking about vitamin D here and the type found in most supplements is D3, which has excellent bioavailability, especially if it's taken with fatty food, hence why cod liver oil is so popular. It's minerals such as iron and magnesium, as you've mentioned which often have poor bioavailability, not just in some supplements, but also foods: most vitamins are generally readily absorbed.

If the supplement doesn't contain what's listed on the packet, then they're committing fraud, no different to those fake germicidal UV lamps and the authorities should take action.

You've pointed out quite a bit of info about vitamin D, its sources, and deficiency, but that implies that you/we know what a deficiency is.  I agree those with darker skin or those less exposed to sunlight will make lower amounts, but, does that means that many people are deficient? How many? And what effects does a mild or moderate deficiency have? These are questions I haven't found answers to (either because we just don't know, or I'm crap at googling).   Again, I just don't know, I'm not talking about severe deficiency, which in modern times is extremely rare.
The only websites I've seen claiming that there's an epidemic of Vitamin D deficiency were either "wellness" pseudoscience blogs, or ones promoting...ta dah..  their own brand of supplements.  So I haven't found what constitutes a deficiency, because quoted blood serum levels vary wildly from less-than-trustworthy websites.

Yes the optimum vitamin D level is subject to debate, but just stick with the general recommended daily allowance, as a guideline.

As hinted before, we need a the correct immune response. Too much and there's an inflammatory reaction, which harms healthy tissue, too little and the virus wins. It's a fine balance and vitamin D seems to be good at optimising it.

Stick to proper, peer reviewed medical papers, not sites selling things. I admit, I'm not much good at Googling either, some of the papers I linked to previously, were taken from medical YouTubers and not the fake ones but real doctors and nurses.

I agree, there's probably little benefit in taking supplements, if you already have adequate vitamin D levels, but if you're in an at risk group, then it's probably a good idea, unless you've been tested and found to not be deficient.

[PlainName]

The official line on this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/phe-publishes-new-advice-on-vitamin-d

which says:

PHE advises that in spring and summer, the majority of the population get enough vitamin D through sunlight on the skin and a healthy, balanced diet. During autumn and winter, everyone will need to rely on dietary sources of vitamin D. Since it is difficult for people to meet the 10 microgram recommendation from consuming foods naturally containing or fortified with vitamin D, people should consider taking a daily supplement containing 10 micrograms of vitamin D in autumn and winter.

My emphasis. Additionally, and again my emphasis:

People whose skin has little or no exposure to the sun, like those in institutions such as care homes, or who always cover their skin when outside, risk vitamin D deficiency and need to take a supplement throughout the year. Ethnic minority groups with dark skin, from African, Afro-Caribbean and South Asian backgrounds, may not get enough vitamin D from sunlight in the summer and therefore should consider taking a supplement all year round.

Note that this is pre-covid19 so would apply to normal, healthy people. You can do the maths if, now, we're told we need a bit more than normal to help us along.

[cdev]

COVID-19 is a once in a lifetime opportunity for drug companies to profit they say. Nothing not nothing is going to rain on their parade.

[EEVblog]

I agree, there's probably little benefit in taking supplements, if you already have adequate vitamin D levels, but if you're in an at risk group, then it's probably a good idea, unless you've been tested and found to not be deficient.

The problem with relying on sufficient/deficient levels is that these levels are based on average population data etc. They don't take into account any individual persons immune and other bodily systems, not that you can really determine those to any degree of correlation anyway.
And also levels change very quickly with daily changes in diet etc. Where's the data on what happens if you don't get any sun for a week and also don't happen to eat suitable foods that week, and you get whatever thing is going around. I'd be surprised is that data exists.
Taking supplements even if you have been tested as having "sufficient" levels is just cheap insurance. If you can afford it, it's a no-brainer.

[Red Squirrel]

We get sun here for maybe 2-3 months of the year, so I tend to take vitamin D tablets for a good part of the year then stop in summer.  I've experimented with UV-B lamps but I'm not sure what kind of eye protection I should be wearing and never got around to looking further into it so I don't really use it often.  I wanted to build a contraption I stick my arms into so it's just shielded from the rest of the environment and just got side tracked and never ended up building it.    Not sure how well it would really work anyway and kind of hard to test so I'd be reluctant to stop taking the vitamin D.

[bd139]

I would hate to be an ISP during this. This is impact of having 4 people at home rather than the usual 1...



Also free Epic Games 

[nctnico]

Taking supplements even if you have been tested as having "sufficient" levels is just cheap insurance. If you can afford it, it's a no-brainer.

Not quite. Some vitamin supplements are chemical equivalents which don't react exactly the same compared to natural vitamins and your body may reject the natural ones if your body senses it has enough. The very best thing to do is eat healthy with enough sources for natural vitamins and only supplement those which show low levels.

[rsjsouza]

Also free Epic Games 

Civilization VI FTW! B)

(this is a true time waster for me...)

[DrG]

So I wanted to stick to the topic of the impacts on our work/businesses by this, and what plans you and your business might have.

Well, if we can generalize "our work" to include anything I feel like doing, whenever I feel like doing it, regardless of what anyone else says thinks or does [the retirement credo that some, like myself, are fortunate enough to live by].... I was reminded of the impact recently.

Where I am at, we are still very much impacted by covid. We are in the initial stages of so-called opening up and have only recently seen a positivity rate drop to under 10%. Many have it much worse and if you have it much better, be thankful and I hope it doesn't change except for the better no matter where you are.

I am building a particular kind of food dehydrator - the description and explanation is too long for this message. But, I was at a point in the build in which I needed to attach some "shelf inserts" into the dehydration chamber.



So, I went to find a tube of silicone cement and I had one that I had used several years ago...



Nothing came out, even after poking whatever I could find down the spout, but I could still feel some plyable content in the tube. Against my better judgement, I cut into the bottom of the tube (you can see the cut in the pick by the brand logo) and sure enough, there was plenty of the stuff to use for the shelf inserts. Except, I learned something ... old silicon glue, while it looks like new silicone glue, does not dry. I mean, literally 10 days later it is still so tacky it can't hold for squat. I don't know the chemistry behind that, maybe the "hardener" chemicals are gone...I don't much care. I had to remove it all and I ended up using some cyanoacrylate and it works...so far.

What does this have to do with covid? Well, pre-covid, I would have tossed the old tube and simply gone to the hardware store and picked up a new tube. In the pandemic, I simply do not do these things ike I used to. Yes, I am adapting and have increased my market trips to one-a-week from one every two weeks and have even met with friends for an outside lunch (with all of the sanitation and distancing). And yes, I have added a tube to my basket for my next mail order. So, it may be a bit of a stretch as an impact on "work", but it has now been enough months that the impact has bled into my current idea of work which includes a much larger mail-order component.

Personally, I believe that we will have an effective monoclonal antibody (MOA) available before this fall (i.e., about 4-5 months). Lilly just went into phase 1 and concurrently ramped up production. MOAs have a history of working and I feel very strongly that they will work against covid. When we actually have an effective treatment (*vir drugs have very limited efficacy in my opinion and please, don't even go on about chloroquine drugs).

Additionally, there is a window for companies to clean up on an MOA that closes significantly with an effective vaccine. Now, who pays for them and how much they pay, well, that is another matter.




______________________________________________________________________

[Nusa]

Lilly is making a gamble by going into production before they know if it works. If the trials fail, what they've produced is worthless. Starting production early does NOT improve the chances of success!  If the trials do succeed, they've cut out the usual delay between research and production and they have the only supply, which translates to a huge win.


Shelf life of Silicone Caulk is not much more than 1 year. When buying sealants, it's worth finding the expiration date if you can so you don't get old stuff off the shelf. It's not like food where stretching the date doesn't matter too much. Too-old Silicone doesn't cure properly, as you've found out.

[PlainName]

(Attachment Link)

Er... what's "TP"? Asking for a friend, obvs.

[DrG]

(Attachment Link)

Er... what's "TP"? Asking for a friend, obvs.

umm TP=toilet paper and the answer to your friend's next question is...I don't know, I'm not from Texas 

[EEVblog]

I'm back to getting out of the lab for videos, going to interview someone about quantum computing! 
Technically their lab is still in "lockdown", so meeting somewhere else.