Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#99,001
#99,001
Ttucke11 said:
@kiddiedoc My wife is due in September, and she gets asked every visit about getting vaccinated. When we ask for more info it seems to be a whole bunch of "we can't tell you or not tell you to get it". I would just like a straight answer from them on their thoughts. It's just crazy to me, I want my child protected, but our doctors don't even seem to agree on what should be done or want to give us information.
Click to expand...
If my wife was pregnant…. I believe I’d pass on it. I just looked at the 10 day average of new covid cases in TN and it’s incredibly low.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ttucke11
#99,011
#99,011
SIAP - this is pretty crazy but not really unexpected

Experimental Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Content in Inhaled Air With or Without Face Masks in Healthy Children

Many governments have made nose and mouth covering or face masks compulsory for schoolchildren. The evidence base for this is weak.1,2 The question whether nose and mouth covering increases carbon dioxide in inhaled air is crucial. A large-scale survey3 in Germany of adverse effects in parents and children using data of 25 930 children has shown that 68% of the participating children had problems when wearing nose and mouth coverings.

The normal content of carbon dioxide in the open is about 0.04% by volume (ie, 400 ppm). A level of 0.2% by volume or 2000 ppm is the limit for closed rooms according to the German Federal Environmental Office, and everything beyond this level is unacceptable.4

We measured means (SDs) between 13 120 (384) and 13 910 (374) ppm of carbon dioxide in inhaled air under surgical and filtering facepiece 2 (FFP2) masks, which is higher than what is already deemed unacceptable by the German Federal Environmental Office by a factor of 6. This was a value reached after 3 minutes of measurement. Children under normal conditions in schools wear such masks for a mean of 270 (interquartile range, 120-390) minutes.3 The Figure shows that the value of the child with the lowest carbon dioxide level was 3-fold greater than the limit of 0.2 % by volume.4 The youngest children had the highest values, with one 7-year-old child’s carbon dioxide level measured at 25 000 ppm.

Most of the complaints reported by children3 can be understood as consequences of elevated carbon dioxide levels in inhaled air. This is because of the dead-space volume of the masks, which collects exhaled carbon dioxide quickly after a short time. This carbon dioxide mixes with fresh air and elevates the carbon dioxide content of inhaled air under the mask, and this was more pronounced in this study for younger children.

This leads in turn to impairments attributable to hypercapnia. A recent review6 concluded that there was ample evidence for adverse effects of wearing such masks. We suggest that decision-makers weigh the hard evidence produced by these experimental measurements accordingly, which suggest that children should not be forced to wear face masks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123
#99,012
#99,012
volinbham said:
SIAP - this is pretty crazy but not really unexpected

Experimental Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Content in Inhaled Air With or Without Face Masks in Healthy Children

Many governments have made nose and mouth covering or face masks compulsory for schoolchildren. The evidence base for this is weak.1,2 The question whether nose and mouth covering increases carbon dioxide in inhaled air is crucial. A large-scale survey3 in Germany of adverse effects in parents and children using data of 25 930 children has shown that 68% of the participating children had problems when wearing nose and mouth coverings.

The normal content of carbon dioxide in the open is about 0.04% by volume (ie, 400 ppm). A level of 0.2% by volume or 2000 ppm is the limit for closed rooms according to the German Federal Environmental Office, and everything beyond this level is unacceptable.4

We measured means (SDs) between 13 120 (384) and 13 910 (374) ppm of carbon dioxide in inhaled air under surgical and filtering facepiece 2 (FFP2) masks, which is higher than what is already deemed unacceptable by the German Federal Environmental Office by a factor of 6. This was a value reached after 3 minutes of measurement. Children under normal conditions in schools wear such masks for a mean of 270 (interquartile range, 120-390) minutes.3 The Figure shows that the value of the child with the lowest carbon dioxide level was 3-fold greater than the limit of 0.2 % by volume.4 The youngest children had the highest values, with one 7-year-old child’s carbon dioxide level measured at 25 000 ppm.

Most of the complaints reported by children3 can be understood as consequences of elevated carbon dioxide levels in inhaled air. This is because of the dead-space volume of the masks, which collects exhaled carbon dioxide quickly after a short time. This carbon dioxide mixes with fresh air and elevates the carbon dioxide content of inhaled air under the mask, and this was more pronounced in this study for younger children.

This leads in turn to impairments attributable to hypercapnia. A recent review6 concluded that there was ample evidence for adverse effects of wearing such masks. We suggest that decision-makers weigh the hard evidence produced by these experimental measurements accordingly, which suggest that children should not be forced to wear face masks.
Click to expand...

Just wear the ****ing mask...

giphy (4).gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rocky_Top_Vol13, BigOrangeTrain, midnight orange and 3 others
#99,018
#99,018
Screenshot_20210702-145952_Chrome.jpg
Here is the issue: the above chart reports a spontaneous abortion rate of 104/827. However, 700 of the participants included were enrolled and vaccinated in their third trimester, and they should be excluded from that denominator. Therefore, 104/127 completed pregnancies that were vaccinated in the first 2 trimesters ended in miscarriage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolinWayne
#99,019
#99,019
kiddiedoc said:
View attachment 377782
Here is the issue: the above chart reports a spontaneous abortion rate of 104/827. However, 700 of the participants included were enrolled and vaccinated in their third trimester, and they should be excluded from that denominator. Therefore, 104/127 completed pregnancies that were vaccinated in the first 2 trimesters ended in miscarriage.
Click to expand...

Well that seems insane. What is a typical miscarriage rate?
 
#99,021
#99,021
kiddiedoc said:
View attachment 377782
Here is the issue: the above chart reports a spontaneous abortion rate of 104/827. However, 700 of the participants included were enrolled and vaccinated in their third trimester, and they should be excluded from that denominator. Therefore, 104/127 completed pregnancies that were vaccinated in the first 2 trimesters ended in miscarriage.
Click to expand...
This table is confusing and don’t know why they included it. They are reporting data from dec to feb during which a total of 3958 who said they were pregnant were enrolled after receiving the vaccine. The 827 are completed pregnancies that were enrolled December to February. So all first trimester pregnancies enrolled in the registry that completed should be loss pregnancy or extremely preterm because they wouldn’t have been completed by the end of February. It seems that about 30% of the 3958 received the vaccine first trimester so among those 10% are miscarriage which fits with the 10-26% miscarriage rate. However don’t know you can learn much from just 2 months of data.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top