Can touching a barbell in the gym get you sick with the coronavirus?

[OA] COVID-19 Pneumonia Causes Lower Testosterone Levels

To evaluate the testicular damage caused by COVID‐19, we prospectively evaluated 44 patients who applied to the COVID‐19 outpatient clinic between March 2020 and July 2020. Patients' ages, COVID‐19 PCR results, presence of pneumonia, total testosterone, luteinising hormone (LH) and follicle‐stimulating hormone (FSH) values were recorded.

It was evaluated whether there were significant differences between people who were positive for COVID‐19 and those who were not. Any differences between those who had COVID‐19 pneumonia and those who did not were also recorded.

There was no difference between the FSH, LH and testosterone values of the COVID‐19 PCR positive and negative patients (p = 0.80, vp = 0.62, p = 0.56 respectively). However when LH values were separated as low, normal and high, LH values were statistically significantly higher in the COVID‐19 PCR positive group (p = 0.04).

Thoracic computed tomography was performed in 42 patients. Testosterone levels were significantly lower in patients with COVID‐19 pneumonia (p = 0.01). When FSH, LH and testosterone values were separated as low, normal and high, there was no difference in FSH and LH values (p = 1, p = 0.2). Testosterone levels were found significantly lower in patients with COVID‐19 pneumonia (p < .001). Testosterone levels seem to decrease during acute COVID‐19 infection, especially in the patient group with viral pneumonia.

Okçelik S. COVID-19 pneumonia causes lower testosterone levels. Andrologia 2020;n/a:e13909. https://doi.org/10.1111/and.13909
 
before reading this thread I didn't even realize how much propaganda and fake news exists, or the extent of it. is it mostly political disinformation, click bait, or from a foreign source trying to influence people? only an idiot would believe any of this lol
 


NEW YORK—Following this week’s news that the immunization may be 90% effective in preventing Covid-19, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer announced in an advertisement Wednesday that the first batch of its highly anticipated coronavirus vaccine would arrive in a collector’s edition limited to 2,000 doses.

“Pfizer is proud to offer an exclusive early release of our new vaccine in a custom-made Swarovski crystal syringe with a 24-karat gold needle,” the glossy magazine ad read in part, noting that each dose would come in a handcrafted mahogany case and be accompanied with an official certificate of authenticity signed by Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. “The Covid-19 Platinum Edition Vaccine is a must-have for vaccinophiles and sure to quickly increase in value.

Act now, and you’ll also receive a leather-bound volume filled with freehand ink drawings of the novel coronavirus’s genome sequence, as well as historic early sketches of our life-saving vaccine’s chemical structure. This legendary piece of inoculative history can be yours for only $4,999.” At press time, reports confirmed all doses of the vaccine had sold out immediately and were now going for 10 times their original price on the secondary market.
 
Presence of antibodies after natural infection with #SARSCoV2 appears to provide protection against reinfection. Detectable T cell response also should contribute to protection from disease. https://twitter.com/VirusesImmunity/status/1330318287943708672?s=20


Vaccine-induced antibodies and T cells may provide more robust protection by inducing Upwards arrow neutralizing antibodies, as well as stronger T cell immunity that are potentially longer lasting than natural infection. However, we do not have data on these yet.
https://twitter.com/VirusesImmunity/status/1330319402470940674?s=20


One small note about these trials. It's often assumed that vaccines are only a proxy for immune response to natural infection. However, there's nothing that prevents vaccines from inducing better, more durable protection than natural infection.
https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1328584228070690817?s=20



[OA] Lumley SF, O’Donnell D, Stoesser NE, et al. Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 are associated with protection against reinfection. medRxiv 2020:2020.11.18.20234369.
http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/19/2020.11.18.20234369.abstract

Background It is critical to understand whether infection with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) protects from subsequent reinfection.

Methods We investigated the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive results in seropositive and seronegative healthcare workers (HCWs) attending asymptomatic and symptomatic staff testing at Oxford University Hospitals, UK. Baseline antibody status was determined using anti-spike and/or anti-nucleocapsid IgG assays and staff followed for up to 30 weeks. We used Poisson regression to estimate the relative incidence of PCR-positive results and new symptomatic infection by antibody status, accounting for age, gender and changes in incidence over time.

Results A total of 12219 HCWs participated and had anti-spike IgG measured, 11052 were followed up after negative and 1246 after positive antibody results including 79 who seroconverted during follow up. 89 PCR-confirmed symptomatic infections occurred in seronegative individuals (0.46 cases per 10,000 days at risk) and no symptomatic infections in those with anti-spike antibodies. Additionally, 76 (0.40/10,000 days at risk) anti-spike IgG seronegative individuals had PCR-positive tests in asymptomatic screening, compared to 3 (0.21/10,000 days at risk) seropositive individuals. Overall, positive baseline anti-spike antibodies were associated with lower rates of PCR-positivity (with or without symptoms) (adjusted rate ratio 0.24 [95%CI 0.08-0.76, p=0.015]). Rate ratios were similar using anti-nucleocapsid IgG alone or combined with anti-spike IgG to determine baseline status.

Conclusions Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection that generated antibody responses offered protection from reinfection for most people in the six months following infection. Further work is required to determine the long-term duration and correlates of post-infection immunity.
 
From ergo-log.

Face mask has no adverse effect on sports performance

Fortunately, in many countries where the gyms are still open, despite all coronavirus hysteria woes, wearing a face mask is not mandatory. But if this changes in the near future, that shouldn't be a reason to stay at home. According to Canadian sports scientists at the University of Saskatchewan, wearing a face mask should not affecting your performance.


"This has practical significance, especially when exercising in settings where individuals might be vulnerable to contracting COVID-19, such as enclosed gyms, given that exercise should be encouraged for everyone during COVID-19 to reduce many of the risk factors (i.e., obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure) that are associated with the worst COVID-19 outcomes."

The research says nothing about FFP2/N95 surgical masks. These products do reduce performance. [Clin Res Cardiol. 2020 Jul 6;1-9.]


Effects of surgical and FFP2/N95 face masks on cardiopulmonary exercise capacity

Conclusion​

Ventilation, cardiopulmonary exercise capacity and comfort are reduced by surgical masks and highly impaired by FFP2/N95 face masks in healthy individuals. These data are important for recommendations on wearing face masks at work or during physical exercise.

Conclusion​

Medical face masks have a marked negative impact on cardiopulmonary capacity that significantly impairs strenuous physical and occupational activities. In addition, medical masks significantly impair the quality of life of their wearer. These effects have to be considered versus the potential protective effects of face masks on viral transmissions. The quantitative data of this study may, therefore, inform medical recommendations and policy makers.
 
From ergo-log.

Face mask has no adverse effect on sports performance

Fortunately, in many countries where the gyms are still open, despite all coronavirus hysteria woes, wearing a face mask is not mandatory. But if this changes in the near future, that shouldn't be a reason to stay at home. According to Canadian sports scientists at the University of Saskatchewan, wearing a face mask should not affecting your performance.


"This has practical significance, especially when exercising in settings where individuals might be vulnerable to contracting COVID-19, such as enclosed gyms, given that exercise should be encouraged for everyone during COVID-19 to reduce many of the risk factors (i.e., obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure) that are associated with the worst COVID-19 outcomes."

The research says nothing about FFP2/N95 surgical masks. These products do reduce performance. [Clin Res Cardiol. 2020 Jul 6;1-9.]


Effects of surgical and FFP2/N95 face masks on cardiopulmonary exercise capacity

Conclusion​

Ventilation, cardiopulmonary exercise capacity and comfort are reduced by surgical masks and highly impaired by FFP2/N95 face masks in healthy individuals. These data are important for recommendations on wearing face masks at work or during physical exercise.

Conclusion​

Medical face masks have a marked negative impact on cardiopulmonary capacity that significantly impairs strenuous physical and occupational activities. In addition, medical masks significantly impair the quality of life of their wearer. These effects have to be considered versus the potential protective effects of face masks on viral transmissions. The quantitative data of this study may, therefore, inform medical recommendations and policy makers.
So surgical masks have NO significant effect on performance:

mask-surgical.jpg

But FFP2 and N95 DO reduce performance:

mask-n95.jpg
mask-ffp2.jpg
 
Back
Top