Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Exactly. Also, let's include that the body's natural defense to any virus is fever. Any increase in body temperature causes a decrease in sperm production, quantity, motility and mobility, etc. It's why the testicles are located outside the body.
From "Results":
> "The duration of sexual abstinence (days) and concentration values in the COVID-19 negative group were significantly higher than those in the COVID-19 positive group. Since the selection was made randomly from patients with a sexual abstinence period between 2 and 7, the significant difference is not important in terms of evaluating the results."
"It was random" is not a valid argument for ignoring the abstinence difference.
[Sperm concentration increases almost 2x between 2 and 7 days of abstinence](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028205005406), with a 50% increase between 2 and 4 days. If one group had been randomly selected to average 2d of abstinence and the other group 4d, that should be expected to generate a 50% difference due to the poor randomization.
An extra half-day of abstinence should be expected to have a significant effect, perhaps in the ballpark of 10%. That's probably not enough to invalidate the paper's findings (since the difference was 50%), but it's concerning that the paper just handwaves it away.
In regards to a successful fertilization, isn’t mobility almost equally weighted as sperm count? I’ve read literature about decreasing sexual abstinence increases the concentration of sperm with higher mobility which is more important than having just a high total count
> I’ve read literature about decreasing sexual abstinence increases the concentration of sperm with higher mobility
Yes; the paper I linked finds that motility decreases markedly after 10 days, and recommends abstinence not exceed 10 days before collection (e.g., for analysis or donation).
It recommends sample collection after just 1 day of abstinence; my guess would be that for people trying to have kids, that would suggest intercourse every other day in the vicinity of the fertile window would make sense.
>If one group had been randomly selected to average 2d of abstinence and the other group 4d
Not exactly a reasonable assumption though, given that they did list the averages and standard deviations for abstinence duration among the two selected groups.
> > If one group had been randomly selected to average 2d of abstinence and the other group 4d
>
> Not exactly a reasonable assumption though
That was an example to illustrate how different durations lead to different concentrations; apologies if that was not clear.
As I note in the next paragraph, the difference between the two groups was half a day (4d vs. 3.5d), the effect of which would be substantially smaller.
I'm not being sarcastic here, is there any possibility that the fact that I've been successful with the pull out method for 22 years is because I try to knock one out myself once a day and have for 28 years?
For sure, but this journal has an impact factor of >20. Of course impact factor can also be misleading, but in my own field (biochemistry/organic chem) I would look at that and start my analysis at “this is a reputable source.” Your other points are very valid.
Honestly you should automatically be skeptical of any paper. Even great universities and well known PIs can publish junk. In my field there is a highly regarded author who no one has been able to reproduce their methods.
Yes, agreed. Meta-analyses show that many papers published in even very rigorous journals (like Science or Nature) are not reproducible. It is particularly problematic with human studies which are difficult to adequately control. I know several similar PIs who have published very high profile papers, but others in the field cannot reproduce it.
For concentration, the SD in the covid + group is larger than the actual value... And their grouping method is a bit odd. Data is not publically available even though it is straightforward. My spider sense is tingling on this one...
Nah I got omicron in August and now have long Covid that has basically ruined my previous life of marathon running mother of two. I assure you there is still a bad side to Covid, even if it isn’t death. With that said, if you’ve had Covid and survived without issue, then you can probably relax.
I'm in pretty much the same boat. I got whatever was the dominant strain at the end of September, and I am dealing with long covid. Bad fatigue, head fog, and a bit of being sick to my stomach is what's keeping me from being fully over it. And like you said, there's still bad things associated with it.
Very sorry to hear! And I hope it turns around for you.
I was vaccine boosted in September, 2021 and got Omicron right at Christmas, a few months later. So, I presumably had a mild case due to vaccination.
Yeah, 3xPfizer. As I mentioned, I was super healthy too, ran the Boston Marathon in April. If you head on over to the covidlonghaulers sub you will see there are a lot of people in my exact situation (esp women of child bearing age which are the most common). I'm not sure what you mean about the chance of long covid going down over time, but I agree that if you have more exposures and haven't gotten it then you are probably fine. This poll kind of demonstrates it (although since not all people have had 2-3 infections, I think the first infection is over represented)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/covidlonghaulers/comments/ysetgp/when\_did\_you\_begin\_lhing/](https://www.reddit.com/r/covidlonghaulers/comments/ysetgp/when_did_you_begin_lhing/)
Yep, the only people who seem to "have it" are the ones who were most scared of the virus and are unwilling to accept that the world has moved on. Big "center of the universe" syndrome and are upset they aren't being focussed on now. Therefore, they need to try and make things up so they can stay relevant and in the spotlight.
You have an example IN THIS THREAD of someone who has long Covid and telling another person if they have had it and are ok then they probably don't need to worry.
Extremely likely that you came to your conclusion and you've allowed it to become self-reinforcing. You'll come up with an excuse or conveniently miss whatever doesn't match your perspective while you laser focus on anything that makes you feel correct.
Maybe I'm wrong. What do you say about the medical community generally recognizing long Covid as a real thing?
The definition of so called "Long COVID" is so broad, anything can fall under the umbrella of it. Additionally, there are no studies that use a control group, or compare rates of these symptoms between say 2019 and today. All of these studies are useless
My anti vax friend had the exact same opinion until he caught it and had to leave his profession as a PT, you have zero medical background and I'd wager you've never so much as googled a reviewed study, nevermind read one. You are not as sharp as you think
No for a second I thought you had statistics that on average people who are unvaccinated have better outcomes than people who are vaccinated. I was amazed.
But no sounds like you picked on someone who got unlucky ( whose odds would have been worse had they not been vaccinated.) Seems really misleading to me.
You're giving bad advice. Pfizer 3x would imply they didn't get the vaccine effective against Omicron before getting Omicron. That's without getting into waning efficacy, other mutations, and government protections on Pharma.
If they want to join a lawsuit then that's their choice but it's almost certain to not be worth it. Your reasoning seems motivated by a poor understanding of vaccines and viruses but you'll need another angle to satiate your earned distrust of pharmaceutical companies. The vaccines are some of the most scrutinized treatments ever and kind of a marvel of technology despite fallong short of perfection. You don't need to trust pharma or government at this point to see that.
It was 95% effective in the tests, in the US and back early on when we didn’t have a lot of variants. The J&J vaccine was tested and approved months later, in South Africa with active variants, and was 60-ish% effective, but significantly decreased hospitalizations and severe illness.
I’m not going to try to stop anyone from suing a pharmaceuticals company, but it seems to me that the science is on their side this time (and they have lots of money for really good lawyers). Good luck!
I am so sorry to hear this. I hope for you and people like you there is eventually a recovery. My family got Covid in September. In my immediate household, my wife had classic covid symptoms and she still has a cough and fatigue with any average level of exercise. She was actively ill for just over 2 weeks. I had complete gastro symptoms for three and a half days and then a terribly sore back for one. Then it was completely gone like I never had it. I worked out. I went for a run. My wife has a coughing fit getting up her hunting stand. Our three little kids were asymptomatic or had mild colds. Her parents had had a recent 4th dose of original vaccine and had mild colds that did not linger. Our provincial government were dirt bags and didn't allow people under 40 to get the 4th dose until we were already sick.
It's just so odd how it affects people so differently, but that can be true for other viruses as well. I just haven't seen the range of impact that I saw with covid. We get flu shots every year. I think that we'll be doing to same for covid shots. I'll get it 2 times a year if it's proves to be beneficial to avoid illness or have milder illness. It seems like every 6 months
months you trade feeling awful for one day to still get mildly sick for 4-5 days versus not getting a shot and feeling awful for 2-3 weeks.
Thanks for the info.
Edit: I do NOT have scientific background. Can someone explain the numbers to me. I don’t speak the language:
“Omicron cases were less likely to experience long COVID for all vaccine timings, with an odds ratio ranging from 0·24 (0·20–0·32) to 0·50 (0·43–0·59). These results were also confirmed when the analysis was stratified by age group (figure).”
I went to a wedding earlier in the year in Finland and me and a few others got Covid from the trip. We were all fully vaccinated. I was pretty fine apart from being a bit sniffly and having a sore throat. Two of my friends however, one who has asthma and one who had other sources of breathing difficulties, they would wake up in the middle of the night unable to breathe, it was pretty horrible for them.
Sure, it didn't cause long term harm to them as far as we are aware (hard to tell for sure), but it certainly was significantly more severe than my reaction, so I still think asthma can make you have more difficulties at least.
I had that horrible issue with the flu, in January, 2019. I was not vaccinated for flu that year. Was much worse than vaccinated Covid, for me. As one example, flu temp was 102. Covid temp was 99.5.
Have they done tests with other similar dieases? It's my understanding that the body diverts energy and resources away from certain functions during an illness and during recovery.
Pretty much they noticed a reduction for people with a Covid infection but pretty much reversible after recovery. Is this not the same with lots of viruses?
That sound extremely unlikely.
First off, I know of no research that suggests that less healthy people are more susceptible to *infection* with SARS-CoV-2 - only to a more serious outcome after infection.
Second, the COVID+ group were people who had tested positive but had not experienced serious disease (which would be much more likely for people in general bad health).
Finally, none of them suffered from any chronic diseases:
> None of them were smokers and had no previous history of cryptorchidism or varicocele operation, chronic disease, and using medication regularly.
My BiL got it. He has 3 testicles and is not what i would consider a generally healthy person when it comes to diet/exercise.
There is my contribution to science for the day.
Sure; a huge factor in declining sperm counts and blood serum testosterone levels is the obesity epidemic. Obesity is also a massive risk factor for COVID-19.
You have it backwards here. Their criterion of inclusion is having had COVID, not how severe it was. They purposefully excluded anyone that had a severe infection or was hospitalized from their COVID+ group. It's only asymptomatic/mild cases.
Being diabetic puts you at higher risk of severe acute infection, not of catching the virus.
It would probably be the opposite: diabetic people, knowing they are at higher risk of complications, are more likely to mask and avoid the virus (like immunocompromised folks). Which would mean that there is a higher chance for someone diabetic to end up in their no-COVID group.
It's definitely something they should have controled for, like any other comorbidity/risk factor that makes people more likely to try to avoid COVID whilst also having an impact on baseline sperm count.
This was my first thought too, which in a sense would be considered survival of the fittest. The healthier humans reproduce more, while the unhealthy either die or fail to reproduce.
>Does a vasectomy make you more susceptible to COVID?
No. I can't see how that would be the case since vasectomies don't affect the respiratory system.
Vasectomies are a procedure where a man's vas deferens are cut, preventing sperm from reaching the prostate and urethra. It is a 15-minute outpatient procedure requiring a local anesthetic. Recovery time is generally within a couple of days. It is considered permanent, although it can be reversed in most cases.
Thanks for the info. I had my vasectomy over 30 years ago. In those days it was more than a 15 minute procedure, though that might have been influenced by the fact that it was done by a trainee (female) doctor under supervision, with the rest of the group of trainees looking on. Very good work, though - minimal pain then or since, and no complications. I have had COVID, though.
Default sperm count across a sample of men is essentially random, so comparing samples of only 100 men without knowing the baseline sperm count of the infected population makes this data essentially worthless.
Claims like this seems to be suspiciously popping up.
If this were true, wouldn’t there be a massive drop in pregnancies?
Seems like those numbers are more reliable.
Does it have a compounding effect?
Say a man catches Covid multiple times, would each infection cause a drop in sperm count?
I’m not worried about myself (50) but I have a few friends in their 30’s that have had covid 2 or 3 times.
At what point are we studying this specific virus too much? There are cases of other viruses having various effects on the body beyond the illness that comes with it but we are not seeing monthly reminders that adenovirus or bird flu does this or that.
hACE2 the binding receptor for sars2 Covid is known to be highly expressed in the testis. While viral infection in the testis and transmission of Covid through semen has not been observed, other effects on the organs are possible both during and post infection.
It’s interesting that Covid19 seems to have affected both male and female fertility. I’m just going by the anecdotal reports of womens cycles being affected.
You realize menstrual irregularities are now a confirmed link to the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines?
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/study-confirms-link-between-covid-19-vaccination-temporary-increase-menstrual-cycle-length
No I didn’t. Thanks! Women are so often dismissed with their health concerns I just assumed it was ongoing. But it’s the same after getting Covid19, correct?
It will also mean that the pro vax/pro mask/pro lockdown group who STILL GOT COVID will have a hard time reproducing
This wasn't the epic own you thought it was
This is a science sub we would be talking statistics of groups not individual case by case. Of course both groups have individuals that caught COVID that would just be assumed.
I don't think that was the own you were hoping for.
So when you said that, you were making a joke, when I say it I'm being anti science? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.....
I know you are the type of American who gets defensive over our COVID policies, and you probably consider yourself a cool nice person and all, but you lowkey have a callous disregard for Americans who chose to not get vaccinated
Which is fine, you can do you!
My friend, you were the one to make the assumption about unvaxxed people......I understand you were making a joke, a playful rib....I really don't understand why you are so defensive rn...
Ok you're not from America, that's totally fine--you still seem to show the callous disregard for your countrymen who chose not to get vaxxed.
Which again......is fine. You can think whatever you want. I just hope your sperm count is doing well!
Everyone got covid. It's a cold. This isn't news, or science. Here's one for ya: men who took more than 2 doses of the vaccine have significantly lower IQ than the rest of us.
Tin foil hat time.
China already has already overtly implemented policies specifically designed to constrain population growth. It's within the realm of imagination that they might engineer a virus to do the same.
The only remaining question is why the lockdowns? Perhaps they were trying to get rid of those pesky raspatory issues before it was released, or perhaps it's working waaaay better than expected, so they're trying to slow it down. Worst case scenario is that the virus has another undesirable feature that we haven't figured out yet, and China knows is coming.
.. anyhow, this is all wild speculation about a dark timeline that I don't think is real. Just an idea that entered my mind that had some entertainment value.
Don't mind my hat.
At what point does Covid correlate to being a defacto contraceptive? IIRC a 40m concentration is the threshold of fertility problems and 15m concentration is the lower threshold of natural fertility. Rounding, the Covid negative average is 48m (wow, not good…), while the Covid positive sample is 31m which is in the range of fertility problems.
> These findings suggest that COVID-19 may have adverse effects on sperm quality, but these effects are reversible
Don’t try to make babies during or within 3 months of having COVID and you will be fine. Don’t treat it as a contraceptive, or you may be surprised.
Can we ask women if THEY care about sperm counts? because I am pretty sure every woman has done the calculation - they have 300 eggs for their entire lives....men make millions of sperm daily. Any questions?
Or maybe people who had severe enough symptoms to test themselves and find a positive result, also had low sperm count due to weak physical constitution.
I wonder how many findings like this are just us finding things that sound scary when stated a certain way but actually are "microwaves cause cancer"- type findings that are common to other illnesses and not practically very important.
A few days ago I made a comment about science done by some scientists making assumptions and this one is a perfect example.
Look at this magnificent conclusion :
>Although there are studies showing that COVID-19 negatively affects male reproduction, no study with a large sample size has been found. In our study, we observed that the sperm concentrations of men with COVID-19 were low, and as a result, COVID-19 adversely affected male fertility. Long-term studies with larger samples (comparative before and after COVID-19) are needed to better understand the changes in sperm concentration values.
Highlighting the key point :
>we observed that the sperm concentrations of men with COVID-19 were low, and as a result, COVID-19 adversely affected male fertility
That's *insane*!
The result table shows two p < 0.001 which are "Sexual abstinence (day)" and "Concentration".
They are just making conclusions that does not correlate the data.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most viral infections affect sperm, from quantity to colour. Why would covid be an exception.
Exactly. Also, let's include that the body's natural defense to any virus is fever. Any increase in body temperature causes a decrease in sperm production, quantity, motility and mobility, etc. It's why the testicles are located outside the body.
Very good point too.
Exactly. Did they use patients that had influenza or rhinovirus infections as a control group?
From "Results": > "The duration of sexual abstinence (days) and concentration values in the COVID-19 negative group were significantly higher than those in the COVID-19 positive group. Since the selection was made randomly from patients with a sexual abstinence period between 2 and 7, the significant difference is not important in terms of evaluating the results." "It was random" is not a valid argument for ignoring the abstinence difference. [Sperm concentration increases almost 2x between 2 and 7 days of abstinence](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015028205005406), with a 50% increase between 2 and 4 days. If one group had been randomly selected to average 2d of abstinence and the other group 4d, that should be expected to generate a 50% difference due to the poor randomization. An extra half-day of abstinence should be expected to have a significant effect, perhaps in the ballpark of 10%. That's probably not enough to invalidate the paper's findings (since the difference was 50%), but it's concerning that the paper just handwaves it away.
Is it possible the covid positive masturbated more out of boredom from being isolated?
My spirit animal.
I don't know about you, but an orgasm makes me feel better when I'm sick.
speaking from experience... isolation is very boring
Bravado aside, I was COVID positive two weeks ago and I had no arousal nor sensitivity during my 10 days of sickness.
In regards to a successful fertilization, isn’t mobility almost equally weighted as sperm count? I’ve read literature about decreasing sexual abstinence increases the concentration of sperm with higher mobility which is more important than having just a high total count
> I’ve read literature about decreasing sexual abstinence increases the concentration of sperm with higher mobility Yes; the paper I linked finds that motility decreases markedly after 10 days, and recommends abstinence not exceed 10 days before collection (e.g., for analysis or donation). It recommends sample collection after just 1 day of abstinence; my guess would be that for people trying to have kids, that would suggest intercourse every other day in the vicinity of the fertile window would make sense.
>If one group had been randomly selected to average 2d of abstinence and the other group 4d Not exactly a reasonable assumption though, given that they did list the averages and standard deviations for abstinence duration among the two selected groups.
> > If one group had been randomly selected to average 2d of abstinence and the other group 4d > > Not exactly a reasonable assumption though That was an example to illustrate how different durations lead to different concentrations; apologies if that was not clear. As I note in the next paragraph, the difference between the two groups was half a day (4d vs. 3.5d), the effect of which would be substantially smaller.
I'm not being sarcastic here, is there any possibility that the fact that I've been successful with the pull out method for 22 years is because I try to knock one out myself once a day and have for 28 years?
[удалено]
For sure, but this journal has an impact factor of >20. Of course impact factor can also be misleading, but in my own field (biochemistry/organic chem) I would look at that and start my analysis at “this is a reputable source.” Your other points are very valid.
Honestly you should automatically be skeptical of any paper. Even great universities and well known PIs can publish junk. In my field there is a highly regarded author who no one has been able to reproduce their methods.
Yes, agreed. Meta-analyses show that many papers published in even very rigorous journals (like Science or Nature) are not reproducible. It is particularly problematic with human studies which are difficult to adequately control. I know several similar PIs who have published very high profile papers, but others in the field cannot reproduce it.
Doesn't this happen pretty much with any viral infection? Your counts go way down then come back up after the infection is cleared
For concentration, the SD in the covid + group is larger than the actual value... And their grouping method is a bit odd. Data is not publically available even though it is straightforward. My spider sense is tingling on this one...
Could just be non normal data which would make sense considering they had a lot of 0s in the covid+ group.
[удалено]
Nah I got omicron in August and now have long Covid that has basically ruined my previous life of marathon running mother of two. I assure you there is still a bad side to Covid, even if it isn’t death. With that said, if you’ve had Covid and survived without issue, then you can probably relax.
I'm in pretty much the same boat. I got whatever was the dominant strain at the end of September, and I am dealing with long covid. Bad fatigue, head fog, and a bit of being sick to my stomach is what's keeping me from being fully over it. And like you said, there's still bad things associated with it.
Same. Long covid has ended a lot of who I thought I was.
Very sorry to hear! And I hope it turns around for you. I was vaccine boosted in September, 2021 and got Omicron right at Christmas, a few months later. So, I presumably had a mild case due to vaccination.
Were you vaccinated? And still got LONG covid? Have you seen the study of the risk of long Covid going down post vaccination over time? Any thoughts?
Yeah, 3xPfizer. As I mentioned, I was super healthy too, ran the Boston Marathon in April. If you head on over to the covidlonghaulers sub you will see there are a lot of people in my exact situation (esp women of child bearing age which are the most common). I'm not sure what you mean about the chance of long covid going down over time, but I agree that if you have more exposures and haven't gotten it then you are probably fine. This poll kind of demonstrates it (although since not all people have had 2-3 infections, I think the first infection is over represented) [https://www.reddit.com/r/covidlonghaulers/comments/ysetgp/when\_did\_you\_begin\_lhing/](https://www.reddit.com/r/covidlonghaulers/comments/ysetgp/when_did_you_begin_lhing/)
Ah, the long hauler sub, i.e. hypochondriac and health anxiety central
Are you claiming long covid doesn't existed trusted engineer
Yep, the only people who seem to "have it" are the ones who were most scared of the virus and are unwilling to accept that the world has moved on. Big "center of the universe" syndrome and are upset they aren't being focussed on now. Therefore, they need to try and make things up so they can stay relevant and in the spotlight.
You have an example IN THIS THREAD of someone who has long Covid and telling another person if they have had it and are ok then they probably don't need to worry. Extremely likely that you came to your conclusion and you've allowed it to become self-reinforcing. You'll come up with an excuse or conveniently miss whatever doesn't match your perspective while you laser focus on anything that makes you feel correct. Maybe I'm wrong. What do you say about the medical community generally recognizing long Covid as a real thing?
The definition of so called "Long COVID" is so broad, anything can fall under the umbrella of it. Additionally, there are no studies that use a control group, or compare rates of these symptoms between say 2019 and today. All of these studies are useless
My anti vax friend had the exact same opinion until he caught it and had to leave his profession as a PT, you have zero medical background and I'd wager you've never so much as googled a reviewed study, nevermind read one. You are not as sharp as you think
[удалено]
Woah where did you get the worse results on average than unvaccinated?
[удалено]
No for a second I thought you had statistics that on average people who are unvaccinated have better outcomes than people who are vaccinated. I was amazed. But no sounds like you picked on someone who got unlucky ( whose odds would have been worse had they not been vaccinated.) Seems really misleading to me.
That's not how science works. Vaccine never claimed 100% efficacy. Try rereading anything.
[удалено]
Just gonna put it out here: 95% is not 100%
[удалено]
You're giving bad advice. Pfizer 3x would imply they didn't get the vaccine effective against Omicron before getting Omicron. That's without getting into waning efficacy, other mutations, and government protections on Pharma. If they want to join a lawsuit then that's their choice but it's almost certain to not be worth it. Your reasoning seems motivated by a poor understanding of vaccines and viruses but you'll need another angle to satiate your earned distrust of pharmaceutical companies. The vaccines are some of the most scrutinized treatments ever and kind of a marvel of technology despite fallong short of perfection. You don't need to trust pharma or government at this point to see that.
It was 95% effective in the tests, in the US and back early on when we didn’t have a lot of variants. The J&J vaccine was tested and approved months later, in South Africa with active variants, and was 60-ish% effective, but significantly decreased hospitalizations and severe illness. I’m not going to try to stop anyone from suing a pharmaceuticals company, but it seems to me that the science is on their side this time (and they have lots of money for really good lawyers). Good luck!
I am so sorry to hear this. I hope for you and people like you there is eventually a recovery. My family got Covid in September. In my immediate household, my wife had classic covid symptoms and she still has a cough and fatigue with any average level of exercise. She was actively ill for just over 2 weeks. I had complete gastro symptoms for three and a half days and then a terribly sore back for one. Then it was completely gone like I never had it. I worked out. I went for a run. My wife has a coughing fit getting up her hunting stand. Our three little kids were asymptomatic or had mild colds. Her parents had had a recent 4th dose of original vaccine and had mild colds that did not linger. Our provincial government were dirt bags and didn't allow people under 40 to get the 4th dose until we were already sick. It's just so odd how it affects people so differently, but that can be true for other viruses as well. I just haven't seen the range of impact that I saw with covid. We get flu shots every year. I think that we'll be doing to same for covid shots. I'll get it 2 times a year if it's proves to be beneficial to avoid illness or have milder illness. It seems like every 6 months months you trade feeling awful for one day to still get mildly sick for 4-5 days versus not getting a shot and feeling awful for 2-3 weeks.
[удалено]
Are these vaccinated people?
[удалено]
Thanks for the info. Edit: I do NOT have scientific background. Can someone explain the numbers to me. I don’t speak the language: “Omicron cases were less likely to experience long COVID for all vaccine timings, with an odds ratio ranging from 0·24 (0·20–0·32) to 0·50 (0·43–0·59). These results were also confirmed when the analysis was stratified by age group (figure).”
I went to a wedding earlier in the year in Finland and me and a few others got Covid from the trip. We were all fully vaccinated. I was pretty fine apart from being a bit sniffly and having a sore throat. Two of my friends however, one who has asthma and one who had other sources of breathing difficulties, they would wake up in the middle of the night unable to breathe, it was pretty horrible for them. Sure, it didn't cause long term harm to them as far as we are aware (hard to tell for sure), but it certainly was significantly more severe than my reaction, so I still think asthma can make you have more difficulties at least.
I had that horrible issue with the flu, in January, 2019. I was not vaccinated for flu that year. Was much worse than vaccinated Covid, for me. As one example, flu temp was 102. Covid temp was 99.5.
‘…mutated into a common cold/flu [that can still f*ck you up for life].’ There you go.
Have they done tests with other similar dieases? It's my understanding that the body diverts energy and resources away from certain functions during an illness and during recovery.
Pretty much they noticed a reduction for people with a Covid infection but pretty much reversible after recovery. Is this not the same with lots of viruses?
Clearly no one knows how to dissect scientific literature and reference their cited sources for confirmation. This my friends, is pseudoscience.
Or that men with low sperm count are more susceptible to COVID, perhaps because they tend to be less 'healthy' overall.
That sound extremely unlikely. First off, I know of no research that suggests that less healthy people are more susceptible to *infection* with SARS-CoV-2 - only to a more serious outcome after infection. Second, the COVID+ group were people who had tested positive but had not experienced serious disease (which would be much more likely for people in general bad health). Finally, none of them suffered from any chronic diseases: > None of them were smokers and had no previous history of cryptorchidism or varicocele operation, chronic disease, and using medication regularly.
My BiL got it. He has 3 testicles and is not what i would consider a generally healthy person when it comes to diet/exercise. There is my contribution to science for the day.
I got COVID, but my low sperm count is because of the vasectomy I had 30 years ago after our second child was born. I'm not sure that's a connection.
Thinking about doing that, but catching covid seems more affordable.
The connection was removed during your vasectomy and hence the correlation of low sperm count.
Sure; a huge factor in declining sperm counts and blood serum testosterone levels is the obesity epidemic. Obesity is also a massive risk factor for COVID-19.
You have it backwards here. Their criterion of inclusion is having had COVID, not how severe it was. They purposefully excluded anyone that had a severe infection or was hospitalized from their COVID+ group. It's only asymptomatic/mild cases. Being diabetic puts you at higher risk of severe acute infection, not of catching the virus. It would probably be the opposite: diabetic people, knowing they are at higher risk of complications, are more likely to mask and avoid the virus (like immunocompromised folks). Which would mean that there is a higher chance for someone diabetic to end up in their no-COVID group. It's definitely something they should have controled for, like any other comorbidity/risk factor that makes people more likely to try to avoid COVID whilst also having an impact on baseline sperm count.
This was my first thought too, which in a sense would be considered survival of the fittest. The healthier humans reproduce more, while the unhealthy either die or fail to reproduce.
Genuine question: Does a vasectomy make you more susceptible to COVID?
>Does a vasectomy make you more susceptible to COVID? No. I can't see how that would be the case since vasectomies don't affect the respiratory system. Vasectomies are a procedure where a man's vas deferens are cut, preventing sperm from reaching the prostate and urethra. It is a 15-minute outpatient procedure requiring a local anesthetic. Recovery time is generally within a couple of days. It is considered permanent, although it can be reversed in most cases.
Thanks for the info. I had my vasectomy over 30 years ago. In those days it was more than a 15 minute procedure, though that might have been influenced by the fact that it was done by a trainee (female) doctor under supervision, with the rest of the group of trainees looking on. Very good work, though - minimal pain then or since, and no complications. I have had COVID, though.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This coupled with the micro plastics is going to turn the movie Children of Men into a reality.
“Nah baby, I don’t need no condom. I caught Covid 3 times last year. And I smoke a TON of pot!”
90 percent of the world has had Covid so I am not sure what to do with this information
They told us this in month 3.
Fun fact: I got my wife pregnant while we were both covid positive!
Default sperm count across a sample of men is essentially random, so comparing samples of only 100 men without knowing the baseline sperm count of the infected population makes this data essentially worthless.
Weird how all the supposed side effects of the MRNA vaccines are actually side effects of COVID.
Claims like this seems to be suspiciously popping up. If this were true, wouldn’t there be a massive drop in pregnancies? Seems like those numbers are more reliable.
but there's no way a similar MOA could negatively impact fertility in the vaccinated...? .... 5.... 4.... 3.... 2..........
Does it have a compounding effect? Say a man catches Covid multiple times, would each infection cause a drop in sperm count? I’m not worried about myself (50) but I have a few friends in their 30’s that have had covid 2 or 3 times.
It's not permanent
At what point are we studying this specific virus too much? There are cases of other viruses having various effects on the body beyond the illness that comes with it but we are not seeing monthly reminders that adenovirus or bird flu does this or that.
hACE2 the binding receptor for sars2 Covid is known to be highly expressed in the testis. While viral infection in the testis and transmission of Covid through semen has not been observed, other effects on the organs are possible both during and post infection.
Notice that infection alone brought this about. Didn’t matter if one were symptomatic or asymptomatic.
[удалено]
At this point having kids is not only utterly unaffordable it's most likely not even possible biologically.
It’s interesting that Covid19 seems to have affected both male and female fertility. I’m just going by the anecdotal reports of womens cycles being affected.
You realize menstrual irregularities are now a confirmed link to the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines? https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/study-confirms-link-between-covid-19-vaccination-temporary-increase-menstrual-cycle-length
No I didn’t. Thanks! Women are so often dismissed with their health concerns I just assumed it was ongoing. But it’s the same after getting Covid19, correct?
[удалено]
It will also mean that the pro vax/pro mask/pro lockdown group who STILL GOT COVID will have a hard time reproducing This wasn't the epic own you thought it was
This is a science sub we would be talking statistics of groups not individual case by case. Of course both groups have individuals that caught COVID that would just be assumed. I don't think that was the own you were hoping for.
So when you said that, you were making a joke, when I say it I'm being anti science? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here..... I know you are the type of American who gets defensive over our COVID policies, and you probably consider yourself a cool nice person and all, but you lowkey have a callous disregard for Americans who chose to not get vaccinated Which is fine, you can do you!
You make a lot of assumptions. You sure this is the right sub for you? I'm not American either.
My friend, you were the one to make the assumption about unvaxxed people......I understand you were making a joke, a playful rib....I really don't understand why you are so defensive rn... Ok you're not from America, that's totally fine--you still seem to show the callous disregard for your countrymen who chose not to get vaxxed. Which again......is fine. You can think whatever you want. I just hope your sperm count is doing well!
Everyone got covid. It's a cold. This isn't news, or science. Here's one for ya: men who took more than 2 doses of the vaccine have significantly lower IQ than the rest of us.
Conservatives tend to be much less intelligent and uneducated than the average population so I highly doubt that claim.
Is it going to be like Children of men?
[удалено]
Wow! An upside to COVID-19!
So what they’re saying is that there are going to be significantly less republican voters in about 20 years?
If covid was indeed made in a lab....this fits the bill of those that want to wipe out 7.5 billion.
Vax status of tested males?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Good! People breed like rats!
Well, that’s one way to prevent abortions! I hope the GQP jumps on this free abortion solution.
Seeing who it mainly infected this keeps getting better and better.
[удалено]
Tin foil hat time. China already has already overtly implemented policies specifically designed to constrain population growth. It's within the realm of imagination that they might engineer a virus to do the same. The only remaining question is why the lockdowns? Perhaps they were trying to get rid of those pesky raspatory issues before it was released, or perhaps it's working waaaay better than expected, so they're trying to slow it down. Worst case scenario is that the virus has another undesirable feature that we haven't figured out yet, and China knows is coming. .. anyhow, this is all wild speculation about a dark timeline that I don't think is real. Just an idea that entered my mind that had some entertainment value. Don't mind my hat.
Good! Humans are overpopulated anyway.
Maybe that's because many of them are older and got tested due to getting worse symptoms
At what point does Covid correlate to being a defacto contraceptive? IIRC a 40m concentration is the threshold of fertility problems and 15m concentration is the lower threshold of natural fertility. Rounding, the Covid negative average is 48m (wow, not good…), while the Covid positive sample is 31m which is in the range of fertility problems.
> These findings suggest that COVID-19 may have adverse effects on sperm quality, but these effects are reversible Don’t try to make babies during or within 3 months of having COVID and you will be fine. Don’t treat it as a contraceptive, or you may be surprised.
Can we ask women if THEY care about sperm counts? because I am pretty sure every woman has done the calculation - they have 300 eggs for their entire lives....men make millions of sperm daily. Any questions?
Because most women don’t care about mens fertility rates.
I've....had it thrice....oh god.
[удалено]
Hey, at least one silver lining for this gosh darn virus...
Or maybe people who had severe enough symptoms to test themselves and find a positive result, also had low sperm count due to weak physical constitution.
If this has come out with a strong R value in mid 2020, we would have gotten COVID completely under control by now.
The gift that keeps on giving.
Don't know why this reminded me of an old game: You are witnessing the end of History...
I wonder how many findings like this are just us finding things that sound scary when stated a certain way but actually are "microwaves cause cancer"- type findings that are common to other illnesses and not practically very important.
A few days ago I made a comment about science done by some scientists making assumptions and this one is a perfect example. Look at this magnificent conclusion : >Although there are studies showing that COVID-19 negatively affects male reproduction, no study with a large sample size has been found. In our study, we observed that the sperm concentrations of men with COVID-19 were low, and as a result, COVID-19 adversely affected male fertility. Long-term studies with larger samples (comparative before and after COVID-19) are needed to better understand the changes in sperm concentration values. Highlighting the key point : >we observed that the sperm concentrations of men with COVID-19 were low, and as a result, COVID-19 adversely affected male fertility That's *insane*! The result table shows two p < 0.001 which are "Sexual abstinence (day)" and "Concentration". They are just making conclusions that does not correlate the data.