Amazon computer buy
To all it may concern
Amazon computer buy
This is pic 3 under moving pic in amazon description, copy as above. This is what I expect. Missing are
Amazon computer buy
To all it may concern
Amazon computer buy
This is pic 3 under moving pic in amazon description, copy as above. This is what I expect. Missing are
How It Works?
If you are a techie like me, you must know ever. This is after the 40-year-old enthralling introduction of fingerprint recognition sensors.
For those of you, who feed on tech news would definitely know what I am talking about. Yeah, the latest vein recognition sensor! This impressive bit has caused much hype into the technological world. It seems promising as a fresh approach towards cybersecurity.
After the introduction of WiFi 6, another tech breakthrough within a year seems very promising! Well enough of going on about how finger vein recognition is the new sensation let’s pour some light over what it is and how it works.
What is finger vein recognition?
Vein recognition is a relatively new biometric authentication method. It uses a pattern recognition method. It is based on the images of human veins present beneath the surface of the skin. The vascular pattern present beneath the surface of the skin is different from every individual.
The tech developers have exploited this fact and created the finger vein recognition system. This system basically uses this vascular pattern and a near-infrared light camera. It cannot be defeated by any image or reading residues.
Vein recognition method can be used to identify individuals as well as for ensuring aadhaar verification and ensuring photographs. It is between fingerprint/eye-print and DNA matching.
How finger vein recognition works?
It basically works like any other typical biometric authentication machine. By capturing the target’s image by near infra-red > processing its data > compare it to the previously stored data of that person.
Very much like our fingerprints our finger or palm veins- that are the tiny blood vessels present underneath the skin, carrying deoxygenated blood, are spread out in a very unique way.
Now, this method uses this unique pattern as an individual’s identity. It is based on the use of near infrared rays and the way the hemoglobin present within the veins reacts to it.
The deoxidized blood present within the veins can absorb infrared light. Therefore if an image of the finger or palm is taken with a near-infrared light camera, the veins present in the palm or the finger appear as a dark pattern of lines.
The system first asks to set up a parent data which is stored in the memory. The parent data contains a person’s information. This data is basically a person’s identity.
Once the data is stored, it is used to compare every time a person wants to gain access.
How finger vein recognition differs
There has been a general comparison of fingerprint and finger vein recognition method. However, finger vein recognition has more priority over fingerprint recognition.
Allow me to explain these differences to you:
· Fingerprint sensors are known to have a lower level of accuracy as compared to finger vein recognition. It is known to have a low false rejection rate and false acceptance rate.
· Fingerprint recognition requires a person to touch the device, so there is a hygiene issue to it. On the other hand finger vein, recognition is hygienic as there it doesn’t require a person to touch the device
· Fingerprint system can be affected by scars, cuts burns, wrinkles, weather or other external factors. These factors may hinder in their performance. Finger vein recognition as though works on veins which are unchangeable so there are no issues towards it.
· The fingerprint technology is known to require maintenance as constant contact with the device dirties it up. It requires regular cleaning. However, a finger vein recognition device doesn’t need much cleaning as it doesn’t need a connection.
· There are high chances of forgery as well as duplication in fingerprint recognition. This is because it leaves prints behind on the device. Due to this, it is easy to copy them and use a counterfeit. Now as finger vein recognition works on veins of a living human, it is nearly impossible to forge them.
Benefits of finger vein recognition
Biometric system of authentication is known to be the most reliable form of authentication. This method is a new era of technology. Vein recognition is, however, a definite breakthrough.
Vein recognition system comes up with some benefits which are as follows:
· Reliability
This method of biometric authentication is far more reliable as it is difficult to forge. Unlike other biometric scans which scan things that are present on the surface
Vein recognition, however, works on scanning the veins present under the skin. This scan is done only on living humans which is why it is nearly impossible to forge it
· Hygienic
Vein recognition is a contact-free method. That means a person is not required to make contact with the device for the scan to go through with.
This is why this method is much more hygienic as compared to other touch-based systems.
· Low Maintenance
As this technology requires less or no contact with the device. In other authentication methods, a person is required to touch the device.
In finger vein recognition as it is contact-free, therefore it is not necessary to clean the equipment at regular intervals.
· Remains unaffected by external factors
Factors like age, wrinkles, weather, etc. can not affect the performance of a vein recognition system. This is because it is a subdermal type of technology that means it remains uninfluenced by wet or dry weather.
Wrinkles appearing on hands and skin can also not affect this method as it works on the veins which remain unchanged throughout life.
Disadvantages of finger vein recognition
Everything is known to have advantages as well as disadvantages. As I am to provide an unbiased view, so let’s have a look at its cons:
· As this method is relatively new, so the technology is expensive. Due to this, it is only accessible to a few companies and organizations
· People suffering from arthritis cant use it as they can’t balance their limbs properly. Also, it would be difficult to place their hand on the scanner.
· This technology is still not that reachable to the world, and some cultures refuse to use it.
· It uses veins for identity. This could cause some people to be apprehensive about it.
·
Parting words
Hyped up about this technology? This fascinating bit is indeed intriguing and is something I wish gets available in the market soon. Even its advantages outweigh its disadvantages.
To who it concerns
Rest is a summary of what is my diet. Purposes at the start are to select dishes for the benefit of RD to allow them to figure out calorie consumption of 1900 per day and ensure 60 gm of advised protein per day for a diabetic heart patient.
Essential is my strong belief of aging requires intermittent fasting and diabetes same time. I wish to go from a light dinner for good numbers of sugar every morning to intermittent fasting of 16 hours and a full fast 1 day per week.
Breakfast
oats milk with 10 gm egg white powder + 10 gm whey +
10 gm almond powder + 2 wall-nuts + 2katora lowfat milk
10 am snack
small apple + seasonal fruit + tea
Lunch
1katori each (dal + seasonal veg + curd) + 1 roti
4 pm snack
3 Marie-biscuit + 3 spoon cheese-ling + tea
7 pm dinner
1katori (lauki-etc + curd) + 1small-roti + 1katora lowfat milk
último enlace
https://youtu.be/rLD-8UhHEZM
La imagen es un video en el que se puede hacer clic.
estructura de edad de la población
https://youtu.be/2EvYU-HmsvI
Después de 7 años después de 2015, dedicado a tiempo completo al estudio del envejecimiento y al análisis profundo de la ciencia para desentrañar el empirismo y la erudición, estoy listo para anunciar que tengo una nueva teoría superior y una estrategia sólida para deshacerla. Sé que la parte de deshacer es correcta ya que está validada, aunque no empíricamente por la FDA, por autoaplicación y casi 1000 pacientes durante seis años por
Alan S. Verde MD
Calle Westmoreland 44-01,
Pequeño cuello, Nueva York 11363
(347) 255-3944
alangreen225@gmail.com
Le creo solo por 1 razón, ha usado la receta en sí mismo y en pacientes (700-1000) durante seis años y tiene informes entusiastas (ahora tiene 78 años, comenzó con 72, se sintió bien después de 3 meses). Además de la autoaplicación, considera que los matemáticos y los informáticos, no los biólogos y los médicos, son mucho más adecuados para el envejecimiento. ¡Qué hallazgo milagroso para mí!
Todos los demás que no puedan demostrar que estoy equivocado, incluidos los tribunales, la policía, etc., y en particular los médicos, ¡váyanse al infierno! Lo pruebo yo mismo, aquí o en el extranjero. Continuaré con los médicos que me creen, para lanzar la terapia de envejecimiento en el lateral, con objetivos inmediatos de singularidad 1.0.
Mi teoría es la teoría composicional del envejecimiento: recopila varias teorías del envejecimiento como correctas al mismo tiempo, tal como lo prueban los relojes de ADNm, y refleja el envejecimiento de diferentes sistemas corporales, de 3 clases amplias que se programan de arriba hacia abajo para detener los efectos de mTOR , de abajo hacia arriba en torno a los factores de Yamanaka y la adversidad saludable como la restricción dietética, y la extensión de los telómeros basada en el uso de oxígeno hiperbárico intermitente. Creo en términos teóricos que los métodos mTOR de arriba hacia abajo y los métodos de Yamanaka de abajo hacia arriba se pueden reutilizar varias veces y tendrán una prioridad mucho mayor. La extensión de los telómeros rara vez será material.
Envejecimiento hiperfuncional: quién ordenó el envejecimiento humano (aparte de un dios jodido)
https://youtu.be/hyXH_m5a3NE
Comprender la evolución del envejecimiento en humanos: el envejecimiento es uno de los grandes logros de la biología. Entre vertebrados; peces, anfibios y reptiles tienen NS de senescencia insignificante. El problema con NS es que los animales pueden descubrir cómo vivir demasiado tiempo. Este es un problema en un mundo cambiante y dificulta la evolución de nuevos rasgos porque la cría y el acervo genético están entonces dominados por animales mayores y más grandes dentro de la especie, en particular los campeones de la cadena alimentaria. Este problema fue resuelto por los mamíferos recién llegados hace unos 180 millones de años. La solución fue matemática pura. Los animales crecían rápido, se reproducían durante algunas generaciones y luego morían. El efecto de poda de la muerte de animales mayores brindaría espacio para que la nueva generación prospere y tenga el potencial de introducir variaciones genéticas favorables. El problema era que los animales se habían vuelto demasiado buenos para descubrir cómo vivir mucho tiempo. La solución fue una píldora venenosa integrada en el código genético. Los animales con la píldora venenosa de repente comenzarían a envejecer y morirían. Los animales sin la píldora de veneno vivirían más tiempo y solo sufrirían una muerte estocástica o una muerte no relacionada con el envejecimiento. 180 millones de años después el ganador es claro. Todos los mamíferos terrestres eligieron la muerte senescente y programada. En el pasado, durante 180 millones de años, los peces, reptiles y anfibios se han mantenido insignificantemente senescentes y les ha ido razonablemente bien. Sin embargo, no han cambiado mucho; mientras que los mamíferos han hecho avances extraordinarios.
Comprender el envejecimiento es fácil si su campo son las matemáticas puras o los programas informáticos; sin embargo, parece casi imposible si su campo es la biología. Desafortunadamente, la teoría del envejecimiento fue desarrollada por biólogos y no por matemáticos o programadores informáticos, y el biólogo se equivocó por completo. Hoy en día, una teoría del envejecimiento está dominada por un campo que se autodenomina "Biología del envejecimiento". Su teoría es que el envejecimiento no tiene valor, ningún gen promueve el envejecimiento, y el envejecimiento en humanos es esencialmente lo mismo que envejecer en objetos inanimados, como un zapato viejo o un auto viejo. En resumen, la teoría del envejecimiento se fue por la madriguera del conejo.
Para entender el envejecimiento; compara un cocodrilo de 100 años con un humano de 100 años. El cocodrilo de 100 años es un animal extremadamente robusto; más grande y más fuerte que el cocodrilo de cincuenta años, sin mostrar signos de envejecimiento. Esto está en marcado contraste con un humano de cien años. Los mamíferos terrestres, incluidos los humanos, son animales senescentes, mientras que los reptiles, como los cocodrilos, muestran una senescencia insignificante NS.
La senescencia es un programa de muerte intencional que utiliza el envejecimiento programado. El plan es hacer que los mamíferos se deterioren y mueran. Esto crea más espacio para la nueva generación. La idea es que la nueva generación pueda tener nuevas mejoras genéticas y el objetivo del envejecimiento es eliminar a los animales más viejos para que sus genes no dominen el acervo genético. Todo es un gran plan para desarrollar mejoras genéticas. El plan es pura matemática. Animales sin mucho éxito en el desarrollo de mejoras genéticas a lo largo de los siglos.
https://youtu.be/rLD-8UhHEZM
The image (above) is a clickable video.
After 7 years post, 2015 Full time devoted to the study of Aging and deep analysis of science to unpack empiricism and scholarship, I am ready to announce that I have a new latest superior theory and a solid strategy for its undoing. I know that the undo part is correct since it is validated, though not FDA-empirically, by self-application and almost 1000 patients over six years by
Alan S. Green MD
Understanding aging is easy if your field is pure mathematics or computer programs; however, it seems to be nearly impossible if your field is Biology. Unfortunately, aging theory was developed by Biologist and not Mathematicians or Computer programmers and the Biologist got it totally wrong. Today, an aging theory is dominated by a field that calls itself, "Biology of Aging". Their theory is that aging has no value, no genes promote aging, and aging in humans is essentially the same as aging in inanimate objects, like an old shoe or an old car. In short, the aging theory went down a rabbit hole.
To understand aging; compare a 100-year-old crocodile with a 100-year-old human. The 100-year-old crocodile is an extremely robust animal; bigger and stronger than the fifty-year-old crocodile, showing no signs of aging. This is in sharp contrast to a hundred-year-old human. Terrestrial mammals, including humans, are senescent animals while reptiles, like crocodiles, show negligible senescence NS.
Senescence is an intentional death program using programmed aging. The plan is to make mammals deteriorate and die. This creates more space for the new generation. The idea is that the new generation may have new genetic improvements and the goal of aging is to remove the older animals so their genes do not dominate the genetic pool. It is all a grand plan to develop genetic improvements. The plan is pure mathematics. Animals not highly successful in the development of genetic improvements over the ages became extinct.
Aging is a way to give animals a relatively fixed life span and then prune them. Aging Is the secret to the success of terrestrial mammals. A poison pill in the plan for genetic improvement.
Forewarned is forearmed. Once you know your body is running an ancient genetic program to kill you; then you have a chance to turn off the death program. Successful anti-aging medicine is about the discovery of pro-aging programs and finding ways to block these programs. The chief culprit is mTOR, particularly mTOR2. All non-critical aging chemicals have an important role - even reducing the main aging has some effects and legacy effects that may not rise to critical but are still implicated in health decline. thus compositional aging means all factors need to be addressed, only duplicated effect producers can be ignored
At first view, undo aging and rejuvenation look the same. A very important distinction in my mind is the number of times the procedure work even though both deliver the fountain of youth. A technology delivering either must reduce your bio-age less than what you had before starting. It need not work a second time. or a small number of times. This is captured by my neologisms which attach a version number to rejuvenation to indication of upgraded definitely superior version.
Rejuvenation-1.0 only improves health span, life-extension is marginal. This may lead to next rejuvenation only in improved health span.
Rejuvenation-2.0 improves life-span, extend life-span, at least once. Life extension is seen in reduction of bio-age and increment in grimAge that measures expected demise interval. However the improvement may happen justice or small number of times.
Rejuvenation-3.0 allows significant number of reuses.
It is from scientific American, hence reliable think.
As a self-taught aging medicine expert, people do ask me real medicine questions. Rather than be a polite idiot, my response is always “outside my knowledge, here is some info, run it by a doctor, change doctor if different, changing till a doctor gives a persuading reason to disagree. This is because scientific American advice improves on all doctors!
It is about all Covid related questions.
Identical text if link fails to open.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific American asks experts in medicine, risk assessment and other fields how to balance the risks of COVID with the benefits of visiting public indoor spaces
As COVID cases declined across the U.S. in recent months and mask mandates were lifted, more people returned to restaurants, concert halls and offices maskless. But the novel coronavirus’s Omicron subvariant BA.2—which caused another wave in Europe and China—and related variants threaten to reverse that progress here. Earlier this month dozens of attendees (including high-ranking government officials) tested positive for COVID after attending a dinner in Washington, D.C. The safest option, of course, is to continue avoiding crowded indoor activities. But there remains a lot of interest in safely enjoying bars, cafes and other higher-risk venues that offer the benefits of social interaction.
Scientific American asked experts in epidemiology, medicine, risk assessment and aerosol transmission for advice on how to decide which risks we are willing to take. These decisions are based on assessments of personal risk, community risk and exposure risk—and the steps one can take to take to mitigate them. Personal risk refers to the danger of contracting COVID faced by an individual and the members of their household. Community risk is the current likelihood of encountering COVID among members of one’s community. And exposure risk accounts for the increased chances of catching COVID at a particular venue based on airflow characteristics of the space itself and other people’s behavior.
Here is what experts say about managing these risks while maintaining some of the benefits of public life.
How should a person factor personal risk for severe COVID into their decisions?
The number-one predictor of having a severe case of the disease is age, followed by the presence of comorbidities and immunocompromised status, according to Katelyn Jetelina, an epidemiologist who studies COVID risks at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. Using data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, she estimates that even vaccine-boosted people ages 50 to 64 are more than 10 times more likely to die from a severe breakthrough case than 18- to 49-year-olds with the same vaccination status. Donald Milton, a physician and clinical researcher who studies respiratory viruses at the University of Maryland, highlights recent research showing that, in households with a person who was infected with the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) of the COVID-causing virus SARS-CoV-2, 43 to 64 percent of people became infected as well, depending on whether the initially infected person wasboosted, fully vaccinated or unvaccinated. Jetelina cautions that we also need to account for the personal risks of the people with whom we live in our own risk assessments.
In general, people should discuss personal COVID risk with their doctor; it depends, in part, on which medications they take. Ethan Craig, a rheumatologist at the University of Pennsylvania, cares for patients who are immunosuppressed because of disease or medication and studies COVID risks in that population. One such immunosuppressive drug, rituximab, “knocks out your ability to make antibodies against new viral exposures and impairs your ability to make a response to a vaccine,” he says. Craig adds that such patients usually take precautions of their own accord, such as wearing high-filtration N95 masks, and “if anything, I end up having to talk people down sometimes and be like ‘Look, it’s okay to go to the grocery store.’” For some people, however, even this amount of exposure could be considered an unacceptable risk.
How does the risk of dying from COVID compare to the risk of dying from other causes linked to common activities?
Jetelina estimates that, for people between the ages of 18 and 49 who are boosted, the risk of dying from COVID is roughly equal to the risk of dying when someone drives about 10,000 miles. COVID risk goes up substantially with age and with being unboosted or unvaccinated. Thanks to vaccines, infection-induced immunity, therapeutics, better care and other factors, the relative risk of dying from COVID if you catch it is now, broadly speaking, comparable to that of seasonal flu, Jetelina says—but importantly, because you are more likely to catch COVID than flu, the absolute risk remains much greater. Jetelina recommends COViD-Taser’s Relative Risk Tool, a resource funded by the National Science Foundation, that she helped to develop. It compares one’s risk of death from the disease to such risk posed by other activities, including driving. Although it is a research tool, Jetelina says she can “really trust the science and mathematics behind it.”
But Baruch Fischhoff, a professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University and an authority on how to communicate health risks, cautions against using risk-risk comparisons to make choices without fully considering benefits or unquantified risks. Employers may also misuse such comparisons to compel employees to accept certain risks on the job, which is not exactly a choice. Currently, risk calculators provide estimates based on retrospective data and may be unable to reliably weigh long-term complications of COVID.
How should one assess community risk?
There is no perfect way to measure community risk because it would take repeated random testing, so experts use other estimates: daily cases per 100,000 residents, test positivity rates and growth rates. Jetelina recommends using the New York Times’ tracker to look up community transmission for your county. She considers community risk high when there are more than 50 daily cases per 100,000 residents. When the risk is lower than that, Jetelina—a healthy, young boosted person—feels comfortable taking off her mask indoors. “I will say it’s taken a lot of time for me to be comfortable with that,” she says. “Once transmission rates of those indicators start increasing a bit, I’m putting my mask back on.” Others suggest an even lower risk threshold of 10 daily cases per 100,000 residents.
Daily city or county case counts are often an undercount because not everyone is getting tested and home test results are not always reported. As a work-around, health authorities use the “test positivity rate,” or “percent positive”—the percentage of COVID tests reported to public health authorities that were positive. If that number exceeds 5 percent, it is widely considered high risk for community transmission (provided the amount of testing in that area is adequate). But the community sample used to measure test positivity likely includes many people who seek out testing because they are currently experiencing COVID symptoms. So test positivity is typically higher than the infection rates among the people you might encounter in a cafe or grocery store, most of whom do not have any symptoms but could still be infectious.
Still, Robert M. Wachter, a professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, says there is no test positivity threshold that separates “safe” from “not safe” because it also depends on other factors, such as whether the benefit outweighs the risk to you, personally, the number of people you will be exposed to, and the closeness and duration of exposure.
Because of these large uncertainties in test coverage, Gerardo Chowell, a professor of mathematical epidemiology at Georgia State University, prefers to look at the general trend in daily COVID cases, hospitalizations and deaths, or percent positive. “When the trend is going up, you’re seeing the transmission chains expand,” Chowell says. “That means that the reproduction number”—the expected number of secondary infections from each infected person—“must be greater than one. If it is increasing, that’s probably the time when [one has the] highest risk of acquiring COVID in a social setting without a mask,” he says.” Wachter points out that, where available, wastewater surveillance may also give an early indication of COVID trends.
What is known about exposure risk in different settings, such as bars or movie theaters?
Linsey Marr, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech and one of the world’s leading experts on airborne transmission of viruses, says COVID risk in indoor spaces exists on a continuum. It is believed that reducing the amount of virus inhaled (i.e., the inhalation dose) makes infections less likely or illness less likely to be severe. Marr says one of the riskiest settings is an aerobic exercise studio: if somebody is infected, they are going to be exhaling more virus, and everyone else will be inhaling at a faster rate, too. Breathing heavily produces up to 10 times more aerosol particles that carry viruses than breathing normally, according to Richard Corsi, an expert on indoor air quality and dean of the College of Engineering at the University of California, Davis.
Marr says that talking in bars expels a similar number of respiratory particles as coughing, “so it’s like everyone’s in there coughing together.” Craig uses smoking as an analogy for aerosols exhaled during breathing and talking. In other words, “if a person was smoking in this place, would I be able to smell it?” he says. In movie theaters, there is risk of exposure from those seated immediately around you, but because of limited talking and, typically, a high ceiling, there is a lot more dilution of the air. So such a theater may be less risky than other crowded indoor venues. By that reasoning, museums, big-box retailers and grocery stores with high ceilings tend to be relatively safer as well.
Places with rapid rates of ventilation and filtration—such as some subways—are also much lower risk. The Bay Area Rapid Transport (BART) system in San Francisco Bay, for example, filters the air more than 50 times an hour with “virus-trapping MERV-14 air filters” inside each car. An Italian study of schools found that classrooms with ventilation systems that exchanged air six times per hour reduced infections by more than 80 percent, but many classrooms in the U.S. fail to meet this standard. Corsi characterized current public health recommendations of four to six air exchanges per hour as “a little bit anemic … we can do better.” He recommends owners or managers of crowded indoor spaces, such as classrooms, offices and bars, aim to filter or ventilate with fresh air at rates approaching 12 air exchanges per hour to reduce risks down to the level of an airborne isolation room in a hospital. Not all venues have the resources to do this, but the benefits increase with greater filtration rates, so the closer to this ideal, the better. In places with inadequate ventilation, consider bringing a portable high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) purifier—or building your own using box fans and high-quality HVAC (heating, ventilating and air-conditioning) filters—to run nearby.
Although the virus is thought to be transmitted primarily through the air, there have been a few documented cases of surface transmission, so it remains a good idea to wash your hands frequently, Marr says.
How can one further reduce the risk of getting COVID from everyday activities?
Getting vaccinated and boosted protects against death, hospitalization and, to a lesser extent, catching and spreading the virus. To avoid infection, Wachter recommends wearing an N95 mask. He has observed that the risk of U.C.S.F. health care workers—himself included—getting infected from their patients while wearing a well-fitting N95 is extraordinarily low. These respirators get close to filtering all of the virus, but they do not filter 100 percent. And if an N95 does not form an airtight seal with your face, it may allow unfiltered air into your lungs. So it is essential to try out and select N95 models that fit and seal to your face without gaps.
What is the risk of taking your mask off in a restaurant or bar to take a sip or bite?
In the 1990s medical researcher Stanley Wiener, then at the University of Illinois College of Medicine, proposed that a person could use respirators to survive aerosolized biological attacks, taking it off briefly to consume food and drink. During the pandemic, many places have allowed masks (or N95 respirators) to be removed while actively eating and drinking. Removing an N95 momentarily for a bite or sip carries “some risk, but I think it’s pretty tiny if you’re exposed for three seconds,” Corsi says, unless an infected person is “right in your face ... and shedding a lot [of virus].” Provided community risk is low or trending downward, Chowell, too, feels comfortable briefly removing his respirator to eat or drink at a party.
What do we know so far about the risk of “long COVID”?
Ranu Dhillon, a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who advises governments on infectious disease outbreaks, says he is seeing some patients with “a constellation of different types of symptoms after acute COVID infection,” including young, boosted and relatively healthy people. Wachter cautions that some fraction of vaccinated individuals who get infected—which one study estimates to be around 5 percent and possibly higher—may continue to feel short of breath or fatigued or think less clearly than before. COVID may increase the risks of heart attack, stroke, brain abnormalities or the onset of diabetes. While there have been preliminary studies of the rates of long COVID, including risks of developing cardiovascular complications, Wachter says many of these involved unvaccinated people or infections with variants prior to Omicron. Provisionally, he likens these risks to 20 years of untreated high blood pressure or smoking and points out that one cannot know the risk of long COVID among vaccinated and boosted individuals until long-term studies have concluded, which will take years.
How can we balance these risks with the benefits of socializing and being with others?
According to Wachter, one of the most important factors in overall COVID risk is whether “the person next to me has it.” He acknowledges that if someone is both vaccinated and boosted, it is not irrational for that person to decide that the mental energy and angst of calculating risks and taking precautions is high enough—and the risks of getting sick or dying from COVID are low enough—that they will go back to “living like it’s 2019”—as people in many parts of the country already have. He still worries about the risk of long COVID, though. Milton says that many people “don’t want to wear masks forever” and that we should work to make our built environments better at stopping aerosol transmission. He says people also have to decide whether to wear a high-quality mask when they are around those at higher risk, such as the elderly or immunocompromised, or around other people in general, such as at a party. When community transmission is low, Chowell says he may feel comfortable removing his N95 at parties in some situations, such as to have a drink. “Then you find a way to still interact with people, and they smile back once in a while,” he adds.
Devabhaktuni Srikrishna is founder of Patient Knowhow, a Web site that aims to uncover reliable and easy-to-use information about disease prevention, transmission, causes and treatment. Follow him on Twitter @sri_srikrishna.