|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On August 27 2020 07:21 Lmui wrote:Kinda a random anecdote: https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/ih1rr6/jim_thomas_armstrong_said_20_percent_of_the_blues/The St. Louis Blues had about 20% of the roster affected by Covid (Not inside the bubble, but prior to). I'm sure a study will follow up with professional sports later to follow up on how much conditioning/fitness is lost from a professional athlete who gets infected. Some of it will be the time off taken to recover, but some of it might have lasting effects. I guess we might see that next year at bootcamp, the infected might be significantly less fit than expected.
Respiratory complications are very rare in the young & fit/healthy. I would be surprised if any showed significant decreases in athletic capability (look at MLB for reference). Honestly, people, for the fit and healthy COVID represents a very negligible risk, don't use anecdotes to try and dismiss the statistics.
|
|
|
On August 28 2020 10:06 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2020 09:57 Wegandi wrote:On August 27 2020 07:21 Lmui wrote:Kinda a random anecdote: https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/ih1rr6/jim_thomas_armstrong_said_20_percent_of_the_blues/The St. Louis Blues had about 20% of the roster affected by Covid (Not inside the bubble, but prior to). I'm sure a study will follow up with professional sports later to follow up on how much conditioning/fitness is lost from a professional athlete who gets infected. Some of it will be the time off taken to recover, but some of it might have lasting effects. I guess we might see that next year at bootcamp, the infected might be significantly less fit than expected. Respiratory complications are very rare in the young & fit/healthy. I would be surprised if any showed significant decreases in athletic capability (look at MLB for reference). Honestly, people, for the fit and healthy COVID represents a very negligible risk, don't use anecdotes to try and dismiss the statistics. I'm not sure they are that negligible as I know a person who has lifetime heart issues and one who has lifetime lung issues. Both show up in the "recovered" both were no underlying and in their 30's. Now like you say anecdotal is not that accurate but I can't find any data on how many have long term issues. Only "recovered" or "death". I also think most MDs are pretty smart people who generally live in the world of evidence based decision making and the vast majority of them are not calling out people for overreacting but rather for people not taking it serious enough. I'm very happy to avoid getting it as even it is 1% that sounds OK until you are in the 1%. Also the guilt I would feel if I was alright and someone I knew or family was not because of me infecting them is not worth almost any risk. I did hear what I thought was a funny line today "It is somewhat amazing that some people think Covid is a Hoax, it is even more amazing that some people think the symptoms are caused by G5, but what is really amazing is that there is a group of people who manage to believe both!" made me chuckle.
You talk about 1%, but many 18-44 people take on much greater risk on a daily basis than that presented by COVID. You drink? You drive? You smoke? You eat yourself into obesity? Etc. For some reason the capability of the individual to determine actual risk vs perceived risk is whack. Young, healthy, not immuno compromised, not obese, no respiratory illnesses, etc. your risk is much lower than a lot of the daily activities we choose to do without batting an eye. I would say you're being very irrational, but I don't want to accuse.
Now, the issue with infecting close family and friends who are in higher risk categories is a real risk and decisions should be made to protect those parties - that likely means they're going to have to isolate themselves more (and that means you should probably not see them much in person if you're that worried) or assume the risks that come with ... living. Folks waiting on the miracle vaccine to solve all woes are going to be very disappointed.
|
Dying from covid is not the only issue it can cause. It will cause long term damage to the lungs via scarring and many seemingly permanent issues to those who have gotten it and survived so far, even if they're in a low risk category.
I'm not sure why people are so focused on the deaths and not the fact that a survivor might still need to have a large medical regimin for the rest of their life.
|
|
|
On August 28 2020 10:51 Nevuk wrote:
Dying from covid is not the only issue it can cause. It will cause long term damage to the lungs via scarring and many seemingly permanent issues to those who have gotten it and survived so far, even if they're in a low risk category.
I'm not sure why people are so focused on the deaths and not the fact that a survivor might still need to have a large medical regimin for the rest of their life.
I all ready addressed this. Those occurrences in this population are extremely rare. Sure, it can happen, but statistically it doesn't represent much risk. Not only do you have to contract it (small %) then you have to have complications (much rarer). The odds of a young healthy 30 something this happens to is quite small, much lower risk than many daily activities we partake in without a second thought. People are irrational.
|
On August 28 2020 11:12 JimmiC wrote:
I find it strange that it is not being tracked. If anyone sees it somewhere I would appreciate it.
There are some limited studies including older data about previous SARS and SARS adjacent incidences as well. TL;DR If you're in the moderate to high risk categories it presents significant issues, but those younger and healthier it is both rarer (most times such complications arise from acute moderate+ cases) and much more mild. This is a good thing. We should be thankful that at least some parts of our population are spared the worst.
|
|
|
On August 28 2020 11:15 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2020 10:51 Nevuk wrote:
Dying from covid is not the only issue it can cause. It will cause long term damage to the lungs via scarring and many seemingly permanent issues to those who have gotten it and survived so far, even if they're in a low risk category.
I'm not sure why people are so focused on the deaths and not the fact that a survivor might still need to have a large medical regimin for the rest of their life. I all ready addressed this. Those occurrences in this population are extremely rare. Sure, it can happen, but statistically it doesn't represent much risk. Not only do you have to contract it (small %) then you have to have complications (much rarer). The odds of a young healthy 30 something this happens to is quite small, much lower risk than many daily activities we partake in without a second thought. People are irrational.
It doesn't matter if the risk is small when the risk is so easily prevented. Comparisons to driving are silly because driving is very necessary in lots of situations. There are plenty of ways to drastically reduce the risk of covid, so talking about how the additional risk isn't so bad doesn't really make sense to me. Just because I have a risk from driving already, it doesn't mean I choose to also not use a seatbelt. Similarly, so long as risks can be appropriately avoided, do so. If you have a seat belt, use it. A low probability doesn't mean something never happens. I could die from covid. The odds are that I won't, but that doesn't mean I should stop avoiding covid. Pointing out that risks already exist in life isn't an argument against the risk of covid.
|
On August 28 2020 11:24 JimmiC wrote:
So much is different about this one that I'd like to see some data on it. I do not understand why is is not available.
Likely because its so rare as to fall into the "anecdotal" category.
|
|
|
On August 28 2020 11:43 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2020 11:15 Wegandi wrote:On August 28 2020 10:51 Nevuk wrote:
Dying from covid is not the only issue it can cause. It will cause long term damage to the lungs via scarring and many seemingly permanent issues to those who have gotten it and survived so far, even if they're in a low risk category.
I'm not sure why people are so focused on the deaths and not the fact that a survivor might still need to have a large medical regimin for the rest of their life. I all ready addressed this. Those occurrences in this population are extremely rare. Sure, it can happen, but statistically it doesn't represent much risk. Not only do you have to contract it (small %) then you have to have complications (much rarer). The odds of a young healthy 30 something this happens to is quite small, much lower risk than many daily activities we partake in without a second thought. People are irrational. It doesn't matter if the risk is small when the risk is so easily prevented. Comparisons to driving are silly because driving is very necessary in lots of situations. There are plenty of ways to drastically reduce the risk of covid, so talking about how the additional risk isn't so bad doesn't really make sense to me. Just because I have a risk from driving already, it doesn't mean I choose to also not use a seatbelt. Similarly, so long as risks can be appropriately avoided, do so. If you have a seat belt, use it. A low probability doesn't mean something never happens. I could die from covid. The odds are that I won't, but that doesn't mean I should stop avoiding covid. Pointing out that risks already exist in life isn't an argument against the risk of covid.
If most people had your risk aversion we'd still be living in Africa. Also, you do know physical distancing and mask wearing while somewhat effective isn't nearly as effective as you think. Similarly, the societal costs of the measures that politicians have taken has far outstripped the negative effects of the virus itself. If you're someone who will say, yes, Great Depression x4 with all the elevated suicide rates, domestic violence, depression, anxiety and fear, poverty, etc. is worth even one life we're worlds apart.
|
|
|
On August 28 2020 13:11 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2020 11:43 Mohdoo wrote:On August 28 2020 11:15 Wegandi wrote:On August 28 2020 10:51 Nevuk wrote:
Dying from covid is not the only issue it can cause. It will cause long term damage to the lungs via scarring and many seemingly permanent issues to those who have gotten it and survived so far, even if they're in a low risk category.
I'm not sure why people are so focused on the deaths and not the fact that a survivor might still need to have a large medical regimin for the rest of their life. I all ready addressed this. Those occurrences in this population are extremely rare. Sure, it can happen, but statistically it doesn't represent much risk. Not only do you have to contract it (small %) then you have to have complications (much rarer). The odds of a young healthy 30 something this happens to is quite small, much lower risk than many daily activities we partake in without a second thought. People are irrational. It doesn't matter if the risk is small when the risk is so easily prevented. Comparisons to driving are silly because driving is very necessary in lots of situations. There are plenty of ways to drastically reduce the risk of covid, so talking about how the additional risk isn't so bad doesn't really make sense to me. Just because I have a risk from driving already, it doesn't mean I choose to also not use a seatbelt. Similarly, so long as risks can be appropriately avoided, do so. If you have a seat belt, use it. A low probability doesn't mean something never happens. I could die from covid. The odds are that I won't, but that doesn't mean I should stop avoiding covid. Pointing out that risks already exist in life isn't an argument against the risk of covid. If most people had your risk aversion we'd still be living in Africa. Also, you do know physical distancing and mask wearing while somewhat effective isn't nearly as effective as you think. Similarly, the societal costs of the measures that politicians have taken has far outstripped the negative effects of the virus itself. If you're someone who will say, yes, Great Depression x4 with all the elevated suicide rates, domestic violence, depression, anxiety and fear, poverty, etc. is worth even one life we're worlds apart.
So, i gather your strategy for dealing with the pandemic at this point is to just ignore it, do nothing about it, and let it run its course?
|
There is some data about that:
https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/covid-long-term
(it is from June, so more information is probably available somewhere...)
one in ten people may still have symptoms after three weeks, and some may suffer for months.
As a "critic" I'm not sure about the 1 in 10 because everyone agrees, that we don't "catch" all people that were infected so the number could be even smaller! But that is for researchers to find out!
Also something similar like that is not exactly new!
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16950834/
This is from 2006!
|
Northern Ireland26092 Posts
On August 28 2020 13:11 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2020 11:43 Mohdoo wrote:On August 28 2020 11:15 Wegandi wrote:On August 28 2020 10:51 Nevuk wrote:
Dying from covid is not the only issue it can cause. It will cause long term damage to the lungs via scarring and many seemingly permanent issues to those who have gotten it and survived so far, even if they're in a low risk category.
I'm not sure why people are so focused on the deaths and not the fact that a survivor might still need to have a large medical regimin for the rest of their life. I all ready addressed this. Those occurrences in this population are extremely rare. Sure, it can happen, but statistically it doesn't represent much risk. Not only do you have to contract it (small %) then you have to have complications (much rarer). The odds of a young healthy 30 something this happens to is quite small, much lower risk than many daily activities we partake in without a second thought. People are irrational. It doesn't matter if the risk is small when the risk is so easily prevented. Comparisons to driving are silly because driving is very necessary in lots of situations. There are plenty of ways to drastically reduce the risk of covid, so talking about how the additional risk isn't so bad doesn't really make sense to me. Just because I have a risk from driving already, it doesn't mean I choose to also not use a seatbelt. Similarly, so long as risks can be appropriately avoided, do so. If you have a seat belt, use it. A low probability doesn't mean something never happens. I could die from covid. The odds are that I won't, but that doesn't mean I should stop avoiding covid. Pointing out that risks already exist in life isn't an argument against the risk of covid. If most people had your risk aversion we'd still be living in Africa. Also, you do know physical distancing and mask wearing while somewhat effective isn't nearly as effective as you think. Similarly, the societal costs of the measures that politicians have taken has far outstripped the negative effects of the virus itself. If you're someone who will say, yes, Great Depression x4 with all the elevated suicide rates, domestic violence, depression, anxiety and fear, poverty, etc. is worth even one life we're worlds apart.
There’s taking a risk for some gain, or just taking a needless risk for no particular gain. Although yes people tend to be bad at assessing risk that’s probably true.
There is certainly some trade off between quality of life overall and risk mitigation, absolutely. Unsure where ye olde lone is for me particularly. Working with the public throughout I’m a tad biased but for the sake of a shopping visit wear a fucking mask and keep one’s distance where possible. If nothing else show some courtesy for a short period, even if one is skeptical it makes the anxiety-prone retail worker a lot less anxious.
The wider mental health impacts are pretty huge and neglected and that’s certainly an issue, that said I don’t think society is particularly well constructed around people’s mental health to begin with. Hopefully some of the decent changes forced by Covid stick around, mother of invention and all that. The people forever told they can’t work from home and have to brave long commutes who magically suddenly can work from home, that’s a decent change there.
Not to downplay the associated effects of lockdown measures or wider economic problems in any way, that should be a consideration, absolutely its been ruinous for many people. That so many people were on the borderline of abject poverty to begin with is a pertinent factor here, normality wasn’t working particularly well either.
|
As an epidemiologist doing healthcare research in the United States there's two major reasons you're not going to see anything beyond small-scale anecdotal evidence about long-term effects of COVID-19 for quite some time.
1) The obvious one: even an omniscient person couldn't know them yet. Even if you believe the virus was circulating in December in the US (which, personally, I don't), that's still a hard stop of 9 months at most of surviving after the virus. Anything about complications past that point must by necessity drawn from relatives in the viral family.
2) The data resources being leveraged for COVID-19 research right now are generally coming straight from hospital systems with a sprinkling of general medical records, with a huge focus on hospitalizations themselves. This data has a lot of advantages-for one, it tends to be extremely timely almost to a fault, and it cannot be beat in terms of understanding exposures-but it's not great for tracking long-term consequences of health conditions when dealing with people that rarely engage directly with the healthcare system. The exception is conditions that more or less force heavy direct engagement (e.g. HIV/AIDs).
Usually, long-term complications are better tracked in something like insurance claims data or prospective cohorts. The former typically has a pretty significant lag time and its own issues brewing on the horizon, and the latter isn't exactly something you can set up on a dime (and I'm not sure how open people are to the necessary interviews right now).
If someone claims to know at a population level what COVID-19 means for your body after three + months (whether they say it breaks your lungs forever or everyone is totally fine unless they were unhealthy at the time of diagnosis), they are either blowing smoke, making big jumps from a small data set, or have access to some really awesome data that is almost certainly not from the United States.
|
On August 28 2020 13:11 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2020 11:43 Mohdoo wrote:On August 28 2020 11:15 Wegandi wrote:On August 28 2020 10:51 Nevuk wrote:
Dying from covid is not the only issue it can cause. It will cause long term damage to the lungs via scarring and many seemingly permanent issues to those who have gotten it and survived so far, even if they're in a low risk category.
I'm not sure why people are so focused on the deaths and not the fact that a survivor might still need to have a large medical regimin for the rest of their life. I all ready addressed this. Those occurrences in this population are extremely rare. Sure, it can happen, but statistically it doesn't represent much risk. Not only do you have to contract it (small %) then you have to have complications (much rarer). The odds of a young healthy 30 something this happens to is quite small, much lower risk than many daily activities we partake in without a second thought. People are irrational. It doesn't matter if the risk is small when the risk is so easily prevented. Comparisons to driving are silly because driving is very necessary in lots of situations. There are plenty of ways to drastically reduce the risk of covid, so talking about how the additional risk isn't so bad doesn't really make sense to me. Just because I have a risk from driving already, it doesn't mean I choose to also not use a seatbelt. Similarly, so long as risks can be appropriately avoided, do so. If you have a seat belt, use it. A low probability doesn't mean something never happens. I could die from covid. The odds are that I won't, but that doesn't mean I should stop avoiding covid. Pointing out that risks already exist in life isn't an argument against the risk of covid. If most people had your risk aversion we'd still be living in Africa. Also, you do know physical distancing and mask wearing while somewhat effective isn't nearly as effective as you think. Similarly, the societal costs of the measures that politicians have taken has far outstripped the negative effects of the virus itself. If you're someone who will say, yes, Great Depression x4 with all the elevated suicide rates, domestic violence, depression, anxiety and fear, poverty, etc. is worth even one life we're worlds apart.
What do you think my risk aversion is and what do you mean by that meaning we'd still be in Africa? People do lecture me about mask and distancing effectiveness. I'd love to hear your technical background. To what extent have you been involved in viral research? You seem amazingly ignorant so far. I know it isn't typical that you end up talking to someone who has actual real experience and knowledge of this situation, but you are currently embarrassing yourself.
Please show me where you are getting your mask and distancing data. I'd absolutely LOVE to read it. Please keep in mind that you are not entitled to views on technical matters. If you have technical knowledge, use it. If you don't, educate yourself and then speak. You are getting way ahead of yourself and it is super obvious as someone with actual knowledge of the deep and experience of viral research. You have yet to say a single thing on this topic that is worthwhile.
|
On August 29 2020 00:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2020 13:11 Wegandi wrote:On August 28 2020 11:43 Mohdoo wrote:On August 28 2020 11:15 Wegandi wrote:On August 28 2020 10:51 Nevuk wrote:
Dying from covid is not the only issue it can cause. It will cause long term damage to the lungs via scarring and many seemingly permanent issues to those who have gotten it and survived so far, even if they're in a low risk category.
I'm not sure why people are so focused on the deaths and not the fact that a survivor might still need to have a large medical regimin for the rest of their life. I all ready addressed this. Those occurrences in this population are extremely rare. Sure, it can happen, but statistically it doesn't represent much risk. Not only do you have to contract it (small %) then you have to have complications (much rarer). The odds of a young healthy 30 something this happens to is quite small, much lower risk than many daily activities we partake in without a second thought. People are irrational. It doesn't matter if the risk is small when the risk is so easily prevented. Comparisons to driving are silly because driving is very necessary in lots of situations. There are plenty of ways to drastically reduce the risk of covid, so talking about how the additional risk isn't so bad doesn't really make sense to me. Just because I have a risk from driving already, it doesn't mean I choose to also not use a seatbelt. Similarly, so long as risks can be appropriately avoided, do so. If you have a seat belt, use it. A low probability doesn't mean something never happens. I could die from covid. The odds are that I won't, but that doesn't mean I should stop avoiding covid. Pointing out that risks already exist in life isn't an argument against the risk of covid. If most people had your risk aversion we'd still be living in Africa. Also, you do know physical distancing and mask wearing while somewhat effective isn't nearly as effective as you think. Similarly, the societal costs of the measures that politicians have taken has far outstripped the negative effects of the virus itself. If you're someone who will say, yes, Great Depression x4 with all the elevated suicide rates, domestic violence, depression, anxiety and fear, poverty, etc. is worth even one life we're worlds apart. What do you think my risk aversion is and what do you mean by that meaning we'd still be in Africa? People do lecture me about mask and distancing effectiveness. I'd love to hear your technical background. To what extent have you been involved in viral research? You seem amazingly ignorant so far. I know it isn't typical that you end up talking to someone who has actual real experience and knowledge of this situation, but you are currently embarrassing yourself. Please show me where you are getting your mask and distancing data. I'd absolutely LOVE to read it. Please keep in mind that you are not entitled to views on technical matters. If you have technical knowledge, use it. If you don't, educate yourself and then speak. You are getting way ahead of yourself and it is super obvious as someone with actual knowledge of the deep and experience of viral research. You have yet to say a single thing on this topic that is worthwhile.
If you read Wegandi’s posts with an understanding that everything he says is derived from libertarian first principles, they’ll make way more sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
