7 ms·

The outcomes aren't just death and recovery. There's also the possibility of long-term heart, lung, and kidney damage. And the blood thinners used to prevent co

The outcomes aren't just death and recovery. There's also the possibility of long-term heart, lung, and kidney damage. And the blood thinners used to prevent coronavirus blood clots can cause brain bleeding. Those happen in younger people, too. And realistically there's no way to isolate those over 50. They generally live with, work with, or are cared for by younger people.

taeric 6y ago
This feels like fear talking. As more data comes in, we are seeing more people with no affects. Not just mild, but nigh non existent. It is agreed that something gives people severe cases. Severe includes death and recovered with damage. We don't seem to have data letting you know who or what would land there.
- eloff 6y ago
  I disagree, see my sister comment. Even without data on lingering deficiencies, we can speculate with confidence that it carries a cost.
  - taeric 6y ago
    Speculation is fine. But we need data to back it. Right now, we don't. Could hypothesize that many being found with damage surviving, had damage going in. Would neatly explain why it hit them so hard.
    - eloff 6y ago
      I'm not speculating about the long term effects of covid19. I'm saying all sickness carries a cost as currently understood according to our theories of cellular senescence. You've missed my point entirely.
      - taeric 6y ago
        And you are missing mine. Agreed there could be long term things. Yes, we should study that and watch for it. If that is the extent of your point, then my response is "yes, and?" Your framing, though, begs the question that mild cases have long term damage. We have zero evidence of that. Literally none.
        eloff 6y ago
        You're still missing my point. I'm saying all sickness comes with a long term cost. It gives you a shove toward the grave. Covid19 falls into that category, regardless of how much or little we know about it. Now you could argue that sickness and aging don't work that way. I don't think you'd be right, but you can make that argument. Your argument about the long term effects of covid19 is not relevant to the point I made.
        taeric 6y ago
        Your point feels vacuous, then. Yes, getting sick can have long term impact. Do you have evidence that that is relevant to our current scenario? More so than it would be for any other sickness that is running rampant?
  - DeonPenny 6y ago
    But you shouldnt do that. Just like when we believe the death rate was 3% it seems we can't be confident in anything we've been told.
    - eloff 6y ago
      You've missed my point.
- op00to 6y ago
  Do non-severe cases cause lung damage too? Is the lung damage heal able?
  - taeric 6y ago
    That is the point of my question. There has been no evidence of damage in non severe cases. Indeed, we are having to get complicated testing to find out many people had it at all.
    - op00to 6y ago
      How could we even tell? Biopsy? Lol no thanks.
      - taeric 6y ago
        Presumably you could find some evidence. X-ray? Just listening to lungs?
    - rootusrootus 6y ago
      There have been a number of reports of folks who were diagnosed with otherwise asymptomatic COVID when they had a CT for an unrelated reason that showed their lungs with GGO. And in some cases they have shown no signs of recovery even weeks later.
      - taeric 6y ago
        A link would be awesome. And we would still need to ascertain that they did not have this damage before getting covid. :(. CT scans have a troubled history of seeing damage that preexisted. (See back pains)
    - proto-n 6y ago
      How about this article [1] (translation at reddit [2]) about german divers who had "mild cases" (no hospitalization, recovered at home) and were found to have suffered permanent lung damage, so severe that they can't dive anymore. [1] https://www.rainews.it/tgr/tagesschau/articoli/2020/04/tag-Coronavirus-Lungeschaden-Forschung-Uniklinik-Innsbruck-6708e11e-28dc-4843-a760-e7f926ace61c.html https://www.rainews.it/tgr/tagesschau/articoli/2020/04/tag-C... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/g3rv7h/permament_lung_damage_found_in_revovered_patients/fnt1p3e/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/g3rv7h/permame...
- cryoshon 6y ago
  we have absolutely no clue regarding the long-term impacts of exposure to this virus for asymptomatic people or otherwise. we cannot gamble with our future so carelessly on the basis of preliminary data. here is a vignette to explain why. once someone is infected with HIV, most people experience flu-like symptoms for a week or two which then resolve either with or without treatment. in some people, the virus is cleared so effectively after the initial infection that they will test negative for HIV. then, over the span of months and years, their immune system is silently and entirely asymptomatically destroyed, leaving them none the wiser until they progress to AIDS and get extremely sick. COVID hasn't given us any indication of similar activity. but we know so very little that we can't take the risk, especially not with millions and millions of people. i will also note that we are unlikely to rule out these kinds of hypothetical risks anytime soon. so caution is our only defense against disaster.
  - djrogers 6y ago
    > COVID hasn't given us any indication of similar activity. but we know so very little that we can't take the risk We take that risk with other viruses and bacteria literally all the time. If hypothetical but unlikely risks become thejustification for destroying people's livelihoods and the world ecomony, we're all dead anyway.
    - cryoshon 6y ago
      as a former immunologist, i can assure you that with common viruses and bacteria, we have years and years of knowledge about how they perform, thereby making the risks of exposure calculable. it is this body of knowledge which allows our society to normally function even during a typical flu season. we understand the upper and lower boundaries of the consequences, and we can make an informed judgment about what we should do to navigate the environment accordingly. the idea of throwing open the gates to allow everyone to get infected is a dangerous fantasy. at best, it's taking a leap of faith with other people's health without knowing whether there is a long way down or not.
      - taeric 6y ago
eloff 6y ago
Yes, recovery is not binary. Even if you recover fully you've expended some percent of your finite lifetime capacity to heal your organs. It may well have taken years off your life. That's true for other illnesses to. The flu doesn't just cost you a week of productivity.
- ver_ture 6y ago
  I think I'll try to get back into running again.
DeonPenny 6y ago
Wouldnt that mean quartine would never work because it make sense that those younger people going outside would make those 60 olds sick regardless of the quarantine.
- jdm2212 6y ago
  The SK/Taiwan/Chinese/Singapore approach to quarantine has been to isolate people away from their families if they're thought to be sick (i.e., in a hotel or military barracks). That's how you make quarantine actually work.
  - DeonPenny 6y ago
    That seems like a much cheaper solution. Aside from china who were welding people regardless of there sick status and had millions of faulty tests. Everyone else on that list has lower death numbers and a economy not going into the toilet.
daxfohl 6y ago
But that's going to happen anyway because people will catch it until we hit herd immunity. Unless a vaccine comes out before we get there, which seems pretty iffy at this point. I do think we can plan for the isolation of that population for a couple of months if we have some strong leadership. Unfortunately that seems to be lacking right now.
- cycrutchfield 6y ago
  >But that's going to happen anyway because people will catch it until we hit herd immunity It's about managing the hospitalization rate so that the medical system doesn't get overwhelmed.
  - daxfohl 6y ago
    I was responding to the contents of the parent comment. I agree with you (see a separate branch of the comment tree), but that's not part of what the parent comment was talking about.

taeric 6y ago

This feels like fear talking. As more data comes in, we are seeing more people with no affects. Not just mild, but nigh non existent. It is agreed that something gives people severe cases. Severe includes death and recovered with damage. We don't seem to have data letting you know who or what would land there.

eloff 6y ago
I disagree, see my sister comment. Even without data on lingering deficiencies, we can speculate with confidence that it carries a cost.
- taeric 6y ago
  Speculation is fine. But we need data to back it. Right now, we don't. Could hypothesize that many being found with damage surviving, had damage going in. Would neatly explain why it hit them so hard.
  - eloff 6y ago
    I'm not speculating about the long term effects of covid19. I'm saying all sickness carries a cost as currently understood according to our theories of cellular senescence. You've missed my point entirely.
    - taeric 6y ago
      And you are missing mine. Agreed there could be long term things. Yes, we should study that and watch for it. If that is the extent of your point, then my response is "yes, and?" Your framing, though, begs the question that mild cases have long term damage. We have zero evidence of that. Literally none.
      - eloff 6y ago
        You're still missing my point. I'm saying all sickness comes with a long term cost. It gives you a shove toward the grave. Covid19 falls into that category, regardless of how much or little we know about it. Now you could argue that sickness and aging don't work that way. I don't think you'd be right, but you can make that argument. Your argument about the long term effects of covid19 is not relevant to the point I made.
        taeric 6y ago
        Your point feels vacuous, then. Yes, getting sick can have long term impact. Do you have evidence that that is relevant to our current scenario? More so than it would be for any other sickness that is running rampant?
- DeonPenny 6y ago
  But you shouldnt do that. Just like when we believe the death rate was 3% it seems we can't be confident in anything we've been told.
  - eloff 6y ago
    You've missed my point.
op00to 6y ago
Do non-severe cases cause lung damage too? Is the lung damage heal able?
- taeric 6y ago
  That is the point of my question. There has been no evidence of damage in non severe cases. Indeed, we are having to get complicated testing to find out many people had it at all.
  - op00to 6y ago
    How could we even tell? Biopsy? Lol no thanks.
    - taeric 6y ago
      Presumably you could find some evidence. X-ray? Just listening to lungs?
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    There have been a number of reports of folks who were diagnosed with otherwise asymptomatic COVID when they had a CT for an unrelated reason that showed their lungs with GGO. And in some cases they have shown no signs of recovery even weeks later.
    - taeric 6y ago
      A link would be awesome. And we would still need to ascertain that they did not have this damage before getting covid. :(. CT scans have a troubled history of seeing damage that preexisted. (See back pains)
  - proto-n 6y ago
    How about this article [1] (translation at reddit [2]) about german divers who had "mild cases" (no hospitalization, recovered at home) and were found to have suffered permanent lung damage, so severe that they can't dive anymore. [1] https://www.rainews.it/tgr/tagesschau/articoli/2020/04/tag-Coronavirus-Lungeschaden-Forschung-Uniklinik-Innsbruck-6708e11e-28dc-4843-a760-e7f926ace61c.html https://www.rainews.it/tgr/tagesschau/articoli/2020/04/tag-C... [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/g3rv7h/permament_lung_damage_found_in_revovered_patients/fnt1p3e/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/g3rv7h/permame...
cryoshon 6y ago
we have absolutely no clue regarding the long-term impacts of exposure to this virus for asymptomatic people or otherwise. we cannot gamble with our future so carelessly on the basis of preliminary data. here is a vignette to explain why. once someone is infected with HIV, most people experience flu-like symptoms for a week or two which then resolve either with or without treatment. in some people, the virus is cleared so effectively after the initial infection that they will test negative for HIV. then, over the span of months and years, their immune system is silently and entirely asymptomatically destroyed, leaving them none the wiser until they progress to AIDS and get extremely sick. COVID hasn't given us any indication of similar activity. but we know so very little that we can't take the risk, especially not with millions and millions of people. i will also note that we are unlikely to rule out these kinds of hypothetical risks anytime soon. so caution is our only defense against disaster.
- djrogers 6y ago
  > COVID hasn't given us any indication of similar activity. but we know so very little that we can't take the risk We take that risk with other viruses and bacteria literally all the time. If hypothetical but unlikely risks become thejustification for destroying people's livelihoods and the world ecomony, we're all dead anyway.
  - cryoshon 6y ago
    as a former immunologist, i can assure you that with common viruses and bacteria, we have years and years of knowledge about how they perform, thereby making the risks of exposure calculable. it is this body of knowledge which allows our society to normally function even during a typical flu season. we understand the upper and lower boundaries of the consequences, and we can make an informed judgment about what we should do to navigate the environment accordingly. the idea of throwing open the gates to allow everyone to get infected is a dangerous fantasy. at best, it's taking a leap of faith with other people's health without knowing whether there is a long way down or not.
    - taeric 6y ago

eloff 6y ago

Yes, recovery is not binary. Even if you recover fully you've expended some percent of your finite lifetime capacity to heal your organs. It may well have taken years off your life. That's true for other illnesses to. The flu doesn't just cost you a week of productivity.

ver_ture 6y ago
I think I'll try to get back into running again.

DeonPenny 6y ago

Wouldnt that mean quartine would never work because it make sense that those younger people going outside would make those 60 olds sick regardless of the quarantine.

jdm2212 6y ago
The SK/Taiwan/Chinese/Singapore approach to quarantine has been to isolate people away from their families if they're thought to be sick (i.e., in a hotel or military barracks). That's how you make quarantine actually work.
- DeonPenny 6y ago
  That seems like a much cheaper solution. Aside from china who were welding people regardless of there sick status and had millions of faulty tests. Everyone else on that list has lower death numbers and a economy not going into the toilet.

daxfohl 6y ago

But that's going to happen anyway because people will catch it until we hit herd immunity. Unless a vaccine comes out before we get there, which seems pretty iffy at this point. I do think we can plan for the isolation of that population for a couple of months if we have some strong leadership. Unfortunately that seems to be lacking right now.

cycrutchfield 6y ago
>But that's going to happen anyway because people will catch it until we hit herd immunity It's about managing the hospitalization rate so that the medical system doesn't get overwhelmed.
- daxfohl 6y ago
  I was responding to the contents of the parent comment. I agree with you (see a separate branch of the comment tree), but that's not part of what the parent comment was talking about.