6 ms·

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

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
    I didn't realize this thread was about throwing open the gates. That said, I think there is an argument for more directed isolation measures for at risk groups. Fearing that there may be other unknowns doesn't seem to allow for any progress.
    - greedo 6y ago
      "isolation measures for at risk groups" sound so easy. First, isolate the obese. Hmm, 30% in America so 98M. Next isolate diabetics. Roughly 35M. After this, isolate those with heart disease and hypertension. 30% in the US, 98M. Old people? 32M. Naturally there's some overlapping in these groups. We'll be generous and say that 98M is the lower bound. How on earth are you going to isolate 30% of the population?
      - taeric 6y ago
        This is making a lot of assumptions on what the at risk crowd is. Now, I confess I am also making assumptions there. Data would be nice. My assumptions are we could have saved a sizeable portion by tighter lockdowns on nursing homes. I also suspect we could have done things pre-infection to strengthen lungs of people with pre-existing lung conditions. More pointedly, I think all of the havoc we have caused by closing schools is likely not amounting to a lot of saved lives. As a risk group, children are basically not at risk of severe cases. Now, I hasten to add that no policy should be set by some random internet poster. I am hoping we are collecting data and running simulations to give us better data for the future.
        greedo 6y ago
        If you have compromised lung functionality, there's not much you can do to strengthen it against COVID. Children aren't at risk, and that's not why schools were closed. Your posts don't seem to be made in good faith. Either that or you are demonstrating a lack of information on par with Trump.
        deleted 6y ago
easytiger 6y ago
> hasn't given us any indication of similar activity. but we know so very little that we can't take the risk There's little reason to believe it's significantly different to any other Coronavirus. Speculating that's it's suddenly going to be aids++ is pointless scaremongering. The main* reason it was a "big deal" was the lack of common immunity thus leading to potentially rapid spread. Deaths in the vulnerable from the side effects of this kind of thing are perfectly normal and perfectly well understood and there is very little treatment
- ericb 6y ago
  I don't think necessarily aids++, but speculating about long term effects is not pointless, or unreasonable. https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2010/09/02/sars_survivors_struggle_with_symptoms_years_later.html https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2010/09/02/sars...
  - easytiger 6y ago
    As with any viral pneumonia
    - ericb 6y ago
      Any novel viral pneumonia. A garden snake and a cobra are both snakes. Belonging to the same category says nothing about the potency of their bite. We have no idea what kind of snake this is yet.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - easytiger 6y ago
        We have a pretty good idea
guscost 6y ago
> we cannot gamble with our future so carelessly on the basis of preliminary data. here is a vignette to explain why. Yes we can, and will. We’re gambling with every choice we make about how to respond to this, and anyone claiming that their plan is 100% “based on science” is full of shit. For example, every country enforcing a lockdown is gambling that it won’t lead to civil war.

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
  I didn't realize this thread was about throwing open the gates. That said, I think there is an argument for more directed isolation measures for at risk groups. Fearing that there may be other unknowns doesn't seem to allow for any progress.
  - greedo 6y ago
    "isolation measures for at risk groups" sound so easy. First, isolate the obese. Hmm, 30% in America so 98M. Next isolate diabetics. Roughly 35M. After this, isolate those with heart disease and hypertension. 30% in the US, 98M. Old people? 32M. Naturally there's some overlapping in these groups. We'll be generous and say that 98M is the lower bound. How on earth are you going to isolate 30% of the population?
    - taeric 6y ago
      This is making a lot of assumptions on what the at risk crowd is. Now, I confess I am also making assumptions there. Data would be nice. My assumptions are we could have saved a sizeable portion by tighter lockdowns on nursing homes. I also suspect we could have done things pre-infection to strengthen lungs of people with pre-existing lung conditions. More pointedly, I think all of the havoc we have caused by closing schools is likely not amounting to a lot of saved lives. As a risk group, children are basically not at risk of severe cases. Now, I hasten to add that no policy should be set by some random internet poster. I am hoping we are collecting data and running simulations to give us better data for the future.
      - greedo 6y ago
        If you have compromised lung functionality, there's not much you can do to strengthen it against COVID. Children aren't at risk, and that's not why schools were closed. Your posts don't seem to be made in good faith. Either that or you are demonstrating a lack of information on par with Trump.
        deleted 6y ago

easytiger 6y ago

> hasn't given us any indication of similar activity. but we know so very little that we can't take the risk There's little reason to believe it's significantly different to any other Coronavirus. Speculating that's it's suddenly going to be aids++ is pointless scaremongering. The main* reason it was a "big deal" was the lack of common immunity thus leading to potentially rapid spread. Deaths in the vulnerable from the side effects of this kind of thing are perfectly normal and perfectly well understood and there is very little treatment

ericb 6y ago
I don't think necessarily aids++, but speculating about long term effects is not pointless, or unreasonable. https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2010/09/02/sars_survivors_struggle_with_symptoms_years_later.html https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2010/09/02/sars...
- easytiger 6y ago
  As with any viral pneumonia
  - ericb 6y ago
    Any novel viral pneumonia. A garden snake and a cobra are both snakes. Belonging to the same category says nothing about the potency of their bite. We have no idea what kind of snake this is yet.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - easytiger 6y ago
      We have a pretty good idea

guscost 6y ago

> we cannot gamble with our future so carelessly on the basis of preliminary data. here is a vignette to explain why. Yes we can, and will. We’re gambling with every choice we make about how to respond to this, and anyone claiming that their plan is 100% “based on science” is full of shit. For example, every country enforcing a lockdown is gambling that it won’t lead to civil war.