3 ms·

> Vox did a piece on this. Basically, if you're young, the risk of death is about equal to a kidney donation, which is a procedure we allow. I haven't seen the

> Vox did a piece on this. Basically, if you're young, the risk of death is about equal to a kidney donation, which is a procedure we allow. I haven't seen the Vox article, but if that's what they said, it's total bullshit and irresponsible journalism, and I'd request that you do your part by not repeating that. The first kidney donation was in 1954. We have 66 years worth of data--plenty of time for many kidney donors to live out their lives and have the problems caused by kidney donation, so we have a pretty good idea of what the long-term effects of kidney donation are. We don't know what the long-term effects of coronavirus are because nobody has had it and then lived long term. The first case we know of was in November 2019--five months ago. Vox can't say that "if you're young, the risk of death is about equal to a kidney donation", because we do not know what the risks are. If scientists infected a bunch of 20 year olds with Covid in 2020 and by 2050, 40% of them die of lung cancer before the age of 50, is that something you'd be cool with? Because that might be reality--it's impossible to know. To be clear, I'm not saying Covid-19 causes lung cancer. I'm saying we cannot possibly know ANYTHING about the long term effect of Covid-19. We shouldn't assume that it causes lung cancer, but we also shouldn't assume it's no more dangerous than a kidney donation. We shouldn't assume, period. So statements like, "if you're young, the risk of death is about equal to a kidney donation" are lies. And I would implore you to not spread that misinformation because it potentially has deadly consequences.

eveningcoffee 7y ago
Good points. Only obvious solution is to give to the health care workers and you have your control group.
Wowfunhappy 7y ago
I take your point, but calling the comparison "lies" based on the possibility of long-term implications we know nothing about seems like a big stretch to me. We don't know the long-term effects of 5G either. > If scientists infected a bunch of 20 year olds with Covid in 2020 and by 2050, 40% of them die of lung cancer before the age of 50, is that something you'd be cool with? If it saves the lives of a bunch of nurses in the process? I don't know—I think I'm cool with a possibility of it, yes. Especially when those same people could also catch the virus naturally. Also, I edited my original post to add a link to the Vox article. It's quite a bit longer / more expansive, and worth a read.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > I take your point, but calling the comparison "lies" based on the possibility of long-term implications we know nothing about seems like a big stretch to me. I had gone through my post and removed all the places where I called it "lies" because I intended to say that this arose from ignorance rather than malice, albeit irresponsible ignorance from journalists whose responsibility it is to share information. I must have missed that one, my apologies for the accusation. > We don't know the long-term effects of 5G either. Geez, did you get this from Vox too? The bands used for 5G didn't just spring into existence: they've been around and used[1], albeit deployed on much smaller scales than 5G will be. We have long-term data on the effects of adjacent bands, and a few different ways of modeling how electromagnetic radiation affects the body. The data we have is certainly from much smaller deployments than 5G will be, so it's true we don't know all the long-term effects of 5G, but we at least have enough data to put some bounds on how horribly 5G could go wrong. For starters, we know that it doesn't have a 40% chance of killing everyone exposed to it in the next 30 years with lung cancer, because an effect that large would show up even in the more limited data we already have. And if it does turn out to cause some problem with even a minute fraction of that severity, we can turn off the 5G and stop the cause of the problem. We don't even have a clear lock on the short term mortality rate of coronavirus and we can't stop the spread with the flip of a switch. Where, exactly, is your confidence coming from here? > If it saves the lives of a bunch of nurses in the process? I don't know—I think I'm cool with a possibility of it, yes. > Especially when those same people could also catch the virus naturally. The worst-hit place in the US is NYC, with 141,754 confirmed cases currently. Even if we assume unconfirmed cases 5 times that, we're still talking single-digit percentages of the population infected. And cases are going down. So yes, people could catch the virus naturally, or, as is much more likely, they could not catch the virus, if we continue taking the recommended measures that are working. Certainly populations like health workers working directly with the infected are at much higher risk than the general population, but there's still a very significant chance they don't get infected. And even if the chance of them not getting infected were negligible, the solution would be to give them proper PPE, training, and other protections, not to say, "Hey you're probably going to get it any way, so let's just deliberately infect you to test vaccines that may not work." [1] https://ethw.org/Millimeter_Waves https://ethw.org/Millimeter_Waves
Exmoor 7y ago
It would be curious to see the Vox piece and I do hope someone drops a link in here. It would be most interesting to know if they were comparing it to the initial procedure (surgery + complications) or lifetime experience (Additional risk of death due to the remaining kidney failing). That said, I feel like your points are a bit overstated. We now have 66 years worth of Kidney transplant data to show it's safe for both parties, but a lot of people needed to participate in what was a new, risk, experimental surgery to get us to this point. At some point people have to be willing to take a little bit of risk to get data that could save untold lives and relieve unquantifiable suffering. Additionally, if COVID-19 does indeed have some horrible long term effect, the cost us having less data or less valuable data now will have a much larger consequence than could ever be suffered by these volunteers.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > We now have 66 years worth of Kidney transplant data to show it's safe for both parties, but a lot of people needed to participate in what was a new, risk, experimental surgery to get us to this point. Uh, technically that's true, but the risks are not the same. The first successful kidney removal (nephrectomy) was in 1869. It wasn't for a donation, it was for a woman suffering an uncloseable fistula which, without the operation, would have killed her. So what exactly was she risking? By the time someone was allowed to volunteer to donate a kidney in 1954, nephrectomy had the better part of a century's worth of data and refinement of technique. Compare this to the risk you're proposing: With current measures which seem to be working, there's a good chance that most people don't get infected. So you're proposing that healthy individuals who would likely not contract the virus, be intentionally infected with a disease which he only have an approximate mortality rate for, and that we have no idea of the long-term effects of. Surely you can see how the first risk fits withing "First, do no harm", while the risk you're proposing simply doesn't.
Simon_says 7y ago
This comment doesn’t align with WHO guidelines. Please delete.
rorykoehler 7y ago
>If scientists infected a bunch of 20 year olds with Covid in 2020 and by 2050, 40% of them die of lung cancer before the age of 50, is that something you'd be cool with? If the vaccine works then we'll all be dying of lung cancer in 30 years.
erfgh 7y ago
I'm sure that the Vox article said "from what we know so far", but even if it didn't say that, isn't it obvious? We can only talk from current knowledge.
- ekianjo 7y ago
  > but even if it didn't say that, isn't it obvious? If it's obvious then it should be equally obvious that a comparison with something that has long term knowledge is nonsensical.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  1. Part of current knowledge are the facts that a) we don't know the long-term effects, and b) those long-term effects might be horrific. 2. It's apparently not obvious, because people on this thread seem to not have thought of it, and when I pointed it out, they've argued vehemently against it.
nsgi 7y ago
By the same argument, we also don't know the long term effects of drugs and vaccines that haven't been in use for a very long time
oli5679 7y ago
I'd happily volunteer to participate.

eveningcoffee 7y ago

Good points. Only obvious solution is to give to the health care workers and you have your control group.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago

I take your point, but calling the comparison "lies" based on the possibility of long-term implications we know nothing about seems like a big stretch to me. We don't know the long-term effects of 5G either. > If scientists infected a bunch of 20 year olds with Covid in 2020 and by 2050, 40% of them die of lung cancer before the age of 50, is that something you'd be cool with? If it saves the lives of a bunch of nurses in the process? I don't know—I think I'm cool with a possibility of it, yes. Especially when those same people could also catch the virus naturally. Also, I edited my original post to add a link to the Vox article. It's quite a bit longer / more expansive, and worth a read.

kerkeslager 7y ago
> I take your point, but calling the comparison "lies" based on the possibility of long-term implications we know nothing about seems like a big stretch to me. I had gone through my post and removed all the places where I called it "lies" because I intended to say that this arose from ignorance rather than malice, albeit irresponsible ignorance from journalists whose responsibility it is to share information. I must have missed that one, my apologies for the accusation. > We don't know the long-term effects of 5G either. Geez, did you get this from Vox too? The bands used for 5G didn't just spring into existence: they've been around and used[1], albeit deployed on much smaller scales than 5G will be. We have long-term data on the effects of adjacent bands, and a few different ways of modeling how electromagnetic radiation affects the body. The data we have is certainly from much smaller deployments than 5G will be, so it's true we don't know all the long-term effects of 5G, but we at least have enough data to put some bounds on how horribly 5G could go wrong. For starters, we know that it doesn't have a 40% chance of killing everyone exposed to it in the next 30 years with lung cancer, because an effect that large would show up even in the more limited data we already have. And if it does turn out to cause some problem with even a minute fraction of that severity, we can turn off the 5G and stop the cause of the problem. We don't even have a clear lock on the short term mortality rate of coronavirus and we can't stop the spread with the flip of a switch. Where, exactly, is your confidence coming from here? > If it saves the lives of a bunch of nurses in the process? I don't know—I think I'm cool with a possibility of it, yes. > Especially when those same people could also catch the virus naturally. The worst-hit place in the US is NYC, with 141,754 confirmed cases currently. Even if we assume unconfirmed cases 5 times that, we're still talking single-digit percentages of the population infected. And cases are going down. So yes, people could catch the virus naturally, or, as is much more likely, they could not catch the virus, if we continue taking the recommended measures that are working. Certainly populations like health workers working directly with the infected are at much higher risk than the general population, but there's still a very significant chance they don't get infected. And even if the chance of them not getting infected were negligible, the solution would be to give them proper PPE, training, and other protections, not to say, "Hey you're probably going to get it any way, so let's just deliberately infect you to test vaccines that may not work." [1] https://ethw.org/Millimeter_Waves https://ethw.org/Millimeter_Waves

Exmoor 7y ago

It would be curious to see the Vox piece and I do hope someone drops a link in here. It would be most interesting to know if they were comparing it to the initial procedure (surgery + complications) or lifetime experience (Additional risk of death due to the remaining kidney failing). That said, I feel like your points are a bit overstated. We now have 66 years worth of Kidney transplant data to show it's safe for both parties, but a lot of people needed to participate in what was a new, risk, experimental surgery to get us to this point. At some point people have to be willing to take a little bit of risk to get data that could save untold lives and relieve unquantifiable suffering. Additionally, if COVID-19 does indeed have some horrible long term effect, the cost us having less data or less valuable data now will have a much larger consequence than could ever be suffered by these volunteers.

kerkeslager 7y ago
> We now have 66 years worth of Kidney transplant data to show it's safe for both parties, but a lot of people needed to participate in what was a new, risk, experimental surgery to get us to this point. Uh, technically that's true, but the risks are not the same. The first successful kidney removal (nephrectomy) was in 1869. It wasn't for a donation, it was for a woman suffering an uncloseable fistula which, without the operation, would have killed her. So what exactly was she risking? By the time someone was allowed to volunteer to donate a kidney in 1954, nephrectomy had the better part of a century's worth of data and refinement of technique. Compare this to the risk you're proposing: With current measures which seem to be working, there's a good chance that most people don't get infected. So you're proposing that healthy individuals who would likely not contract the virus, be intentionally infected with a disease which he only have an approximate mortality rate for, and that we have no idea of the long-term effects of. Surely you can see how the first risk fits withing "First, do no harm", while the risk you're proposing simply doesn't.

Simon_says 7y ago

This comment doesn’t align with WHO guidelines. Please delete.

rorykoehler 7y ago

>If scientists infected a bunch of 20 year olds with Covid in 2020 and by 2050, 40% of them die of lung cancer before the age of 50, is that something you'd be cool with? If the vaccine works then we'll all be dying of lung cancer in 30 years.

erfgh 7y ago

I'm sure that the Vox article said "from what we know so far", but even if it didn't say that, isn't it obvious? We can only talk from current knowledge.

ekianjo 7y ago
> but even if it didn't say that, isn't it obvious? If it's obvious then it should be equally obvious that a comparison with something that has long term knowledge is nonsensical.
kerkeslager 7y ago
1. Part of current knowledge are the facts that a) we don't know the long-term effects, and b) those long-term effects might be horrific. 2. It's apparently not obvious, because people on this thread seem to not have thought of it, and when I pointed it out, they've argued vehemently against it.

nsgi 7y ago

By the same argument, we also don't know the long term effects of drugs and vaccines that haven't been in use for a very long time

oli5679 7y ago

I'd happily volunteer to participate.