3 ms·

If most of the young are near-safe, we should have just isolated the 60+ and kept society running as usual for the rest. Young people in their 20's and 30's ar

If most of the young are near-safe, we should have just isolated the 60+ and kept society running as usual for the rest. Young people in their 20's and 30's are dying too, just at a lower percentage. Many young people who survive COVID-19 end up with permanent lung damage and other on-going issues. A New York Times staffer who's 33-years old ran 3 miles and walked 10 more the day before she came down with COVID-19 on April 17. And now this: "I am one of the lucky ones. I never needed a ventilator. I survived. But 27 days later, I still have lingering pneumonia. I use two inhalers, twice a day. I can’t walk more than a few blocks without stopping."—https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/opinion/coronavirus-young-people.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/opinion/coronavirus-young...

lbeltrame 6y ago
> Young people in their 20's and 30's are dying too, just at a lower percentage. Far lower. It may be still undesirable, but if we want to talk about risk, there is no absence of risk for anyone, yet the risk changes a lot depending on age and comorbidities. This matters if one wants to take the risk or not, given that it will never be zero. > Many young people who survive COVID-19 end up with permanent lung damage and other on-going issues. Some of these issues apply to any type of pneumonia. It takes a year or so to fully recover if you had a bad one. And to evaluate "permanent" damage, we need more time. It would be better to say "we don't know yet if the damage is permanent or not".