7 ms·

Not that this isn't important but it's certainly not robust research by any stretch of the term. This type of panic selling--which this article is a light vari

Not that this isn't important but it's certainly not robust research by any stretch of the term. This type of panic selling--which this article is a light variation of--have forced me to be less and less willing to believe it when I read it. The boy who cried wolf is in full effect when it comes to covid. “Ground-glass opacities are very common — we see it all the time and there are many things that can cause it,” says Adam Bernheim, MD, a cardiothoracic radiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City But go ahead and throw a scary headline on it to drive clicks.

city41 6y ago
Why did you leave out the remainder of that paragraph? "But while GGO’s are common, the ones that are turning up among Covid-19 patients are distinctive. “If we see this very round shape and peripheral distribution, that’s atypical of other types of infections but it’s something we frequently see with [Covid-19],” he explains."
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- isthispermanent 6y ago
  If it's something that's common and "there are many things that can cause it", what exactly do I need to be worried about? Serious question, give me some context writer. For all I know GGO's are extremely common, come and go, and could be caused by something as routine as sitting around a campfire. "We’ve seen patients with mild GGOs that heal completely, whereas others develop scar tissue almost like a skin injury, which is permanent" Awesome. Zero help. But thanks for planting that seed of fear. Calling fire when there is no fire is as bad as not calling fire if there is a fire.
  - ourmandave 6y ago
    Awesome. Zero help. But thanks for planting that seed of fear. Well, to be fair, the Killer Asteroid and Murder Hornet aren't living up to the hype, so you gotta go back to the basics.
  - enraged_camel 6y ago
    >>Awesome. Zero help. But thanks for planting that seed of fear. It is a pandemic. We absolutely need to be fearful, because it will encourage us to take extra precautionary or avoidance measures we otherwise would not have taken. This is why "they are just trying to scare people!" is not a valid criticism in this context. The entire reason the pandemic is re-surging is because people are not scared.
    - dvt 6y ago
      > This is why "they are just trying to scare people!" is not a valid criticism in this context. It absolutely is. Fear is not conducive to prudent decision-making. Fear is what brought us the inane toilet paper shortage a few months ago. No news outlet is being level-headed with its reporting -- whether on the left or on the right. This, combined with zero accountability for needless flame-fanning by pieces like the one linked, creates an environment where it's hard to discern what's true and what's not.
      - isthispermanent 6y ago
        I agree, both sides are negligent. The only place you can go for real news is first and foremost the raw data. And second, Twitter.
      - Kye 6y ago
        A rapid shift from a toilet paper supply chain optimized for workplaces and retail to a sudden spike in demand on the home-focused supply chain caused the shortage. People actually needed that toilet paper because what they normally used was locked up at their workplace and they didn't have enough supply at home.
        dvt 6y ago
        This is categorically untrue. It's well documented that people were hoarding[1] due to (and I quote) the "influence of perceived threat." [1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234232 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
  - naveen99 6y ago
    you don’t really want to have extensive ground glass opacities from any cause. Happy lungs don’t have them. Here are some causes: https://radiopaedia.org/articles/ground-glass-opacification-3?lang=us https://radiopaedia.org/articles/ground-glass-opacification-...
- peteradio 6y ago
  Frankly, the discussion is imprecise. There is no indication that scarring GGOs ever accompany asymptomatic cases.
jamesrcole 6y ago
You’re implying that “common” means “not bad”.
- isthispermanent 6y ago
  I'm implying that common might mean not bad. That burden of proof is on the writer. The writer has failed to meet that burden regardless of which way it is, good or bad.
  - jamesrcole 6y ago
    You described the article as a light variation of panic selling, and said that it throws a scary headline on the details to drive clicks. The headline is "Even If You’re Asymptomatic, the Coronavirus Can Do Damage", and regarding the 'ground glass opacities' it says "How big a deal is this? No one’s sure."
chasd00 6y ago
yeah, early on and even now, all Covid19 information was disseminated in a way to maximize emotional response. That guaranteed either news worse than the facts or news that was better than the facts. Everything, and i mean _everything_, was sensationalized in order to get you to click or register your outrage somewhere with a link back to the source. Reality is reality and as time progressed it became clear what was happening with the information delivery and now no one trusts anything from anyone. Covid19 is pretty bad but what happened to informing the public is near worst case scenario in my book.
- NotSammyHagar 6y ago
  Actually what you're saying comes across as scaremongering. You're trying to say that there are no legitimate sources, the legitimate sources like the New York times or major medical journals are not trustworthy. You're arguing in favor of what you said is a problem.
  - AndrewBissell 6y ago
    The NYT was definitely on the "news that was better than the facts" train for quite awhile in the early days of the pandemic. I would argue the media as a whole is still largely downplaying how bad things are, likely as a matter of serving the imperatives of their corporate owners, but this isn't an idea which finds any purchase with conservatives (who want not to be inconvenienced by COVID in any way) or liberals (who are allergic to most criticism of the news media or anything which can be painted with the "conspiratorial" brush).
  - apatters 6y ago
    Neither the NYT nor academic journals are a legitimately useful source of COVID-19 information for a layperson. The NYT's coverage has been full of scaremongering and speculation and the world would probably have been better off without it. And a layperson doesn't have the time and training to understand journal articles in context. The best sources are public health authorities like the WHO and CDC. They have consistently made careful and measured statements, been fairly accurate, minimized scaremongering and speculation without understating the seriousness of the situation, and issued useful recommendations. Most people would be better off following these authorities directly and ignoring other coverage.
noobermin 6y ago
The doctor who is a radiologist probably means "common" from the patients he sees, not common amongst the general population. "Many things that can cause it" probably means many diseases that are probably not pleasant, especially if they have to see a radiologist for it and not, say, a GP.

city41 6y ago

Why did you leave out the remainder of that paragraph? "But while GGO’s are common, the ones that are turning up among Covid-19 patients are distinctive. “If we see this very round shape and peripheral distribution, that’s atypical of other types of infections but it’s something we frequently see with [Covid-19],” he explains."

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
isthispermanent 6y ago
If it's something that's common and "there are many things that can cause it", what exactly do I need to be worried about? Serious question, give me some context writer. For all I know GGO's are extremely common, come and go, and could be caused by something as routine as sitting around a campfire. "We’ve seen patients with mild GGOs that heal completely, whereas others develop scar tissue almost like a skin injury, which is permanent" Awesome. Zero help. But thanks for planting that seed of fear. Calling fire when there is no fire is as bad as not calling fire if there is a fire.
- ourmandave 6y ago
  Awesome. Zero help. But thanks for planting that seed of fear. Well, to be fair, the Killer Asteroid and Murder Hornet aren't living up to the hype, so you gotta go back to the basics.
- enraged_camel 6y ago
  >>Awesome. Zero help. But thanks for planting that seed of fear. It is a pandemic. We absolutely need to be fearful, because it will encourage us to take extra precautionary or avoidance measures we otherwise would not have taken. This is why "they are just trying to scare people!" is not a valid criticism in this context. The entire reason the pandemic is re-surging is because people are not scared.
  - dvt 6y ago
    > This is why "they are just trying to scare people!" is not a valid criticism in this context. It absolutely is. Fear is not conducive to prudent decision-making. Fear is what brought us the inane toilet paper shortage a few months ago. No news outlet is being level-headed with its reporting -- whether on the left or on the right. This, combined with zero accountability for needless flame-fanning by pieces like the one linked, creates an environment where it's hard to discern what's true and what's not.
    - isthispermanent 6y ago
      I agree, both sides are negligent. The only place you can go for real news is first and foremost the raw data. And second, Twitter.
    - Kye 6y ago
      A rapid shift from a toilet paper supply chain optimized for workplaces and retail to a sudden spike in demand on the home-focused supply chain caused the shortage. People actually needed that toilet paper because what they normally used was locked up at their workplace and they didn't have enough supply at home.
      - dvt 6y ago
        This is categorically untrue. It's well documented that people were hoarding[1] due to (and I quote) the "influence of perceived threat." [1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234232 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
- naveen99 6y ago
  you don’t really want to have extensive ground glass opacities from any cause. Happy lungs don’t have them. Here are some causes: https://radiopaedia.org/articles/ground-glass-opacification-3?lang=us https://radiopaedia.org/articles/ground-glass-opacification-...
peteradio 6y ago
Frankly, the discussion is imprecise. There is no indication that scarring GGOs ever accompany asymptomatic cases.

jamesrcole 6y ago

You’re implying that “common” means “not bad”.

isthispermanent 6y ago
I'm implying that common might mean not bad. That burden of proof is on the writer. The writer has failed to meet that burden regardless of which way it is, good or bad.
- jamesrcole 6y ago
  You described the article as a light variation of panic selling, and said that it throws a scary headline on the details to drive clicks. The headline is "Even If You’re Asymptomatic, the Coronavirus Can Do Damage", and regarding the 'ground glass opacities' it says "How big a deal is this? No one’s sure."

chasd00 6y ago

yeah, early on and even now, all Covid19 information was disseminated in a way to maximize emotional response. That guaranteed either news worse than the facts or news that was better than the facts. Everything, and i mean _everything_, was sensationalized in order to get you to click or register your outrage somewhere with a link back to the source. Reality is reality and as time progressed it became clear what was happening with the information delivery and now no one trusts anything from anyone. Covid19 is pretty bad but what happened to informing the public is near worst case scenario in my book.

NotSammyHagar 6y ago
Actually what you're saying comes across as scaremongering. You're trying to say that there are no legitimate sources, the legitimate sources like the New York times or major medical journals are not trustworthy. You're arguing in favor of what you said is a problem.
- AndrewBissell 6y ago
  The NYT was definitely on the "news that was better than the facts" train for quite awhile in the early days of the pandemic. I would argue the media as a whole is still largely downplaying how bad things are, likely as a matter of serving the imperatives of their corporate owners, but this isn't an idea which finds any purchase with conservatives (who want not to be inconvenienced by COVID in any way) or liberals (who are allergic to most criticism of the news media or anything which can be painted with the "conspiratorial" brush).
- apatters 6y ago
  Neither the NYT nor academic journals are a legitimately useful source of COVID-19 information for a layperson. The NYT's coverage has been full of scaremongering and speculation and the world would probably have been better off without it. And a layperson doesn't have the time and training to understand journal articles in context. The best sources are public health authorities like the WHO and CDC. They have consistently made careful and measured statements, been fairly accurate, minimized scaremongering and speculation without understating the seriousness of the situation, and issued useful recommendations. Most people would be better off following these authorities directly and ignoring other coverage.

noobermin 6y ago

The doctor who is a radiologist probably means "common" from the patients he sees, not common amongst the general population. "Many things that can cause it" probably means many diseases that are probably not pleasant, especially if they have to see a radiologist for it and not, say, a GP.