3 ms·

I guess COVID is special in the fact that COVID is widespread and causes high fever in a significant number of symptomatic individuals. The flu also commonly ca

I guess COVID is special in the fact that COVID is widespread and causes high fever in a significant number of symptomatic individuals. The flu also commonly causes high fevers, however, it isn't spreading at the rate COVID is, so ultimately, due to the widespread nature of COVID, it seems reasonable to link these two concerns. An underlying recent theme has been to consider long term consequences this disease may have on societies across the world due to its scale, as well as those individuals health. We're going to have a lot more people seriously ill than we typically do with previously known infections and diseases and that will have notable impacts. From the article: >“My worry is that we have millions of people with COVID-19 now. And if in a year’s time we have 10 million recovered people, and those people have cognitive deficits ... then that’s going to affect their ability to work and their ability to go about activities of daily living,” Adrian Owen, a neuroscientist at Western University in Canada, told Reuters in an interview. We see what the short term consequences are, now we should also consider potential long term consequences of this very widespread disease.

voisin 6y ago
We can’t even agree to take the steps to solve the problem in the short term that is staring us in the face. What are the odds that talking about probabilities of long term issues will suddenly motivate people (or, more importantly, the levels of government) to make the right decisions?
- katbyte 6y ago
  Speak for your own country - many others agree and are doing quite well in the face of this pandemic.
- Frost1x 6y ago
  Fully agree however the fundamental science shouldn't be concerned with the fact many are ignoring science. It's science's job to do the best it can to discover the facts which provide the fundamental information needed for useful actionable changes. Someone still needs to develop actionable policy based on that information, and then we have to decide as a society which actions we want to take. Various scientists have provided short term control solutions and are working on even more of them. We've seen those solutions around the world effectively curbing the spread. Different socieities and their governments have chosen what to do or not do with that information, and now you see the results across the world, depending on what people chose to do with that information. If we understand long term implications as well as short term, this provides even more information to make useful actionable policy decisions.
boomboomsubban 6y ago
>From the article: Why is Reuters interviewing a neuroscientist from Western University in Canada about a study done at University College London? It's telling that the part you picked out comes from someone completely unrelated to the research.
- jacques_chester 6y ago
  It is common to get an external expert, or several, to comment on a story about science (or economics, criminology, accounting, farming, weather, software ... anything). The subject is neurology, the interviewee is a neuroscientist, and so is probably more qualified to opine than you or I or the Reuters journalist who submitted copy.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    First, they seemed to have interviewed some members of the research team to make the piece. If you want someone qualified to comment, they are the best choice. Further, the interviewee is a neuroscientist, but we have no idea why they were picked to comment, how deeply he's analyzed the research, what the context was that led to that quote, or how long Reuters spent talking to neuroscientists to get that quote.

voisin 6y ago

We can’t even agree to take the steps to solve the problem in the short term that is staring us in the face. What are the odds that talking about probabilities of long term issues will suddenly motivate people (or, more importantly, the levels of government) to make the right decisions?

katbyte 6y ago
Speak for your own country - many others agree and are doing quite well in the face of this pandemic.
Frost1x 6y ago
Fully agree however the fundamental science shouldn't be concerned with the fact many are ignoring science. It's science's job to do the best it can to discover the facts which provide the fundamental information needed for useful actionable changes. Someone still needs to develop actionable policy based on that information, and then we have to decide as a society which actions we want to take. Various scientists have provided short term control solutions and are working on even more of them. We've seen those solutions around the world effectively curbing the spread. Different socieities and their governments have chosen what to do or not do with that information, and now you see the results across the world, depending on what people chose to do with that information. If we understand long term implications as well as short term, this provides even more information to make useful actionable policy decisions.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

>From the article: Why is Reuters interviewing a neuroscientist from Western University in Canada about a study done at University College London? It's telling that the part you picked out comes from someone completely unrelated to the research.

jacques_chester 6y ago
It is common to get an external expert, or several, to comment on a story about science (or economics, criminology, accounting, farming, weather, software ... anything). The subject is neurology, the interviewee is a neuroscientist, and so is probably more qualified to opine than you or I or the Reuters journalist who submitted copy.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  First, they seemed to have interviewed some members of the research team to make the piece. If you want someone qualified to comment, they are the best choice. Further, the interviewee is a neuroscientist, but we have no idea why they were picked to comment, how deeply he's analyzed the research, what the context was that led to that quote, or how long Reuters spent talking to neuroscientists to get that quote.