4 ms·

Are you only comparing death rates? My coworker has been told he may never taste or smell again as he "recovers" from covid. There's evidence that COVID survi

Are you only comparing death rates? My coworker has been told he may never taste or smell again as he "recovers" from covid. There's evidence that COVID survivors might have long term heart conditions https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/can-coronavirus-cause-heart-damage https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas... Think of the most vulnerable among us. You are killing them.

ls612 6y ago
There are rare long-term side effects from many infectious viruses. Anyone who gets pneumonia from anything will be down for the count for a while, but they'll get better, and that isn't unique to this virus. And myocarditis (the heart inflammation people are talking about) is a side effect of all sorts of viral and even bacterial infections (wikipedia lists basically every common human virus as a cause), it will normally get better on its own, although in rare cases it can cause issues. None of this is new! This coronavirus is a novel coronavirus, not a magical one. It has effects that are in line with other viral illnesses in humans. It's just a bit more virulent than them. It's a matter of quantitative difference, not qualitative difference.
- alchemism 6y ago
  Possible permanent smell/taste loss? Possibly permanent reduction in lung capacity? There is a qualitative difference as well. The lingering side effects of the Lyme-causing bacteria is on a level apart from what happens when you get food-poisoned.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  There are rare long-term side effects from many infectious viruses So it's all perfectly fine then? Because there are other viruses that do harm, we should allow this virus to run rampant. Guess how I know you're not a doctor.
  - ls612 6y ago
    You’re right, I’m an economist, not a doctor. So I look at the world in terms of trade offs. And the trade offs western societies have made with this virus are so unlike the trade offs made with any other infectious disease in recent memory that it makes me concerned about what the new trade offs will be going forward.
    - zzzeek 6y ago
      that's what's known as the "slippery slope" argument. The response to this virus is just so shocking that oh wow, what if this is the new norm? It's not at all. this virus is not "the norm", this is a 100 year event. don't hurt your head on that slope!
      - ls612 6y ago
        Heh, despite the fact that you are being rude to me I'll still answer in good faith because the distinction is important. If we are spending hundreds of times as much mitigating a virus five times as bad as common illnesses (yes a once in a century event) are we now going to spend dozens of times more money/effort mitigating the flu every year? If yes then we will see lockdowns like this regularly going forward. If no, then the vast majority of the response to COVID is an emotional overreaction, not rational risk mitigation/pricing in externalities. I will say in mid-March, when things looked quite different based on our limited knowledge of the virus, that the response wasn't entirely unwarranted. But we've known for months that this isn't nearly as bad as feared. It isn't the second coming of smallpox. Yet we still have most of the restrictions and shaming from March, even to this day.
        zzzeek 6y ago
        > If we are spending hundreds of times as much mitigating a virus five times as bad as common illnesses how do you quantify "five times as bad" ? if I run my car into a brick wall at ten miles an hour, vs. 50, one event damages my car the other kills me. is that "five times as bad"? > are we now going to spend dozens of times more money/effort mitigating the flu every year? If yes then we will see lockdowns like this regularly going forward. no, why would we? the flu does not overwhelm hospitals [edit: the 2018 flu season comparison is a counterpoint but there is no argument this is anything on the scale what covid has done in places like NYC], cripple the entire medical system such that thousands of patients are left to die in hallways and parking lots, and spread exponentially to kill hundreds of thousands of people within just a few months. > If no, then the vast majority of the response to COVID is an emotional overreaction, not rational risk mitigation/pricing in externalities. you have made no argument to support this case. > I will say in mid-March, when things looked quite different based on our limited knowledge of the virus, that the response wasn't entirely unwarranted. what exactly "looked quite different" ? the main things that were known in march, e.g. spreads exponentially, r0 is something like 2 or 3 if steps aren't taken, has a 20% hospitalization rate, has a high death rate for those hospitalized which has improved somewaht but that is predicated on the fact that hospitals are availble, are still true. There were a lot of tweets from people who work in public health about the argument you're making. "If people said we overreacted, then we will know we did our job". That's how it works when you prevent a horrible thing from going out of control. People who for whatever reason don't seem to understand what happened will crow about how unnecessary that was. Can you see how this looks to anyone who is actually trained in this area?
liability 6y ago
Any flu that clogs your lungs and gives you a fever can give you long term lung or neurological damage. I've seen little to nothing that suggests covid is uniquely dangerous in this regard.
ardy42 6y ago
> Think of the most vulnerable among us. You are killing them. But I like going to the gym, partying, and maximizing the profits of my business! I'm fine with helping, but asking me to make sacrifices is just too much. Isn't what I prefer most important? /s I've also contrived some sympathetic-sounding reasons to justify the choices I already wanted to make, so it's pretty clear that if you disagree with me, you're obviously wrong. /s
sethammons 6y ago
Missing persons in my state are up 22%. Reports of domestic violence are down (but very likely still happening). People are missing health screenings. Lockdowns are killing the most vulnerable among us. We need to take them into account too.

ls612 6y ago

There are rare long-term side effects from many infectious viruses. Anyone who gets pneumonia from anything will be down for the count for a while, but they'll get better, and that isn't unique to this virus. And myocarditis (the heart inflammation people are talking about) is a side effect of all sorts of viral and even bacterial infections (wikipedia lists basically every common human virus as a cause), it will normally get better on its own, although in rare cases it can cause issues. None of this is new! This coronavirus is a novel coronavirus, not a magical one. It has effects that are in line with other viral illnesses in humans. It's just a bit more virulent than them. It's a matter of quantitative difference, not qualitative difference.

alchemism 6y ago
Possible permanent smell/taste loss? Possibly permanent reduction in lung capacity? There is a qualitative difference as well. The lingering side effects of the Lyme-causing bacteria is on a level apart from what happens when you get food-poisoned.
reaperducer 6y ago
There are rare long-term side effects from many infectious viruses So it's all perfectly fine then? Because there are other viruses that do harm, we should allow this virus to run rampant. Guess how I know you're not a doctor.
- ls612 6y ago
  You’re right, I’m an economist, not a doctor. So I look at the world in terms of trade offs. And the trade offs western societies have made with this virus are so unlike the trade offs made with any other infectious disease in recent memory that it makes me concerned about what the new trade offs will be going forward.
  - zzzeek 6y ago
    that's what's known as the "slippery slope" argument. The response to this virus is just so shocking that oh wow, what if this is the new norm? It's not at all. this virus is not "the norm", this is a 100 year event. don't hurt your head on that slope!
    - ls612 6y ago
      Heh, despite the fact that you are being rude to me I'll still answer in good faith because the distinction is important. If we are spending hundreds of times as much mitigating a virus five times as bad as common illnesses (yes a once in a century event) are we now going to spend dozens of times more money/effort mitigating the flu every year? If yes then we will see lockdowns like this regularly going forward. If no, then the vast majority of the response to COVID is an emotional overreaction, not rational risk mitigation/pricing in externalities. I will say in mid-March, when things looked quite different based on our limited knowledge of the virus, that the response wasn't entirely unwarranted. But we've known for months that this isn't nearly as bad as feared. It isn't the second coming of smallpox. Yet we still have most of the restrictions and shaming from March, even to this day.
      - zzzeek 6y ago
        > If we are spending hundreds of times as much mitigating a virus five times as bad as common illnesses how do you quantify "five times as bad" ? if I run my car into a brick wall at ten miles an hour, vs. 50, one event damages my car the other kills me. is that "five times as bad"? > are we now going to spend dozens of times more money/effort mitigating the flu every year? If yes then we will see lockdowns like this regularly going forward. no, why would we? the flu does not overwhelm hospitals [edit: the 2018 flu season comparison is a counterpoint but there is no argument this is anything on the scale what covid has done in places like NYC], cripple the entire medical system such that thousands of patients are left to die in hallways and parking lots, and spread exponentially to kill hundreds of thousands of people within just a few months. > If no, then the vast majority of the response to COVID is an emotional overreaction, not rational risk mitigation/pricing in externalities. you have made no argument to support this case. > I will say in mid-March, when things looked quite different based on our limited knowledge of the virus, that the response wasn't entirely unwarranted. what exactly "looked quite different" ? the main things that were known in march, e.g. spreads exponentially, r0 is something like 2 or 3 if steps aren't taken, has a 20% hospitalization rate, has a high death rate for those hospitalized which has improved somewaht but that is predicated on the fact that hospitals are availble, are still true. There were a lot of tweets from people who work in public health about the argument you're making. "If people said we overreacted, then we will know we did our job". That's how it works when you prevent a horrible thing from going out of control. People who for whatever reason don't seem to understand what happened will crow about how unnecessary that was. Can you see how this looks to anyone who is actually trained in this area?

liability 6y ago

Any flu that clogs your lungs and gives you a fever can give you long term lung or neurological damage. I've seen little to nothing that suggests covid is uniquely dangerous in this regard.

ardy42 6y ago

> Think of the most vulnerable among us. You are killing them. But I like going to the gym, partying, and maximizing the profits of my business! I'm fine with helping, but asking me to make sacrifices is just too much. Isn't what I prefer most important? /s I've also contrived some sympathetic-sounding reasons to justify the choices I already wanted to make, so it's pretty clear that if you disagree with me, you're obviously wrong. /s

sethammons 6y ago

Missing persons in my state are up 22%. Reports of domestic violence are down (but very likely still happening). People are missing health screenings. Lockdowns are killing the most vulnerable among us. We need to take them into account too.