4 ms·

> Woosh You missed the entire point of their post - you shouldn’t believe something without evidence and there is no evidence COVID is special wrt long term co

by jjcon 6y ago

> Woosh You missed the entire point of their post - you shouldn’t believe something without evidence and there is no evidence COVID is special wrt long term complications.

snowwrestler 6y ago
> The lungs from patients with Covid-19 also showed distinctive vascular features, consisting of severe endothelial injury associated with the presence of intracellular virus and disrupted cell membranes. Histologic analysis of pulmonary vessels in patients with Covid-19 showed widespread thrombosis with microangiopathy. Alveolar capillary microthrombi were 9 times as prevalent in patients with Covid-19 as in patients with influenza (P<0.001). In lungs from patients with Covid-19, the amount of new vessel growth — predominantly through a mechanism of intussusceptive angiogenesis — was 2.7 times as high as that in the lungs from patients with influenza (P<0.001). https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2015432 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2015432 This is a study of the lungs of people who died. Obviously more study is needed, but it's not unreasonable to infer that people who survive COVID-19 would experience symptoms that most flu patients do not. > there is no evidence COVID is special wrt long term complications. Since this coronavirus is novel, and COVID-19 is a new disease, of course there are not long-term studies yet. The lack of long-term data does not provide any support for (or against) the idea that its long-term impact is similar to the flu. So we have to look at what we do know so far, which is that it is different from the flu in many ways.
- jjcon 6y ago
  > The lack of long-term data does not provide any support for (or against) the idea that its long-term impact is similar to the flu. Except when one makes a claim, one needs evidence. The assumption is the status quo unless proven otherwise which by your own admission is not possible to do right now so quit the fearmongering.
  - snowwrestler 6y ago
    The flu is not the "status quo" for COVID-19 since they are different diseases.
    - chrisjs96 6y ago
      An airplane is different than a helicopter. Doesn't mean we can't learn things by observing the other.
acituan 6y ago
> there is no evidence COVID is special wrt long term complications. It is impossible to establish evidence for long term complications of a novel virus that has been with us for less than a year. > you shouldn’t believe something without evidence This is an OK heuristic but absence of evidence is not sufficient to conclude falsification of the hypothesis, especially when faced with novel phenomena.
- jjcon 6y ago
  > It is impossible to establish evidence for long term complications of a novel virus that has been with us for less than a year. Exactly - there is no reason to believe it causes long term problems so fearmongering about it pointless and anti-scientific.
  - acituan 6y ago
    I don’t follow. Just because something causes fear doesn’t mean that it tells us anything about its truthiness. When faced with something novel, the right approach is to be cautious, for some optimal values of novel and cautious. If we were in a timeline where cigarettes or uranium toothpastes were as novel as sars-cov-2, we wouldn’t have established their long term effects yet either.
    - jjcon 6y ago
      > Just because something causes fear doesn’t mean that it tells us anything about its truthiness. Not inherently but the problem is throwing out unscientific speculation without any evidence. This is often done with Covid because fear speculation attracts attention and get clicks/views. People are hardwired to look for fear - so this sort of irresponsible speculation is dangerous because it spreads like wildfire.
  - chimprich 6y ago
    > fearmongering This term (or the similar "scaremongering") gets thrown around an awful lot in discussions about the novel coronavirus and I don't think it's helpful. For one thing, it's quite insulting to assume someone is deliberately exaggerating something for manipulation purposes. Please assume some good faith. It's also a problem in that it doesn't advance the discussion in any way, because it can be applied to just about any topic where you don't like the argument. Discussing dangers of possible long-term health effects of contracting COVID-19? Fearmongering. Raising concerns about climate change? Fearmongering. Studies that show a link between alcohol and heart disease? Fearmongering. It's such a general-purpose accusation that it's meaningless in most contexts.
kordlessagain 6y ago
> you shouldn’t believe something without evidence This is a complete lack of understanding of scientific process and practices. People believe things without evidence all the time, gut feelings for example, and manage to be quite successful at them, I might add. Stock markets. Startups. Scientific research into unknown categories. All these things require a sense of faith in what might be instead of blind trust in what has been "proven" (which is only to say a belief in a statistical model about a given thing). Also, nobody said "woosh" so quoting it as if it was said is irrational.
- jjcon 6y ago
  > woosh https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woosh https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woosh
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Well, define special. There may/may not but it's definitional, so please...?

by jjcon 6y ago

> Woosh You missed the entire point of their post - you shouldn’t believe something without evidence and there is no evidence COVID is special wrt long term complications.

snowwrestler 6y ago

> The lungs from patients with Covid-19 also showed distinctive vascular features, consisting of severe endothelial injury associated with the presence of intracellular virus and disrupted cell membranes. Histologic analysis of pulmonary vessels in patients with Covid-19 showed widespread thrombosis with microangiopathy. Alveolar capillary microthrombi were 9 times as prevalent in patients with Covid-19 as in patients with influenza (P<0.001). In lungs from patients with Covid-19, the amount of new vessel growth — predominantly through a mechanism of intussusceptive angiogenesis — was 2.7 times as high as that in the lungs from patients with influenza (P<0.001). https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2015432 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2015432 This is a study of the lungs of people who died. Obviously more study is needed, but it's not unreasonable to infer that people who survive COVID-19 would experience symptoms that most flu patients do not. > there is no evidence COVID is special wrt long term complications. Since this coronavirus is novel, and COVID-19 is a new disease, of course there are not long-term studies yet. The lack of long-term data does not provide any support for (or against) the idea that its long-term impact is similar to the flu. So we have to look at what we do know so far, which is that it is different from the flu in many ways.

jjcon 6y ago
> The lack of long-term data does not provide any support for (or against) the idea that its long-term impact is similar to the flu. Except when one makes a claim, one needs evidence. The assumption is the status quo unless proven otherwise which by your own admission is not possible to do right now so quit the fearmongering.
- snowwrestler 6y ago
  The flu is not the "status quo" for COVID-19 since they are different diseases.
  - chrisjs96 6y ago
    An airplane is different than a helicopter. Doesn't mean we can't learn things by observing the other.

acituan 6y ago

> there is no evidence COVID is special wrt long term complications. It is impossible to establish evidence for long term complications of a novel virus that has been with us for less than a year. > you shouldn’t believe something without evidence This is an OK heuristic but absence of evidence is not sufficient to conclude falsification of the hypothesis, especially when faced with novel phenomena.

jjcon 6y ago
> It is impossible to establish evidence for long term complications of a novel virus that has been with us for less than a year. Exactly - there is no reason to believe it causes long term problems so fearmongering about it pointless and anti-scientific.
- acituan 6y ago
  I don’t follow. Just because something causes fear doesn’t mean that it tells us anything about its truthiness. When faced with something novel, the right approach is to be cautious, for some optimal values of novel and cautious. If we were in a timeline where cigarettes or uranium toothpastes were as novel as sars-cov-2, we wouldn’t have established their long term effects yet either.
  - jjcon 6y ago
    > Just because something causes fear doesn’t mean that it tells us anything about its truthiness. Not inherently but the problem is throwing out unscientific speculation without any evidence. This is often done with Covid because fear speculation attracts attention and get clicks/views. People are hardwired to look for fear - so this sort of irresponsible speculation is dangerous because it spreads like wildfire.
- chimprich 6y ago
  > fearmongering This term (or the similar "scaremongering") gets thrown around an awful lot in discussions about the novel coronavirus and I don't think it's helpful. For one thing, it's quite insulting to assume someone is deliberately exaggerating something for manipulation purposes. Please assume some good faith. It's also a problem in that it doesn't advance the discussion in any way, because it can be applied to just about any topic where you don't like the argument. Discussing dangers of possible long-term health effects of contracting COVID-19? Fearmongering. Raising concerns about climate change? Fearmongering. Studies that show a link between alcohol and heart disease? Fearmongering. It's such a general-purpose accusation that it's meaningless in most contexts.

kordlessagain 6y ago

> you shouldn’t believe something without evidence This is a complete lack of understanding of scientific process and practices. People believe things without evidence all the time, gut feelings for example, and manage to be quite successful at them, I might add. Stock markets. Startups. Scientific research into unknown categories. All these things require a sense of faith in what might be instead of blind trust in what has been "proven" (which is only to say a belief in a statistical model about a given thing). Also, nobody said "woosh" so quoting it as if it was said is irrational.

jjcon 6y ago
> woosh https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woosh https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woosh

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

Well, define special. There may/may not but it's definitional, so please...?