4 ms·

Of course you haven't seen papers describing long-term effects, simply because the virus hasn't been around long enough for any long-term conclusions. Therefor

Of course you haven't seen papers describing long-term effects, simply because the virus hasn't been around long enough for any long-term conclusions. Therefore there are no studies saying there are NO long term effects either. There are clues that long term effects/permanent effects even in mild cases may exist. E.g. some six scuba divers with mild symptoms/asymptomatic progression were checked afterwards (Innsbruck, Austria) and had what looked like permanent lung damage. Then again, the sample size here is far too small and the cohort far to "exotic" to draw any conclusions yet.

logicchains 6y ago
> Of course you haven't seen papers describing long-term effects, simply because the virus hasn't been around long enough for any long-term conclusions. So you'd support locking down based on something for which we don't have any evidence yet?
- rndgermandude 6y ago
  We have seen evidence that the virus kills. That alone warrants action. In the beginning, the general lockdowns were fine, simply because we didn't know enough yet to come up with better solutions, and frankly didn't really have the time to rectify this before taking any action. Now whether or not to lockdown and what to lockdown can be applied more fine-grained. Of course, everything is still in flux, and some decisions will turn out to be wrong later. The entire response is trial-by-error, for lack of alternatives In regards to potential long term effects, those should be a concern as well when making decisions, yes. Not the only concern of course, but not something to be ignored either.
  - logicchains 6y ago
    >That alone warrants action. In only warrants action if we're sure the negative consequences of the action won't be greater than the negative consequences of the viral deaths.
    - rndgermandude 6y ago
      Interesting. On one hand we have clear and ample evidence that the virus kills, and even more so when the health system of a country gets overloaded. On the other hand we have a bunch of hypotheses arguing that lockdowns kill, etc, but no clear evidence for that yet. E.g. suicide rates are up on some locales like Japan and the UK, but down in others like Germany. (I am not disputing theses hypotheses as false, btw, as there is ample evidence that in order situations of e.g. economic turndown or e.g. isolation severe adverse effects occurred/occur; tho it remains to be seen what damage there actually will be) Given how you seem all about the evidence, this should give you pause. I agree that the effects of measures have to be weighted against the good of measures - namely "curve flattening". However, I still do think that the initial lockdowns were warranted as a short term measure, and that future, more fine-grained (hotspot) lockdowns are warranted. Then there are other measures, such as facemasks... some people dispute the effectiveness... But really, that's a no-brainer now; even if it turns out the masks are not effective at all, the worst that came out of it really is mild discomfort wearing them (exceptions for medical conditions of course apply) - and some morons shouting at each other for either wearing a mask or not wearing a mask.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
  It appears however, that the whole strategy of "learning of living with Covid" might turn out to be unrealistic, we'll be forced to go for virus eradication route. NZ and TW, and partially CN did it, and they are doing very good.
  - rndgermandude 6y ago
    I wouldn't know about China, because frankly, the data they release is fishy. NZ and TW do better, but mostly because of travel restrictions (and people do not like to travel anyway right now for the most part) and because they are islands. Doing the same for the big islands of "Eurasia" and "America" and Africa seems less feasible. The "solution" will be vaccines combined with some adjustments on how people live for the foreseeable future. Until the next pandemic comes along.
    - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
      I am not quite sure I buy "it is an island argument". There is very little political will I am sure, but virus doe not care about the politics. If winter death toll will be very high, it might trigger very drastic shifts in the policies. Vaccines might turn out to be not efficient enough as well.

logicchains 6y ago

> Of course you haven't seen papers describing long-term effects, simply because the virus hasn't been around long enough for any long-term conclusions. So you'd support locking down based on something for which we don't have any evidence yet?

rndgermandude 6y ago
We have seen evidence that the virus kills. That alone warrants action. In the beginning, the general lockdowns were fine, simply because we didn't know enough yet to come up with better solutions, and frankly didn't really have the time to rectify this before taking any action. Now whether or not to lockdown and what to lockdown can be applied more fine-grained. Of course, everything is still in flux, and some decisions will turn out to be wrong later. The entire response is trial-by-error, for lack of alternatives In regards to potential long term effects, those should be a concern as well when making decisions, yes. Not the only concern of course, but not something to be ignored either.
- logicchains 6y ago
  >That alone warrants action. In only warrants action if we're sure the negative consequences of the action won't be greater than the negative consequences of the viral deaths.
  - rndgermandude 6y ago
    Interesting. On one hand we have clear and ample evidence that the virus kills, and even more so when the health system of a country gets overloaded. On the other hand we have a bunch of hypotheses arguing that lockdowns kill, etc, but no clear evidence for that yet. E.g. suicide rates are up on some locales like Japan and the UK, but down in others like Germany. (I am not disputing theses hypotheses as false, btw, as there is ample evidence that in order situations of e.g. economic turndown or e.g. isolation severe adverse effects occurred/occur; tho it remains to be seen what damage there actually will be) Given how you seem all about the evidence, this should give you pause. I agree that the effects of measures have to be weighted against the good of measures - namely "curve flattening". However, I still do think that the initial lockdowns were warranted as a short term measure, and that future, more fine-grained (hotspot) lockdowns are warranted. Then there are other measures, such as facemasks... some people dispute the effectiveness... But really, that's a no-brainer now; even if it turns out the masks are not effective at all, the worst that came out of it really is mild discomfort wearing them (exceptions for medical conditions of course apply) - and some morons shouting at each other for either wearing a mask or not wearing a mask.
SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
It appears however, that the whole strategy of "learning of living with Covid" might turn out to be unrealistic, we'll be forced to go for virus eradication route. NZ and TW, and partially CN did it, and they are doing very good.
- rndgermandude 6y ago
  I wouldn't know about China, because frankly, the data they release is fishy. NZ and TW do better, but mostly because of travel restrictions (and people do not like to travel anyway right now for the most part) and because they are islands. Doing the same for the big islands of "Eurasia" and "America" and Africa seems less feasible. The "solution" will be vaccines combined with some adjustments on how people live for the foreseeable future. Until the next pandemic comes along.
  - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
    I am not quite sure I buy "it is an island argument". There is very little political will I am sure, but virus doe not care about the politics. If winter death toll will be very high, it might trigger very drastic shifts in the policies. Vaccines might turn out to be not efficient enough as well.