4 ms·

Long-term damage is fortunately a myth. There is no evidence for it -- people may need more than a few weeks to recover, but ultimately they do. Whereas herd i

Long-term damage is fortunately a myth. There is no evidence for it -- people may need more than a few weeks to recover, but ultimately they do. Whereas herd immunity is inevitable. Either we reach it naturally or we wait for a working vaccine. If people couldn't develop immunity against Covid, developing a vaccine would be impossible. > Also, elderly folks will still be left in social isolation with your solution, so it's not like it's a real win. Only for a limited time, and only them. That is clearly better than forcing everyone to isolate themselves for months.

triceratops 6y ago
> Long-term damage is fortunately a myth. people may need more than a few weeks to recover, but ultimately they do. Nope.[1] And I don't care if long-haulers are a small percentage. Explain to me why you or I should take the tiniest bit of risk of becoming a statistic, instead of wearing a mask. You talk as though even a few weeks of suffering is nothing, compared to the agony of wearing a mask in public. There's no heroism in contracting a disease. We're not fighting a war. There's no point being "brave". Getting corona isn't like falling on a grenade to save your buddies. > Whereas herd immunity is inevitable. Either we reach it naturally or we wait for a working vaccine. There are already documented cases of reinfection,[2] so everyone has to either contract corona or get the vaccine, in order to protect those vulnerable to reinfection. Waiting for a vaccine will cost far fewer lives. > That is clearly better than forcing everyone to isolate themselves for months. Or the alternative: wear a mask, socialize outdoors or in well-ventilated areas. Strictly isolate the truly vulnerable. 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02598-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02598-6 2. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4
- anoncake 6y ago
  Despite being published in Nature, the two articles you cited aren't scientific papers. I've been looking and asking for evidence that long-term damage and reinfections occur except in rare cases for months. This isn't it. Maybe social isolation until we have a (necessarily rushed) vaccine (if we ever get one) and of which we then have to produce billions of doses does save a few lives. But that is not guaranteed and it's not worth the suffering till then. > Explain to me why you or I should take the tiniest bit of risk of becoming a statistic, instead of wearing a mask. Because live is inherently risky. If you truly wanted to avoid every tiny risk, you couldn't even leave your house. > You talk as though even a few weeks of suffering is nothing, compared to the agony of wearing a mask in public. A few weeks of suffering for some of the population is nothing compared to months of suffering for all of them. And please, stop pretending being forced to wear masks is the only measure we have to endure.

triceratops 6y ago

> Long-term damage is fortunately a myth. people may need more than a few weeks to recover, but ultimately they do. Nope.[1] And I don't care if long-haulers are a small percentage. Explain to me why you or I should take the tiniest bit of risk of becoming a statistic, instead of wearing a mask. You talk as though even a few weeks of suffering is nothing, compared to the agony of wearing a mask in public. There's no heroism in contracting a disease. We're not fighting a war. There's no point being "brave". Getting corona isn't like falling on a grenade to save your buddies. > Whereas herd immunity is inevitable. Either we reach it naturally or we wait for a working vaccine. There are already documented cases of reinfection,[2] so everyone has to either contract corona or get the vaccine, in order to protect those vulnerable to reinfection. Waiting for a vaccine will cost far fewer lives. > That is clearly better than forcing everyone to isolate themselves for months. Or the alternative: wear a mask, socialize outdoors or in well-ventilated areas. Strictly isolate the truly vulnerable. 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02598-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02598-6 2. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4

anoncake 6y ago
Despite being published in Nature, the two articles you cited aren't scientific papers. I've been looking and asking for evidence that long-term damage and reinfections occur except in rare cases for months. This isn't it. Maybe social isolation until we have a (necessarily rushed) vaccine (if we ever get one) and of which we then have to produce billions of doses does save a few lives. But that is not guaranteed and it's not worth the suffering till then. > Explain to me why you or I should take the tiniest bit of risk of becoming a statistic, instead of wearing a mask. Because live is inherently risky. If you truly wanted to avoid every tiny risk, you couldn't even leave your house. > You talk as though even a few weeks of suffering is nothing, compared to the agony of wearing a mask in public. A few weeks of suffering for some of the population is nothing compared to months of suffering for all of them. And please, stop pretending being forced to wear masks is the only measure we have to endure.