3 ms·

> This is a virus with bad long-term effects on the body. In what percentage of people who get COVID-19 are there bad long-term effects? What other conditions

by cheph 6y ago

> This is a virus with bad long-term effects on the body. In what percentage of people who get COVID-19 are there bad long-term effects? What other conditions did the people get bad long term effects have? How does these numbers compare with other diseases? Would appreciate citations.

3np 6y ago
We don't know. Which is why it's preferred to play it safe, in that regard.
henearkr 6y ago
Damage to the heart, the brain, even for mild or asymptotic cases. My references are previous posts on HN or on phys.org as you can easily search it. As you said there are scarce data yet, but the risks are scary. In these conditions, it's obvious one should avoid relying on a herd immunity induced by the virus.
- cheph 6y ago
  > My references are previous posts on HN or on phys.org as you can easily search it. And you could cite a claim you are making. Without numbers it is hard to say if this is a good basis for decisions.
  - henearkr 6y ago
    The statistics are in the making, and researchers discover more illness mechanisms each day. As I said, we are in the presence of a huge risk and there is no "reassuring numbers" anywhere to counterbalance that. As one reference on the risks I'm speaking of, here is an article about the action of the virus on the nerve cells: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-we-know-so-far-about-how-covid-affects-the-nervous-system/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-we-know-so-f... By the way, between "relying on virus-induced herd immunity" and just keeping safe with mask and waiting for the vaccine to come, why the rush to get the virus?? There is a risk, there is the possibility to wait it over. So why just not do that and wait the safe solution?
    - marketingPro 6y ago
      Suicide, abuse/trauma, avoided medical treatments, drug and alcohol addictions, and depression have all been seen to increase since we first had lockdowns. There is no safe solution, it's a decision between protecting the 0.5% old, obese, and sick or the 99.5%
      - henearkr 6y ago
        The fact that catching the COVID should be avoided instead of looked for is really obvious. How to avoid it is the real discussion. I could avoid it easily until now because everybody wears a mask here. In some cases or in some countries, this is not possible, or too much people are infected already, and lockdown becomes the best solution. Nobody is saying that lockdown is the only solution in every case, and absolutely nobody is even thinking that lockdown is making people happy.
      - singemonkey 6y ago
        Please provide evidence for this. (To avoid misunderstandings, evidence does not mean your unverified opinions). I'm particularly interested in your methodology for arriving at 0.5%, so a detailed data dump on that from you would be very useful.
        anoncake 6y ago
        The IFR is ~0.6%, the threshold for herd immunity is below 80% according to even the most pessimistic estimates. 80% * 0.6% = 0.5%.
      - chimprich 6y ago
        > Suicide, abuse/trauma, [...], drug and alcohol addictions, and depression have all been seen to increase since we first had lockdowns. Correlation versus causation. We're in the middle of a major health emergency. Why are you attributing those to the effects of lockdowns, rather than the effects of the pandemic? You don't think that the risk to personal health of a potentially lethal virus, seeing older friends and relatives dying, and worrying about the risk of health systems collapsing are causing any of the above? In March, someone I know in Italy passed on the virus to his grandfather, who died at home. All the ambulances in the area were tied up for hours. You can imagine the effect on his mental health. I doubt the impact was comparable to the effects of intermittent lockdowns.
- anoncake 6y ago
  Exactly. There is scarce data. If after almost a year there is still no evidence of long-term damage, it's reasonable to assume there is none.
graeme 6y ago
We don’t know yet. It’s a gamble. A uk study suggests 12% have symptoms longer than 30 days. Beyond that, hard to say. We also don’t havea good measure of invisible damage: do survivors have reduced lung function from pneumonia? Damage to endothelium predisposing to pneumonia? Too soon to tell. About 20% of people are hospitalized. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54296223 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54296223

by cheph 6y ago

3np 6y ago

We don't know. Which is why it's preferred to play it safe, in that regard.

henearkr 6y ago

Damage to the heart, the brain, even for mild or asymptotic cases. My references are previous posts on HN or on phys.org as you can easily search it. As you said there are scarce data yet, but the risks are scary. In these conditions, it's obvious one should avoid relying on a herd immunity induced by the virus.

cheph 6y ago
> My references are previous posts on HN or on phys.org as you can easily search it. And you could cite a claim you are making. Without numbers it is hard to say if this is a good basis for decisions.
- henearkr 6y ago
  The statistics are in the making, and researchers discover more illness mechanisms each day. As I said, we are in the presence of a huge risk and there is no "reassuring numbers" anywhere to counterbalance that. As one reference on the risks I'm speaking of, here is an article about the action of the virus on the nerve cells: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-we-know-so-far-about-how-covid-affects-the-nervous-system/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-we-know-so-f... By the way, between "relying on virus-induced herd immunity" and just keeping safe with mask and waiting for the vaccine to come, why the rush to get the virus?? There is a risk, there is the possibility to wait it over. So why just not do that and wait the safe solution?
  - marketingPro 6y ago
    Suicide, abuse/trauma, avoided medical treatments, drug and alcohol addictions, and depression have all been seen to increase since we first had lockdowns. There is no safe solution, it's a decision between protecting the 0.5% old, obese, and sick or the 99.5%
    - henearkr 6y ago
      The fact that catching the COVID should be avoided instead of looked for is really obvious. How to avoid it is the real discussion. I could avoid it easily until now because everybody wears a mask here. In some cases or in some countries, this is not possible, or too much people are infected already, and lockdown becomes the best solution. Nobody is saying that lockdown is the only solution in every case, and absolutely nobody is even thinking that lockdown is making people happy.
    - singemonkey 6y ago
      Please provide evidence for this. (To avoid misunderstandings, evidence does not mean your unverified opinions). I'm particularly interested in your methodology for arriving at 0.5%, so a detailed data dump on that from you would be very useful.
      - anoncake 6y ago
        The IFR is ~0.6%, the threshold for herd immunity is below 80% according to even the most pessimistic estimates. 80% * 0.6% = 0.5%.
    - chimprich 6y ago
      > Suicide, abuse/trauma, [...], drug and alcohol addictions, and depression have all been seen to increase since we first had lockdowns. Correlation versus causation. We're in the middle of a major health emergency. Why are you attributing those to the effects of lockdowns, rather than the effects of the pandemic? You don't think that the risk to personal health of a potentially lethal virus, seeing older friends and relatives dying, and worrying about the risk of health systems collapsing are causing any of the above? In March, someone I know in Italy passed on the virus to his grandfather, who died at home. All the ambulances in the area were tied up for hours. You can imagine the effect on his mental health. I doubt the impact was comparable to the effects of intermittent lockdowns.
anoncake 6y ago
Exactly. There is scarce data. If after almost a year there is still no evidence of long-term damage, it's reasonable to assume there is none.

graeme 6y ago

We don’t know yet. It’s a gamble. A uk study suggests 12% have symptoms longer than 30 days. Beyond that, hard to say. We also don’t havea good measure of invisible damage: do survivors have reduced lung function from pneumonia? Damage to endothelium predisposing to pneumonia? Too soon to tell. About 20% of people are hospitalized. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54296223 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54296223