5 ms·

> but is this safe long term Is getting COVID safe long term? There are plenty of viruses that cause issues in the long term. HIV causes AIDS, HPV and Hepatiti

by 317070 6y ago

> but is this safe long term Is getting COVID safe long term? There are plenty of viruses that cause issues in the long term. HIV causes AIDS, HPV and Hepatitis cause cancers years later. We have no clue on the long term effects of SARS-Cov-2, other than that it causes COVID-19 in the short term. It's a choice between the pest and the cholera at this point.

lm28469 6y ago
> Is getting COVID safe long term? For most people yes edit: so the whole world is studying this virus 24/7 for almost a year and nobody detected anything, yet you think it might give us aids v2 ? Feel free to link any study that hints to anything remotely going in that direction because I couldn't find anything at all.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
  We cannot be sure. Like, we have no idea.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    It's amazing how people have consistently acted throughout 2020 as if coronaviruses are entirely new, never seen before and everything known about the immune system or viruses has to be thrown out. People have been getting infected with coronaviruses of various kinds for millennia. Nobody has ever linked a low severity cold-like infection with long term severe consequences, and given the sort of longitudinal study that would be required to establish such a link, any such claims would need to be treated very carefully.
    - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
      It is amazing how wannabe public health experts, with zero expertise in virology, are failing to understand that difference just in handful of nucleotides may make the pathogen a completely different beast compared to its nearest relative. And we are not even talking about the nearest relatives, common cold coronaviruses diverged like many thousands years ago from the SARS1 and similar viruses. Nonetheless, the original SARS-1 (which is way closer to SARS-2 than say OC43), is known to be causing long term, debilitating health complication among significant number of survivors.
      - thu2111 6y ago
        It's not a completely different beast, is it? It's basically like a regular flu or severe cold, and yes rhinovirus can be deadly to the elderly, it's just nobody normally notices or cares because rhinovirus isn't "new". If anything it's actually less bad than flu because flu kills children too and this one doesn't. Nonetheless, the original SARS-1 (which is way closer to SARS-2 than say OC43), is known to be causing long term, debilitating health complication among significant number of survivors And yet it didn't turn into a worldwide outbreak, so one must ask how much value this classification scheme actually has, given that SARS-2 is really nothing like SARS-1 in either infectiousness nor severity.
        SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
        I usually stop arguing when I know that no one reads the discussion, because it is pointless at this moment, for the reason of me having no intention to convince you in anything, if you fail to see obvious things. I think we need to stop - no one is reading our conversation anyway.
- newsbinator 6y ago
  Citation needed
- blueline 6y ago
  you literally can't possibly know that. nobody does
- ineedasername 6y ago
  I'm guessing you're saying that based on the number of people that remain asymptomatic &/or don't die, but you are incorrect. We already know there is a strong possibility the virus has a negative effect on cognitive ability even in people who don't get any serious symptoms [0] Those might go away. They might not. There could be other effects we're unware of. What we do know is that you're unlikely to find any expert on this who will unequivocally say "no longer term effects". [0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.20.20215863v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.20.20215863v...
  - lm28469 6y ago
    > This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      Yes, which is why I said it was a possibility. Pre-print or published or not, it presents evidence that shows it's incorrect to assert there are no longer term effects of COVID. Even if peer review shows flaws that invalidate this particular study, research into the full effects of COVID are still underway, and we simply don't have the data required to assert "no longer term effects for most people"
- 317070 6y ago
  > so the whole world is studying this virus 24/7 for almost a year and nobody detected anything I think you might overestimate what we can detect, when it comes to how viruses interact with a living human body. Yes, the whole world is studying it 24/7, and we really do not have a clue on long term effects. Science is pretty good, but some problems are pretty difficult too. 30 years ago, we could not have this ubiquitous testing capability and probably could not develop these tests at all. 10 years ago, we would definitely not have this vaccine one year after patient zero. Today, we really have no clue on long term effects until they happen on a statistical scale. Science and biotech progress rapidly, but there are still a lot of things we can't do.

by 317070 6y ago

lm28469 6y ago

> Is getting COVID safe long term? For most people yes edit: so the whole world is studying this virus 24/7 for almost a year and nobody detected anything, yet you think it might give us aids v2 ? Feel free to link any study that hints to anything remotely going in that direction because I couldn't find anything at all.

SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
We cannot be sure. Like, we have no idea.
- thu2111 6y ago
  It's amazing how people have consistently acted throughout 2020 as if coronaviruses are entirely new, never seen before and everything known about the immune system or viruses has to be thrown out. People have been getting infected with coronaviruses of various kinds for millennia. Nobody has ever linked a low severity cold-like infection with long term severe consequences, and given the sort of longitudinal study that would be required to establish such a link, any such claims would need to be treated very carefully.
  - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
    It is amazing how wannabe public health experts, with zero expertise in virology, are failing to understand that difference just in handful of nucleotides may make the pathogen a completely different beast compared to its nearest relative. And we are not even talking about the nearest relatives, common cold coronaviruses diverged like many thousands years ago from the SARS1 and similar viruses. Nonetheless, the original SARS-1 (which is way closer to SARS-2 than say OC43), is known to be causing long term, debilitating health complication among significant number of survivors.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      It's not a completely different beast, is it? It's basically like a regular flu or severe cold, and yes rhinovirus can be deadly to the elderly, it's just nobody normally notices or cares because rhinovirus isn't "new". If anything it's actually less bad than flu because flu kills children too and this one doesn't. Nonetheless, the original SARS-1 (which is way closer to SARS-2 than say OC43), is known to be causing long term, debilitating health complication among significant number of survivors And yet it didn't turn into a worldwide outbreak, so one must ask how much value this classification scheme actually has, given that SARS-2 is really nothing like SARS-1 in either infectiousness nor severity.
      - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
        I usually stop arguing when I know that no one reads the discussion, because it is pointless at this moment, for the reason of me having no intention to convince you in anything, if you fail to see obvious things. I think we need to stop - no one is reading our conversation anyway.
newsbinator 6y ago
Citation needed
blueline 6y ago
you literally can't possibly know that. nobody does
ineedasername 6y ago
I'm guessing you're saying that based on the number of people that remain asymptomatic &/or don't die, but you are incorrect. We already know there is a strong possibility the virus has a negative effect on cognitive ability even in people who don't get any serious symptoms [0] Those might go away. They might not. There could be other effects we're unware of. What we do know is that you're unlikely to find any expert on this who will unequivocally say "no longer term effects". [0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.20.20215863v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.20.20215863v...
- lm28469 6y ago
  > This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    Yes, which is why I said it was a possibility. Pre-print or published or not, it presents evidence that shows it's incorrect to assert there are no longer term effects of COVID. Even if peer review shows flaws that invalidate this particular study, research into the full effects of COVID are still underway, and we simply don't have the data required to assert "no longer term effects for most people"
317070 6y ago
> so the whole world is studying this virus 24/7 for almost a year and nobody detected anything I think you might overestimate what we can detect, when it comes to how viruses interact with a living human body. Yes, the whole world is studying it 24/7, and we really do not have a clue on long term effects. Science is pretty good, but some problems are pretty difficult too. 30 years ago, we could not have this ubiquitous testing capability and probably could not develop these tests at all. 10 years ago, we would definitely not have this vaccine one year after patient zero. Today, we really have no clue on long term effects until they happen on a statistical scale. Science and biotech progress rapidly, but there are still a lot of things we can't do.