3 ms·

I'll bite sure. Covid is not that bad. Statistically unless you are very sick and/or very elderly, you are extremely likely to not die. https://www.nature.com

I'll bite sure. Covid is not that bad. Statistically unless you are very sick and/or very elderly, you are extremely likely to not die. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-73777-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-73777-8 Deaths were almost entirely in the 60-80+ years old range. When your that old dying is sad, but inevitable. I'm extremely glad that we don't have an actually dangerous pandemic that effects a wider span of the population.

ryandrake 6y ago
Sounds like you're coming at this in good faith so thanks! OK, so your paper only takes about mortality. It's a good point that a low percentage of people die from this. Great news. However there's growing evidence pointing to long-term health problems for survivors. Elevated risk of stroke even among young people, heart damage, and long lasting respiratory problems. Since the disease is new, we don't really know the long lasting effects yet. Maybe they will go away after years, we'll see. My neighbor had it and still struggles to breathe and has that widely-described "mind haze" many months later. Point is you can't just look at death rate. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume you personally are fortunately in the group that won't experience any of these problems. How do you know that everyone you encounter are also in that lucky group? Same for the people they encounter after they encounter you? You don't, and by not following the basic guidance of staying at home and wearing a mask when you have to go out, you're increasing the likelihood that others you meet catch it, and then either die, have long-lasting health problems, or spread it to others. Now, let's talk about 60-80+ year olds. "They're gonna die anyway so..." So, what, exactly? Increase their chances of dying because we don't want to close Starbucks? I don't think I can really even put myself in the shoes of someone making this argument. Almost everyone has someone in their family or acquaintances in this age range. A mother or grandfather. Maybe a teacher. I don't think you're really saying downplay the virus even if it throws these loved ones under the bus. If this was the year 2060 and you were in this age range (I'm assuming), would you still make this argument? One thing we can agree on: We're glad it's not more deadly than it is. If COVID were 10x deadlier, or affected people uniformly across age ranges, or if it were 10x more transmissive, we would have been in a world of shit, because people evidently don't have the character to make small uncomfortable sacrifices for the greater good. Even with a 10x worse COVID, we would have just kept insisting on going shopping and partying and accepting more people dying. Which is appalling, really.

ryandrake 6y ago

Sounds like you're coming at this in good faith so thanks! OK, so your paper only takes about mortality. It's a good point that a low percentage of people die from this. Great news. However there's growing evidence pointing to long-term health problems for survivors. Elevated risk of stroke even among young people, heart damage, and long lasting respiratory problems. Since the disease is new, we don't really know the long lasting effects yet. Maybe they will go away after years, we'll see. My neighbor had it and still struggles to breathe and has that widely-described "mind haze" many months later. Point is you can't just look at death rate. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume you personally are fortunately in the group that won't experience any of these problems. How do you know that everyone you encounter are also in that lucky group? Same for the people they encounter after they encounter you? You don't, and by not following the basic guidance of staying at home and wearing a mask when you have to go out, you're increasing the likelihood that others you meet catch it, and then either die, have long-lasting health problems, or spread it to others. Now, let's talk about 60-80+ year olds. "They're gonna die anyway so..." So, what, exactly? Increase their chances of dying because we don't want to close Starbucks? I don't think I can really even put myself in the shoes of someone making this argument. Almost everyone has someone in their family or acquaintances in this age range. A mother or grandfather. Maybe a teacher. I don't think you're really saying downplay the virus even if it throws these loved ones under the bus. If this was the year 2060 and you were in this age range (I'm assuming), would you still make this argument? One thing we can agree on: We're glad it's not more deadly than it is. If COVID were 10x deadlier, or affected people uniformly across age ranges, or if it were 10x more transmissive, we would have been in a world of shit, because people evidently don't have the character to make small uncomfortable sacrifices for the greater good. Even with a 10x worse COVID, we would have just kept insisting on going shopping and partying and accepting more people dying. Which is appalling, really.