8 ms·

> exhibited a severe chest X-ray 70%-80% of the time With a sample size of what? That's a nonsense statement that can't be scrutinised. Edit, found this: The

> exhibited a severe chest X-ray 70%-80% of the time With a sample size of what? That's a nonsense statement that can't be scrutinised. Edit, found this: The finding is promising but will require further research given the small size of the study with only 82 patients, mostly male and average age over 50 82 people over the age of 50. It also doesn't mention how healthy these people were. This is typical of pretty much all media coverage: very little facts but also very little to throw back at them...

jfengel 6y ago
The "70-80%" figure is based on thousands of the doctor's own patients. https://observer.com/2021/01/covid-long-term-health-impacts-lungs/ https://observer.com/2021/01/covid-long-term-health-impacts-... It's not a peer reviewed study, and it includes only the people whose situations were severe enough to be sent to a radiologist. But it's enough to conclude that it's more than just a dismissably small number of cases.
- _Understated_ 6y ago
  Sorry, it says nothing of the sort. All the evidence, including government statistics, tell is it is precisely that, a dismissably small number outside known vulnerable groups.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Grimm1 6y ago
    You realize over 70m people in the US are obese right and another 100m are overweight? Known vulnerable groups include 170m people right there. I can't take your argument seriously.
    - jtxxwl2 6y ago
      And I bet you think the public health experts that sat by and watched 70m Americans get obese are just the people we should turn to now, don't you?
      - andybak 6y ago
        Sorry. Can you expand on this argument? In it's current form it makes almost no sense.
        jtxxwl2 6y ago
        Public health experts, in the US and other western countries, deserve no credibility due to their handling of the obesity crisis. There are clear and obvious steps that governments could take to end obesity, but public health experts have failed to even make an effort to make them happen. Instead they have sat by and watched millions upon millions of people become obese, which is vastly more harmful to the average person's health than the coronavirus. I do not even think an argument can be made that their failure is due to incompetence.
        greedo 6y ago
        Oh yes. I'm sure that a population that can't follow simple recommendations to wear a damn mask will listen to the CDC when it says to stop eating Big Macs. And if you would like to become educated on the government's role in fighting obesity, and its recommendations, you can go to https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/strategies/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/strategies/index.html
        niyrjczs 6y ago
        Telling people not to eat McDonald's is the best you can come up with? How about requiring every high school student to spend two hours per day doing strenuous physical exercise in order to graduate? How about considering it a failure for a student to graduate without being in excellent athletic form, on par with the student being unable to do algebra? If the people in charge wanted to make that happen, they could do it by spending a tiny fraction of the public money at their disposal on propaganda, but all indications are that they don't want a population that's in great physical shape, even though it would obviously be good for them. People who are in great shape when they graduate high school might still become fat, but people who graduate from high school fat will almost certainly spend their lives that way. They could also regulate extremely sugary foods like how tobacco, which is less harmful, is regulated, where you have to be 18 to buy it and have to ask for the cashier to get it for you, rather than having it in your face at the checkout aisle. Whining about how hard it is on their website is exactly the sort of reason why they have no credibility. They're not really trying, and pretty much everyone can sense that, even if they don't have it spelled out for them.
Grimm1 6y ago
What I don't understand with people who reply like this is why bother taking the chance? My thought is that people have never experienced a severe respiratory illness before, while I have and because of that I'm appropriately level set on how bad the consequences can be for an individual. Nothing like back to back cases of bad pneumonia 19 years ago to make me take this whole thing seriously. My understanding is the hospitalization rate even for young and healthy (20-44) is around 10%. 1 in 10 odds for something happening is really a quite good chance of that thing happening.
- _Understated_ 6y ago
  And you have every reason to be incredibly cautious. Were I in your shoes I'd likely err on the side of caution too. Hospitalisation rate says nothing other than they were in hospital. It could have been because they were feeling a bit rough but utterly terrified due to all the scaremongering that's going around. Or they may have been close to deaths door. No way to tell. The figures don't lie: There are vulnerable groups that can be severely symptomatic and even die from this but they make up a tiny tiny fraction of the population.
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    The figures don’t lie. Of one hundred people with covid, two will die and ten will be suffering three months later. The portion suffering long covid is growing too, and it’s poorly understood. Damaged hearts and lungs for example and there are plenty of accounts about. What are you pushing for? There are places we can look to where covid ran free, it isn’t pretty. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(21)00031-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2...
    - _Understated_ 6y ago
      Balance, that's what I'm pushing for. Assess your actual chances of catching and suffering from covid. Then balance it against the risk of a rushed experimental gene therapy still in initial trials. Edit: Remember that none of the media and government published figures show recovery rates - this is hugely important.

jfengel 6y ago

The "70-80%" figure is based on thousands of the doctor's own patients. https://observer.com/2021/01/covid-long-term-health-impacts-lungs/ https://observer.com/2021/01/covid-long-term-health-impacts-... It's not a peer reviewed study, and it includes only the people whose situations were severe enough to be sent to a radiologist. But it's enough to conclude that it's more than just a dismissably small number of cases.

_Understated_ 6y ago
Sorry, it says nothing of the sort. All the evidence, including government statistics, tell is it is precisely that, a dismissably small number outside known vulnerable groups.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Grimm1 6y ago
  You realize over 70m people in the US are obese right and another 100m are overweight? Known vulnerable groups include 170m people right there. I can't take your argument seriously.
  - jtxxwl2 6y ago
    And I bet you think the public health experts that sat by and watched 70m Americans get obese are just the people we should turn to now, don't you?
    - andybak 6y ago
      Sorry. Can you expand on this argument? In it's current form it makes almost no sense.
      - jtxxwl2 6y ago
        Public health experts, in the US and other western countries, deserve no credibility due to their handling of the obesity crisis. There are clear and obvious steps that governments could take to end obesity, but public health experts have failed to even make an effort to make them happen. Instead they have sat by and watched millions upon millions of people become obese, which is vastly more harmful to the average person's health than the coronavirus. I do not even think an argument can be made that their failure is due to incompetence.
        greedo 6y ago
        Oh yes. I'm sure that a population that can't follow simple recommendations to wear a damn mask will listen to the CDC when it says to stop eating Big Macs. And if you would like to become educated on the government's role in fighting obesity, and its recommendations, you can go to https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/strategies/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/strategies/index.html
        niyrjczs 6y ago
        Telling people not to eat McDonald's is the best you can come up with? How about requiring every high school student to spend two hours per day doing strenuous physical exercise in order to graduate? How about considering it a failure for a student to graduate without being in excellent athletic form, on par with the student being unable to do algebra? If the people in charge wanted to make that happen, they could do it by spending a tiny fraction of the public money at their disposal on propaganda, but all indications are that they don't want a population that's in great physical shape, even though it would obviously be good for them. People who are in great shape when they graduate high school might still become fat, but people who graduate from high school fat will almost certainly spend their lives that way. They could also regulate extremely sugary foods like how tobacco, which is less harmful, is regulated, where you have to be 18 to buy it and have to ask for the cashier to get it for you, rather than having it in your face at the checkout aisle. Whining about how hard it is on their website is exactly the sort of reason why they have no credibility. They're not really trying, and pretty much everyone can sense that, even if they don't have it spelled out for them.

Grimm1 6y ago

What I don't understand with people who reply like this is why bother taking the chance? My thought is that people have never experienced a severe respiratory illness before, while I have and because of that I'm appropriately level set on how bad the consequences can be for an individual. Nothing like back to back cases of bad pneumonia 19 years ago to make me take this whole thing seriously. My understanding is the hospitalization rate even for young and healthy (20-44) is around 10%. 1 in 10 odds for something happening is really a quite good chance of that thing happening.

_Understated_ 6y ago
And you have every reason to be incredibly cautious. Were I in your shoes I'd likely err on the side of caution too. Hospitalisation rate says nothing other than they were in hospital. It could have been because they were feeling a bit rough but utterly terrified due to all the scaremongering that's going around. Or they may have been close to deaths door. No way to tell. The figures don't lie: There are vulnerable groups that can be severely symptomatic and even die from this but they make up a tiny tiny fraction of the population.
- lostlogin 6y ago
  The figures don’t lie. Of one hundred people with covid, two will die and ten will be suffering three months later. The portion suffering long covid is growing too, and it’s poorly understood. Damaged hearts and lungs for example and there are plenty of accounts about. What are you pushing for? There are places we can look to where covid ran free, it isn’t pretty. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(21)00031-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2...
  - _Understated_ 6y ago
    Balance, that's what I'm pushing for. Assess your actual chances of catching and suffering from covid. Then balance it against the risk of a rushed experimental gene therapy still in initial trials. Edit: Remember that none of the media and government published figures show recovery rates - this is hugely important.