4 ms·

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 i

by 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.
    - lostlogin 6y ago
      Elsewhere in this thread you argue that because only 400 people without underlying conditions have died, restrictions should be removed. The other 100k don’t seem to be of concern. I don’t think ‘balanced reporting’ is the full extent of what you are after.
      - _Understated_ 6y ago
        I'm talking about balancing the risk! Yes that 400 figure is foundational to my argument and yes, we should lift the restrictions. But if you are really sick, you'd be at home, in your bed taking it easy anyway especially if your symptoms are as severe as some of the COVID reports suggest. And it's not balanced reporting I want either, it's accurate reporting with facts that can be challenged or verified: most articles are incredibly vague when it comes to COVID and some have incredibly low numbers that, at first glance, look damning but are still tiny numbers. Edit: deleted the 100,000 sentece - In response to that number, yes it may be a large number but there is no breakdown of the cases. For all you know, they were all 90+ years old with previous underlying conditions. All the figures we see have very little behind them that can substantiate the measures taken, while at the same time trigger responses in all of us that make them hard to argue against without coming across as callous but the numbers are not there to justify the lockdowns.
    - henrikschroder 6y ago
      I saw this study from USC: https://covid19pulse.usc.edu/ https://covid19pulse.usc.edu/ You can't link to the exact thing, but choose "Coronavirus Risk Perceptions" and split by age. People under 40 believe that their risk of dying from the virus is over 10% on average. The actual risk for that age group is somewhere around 0.02%, which means they're overestimating their risk of dying by a factor of 500. Five hundred! It's mindboggling how wrong people are. But once you see those numbers, it becomes clear why there is such widespread support for strict lockdowns. However, even with the accurate numbers, I would still say the case for the mRNA vaccines is strong. I think you are exaggerating the risks of the mRNA vaccines, in the same way that regular people are exaggerating the risks of the virus.

by Grimm1 6y ago

_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.
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    Elsewhere in this thread you argue that because only 400 people without underlying conditions have died, restrictions should be removed. The other 100k don’t seem to be of concern. I don’t think ‘balanced reporting’ is the full extent of what you are after.
    - _Understated_ 6y ago
      I'm talking about balancing the risk! Yes that 400 figure is foundational to my argument and yes, we should lift the restrictions. But if you are really sick, you'd be at home, in your bed taking it easy anyway especially if your symptoms are as severe as some of the COVID reports suggest. And it's not balanced reporting I want either, it's accurate reporting with facts that can be challenged or verified: most articles are incredibly vague when it comes to COVID and some have incredibly low numbers that, at first glance, look damning but are still tiny numbers. Edit: deleted the 100,000 sentece - In response to that number, yes it may be a large number but there is no breakdown of the cases. For all you know, they were all 90+ years old with previous underlying conditions. All the figures we see have very little behind them that can substantiate the measures taken, while at the same time trigger responses in all of us that make them hard to argue against without coming across as callous but the numbers are not there to justify the lockdowns.
  - henrikschroder 6y ago
    I saw this study from USC: https://covid19pulse.usc.edu/ https://covid19pulse.usc.edu/ You can't link to the exact thing, but choose "Coronavirus Risk Perceptions" and split by age. People under 40 believe that their risk of dying from the virus is over 10% on average. The actual risk for that age group is somewhere around 0.02%, which means they're overestimating their risk of dying by a factor of 500. Five hundred! It's mindboggling how wrong people are. But once you see those numbers, it becomes clear why there is such widespread support for strict lockdowns. However, even with the accurate numbers, I would still say the case for the mRNA vaccines is strong. I think you are exaggerating the risks of the mRNA vaccines, in the same way that regular people are exaggerating the risks of the virus.