4 ms·

> Contracting COVID-19 may lead to long term health issues. Uh-huh. And what percentage of people who contract have "long term health issues"? This is just mo

> Contracting COVID-19 may lead to long term health issues. Uh-huh. And what percentage of people who contract have "long term health issues"? This is just more scaremongering based on self-reporting and anecdotes.

9985479945_ 6y ago
This comment is dangerous and problematic. Your ISP is hopefully monitoring this disinformation
- curtis3389 6y ago
  Perhaps this comment is dangerous and problematic. The idea that your ISP should be monitoring the semantic content of their customers is disturbing, and you imply that they should do something about content that, what?, they don't like? That they think is illegal? That the government tells them to report on? This is constantly recurring debate on HN. What is the appropriate level of censorship? Who should be censoring? By what criteria is something censorable? I emphatically disagree with the notion that ISPs should do the censoring. They should be neutral carriers of data.
  - spookthesunset 6y ago
    In some peoples mind even questioning or being skeptical of many of the more extreme covid claims and actions is extremely dangerous. According to some “experts” we shouldn’t be allowed to research covid, look at public covid data sets, or even think very hard about it. We should, instead, have almost complete blind faith in a handful of “experts” and just roll over and do whatever they recommend. A ton of our actions in the last 11 months have been accepted based on nothing but appeals to authority. More disturbing is how many real life people I talk with whose arguments for all our restrictions boil down to raw appeals to authority.
    - junipertea 6y ago
      To be fair, some random persons datapoint wrangling can (and usually does) have large number of eyeballs than a life long trained professional with a PhD. While the data should be public and object to scrutiny (ideally by other experts in scientific community), how much insight would untrained people actually get? Apart from alternative facts and "just a flu". Many popular blog posts and opinions were proven to be flat out wrong. If we don't trust the people dedicated to handle that kind of situations, who can we trust? I totally agree there has not been enough transparency (what panic would it cause if the scientists say "We don't know at this point. We think X Y Z, it might change completely in a month) about what we know, but I still would rather trust WHO/CDC (who have been proven incorrect multiple times) than some random forum with no credentials. What politicians do based on these observations is a very different thing.
      - nitrogen 6y ago
        I still would rather trust WHO/CDC (who have been proven incorrect multiple times) The problem is that when you use your authority to push something, and that something turns out to have been wrong or even a patronizing lie (e.g. masks, percentage of population required for herd immunity, predicted length of the pandemic), you lose all respect for your authority. See also "The Boy Who Cried Wolf."
      - rolph 6y ago
        >> what panic would it cause if the scientists say "We don't know at this point << this is the crux of message management; panicing people are desparate for return of predictability, anyone who provides that will have happy customers for a while. the idea that the information in raw form that the professionals use is somehow not of public utility needs to go away. this is part one of a double punch the next being the discovery that while data was sequestered, the general populus was lied to about it. Not that that IS what is happening here, but getting caught out doing that is beyond discrediting. its not good policy to build an abberant world view among your population that will culminate in being crushed by reality, this is why people panic in the first place, and the solution seems to be keep cycling that way so that panic is assauged by building another alternate belief that looks comfortable. its like the trope where someone is hiding/slash disposing of the body while having a conversation accross the house designed to prevent someone walking in before its all hidden away.
faitswulff 6y ago
“Three-quarters of Wuhan patients hospitalized for Covid-19 still had symptoms 6 months later, Chinese study finds” https://abc17news.com/news/national-world/2021/01/12/three-quarters-of-wuhan-patients-hospitalized-for-covid-19-still-had-symptoms-6-months-later-chinese-study-finds/ https://abc17news.com/news/national-world/2021/01/12/three-q... N = 1,700+
- PeterisP 6y ago
  On the other hand, the "three quarters" is probably not the number that matters, since the vast majority of Covid-19 cases are not hospitalized. Looking at CDC data (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...) it seems that roughly 6% of Covid-infected people with symptomatic illness get hospitalized; so if three quarters of those will have long-lasting symptoms then it means that if you get Covid, then your likelihood of having long-lasting symptoms is something like 4.5%. On the other hand, while that risk is not that widespread, that still will mean millions of affected people.
Uehreka 6y ago
/sigh 30 seconds of Googling and you can find this from the BMJ “Around 10% of patients who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus remain unwell beyond three weeks, and a smaller proportion for months (see box [1]).[7] This is based on the UK COVID Symptom Study, in which people enter their ongoing symptoms on a smartphone app. This percentage is lower than that cited in many published observational studies,[8][9] whose denominator populations were those admitted to hospital or attending specialist clinics. A recent US study found that only 65% of people had returned to their previous level of health 14-21 days after a positive test.[10]” https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3026 https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3026
- loveistheanswer 6y ago
  Only 10% of people with positive test results have "long term" health effects >= 3 weeks? Does that seem frighteningly out of the ordinary compared to other diseases? When I had the flu or pneumonia in the past I could still feel effects over a month later.
  - watwut 6y ago
    Some of consequence is same as after pneumonia - it is same damage to lings. Pneumonia can also cause lifelong consequences if you are unlucky. But flu should not cause long term effects normally.
- umvi 6y ago
  a few extra weeks isn't "long term". Long term is years. How many people that got covid last march are still dealing with issues related to the illness today? My guess: an extremely tiny percentage.
tasty_freeze 6y ago
This was just reported today. > Researchers don’t understand exactly how the disease might trigger Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes, or whether the cases are temporary or permanent. But 14 percent of those with severe covid-19 developed a form of the disorder, one analysis found. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/02/01/covid-new-onset-diabetes/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/02/01/covid-new-o...

9985479945_ 6y ago

This comment is dangerous and problematic. Your ISP is hopefully monitoring this disinformation

curtis3389 6y ago
Perhaps this comment is dangerous and problematic. The idea that your ISP should be monitoring the semantic content of their customers is disturbing, and you imply that they should do something about content that, what?, they don't like? That they think is illegal? That the government tells them to report on? This is constantly recurring debate on HN. What is the appropriate level of censorship? Who should be censoring? By what criteria is something censorable? I emphatically disagree with the notion that ISPs should do the censoring. They should be neutral carriers of data.
- spookthesunset 6y ago
  In some peoples mind even questioning or being skeptical of many of the more extreme covid claims and actions is extremely dangerous. According to some “experts” we shouldn’t be allowed to research covid, look at public covid data sets, or even think very hard about it. We should, instead, have almost complete blind faith in a handful of “experts” and just roll over and do whatever they recommend. A ton of our actions in the last 11 months have been accepted based on nothing but appeals to authority. More disturbing is how many real life people I talk with whose arguments for all our restrictions boil down to raw appeals to authority.
  - junipertea 6y ago
    To be fair, some random persons datapoint wrangling can (and usually does) have large number of eyeballs than a life long trained professional with a PhD. While the data should be public and object to scrutiny (ideally by other experts in scientific community), how much insight would untrained people actually get? Apart from alternative facts and "just a flu". Many popular blog posts and opinions were proven to be flat out wrong. If we don't trust the people dedicated to handle that kind of situations, who can we trust? I totally agree there has not been enough transparency (what panic would it cause if the scientists say "We don't know at this point. We think X Y Z, it might change completely in a month) about what we know, but I still would rather trust WHO/CDC (who have been proven incorrect multiple times) than some random forum with no credentials. What politicians do based on these observations is a very different thing.
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      I still would rather trust WHO/CDC (who have been proven incorrect multiple times) The problem is that when you use your authority to push something, and that something turns out to have been wrong or even a patronizing lie (e.g. masks, percentage of population required for herd immunity, predicted length of the pandemic), you lose all respect for your authority. See also "The Boy Who Cried Wolf."
    - rolph 6y ago
      >> what panic would it cause if the scientists say "We don't know at this point << this is the crux of message management; panicing people are desparate for return of predictability, anyone who provides that will have happy customers for a while. the idea that the information in raw form that the professionals use is somehow not of public utility needs to go away. this is part one of a double punch the next being the discovery that while data was sequestered, the general populus was lied to about it. Not that that IS what is happening here, but getting caught out doing that is beyond discrediting. its not good policy to build an abberant world view among your population that will culminate in being crushed by reality, this is why people panic in the first place, and the solution seems to be keep cycling that way so that panic is assauged by building another alternate belief that looks comfortable. its like the trope where someone is hiding/slash disposing of the body while having a conversation accross the house designed to prevent someone walking in before its all hidden away.

faitswulff 6y ago

“Three-quarters of Wuhan patients hospitalized for Covid-19 still had symptoms 6 months later, Chinese study finds” https://abc17news.com/news/national-world/2021/01/12/three-quarters-of-wuhan-patients-hospitalized-for-covid-19-still-had-symptoms-6-months-later-chinese-study-finds/ https://abc17news.com/news/national-world/2021/01/12/three-q... N = 1,700+

PeterisP 6y ago
On the other hand, the "three quarters" is probably not the number that matters, since the vast majority of Covid-19 cases are not hospitalized. Looking at CDC data (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...) it seems that roughly 6% of Covid-infected people with symptomatic illness get hospitalized; so if three quarters of those will have long-lasting symptoms then it means that if you get Covid, then your likelihood of having long-lasting symptoms is something like 4.5%. On the other hand, while that risk is not that widespread, that still will mean millions of affected people.

Uehreka 6y ago

/sigh 30 seconds of Googling and you can find this from the BMJ “Around 10% of patients who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus remain unwell beyond three weeks, and a smaller proportion for months (see box [1]).[7] This is based on the UK COVID Symptom Study, in which people enter their ongoing symptoms on a smartphone app. This percentage is lower than that cited in many published observational studies,[8][9] whose denominator populations were those admitted to hospital or attending specialist clinics. A recent US study found that only 65% of people had returned to their previous level of health 14-21 days after a positive test.[10]” https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3026 https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3026

loveistheanswer 6y ago
Only 10% of people with positive test results have "long term" health effects >= 3 weeks? Does that seem frighteningly out of the ordinary compared to other diseases? When I had the flu or pneumonia in the past I could still feel effects over a month later.
- watwut 6y ago
  Some of consequence is same as after pneumonia - it is same damage to lings. Pneumonia can also cause lifelong consequences if you are unlucky. But flu should not cause long term effects normally.
umvi 6y ago
a few extra weeks isn't "long term". Long term is years. How many people that got covid last march are still dealing with issues related to the illness today? My guess: an extremely tiny percentage.

tasty_freeze 6y ago

This was just reported today. > Researchers don’t understand exactly how the disease might trigger Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes, or whether the cases are temporary or permanent. But 14 percent of those with severe covid-19 developed a form of the disorder, one analysis found. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/02/01/covid-new-onset-diabetes/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/02/01/covid-new-o...