4 ms·

I think the point is that the long covid situation has been vastly over-stated.

by pbreit 6y ago

jb1991 6y ago
2% or %5 -- these are hardly small numbers. Anything with stats like that, when applied to a whole group of people, is definitely not an overstatement.
galangalalgol 6y ago
Maybe. Maybe not. Post covid usually takes 6 months to develop and peak covid was less than a month ago in most parts of the US. Incidentally 6 months is a pretty standard time from trigger to autoimmune disease for things like givimg birth -> hashimotos or ???virus -> type 1 diabetes.
mikeyouse 6y ago
We're at 30 million confirmed cases in the US! Over 115M worldwide! If "only" 2% of them develop something like long Covid, that's 600,000 Americans and over 2.3M people with long-term illness from this -- and those are only the confirmed cases which probably understate the prevalence by 2x-3x. How are people still so blasé about this pandemic?
- readflaggedcomm 6y ago
  And by "case" you mean detected matter with PCR cycle counts undocumented at aggregate levels. But don't let science get in the way of emotional appeals.
  - mikeyouse 6y ago
    Bizarre PCR truther claims aside, assign an IFR to the disease and work backwards from the 500k deaths we have.. then multiply that by 2% to understand how many people will have "Long Covid" and why it's crazy to play it down as overblown.
    - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
      Projection games aren't science, but thanks for elevating the conversation with your conspiracy theories.
    - JoshuaDavid 6y ago
      So if we do that, we get that about 4x as many people have "Long Covid" as die... I personally think dying would be rather more than 4x worse than getting "Long Covid", so if the 2% number is actually accurate that implies that the people who have been focusing on mortality as the main concern with this virus are largely right to do so. That said, I have some doubts about the 2% number. Estimates vary widely from about 2% as the lowest plausible number I've seen to about 10% at the highest plausible number. If it's really 10% of infected people reporting long-term symptoms, that changes things a bit. Also note that pretty much all of the sources are preprints or otherwise not peer reviewed articles -- an actual rigorous investigation is very welcome here, and hopefully that is what the $1B from NIH will buy.
    - Izkata 6y ago
      > Bizarre PCR truther claims aside Uh, what? The WHO updated their guidelines a month and a half ago because PCR tests were being misused: Too many cycles and not taking symptoms into account was resulting in too many false positives.
      - mikeyouse 6y ago
        You're literally repeating a discredited right wing conspiracy theory - WHO adjusts their guidance constantly and according to the WHO and virologists everywhere, these changes didn't meaningfully impact the number of positives since almost all positive results happen at far lower cycle counts. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-who-instructions-pcr-guidan/fact-check-who-released-guidance-on-proper-use-of-tests-it-did-not-admit-pcr-tests-showed-inflated-infection-numbers-idUSKBN2A429W https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-who-instruction...
        readflaggedcomm 6y ago
  - AshWolfy 6y ago
    I think the underestimation was in long covid, not infections
- TheButlerian 6y ago
  This is for hospitalized patients, you stupid panicked turd.
- JoshuaDavid 6y ago
  How concerned were you about malaria, prior to this year? If the answer was "I didn't particularly think about it", then you have the answer for how people can be blasé about diseases that have a very high cost in human lives and suffering.
  - notahacker 6y ago
    We're talking about different kinds of blasé though. Many people - me included - don't think a lot about malaria because they don't live in a malarial area and have the health and healthcare access to probably recover when travelling into them ). In fact, I gave so little thought to malaria even whilst in malarial areas that I didn't devote time to arguing malaria's long term effects were relatively rare and might be psychosomatic so not really worth the Gates Foundation bothering with, which is the specific kind of dismissive attitude towards the disease being called out here.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  If only people were so passionate about the damage caused by tobacco...
bigpumpkin 6y ago
Wait until you see what it does to sperm count.
- aksss 6y ago
  You can fix it with this one simple trick the electric company doesn’t want you to know about!

I think the point is that the long covid situation has been vastly over-stated.

by pbreit 6y ago

I think the point is that the long covid situation has been vastly over-stated.

jb1991 6y ago

2% or %5 -- these are hardly small numbers. Anything with stats like that, when applied to a whole group of people, is definitely not an overstatement.

galangalalgol 6y ago

Maybe. Maybe not. Post covid usually takes 6 months to develop and peak covid was less than a month ago in most parts of the US. Incidentally 6 months is a pretty standard time from trigger to autoimmune disease for things like givimg birth -> hashimotos or ???virus -> type 1 diabetes.

mikeyouse 6y ago

We're at 30 million confirmed cases in the US! Over 115M worldwide! If "only" 2% of them develop something like long Covid, that's 600,000 Americans and over 2.3M people with long-term illness from this -- and those are only the confirmed cases which probably understate the prevalence by 2x-3x. How are people still so blasé about this pandemic?

readflaggedcomm 6y ago
And by "case" you mean detected matter with PCR cycle counts undocumented at aggregate levels. But don't let science get in the way of emotional appeals.
- mikeyouse 6y ago
  Bizarre PCR truther claims aside, assign an IFR to the disease and work backwards from the 500k deaths we have.. then multiply that by 2% to understand how many people will have "Long Covid" and why it's crazy to play it down as overblown.
  - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
    Projection games aren't science, but thanks for elevating the conversation with your conspiracy theories.
  - JoshuaDavid 6y ago
    So if we do that, we get that about 4x as many people have "Long Covid" as die... I personally think dying would be rather more than 4x worse than getting "Long Covid", so if the 2% number is actually accurate that implies that the people who have been focusing on mortality as the main concern with this virus are largely right to do so. That said, I have some doubts about the 2% number. Estimates vary widely from about 2% as the lowest plausible number I've seen to about 10% at the highest plausible number. If it's really 10% of infected people reporting long-term symptoms, that changes things a bit. Also note that pretty much all of the sources are preprints or otherwise not peer reviewed articles -- an actual rigorous investigation is very welcome here, and hopefully that is what the $1B from NIH will buy.
  - Izkata 6y ago
    > Bizarre PCR truther claims aside Uh, what? The WHO updated their guidelines a month and a half ago because PCR tests were being misused: Too many cycles and not taking symptoms into account was resulting in too many false positives.
    - mikeyouse 6y ago
      You're literally repeating a discredited right wing conspiracy theory - WHO adjusts their guidance constantly and according to the WHO and virologists everywhere, these changes didn't meaningfully impact the number of positives since almost all positive results happen at far lower cycle counts. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-who-instructions-pcr-guidan/fact-check-who-released-guidance-on-proper-use-of-tests-it-did-not-admit-pcr-tests-showed-inflated-infection-numbers-idUSKBN2A429W https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-who-instruction...
      - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
- AshWolfy 6y ago
  I think the underestimation was in long covid, not infections
TheButlerian 6y ago
This is for hospitalized patients, you stupid panicked turd.
JoshuaDavid 6y ago
How concerned were you about malaria, prior to this year? If the answer was "I didn't particularly think about it", then you have the answer for how people can be blasé about diseases that have a very high cost in human lives and suffering.
- notahacker 6y ago
  We're talking about different kinds of blasé though. Many people - me included - don't think a lot about malaria because they don't live in a malarial area and have the health and healthcare access to probably recover when travelling into them ). In fact, I gave so little thought to malaria even whilst in malarial areas that I didn't devote time to arguing malaria's long term effects were relatively rare and might be psychosomatic so not really worth the Gates Foundation bothering with, which is the specific kind of dismissive attitude towards the disease being called out here.
tinus_hn 6y ago
If only people were so passionate about the damage caused by tobacco...

bigpumpkin 6y ago

Wait until you see what it does to sperm count.

aksss 6y ago
You can fix it with this one simple trick the electric company doesn’t want you to know about!