3 ms·
>We're seeing a relatively high rate of long-term damage caused by low-level symptoms. Source? I've seen it reported that this may actually be dubious. [1] [
by TheBlight 5y ago
>We're seeing a relatively high rate of long-term damage caused by low-level symptoms.
Source?
I've seen it reported that this may actually be dubious. [1]
[1] https://archive.ph/CConv https://archive.ph/CConv
- klyrs 5y agohttps://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210331204431.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210331204431.h...
- mdorazio 5y agoI'm not saying COVID doesn't have long-term impacts in certain portions of the population, but this sentence is pretty important: "However, the findings are observational, and the authors cannot rule out the possibility that rates of diagnoses in general might have decreased indirectly because of the pandemic, particularly in people not admitted to hospital with covid-19." It's really hard to draw meaningful conclusions when COVID has completely changed all kinds of factors in healthcare ranging from people being stuck at home and eating poorly to opting not to visit the doctor because of overburdened hospitals and fear of infection. I'd like to see some studies a year from now before forming a strong opinion.
- outworlder 5y agoHere's the problem: we don't have enough information on long term damage. It could be that there are none, it could be that we'll see them in decades (like shingles). We do not know. Since we do not know, we need to play it safe. If we are wrong, nothing will happen. If we are right, we have avoided long term damage.