3 ms·

I can accept that the initial worst case mortality claims turned out to be too high. But I can’t accept this claim: > a disease that, for the vast majority who

I can accept that the initial worst case mortality claims turned out to be too high. But I can’t accept this claim: > a disease that, for the vast majority who get it, just makes it so you can't taste or smell anything for a few days along with fatigue and flu-like symptoms People who’ve been sick and survived, even with minimal symptoms, are experiencing long term health issues. It’s one thing to recognize that the early estimates overstated mortality. It’s another thing to minimize what people who’ve survived infection are experiencing.

giantg2 6y ago
"People who’ve been sick and survived, even with minimal symptoms, are experiencing long term health issues." I would say 65-80% of non-hospitalized people being fine is consistent with the prior comment's use of "vast majority".
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  I didn’t object to the quantification, I objected to minimizing the impact and characterizing it as temporary. I don’t know the distribution of long term impact (and as far as I can tell no one does, unless we have time travelers about), but it’s pretty well known that there’s more than mortality rate at stake.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    "(and as far as I can tell no one does, unless we have time travelers about)" The CDC and others have looked at at long term effects, which is where I got those estimates. If you mean it's too early to tell because not enough time has gone by, then we could say the same about the vaccine (which is somewhat valid for both sides, but lacking evidence relegates it more to a belief than fact-based opinion). The comment wasn't minimizing the impact. They were simply stating that people didn't take it as seriously as they would have if covid was more impactful. I think this is a valid point. We see similar issues in attitudes for other infections that can carry longterm impact (even lack of education and protective measures around stuff like hepatitis and HIV).
    - eyelidlessness 6y ago
      This is the part I object to: > just makes it so you can't taste or smell anything for a few days along with fatigue and flu-like symptoms Maybe for the “vast majority” that’s true, I can’t speak to the distribution of ongoing impact people are experiencing or will over time. But there are a lot of people who have been infected, have survived, and have ongoing complications that go well beyond this description.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        It's about 20-35% for non-hospitalized cases according to the CDC. "Maybe for the “vast majority” that’s true" That's why they qualified it as such. Even the flu has long term impacts in 10% of patients. So yeah, long term impacts are a concern, but the attitudes of many people (the commenter's point) are based on the fact that the majority of people are fine. For example, have you ever considered that you have a 10% chance of long flu effects? I would guess that like most people, you have not, because the vast majority of people are not affected by it.
        eyelidlessness 6y ago
        That’s a lot of cases! And not counting hospitalized cases. Yes I understand why they characterized it that way, but it’s still minimizing a very large problem.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  I find 65% an extremely low threshold for a "vast majority" personally.
alerighi 6y ago
In very small minority of cases. I know a lot (at least 20) people that got the virus, and all of them are fine today, as they were before catching the virus. Of course people that got really sick and went to the hospital, it's different. But most of them were either old or already had some illness. In the end we are making all this effort to stop a virus, while we sell (with profit) cigarettes that makes each years an only slightly smaller number of deaths. So to me, if we care about public health so much, just stop selling tobacco and we reduce the mortality. But do we care? In the end, we need people to die, at one point.
- wpietri 6y ago
  This arguing from anecdote when there are stats available is just bizarre. And you talk like we as a society haven't been working to limit tobacco addition for decades. People care about that and people care about epidemic deaths. If you don't think death is a big deal, you are welcome to live your life courting it. But I don't get the performative lack of empathy for those dead, those deeply sick, and the living who have to deal with both the rest of their lives.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

giantg2 6y ago

"People who’ve been sick and survived, even with minimal symptoms, are experiencing long term health issues." I would say 65-80% of non-hospitalized people being fine is consistent with the prior comment's use of "vast majority".

eyelidlessness 6y ago
I didn’t object to the quantification, I objected to minimizing the impact and characterizing it as temporary. I don’t know the distribution of long term impact (and as far as I can tell no one does, unless we have time travelers about), but it’s pretty well known that there’s more than mortality rate at stake.
- giantg2 6y ago
  "(and as far as I can tell no one does, unless we have time travelers about)" The CDC and others have looked at at long term effects, which is where I got those estimates. If you mean it's too early to tell because not enough time has gone by, then we could say the same about the vaccine (which is somewhat valid for both sides, but lacking evidence relegates it more to a belief than fact-based opinion). The comment wasn't minimizing the impact. They were simply stating that people didn't take it as seriously as they would have if covid was more impactful. I think this is a valid point. We see similar issues in attitudes for other infections that can carry longterm impact (even lack of education and protective measures around stuff like hepatitis and HIV).
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    This is the part I object to: > just makes it so you can't taste or smell anything for a few days along with fatigue and flu-like symptoms Maybe for the “vast majority” that’s true, I can’t speak to the distribution of ongoing impact people are experiencing or will over time. But there are a lot of people who have been infected, have survived, and have ongoing complications that go well beyond this description.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      It's about 20-35% for non-hospitalized cases according to the CDC. "Maybe for the “vast majority” that’s true" That's why they qualified it as such. Even the flu has long term impacts in 10% of patients. So yeah, long term impacts are a concern, but the attitudes of many people (the commenter's point) are based on the fact that the majority of people are fine. For example, have you ever considered that you have a 10% chance of long flu effects? I would guess that like most people, you have not, because the vast majority of people are not affected by it.
      - eyelidlessness 6y ago
        That’s a lot of cases! And not counting hospitalized cases. Yes I understand why they characterized it that way, but it’s still minimizing a very large problem.
klmadfejno 6y ago
I find 65% an extremely low threshold for a "vast majority" personally.

alerighi 6y ago

In very small minority of cases. I know a lot (at least 20) people that got the virus, and all of them are fine today, as they were before catching the virus. Of course people that got really sick and went to the hospital, it's different. But most of them were either old or already had some illness. In the end we are making all this effort to stop a virus, while we sell (with profit) cigarettes that makes each years an only slightly smaller number of deaths. So to me, if we care about public health so much, just stop selling tobacco and we reduce the mortality. But do we care? In the end, we need people to die, at one point.

wpietri 6y ago
This arguing from anecdote when there are stats available is just bizarre. And you talk like we as a society haven't been working to limit tobacco addition for decades. People care about that and people care about epidemic deaths. If you don't think death is a big deal, you are welcome to live your life courting it. But I don't get the performative lack of empathy for those dead, those deeply sick, and the living who have to deal with both the rest of their lives.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]