3 ms·

"IFR" (infection fatality rate) is not the be-all end-all metric of danger. you don't have to die to suffer harmful long-term consequences from COVID, it appea

by paulmd 5y ago

"IFR" (infection fatality rate) is not the be-all end-all metric of danger. you don't have to die to suffer harmful long-term consequences from COVID, it appears to cause all kinds of organ damage including to the brain, this includes "the young", and these people usually did not suffer "severe" acute reactions during their infection. https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4470 https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4470 https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210401/many-show-long-term-organ-damage-after-covid#1 https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210401/many-show-long-term... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/28/health/covid-psychosis-mental.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/28/health/covid-psychosis-me... it's not safe to get covid period the end, even if you're "young" and even if it doesn't kill you outright or even hospitalize you. it's still a dangerous disease and the spread still needs to be minimized.

dwaltrip 5y ago
What are the numbers on how often people are having those effects?
- paulmd 5y ago
  In a University of Washington longitudinal study, 32.7% of participants had persistent long-term side effects, and around 9% had moderate to severe long-term side effects. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2776560 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... Really don't know why some people are so determined to deny that COVID is a serious disease with a decent incidence rate of serious side effects. 10% of the population getting moderate to serious side effects from a single source within a year is a lot, and it sucks if you're that 10%! And another 20% get minor side effects on top of that. And it isn't just "the old" or anything like that, those side effects cut across the whole population, young and old. I guess it's just the next iteration of the old "it's no worse than the flu" denialism. But a single bout of the flu doesn't leave 10% of the population with serious long-term side effects.
  - spfzero 5y ago
    It wouldn't be 10% of the population, though, right? It would only be 10% of the people who caught a case of the flu bad enough to be hospitalized or outpatient-treated?
    - dwaltrip 5y ago
      Hmmm, I couldn’t find how exactly the study population was selected. Where did you see that?
    - paulmd 5y ago
      it's 30%/10% of all cases, including weak/asymptomatic.
  - nradov 5y ago
    That study wasn't controlled. The most common reported symptom was fatigue. Many people who have never been infected also report fatigue symptoms. We'll need more research to reliably quantify how many patients experience long term symptoms.
    - dwaltrip 5y ago
      It looks like they did have a control group, although it was fairly small with only 21 people.
  - dwaltrip 5y ago
    I honestly hadn’t seen any hard numbers and was hoping to become more informed on the matter. That study looks decent, thank you for sharing it. I think the study mentioned that this is largest and longest study about long-term effects, which I find a bit disappointing given the massive impact of the pandemic. The control group was quite small with only 21 people. Anyways, I have adjusted my priors a bit. I’m not some sort of rabid denier :). But I am a bit wary of people arguing for very strict measures. The vaccine exists and is widely available (in the US). We won’t have a more powerful tool than that anytime soon. We need to start moving on with our lives. Not recklessly, but it needs to happen. Thankfully, the numbers seem to be getting better and better. Hopefully the trend continues.
passivate 5y ago
I'm sure you mean well are are just trying to help, but please be very very careful when repeating claims like this. You could also make it clear and indicate what the articles actually assert as fact (versus just reporting data) to avoid confusing the lay public. The differences between what we know, what we suspect, what we think is likely, etc are nuanced and subject to being misunderstood.

by paulmd 5y ago

dwaltrip 5y ago

What are the numbers on how often people are having those effects?

paulmd 5y ago
In a University of Washington longitudinal study, 32.7% of participants had persistent long-term side effects, and around 9% had moderate to severe long-term side effects. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2776560 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... Really don't know why some people are so determined to deny that COVID is a serious disease with a decent incidence rate of serious side effects. 10% of the population getting moderate to serious side effects from a single source within a year is a lot, and it sucks if you're that 10%! And another 20% get minor side effects on top of that. And it isn't just "the old" or anything like that, those side effects cut across the whole population, young and old. I guess it's just the next iteration of the old "it's no worse than the flu" denialism. But a single bout of the flu doesn't leave 10% of the population with serious long-term side effects.
- spfzero 5y ago
  It wouldn't be 10% of the population, though, right? It would only be 10% of the people who caught a case of the flu bad enough to be hospitalized or outpatient-treated?
  - dwaltrip 5y ago
    Hmmm, I couldn’t find how exactly the study population was selected. Where did you see that?
  - paulmd 5y ago
    it's 30%/10% of all cases, including weak/asymptomatic.
- nradov 5y ago
  That study wasn't controlled. The most common reported symptom was fatigue. Many people who have never been infected also report fatigue symptoms. We'll need more research to reliably quantify how many patients experience long term symptoms.
  - dwaltrip 5y ago
    It looks like they did have a control group, although it was fairly small with only 21 people.
- dwaltrip 5y ago
  I honestly hadn’t seen any hard numbers and was hoping to become more informed on the matter. That study looks decent, thank you for sharing it. I think the study mentioned that this is largest and longest study about long-term effects, which I find a bit disappointing given the massive impact of the pandemic. The control group was quite small with only 21 people. Anyways, I have adjusted my priors a bit. I’m not some sort of rabid denier :). But I am a bit wary of people arguing for very strict measures. The vaccine exists and is widely available (in the US). We won’t have a more powerful tool than that anytime soon. We need to start moving on with our lives. Not recklessly, but it needs to happen. Thankfully, the numbers seem to be getting better and better. Hopefully the trend continues.

passivate 5y ago

I'm sure you mean well are are just trying to help, but please be very very careful when repeating claims like this. You could also make it clear and indicate what the articles actually assert as fact (versus just reporting data) to avoid confusing the lay public. The differences between what we know, what we suspect, what we think is likely, etc are nuanced and subject to being misunderstood.