5 ms·

Influenza also affects endothelial cells: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4251441/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4251441/ If influ

Influenza also affects endothelial cells: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4251441/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4251441/ If influenza were a novel virus, there would be daily stories on all the ways it adversely affects the body, and we would be under restrictions for decades from fear of "long influenza".

johnchristopher 5y ago
We are under restrictions from fear of short covid killing, not long covid killing.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  The infection fatality risk of short-COVID for the 18-49 demographic is 0.05%. For under 18 years it's 0.003%. And this is for unvaccinated people. For the vaccinated it's at least one order of magnitude lower. Under no sensible cost-benefit analysis, would you restrict the entire population with risk profiles like this.
  - FeepingCreature 5y ago
    0.05% is huge. That's one death per 2000 infected. If you extrapolate that out to the world population, it's one-third of a holocaust. To me that handily justifies restricting the entire population. Then again, lots of things kill more people and don't mobilize nearly this level of response. Which I guess has to do with them only killing people in third world countries, cough malaria...
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      0.05% is tiny. If you extrapolate any top 10 causes of disease death to the world population, it's holocaust-scale. It doesn't mean we impose severe restrictions, that significantly reduce quality of life, on the other 99.95%.
      - FeepingCreature 5y ago
        > 0.05% is tiny. If you extrapolate any top 10 causes of disease death to the world population, it's holocaust-scale. Yes it is. If we could fix any of those with severe but temporary restrictions, I'd be all for it.
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        None of these problems, including COVID, could be permanently fixed with the COVID restrictions. COVID is endemic. The reduction in quality of life for the 99.95% as a result of the restrictions is far too high a price to pay even if it saved the entire 0.05% of this demographic who die from COVID. The costs to mental health, economic well-being, education, as a result of the restrictions, are also staggering. Any rational person would trade a 0.05% increase in chance of premature death, which is only 1/2,000, to live without the COVID-motivated restrictions for the remainder of their 80 year lifespan. Basic math tells you that. 0.05% of an 80 year lifespan is only 14 days. Would you endure all the COVID-related restrictions, for your entire life, just to add 14 days to your life? And this thought experiment is under the absolute best case scenario for the restrictions which is that they completely eliminate the risk of dying from covid which they do not in reality. I would bet for most people, the COVID restrictions reduce quality of life by at least 5%. Meaning people would be willing to shorten their lifespan by 5% in order to not live with them. A 0.05% risk of death doesn't even come close to justifying the restrictions. The simplistic narrative that supports these restrictions is simply wrong. It's unscientific and irrational and only supported due to the inertia of public opinion.
    - Izkata 5y ago
      > 0.05% is huge. Big or small, it's the same as the yearly flu; it definitely does not justify the response.
      - johnchristopher 5y ago
        Isn't the problem that trying to save someone dying from the flu requires less human resources than trying to save someone dying from Covid-19 ? And that Covid infects more people than the flu, making more people sick than the flu so Covid reduces our economic capacity more than the flu would ?
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        COVID hospitalization rates are 1-5% and much lower still for lower-risk demographics like those under 49. And hospitalization generally lasts a couple weeks, not more. Moreover, COVID burns itself out as the population lacking immunity dwindles with the pandemic's advance. It's a transient phenomenon. The economic damage it causes would seem to pale in compairson to the damage done by severe restrictions imposed for months/over-a-year on the entire population, including the majority who are healthy and relatively unsusceptible to it.
        Izkata 5y ago
        Flu hospitalization rate is a bit over 1%, and average a week stay. COVID19 is worse, but not by nearly as much as people seem to think.
      - spurgu 5y ago
        Or people getting killed in traffic accidents. Yet we accept it as normal.
  - johnchristopher 5y ago
    My bad, I should have written something like `We are under restrictions from fear of short covid consequences, not long covid killing.`
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      What I observe often happening in the public debate is that the unknowns related to long-COVID are the backup argument that the case for restrictions falls back on when the risks of short-COVID are presented and seen to be insufficient to justify such a severe government response.
      - johnchristopher 5y ago
        I think I agree. Strangely I don't see it hammered a lot, at least in Europe. It's usually more about lessening pressure on healthcare. Well, on a personal level it is long Covid I fear the most (or even long term consequences of a mild covid) and yet I am uneasy about the argument that restrictions are put in place only to soften the impact of the pandemic on hospitals. It means that maybe if hospitals weren't full then our leaders wouldn't care about people getting covid ?
q1w2 5y ago
Any disease that can cause blood clotting will also impact the brain, as well as other tissues. This study focused on the brain, but it's well known that the same sort of damage occurs in other parts of the body.

johnchristopher 5y ago

We are under restrictions from fear of short covid killing, not long covid killing.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
The infection fatality risk of short-COVID for the 18-49 demographic is 0.05%. For under 18 years it's 0.003%. And this is for unvaccinated people. For the vaccinated it's at least one order of magnitude lower. Under no sensible cost-benefit analysis, would you restrict the entire population with risk profiles like this.
- FeepingCreature 5y ago
  0.05% is huge. That's one death per 2000 infected. If you extrapolate that out to the world population, it's one-third of a holocaust. To me that handily justifies restricting the entire population. Then again, lots of things kill more people and don't mobilize nearly this level of response. Which I guess has to do with them only killing people in third world countries, cough malaria...
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    0.05% is tiny. If you extrapolate any top 10 causes of disease death to the world population, it's holocaust-scale. It doesn't mean we impose severe restrictions, that significantly reduce quality of life, on the other 99.95%.
    - FeepingCreature 5y ago
      > 0.05% is tiny. If you extrapolate any top 10 causes of disease death to the world population, it's holocaust-scale. Yes it is. If we could fix any of those with severe but temporary restrictions, I'd be all for it.
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        None of these problems, including COVID, could be permanently fixed with the COVID restrictions. COVID is endemic. The reduction in quality of life for the 99.95% as a result of the restrictions is far too high a price to pay even if it saved the entire 0.05% of this demographic who die from COVID. The costs to mental health, economic well-being, education, as a result of the restrictions, are also staggering. Any rational person would trade a 0.05% increase in chance of premature death, which is only 1/2,000, to live without the COVID-motivated restrictions for the remainder of their 80 year lifespan. Basic math tells you that. 0.05% of an 80 year lifespan is only 14 days. Would you endure all the COVID-related restrictions, for your entire life, just to add 14 days to your life? And this thought experiment is under the absolute best case scenario for the restrictions which is that they completely eliminate the risk of dying from covid which they do not in reality. I would bet for most people, the COVID restrictions reduce quality of life by at least 5%. Meaning people would be willing to shorten their lifespan by 5% in order to not live with them. A 0.05% risk of death doesn't even come close to justifying the restrictions. The simplistic narrative that supports these restrictions is simply wrong. It's unscientific and irrational and only supported due to the inertia of public opinion.
  - Izkata 5y ago
    > 0.05% is huge. Big or small, it's the same as the yearly flu; it definitely does not justify the response.
    - johnchristopher 5y ago
      Isn't the problem that trying to save someone dying from the flu requires less human resources than trying to save someone dying from Covid-19 ? And that Covid infects more people than the flu, making more people sick than the flu so Covid reduces our economic capacity more than the flu would ?
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        COVID hospitalization rates are 1-5% and much lower still for lower-risk demographics like those under 49. And hospitalization generally lasts a couple weeks, not more. Moreover, COVID burns itself out as the population lacking immunity dwindles with the pandemic's advance. It's a transient phenomenon. The economic damage it causes would seem to pale in compairson to the damage done by severe restrictions imposed for months/over-a-year on the entire population, including the majority who are healthy and relatively unsusceptible to it.
        Izkata 5y ago
        Flu hospitalization rate is a bit over 1%, and average a week stay. COVID19 is worse, but not by nearly as much as people seem to think.
    - spurgu 5y ago
      Or people getting killed in traffic accidents. Yet we accept it as normal.
- johnchristopher 5y ago
  My bad, I should have written something like `We are under restrictions from fear of short covid consequences, not long covid killing.`
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    What I observe often happening in the public debate is that the unknowns related to long-COVID are the backup argument that the case for restrictions falls back on when the risks of short-COVID are presented and seen to be insufficient to justify such a severe government response.
    - johnchristopher 5y ago
      I think I agree. Strangely I don't see it hammered a lot, at least in Europe. It's usually more about lessening pressure on healthcare. Well, on a personal level it is long Covid I fear the most (or even long term consequences of a mild covid) and yet I am uneasy about the argument that restrictions are put in place only to soften the impact of the pandemic on hospitals. It means that maybe if hospitals weren't full then our leaders wouldn't care about people getting covid ?

q1w2 5y ago

Any disease that can cause blood clotting will also impact the brain, as well as other tissues. This study focused on the brain, but it's well known that the same sort of damage occurs in other parts of the body.