9 ms·

The risk is now "priced in" to our consciousness. Back when it first started, covid was a big scary unknown risk to take for simply going outside and interactin

by _xnmw 5y ago

The risk is now "priced in" to our consciousness. Back when it first started, covid was a big scary unknown risk to take for simply going outside and interacting with people. Now, it's a well-known risk, and people are willing to take that risk, along with other well-known risks for going outside, like the risk of getting into a car accident or slipping and falling.

SerLava 5y ago
Yes it's sort of like the alarming scourge of preventable automotive deaths, except that it's over 10 times worse. Also like slipping and falling, but about 20 times worse.
- vernie 5y ago
  Okay?
- DevKoala 5y ago
  In the USA, there are 4.4 million traffic accident injuries that require medical attention per year. I don’t know where you are getting the 10 times worse from.
  - xboxnolifes 5y ago
    USA automotive death are <40k per year. USA covid deaths are ~400k a year
    - DevKoala 5y ago
      I am confident permanent paralysis is up there if not worse than long COVID. My argument is that you cannot just put a blanket statement of which one is worse by looking at a single metric. Also, people are still performing a calculated risk, wether the risk is greater or smaller.
      - SerLava 5y ago
        But very few people injured in car accidents are permanently paralyzed. There are only 17k people per year who receive any kind of spinal cord injury, from all sources, not just cars. That means you could even count all spinal injuries as a death!! If every person with a spinal injury somehow just died, it would still be a smaller problem than COVID deaths. COVID would still be 7 or 8 times worse than these theoretically extra-deadly roads. Even if Long COVID didn't exist, the deaths alone would blow it out of the water.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
throwawayboise 5y ago
Some people were in the "willing to take that risk" from the beginning, and were relentlessly demonized. Now it's OK though if everyone feels that way.
- some_furry 5y ago
  Now it's OK if they're sufficiently vaccinated* Vaccines weren't widely available back then
  - khazhoux 5y ago
    What's the * ?
    - some_furry 5y ago
      Correction of the post I was replying to
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Being willing to take on the risk yourself and being willing to inflict it on others aren't the same thing. If you could drive drunk without risking other people, it'd be more societally acceptable. Similarly, now that vaccination is widely available for at-risk groups, it's a bit more acceptable to take actions that spread the virus that puts those folks at risk.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    Nobody is inflicting anything on anyone. It is your responsibility to protect yourself to the level that you feel is necessary.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    > Similarly, now that vaccination is widely available for at-risk groups... It was widely available a year ago. The most at risk groups were the first and most comprehensively vaccinated. What gives? If the conditions for re-opening were met a year ago why were we wearing masks outdoors and whatnot this whole time? Comments like these seem like little more than mental gymnastics to justify having held an opinion that didn't age well w.r.t. the various degrees of covid measures we've endured. Edit: Fine then, call it 6mo. Regardless, I'd be very interested to see someone provide in a "better than just saving face" quality defense of why businesses have been at reduced capacity, government services have been limited in their accessibility, etc, etc. beyond the point at which the vulnerable were vaccinated and why we're continuing to have this debate. I know information was less great then but we have it now. How do people oppose re-opening wholesale-ish. I foresee nursing homes keeping some precautions but the DMV, using covid as an excuse for why I can't register a car at a certain service location, being masked at outdoor venues, come on.
dekhn 5y ago
I think the big question is whether deaths were front loaded. IE, in future waves, far fewer people will die, because people most predisposed to death had already died. This is my guess, but it's decidedly non-scientific.
thomascgalvin 5y ago
I think there are a number of factors at play. One, we've greatly reduced the risk of COVID through vaccines. This is the primary thrust of the article; if you've vaccinated, you're very unlikely to have serious consequences. Two, we're fatigued. You just can't be constantly vigilant for two or three years without something breaking. This compounds point one. We don't, as the article mentions, know what kind of relationship Omicron has to long COVID, but at this point, many are too tired to care. "I'm safe enough" is all we have the capacity for. Third, a large portion of the population is in denial about their own levels of risk. If there was a 1% chance of dying every time you drove a car, or even a 1% chance of dying every time you got into a car accident, there would be panic in the streets, no pun intended. But a lot of people round a 1% chance of dying from COVID down to zero.
- JPKab 5y ago
  You are forgetting that there really is not a 1% chance of dying of covid across all risk categories. The numbers are very clear on this: There are people who have a 1% or greater risk of dying if they catch it. Most people do not fall into that category, not even close. Let's start with the fact that the 1% IFR is calculated using a faulty denominator. Due to the high prevalence of asymptomatic infection, the denominator is far smaller than it should be. I was the only one in my household to have a single symptom when I caught it in February. My wife and two children did not have any symptoms and would not have been tested if I had not gotten myself tested. Wow this is an anecdote, it is directionally aligned with seroprevalence surveys. Omicron is even less symptomatic and therefore, we still have a denominator that is far too small. To put it into perspective, school children at the elementary age are actually at higher risk of death from an influenza infection than they are from a covid one. Obviously this does not apply to children who are immunocompromised or have comorbidities. They are the only age group that has a higher death rate from the influenza than from covid. But it is still notable. We have been sending our kids to schools without masks for decades even in the midst of various influenza epidemics. Over time populations in the US that are less sensitive to media reporting, especially working class people, have formed their own intuitive risk calculations based on their anecdotal experience. Your average taxi driver has a pretty good understanding of who is at high risk and who isn't. I experienced this in Vegas when a woman driving my taxi stated to me that the people she knew who had died were all old or "really really fat". Her words not mine lol. The people who are under 50 years of age who round 1% down to zero are more accurate than you are in their assessment. I hope I don't sound rude when I state that but based on the numbers it is accurate.

by _xnmw 5y ago

SerLava 5y ago

Yes it's sort of like the alarming scourge of preventable automotive deaths, except that it's over 10 times worse. Also like slipping and falling, but about 20 times worse.

vernie 5y ago
Okay?
DevKoala 5y ago
In the USA, there are 4.4 million traffic accident injuries that require medical attention per year. I don’t know where you are getting the 10 times worse from.
- xboxnolifes 5y ago
  USA automotive death are <40k per year. USA covid deaths are ~400k a year
  - DevKoala 5y ago
    I am confident permanent paralysis is up there if not worse than long COVID. My argument is that you cannot just put a blanket statement of which one is worse by looking at a single metric. Also, people are still performing a calculated risk, wether the risk is greater or smaller.
    - SerLava 5y ago
      But very few people injured in car accidents are permanently paralyzed. There are only 17k people per year who receive any kind of spinal cord injury, from all sources, not just cars. That means you could even count all spinal injuries as a death!! If every person with a spinal injury somehow just died, it would still be a smaller problem than COVID deaths. COVID would still be 7 or 8 times worse than these theoretically extra-deadly roads. Even if Long COVID didn't exist, the deaths alone would blow it out of the water.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

throwawayboise 5y ago

Some people were in the "willing to take that risk" from the beginning, and were relentlessly demonized. Now it's OK though if everyone feels that way.

some_furry 5y ago
Now it's OK if they're sufficiently vaccinated* Vaccines weren't widely available back then
- khazhoux 5y ago
  What's the * ?
  - some_furry 5y ago
    Correction of the post I was replying to
ceejayoz 5y ago
Being willing to take on the risk yourself and being willing to inflict it on others aren't the same thing. If you could drive drunk without risking other people, it'd be more societally acceptable. Similarly, now that vaccination is widely available for at-risk groups, it's a bit more acceptable to take actions that spread the virus that puts those folks at risk.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  Nobody is inflicting anything on anyone. It is your responsibility to protect yourself to the level that you feel is necessary.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  > Similarly, now that vaccination is widely available for at-risk groups... It was widely available a year ago. The most at risk groups were the first and most comprehensively vaccinated. What gives? If the conditions for re-opening were met a year ago why were we wearing masks outdoors and whatnot this whole time? Comments like these seem like little more than mental gymnastics to justify having held an opinion that didn't age well w.r.t. the various degrees of covid measures we've endured. Edit: Fine then, call it 6mo. Regardless, I'd be very interested to see someone provide in a "better than just saving face" quality defense of why businesses have been at reduced capacity, government services have been limited in their accessibility, etc, etc. beyond the point at which the vulnerable were vaccinated and why we're continuing to have this debate. I know information was less great then but we have it now. How do people oppose re-opening wholesale-ish. I foresee nursing homes keeping some precautions but the DMV, using covid as an excuse for why I can't register a car at a certain service location, being masked at outdoor venues, come on.

dekhn 5y ago

I think the big question is whether deaths were front loaded. IE, in future waves, far fewer people will die, because people most predisposed to death had already died. This is my guess, but it's decidedly non-scientific.

thomascgalvin 5y ago

I think there are a number of factors at play. One, we've greatly reduced the risk of COVID through vaccines. This is the primary thrust of the article; if you've vaccinated, you're very unlikely to have serious consequences. Two, we're fatigued. You just can't be constantly vigilant for two or three years without something breaking. This compounds point one. We don't, as the article mentions, know what kind of relationship Omicron has to long COVID, but at this point, many are too tired to care. "I'm safe enough" is all we have the capacity for. Third, a large portion of the population is in denial about their own levels of risk. If there was a 1% chance of dying every time you drove a car, or even a 1% chance of dying every time you got into a car accident, there would be panic in the streets, no pun intended. But a lot of people round a 1% chance of dying from COVID down to zero.

JPKab 5y ago
You are forgetting that there really is not a 1% chance of dying of covid across all risk categories. The numbers are very clear on this: There are people who have a 1% or greater risk of dying if they catch it. Most people do not fall into that category, not even close. Let's start with the fact that the 1% IFR is calculated using a faulty denominator. Due to the high prevalence of asymptomatic infection, the denominator is far smaller than it should be. I was the only one in my household to have a single symptom when I caught it in February. My wife and two children did not have any symptoms and would not have been tested if I had not gotten myself tested. Wow this is an anecdote, it is directionally aligned with seroprevalence surveys. Omicron is even less symptomatic and therefore, we still have a denominator that is far too small. To put it into perspective, school children at the elementary age are actually at higher risk of death from an influenza infection than they are from a covid one. Obviously this does not apply to children who are immunocompromised or have comorbidities. They are the only age group that has a higher death rate from the influenza than from covid. But it is still notable. We have been sending our kids to schools without masks for decades even in the midst of various influenza epidemics. Over time populations in the US that are less sensitive to media reporting, especially working class people, have formed their own intuitive risk calculations based on their anecdotal experience. Your average taxi driver has a pretty good understanding of who is at high risk and who isn't. I experienced this in Vegas when a woman driving my taxi stated to me that the people she knew who had died were all old or "really really fat". Her words not mine lol. The people who are under 50 years of age who round 1% down to zero are more accurate than you are in their assessment. I hope I don't sound rude when I state that but based on the numbers it is accurate.