6 ms·

Can you share a study showing where Covid is responsible for such rises in this particular age bracket? As far as I understand, 18-49 yr olds are not a high ri

Can you share a study showing where Covid is responsible for such rises in this particular age bracket? As far as I understand, 18-49 yr olds are not a high risk group for covid, so is it not worth properly investigating the vaccines and other stress factors (lockdowns etc)? It is only delusional to start with something outside Covid if the data on Covid reflects the 40% clearly already.

morelisp 5y ago
> As far as I understand, 18-49 yr olds are not a high risk group for covid When people say things like "not a high risk group for covid" it's shorthand for "not at immediate risk of serious respiratory covid symptoms should they contract the virus." It doesn't say anything about longer-term impacts (nor, confusingly for some people I guess, transmission); for that you need, well, studies like this. (But without the antivax scam noise around it.)
- agentgumshoe 5y ago
  It's an interesting thing though that I often see these two views provided simultaneously: > Long Covid symptoms are most likely caused by Covid (even if barely symptomatic from the initial infection! - example: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/health/long-covid-asymptomatic.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/health/long-covid-asympto...). > Vaccine side effects are most likely not the vaccine, but stress, hospital restrictions, lockdowns, prior infections, less exercise, bad diet, etc. Not really a consistent baseline or set of controls there.
  - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
    The control part is an interesting problem. If everyone gets vaccinated we have no control group. Which would be helpful for long term comparisons on outcomes.
  - morelisp 5y ago
    > "Vaccine side effects are most likely not the vaccine" Nobody says this. Vaccine side effects are of course the vaccine, by definition. Stop obfuscating what you really mean, which is "an enormously broad range of symptoms present in people who took the vaccine, and also many who did not, which no serious medical professional will attribute completely to a vaccination." But even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean that: It's perfectly consistent if you believe that COVID is poorly-understood and mutating, and the vaccines are well-understood and consistent over time. Which are both true.
- kcplate 5y ago
  Correct, we don’t know long term effects of Covid, but conversely we don’t know the long term effects of the vaccines either. Odd that no matter what side of that coin people argue, they forget it applies equally to the other side too.
ryanbrunner 5y ago
"Risk" has been almost exclusively defined in terms of hospitalization / death throughout the pandemic. Long term effects are poorly understood and not considered in risk calculations.
- drewcon 5y ago
  This. I cannot believe how myopic we have been. A lot of people are going to carry a lot of damage didn’t see fit to include it as a metric. I don’t have under 65 evidence, but this study released recently for 65+ should make everyone question what it looks like to live with this virus going forward. https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj-2021-068414 https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj-2021-068414
stjohnswarts 5y ago
We know statistically that covid scare off a lot of pepole and delayed lots of treatments of others. We know the medical numbers are going to be awful as they come in because preventive care is import and saves lives, and lots of people didn't get that during the pandemic. But increases of 300% or 400% in bunches of areas? Does not pass the smell test, increases that large would have been obvious even during the epidemic. This article was just fear mongering.

morelisp 5y ago

> As far as I understand, 18-49 yr olds are not a high risk group for covid When people say things like "not a high risk group for covid" it's shorthand for "not at immediate risk of serious respiratory covid symptoms should they contract the virus." It doesn't say anything about longer-term impacts (nor, confusingly for some people I guess, transmission); for that you need, well, studies like this. (But without the antivax scam noise around it.)

agentgumshoe 5y ago
It's an interesting thing though that I often see these two views provided simultaneously: > Long Covid symptoms are most likely caused by Covid (even if barely symptomatic from the initial infection! - example: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/health/long-covid-asymptomatic.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/health/long-covid-asympto...). > Vaccine side effects are most likely not the vaccine, but stress, hospital restrictions, lockdowns, prior infections, less exercise, bad diet, etc. Not really a consistent baseline or set of controls there.
- TrispusAttucks 5y ago
  The control part is an interesting problem. If everyone gets vaccinated we have no control group. Which would be helpful for long term comparisons on outcomes.
- morelisp 5y ago
  > "Vaccine side effects are most likely not the vaccine" Nobody says this. Vaccine side effects are of course the vaccine, by definition. Stop obfuscating what you really mean, which is "an enormously broad range of symptoms present in people who took the vaccine, and also many who did not, which no serious medical professional will attribute completely to a vaccination." But even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean that: It's perfectly consistent if you believe that COVID is poorly-understood and mutating, and the vaccines are well-understood and consistent over time. Which are both true.
kcplate 5y ago
Correct, we don’t know long term effects of Covid, but conversely we don’t know the long term effects of the vaccines either. Odd that no matter what side of that coin people argue, they forget it applies equally to the other side too.

ryanbrunner 5y ago

"Risk" has been almost exclusively defined in terms of hospitalization / death throughout the pandemic. Long term effects are poorly understood and not considered in risk calculations.

drewcon 5y ago
This. I cannot believe how myopic we have been. A lot of people are going to carry a lot of damage didn’t see fit to include it as a metric. I don’t have under 65 evidence, but this study released recently for 65+ should make everyone question what it looks like to live with this virus going forward. https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj-2021-068414 https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj-2021-068414

stjohnswarts 5y ago

We know statistically that covid scare off a lot of pepole and delayed lots of treatments of others. We know the medical numbers are going to be awful as they come in because preventive care is import and saves lives, and lots of people didn't get that during the pandemic. But increases of 300% or 400% in bunches of areas? Does not pass the smell test, increases that large would have been obvious even during the epidemic. This article was just fear mongering.