4 ms·

I still think about the HN commentor who told me confidently, "there is no theoretical basis for long-term consequences of COVID-19." [1] [1] https://news.ycom

I still think about the HN commentor who told me confidently, "there is no theoretical basis for long-term consequences of COVID-19." [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23875391 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23875391

giantg2 5y ago
That's a bit bold/uncharitable of you. What is the definition of long-term and medium-term? With the average duration of observation being 1.4 years in the study, I could see that going either way. The commenter admits that medium term lung damage is possible. Their comment was likely consistent with the experts at the time it was posted (July 2020).
- VikingCoder 5y ago
  And I think you're being too forgiving. They claimed there was not even a "theoretical basis." Of course there's a theoretical basis for a virus causing long-term effects. I suffered from Shingles, just as a for-instance. We'll probably never know how many have had HPV / Cervical Cancer. And at this point, I have friends who are suffering effects from Long Covid. At the time, it would have been far more accurate to say, "The evidence doesn't indicate any cause for alarm about long-term symptoms." Not, "there is no THEORETICAL BASIS for long-term consequences."
  - giantg2 5y ago
    It depends on how you interpret it, especially "theoretical". I was interpreting it as there being no known theoretical mechanism (in the scope that you need a plausible mechanism of action). One could say there a theoretical basis for the vaccine causing long term harm. Until there's actually support via an identified mechanism, it doesn't really matter - it's just a guess. So if there wasn't a factually supported mechanism in July 2020, then there was no theoretical basis, simply a guess that it works similar to some (but not other) viruses.
SpaceManNabs 5y ago
Wow that comment was wrong in every single claim it made it seems (outside of the claims it cited from somewhere else).
tsol 5y ago
I find there are often mistakes and misunderstandings when it comes to articles relating to the field of medicine on HN. I recall having to explain the difference between intracellular calcium levels and calcium channels in the brain. Perhaps it's a different way of looking at things as there are more math majors than biology majors here. All the specialized knowledge medicine requires certainly doesn't help.

giantg2 5y ago

That's a bit bold/uncharitable of you. What is the definition of long-term and medium-term? With the average duration of observation being 1.4 years in the study, I could see that going either way. The commenter admits that medium term lung damage is possible. Their comment was likely consistent with the experts at the time it was posted (July 2020).

VikingCoder 5y ago
And I think you're being too forgiving. They claimed there was not even a "theoretical basis." Of course there's a theoretical basis for a virus causing long-term effects. I suffered from Shingles, just as a for-instance. We'll probably never know how many have had HPV / Cervical Cancer. And at this point, I have friends who are suffering effects from Long Covid. At the time, it would have been far more accurate to say, "The evidence doesn't indicate any cause for alarm about long-term symptoms." Not, "there is no THEORETICAL BASIS for long-term consequences."
- giantg2 5y ago
  It depends on how you interpret it, especially "theoretical". I was interpreting it as there being no known theoretical mechanism (in the scope that you need a plausible mechanism of action). One could say there a theoretical basis for the vaccine causing long term harm. Until there's actually support via an identified mechanism, it doesn't really matter - it's just a guess. So if there wasn't a factually supported mechanism in July 2020, then there was no theoretical basis, simply a guess that it works similar to some (but not other) viruses.

SpaceManNabs 5y ago

Wow that comment was wrong in every single claim it made it seems (outside of the claims it cited from somewhere else).

tsol 5y ago

I find there are often mistakes and misunderstandings when it comes to articles relating to the field of medicine on HN. I recall having to explain the difference between intracellular calcium levels and calcium channels in the brain. Perhaps it's a different way of looking at things as there are more math majors than biology majors here. All the specialized knowledge medicine requires certainly doesn't help.