4 ms·
I think you're thinking of the null hypothesis. Occam's razor would prescribe determining the number of assumptions made by each explanation and preferring the
by maxbond 4y ago
I think you're thinking of the null hypothesis. Occam's razor would prescribe determining the number of assumptions made by each explanation and preferring the one with fewer. You're introducing a new assumption here, and I don't see how it helps us better understand the evidence. "COVID is more severe than typical viral infections, and so leads to unusual outcomes" is a pretty simple explanation, well supported by the observations you yourself made that it is more contagious and has more severe symptoms than many others.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI think you are both saying the same or compatible ideas.
- AYBABTME 4y agoWell I mean that in the realm of more severe infections, it's probably average and not some super mutant alien illness. In that sense I apply Occam's razor: it's probably bad to a similar degree as other bad diseases of the same type, it's probably not a radical unprecedented thing from an alternate dimension (assuming no lab leak hypothesis). And from my non expert historical perspective, it sure seems to fit that profile.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoEven if it is from a lab, it is still a virus and not some radical new physics or biology. We know that viruses harm people and have long-lasting consequences.
- stevenhuang 4y agoThis is my understanding of the issue as well--that viruses in general can have wide ranging affects depending on the person, and the symptoms of LC are not unique. So what's notable might not be that Long Covid is a thing, but that due to how prevalent it was, a massive amount of people were subject to the ~0.1% (or whatever probability) tail risk that a given viral load would very negatively impact their body (nerve damage, heart damage, etc), much like any other virus would.