251–260 of 339 posts
I’m glad to see this and we need to concentrate on speeding this process up. This isn’t the last pandemic and all things considered this one was a pretty benign one to have to fight. The next one might not just kill mainly the old and weak and might need much more than a mask (that we still can’t get people to wear!) to prevent its spread. Hopefully before then, we can work to get everyone more on the same page and h…
I’m glad to see this and we need to concentrate on speeding this process up. This isn’t the last pandemic and all things considered this one was a pretty benign one to have to fight. The next one might not just kill mainly the old and weak and might need much more than a mask (that we still can’t get people to wear!) to prevent its spread. Hopefully before then, we can work to get everyone more on the same page and h…
They found covid in blood donated in December 2019. It's actually been a full year at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Other than Australia, China, New Zealand, and Vietnam, you mean? And China managed that after it had already spread widely domestically; the others were quick on their feet.
China welded people into their homes, forced people into the hospital at gun point, and disappeared any doctor that actually wanted to warn the world about it back in December. There was also a recent document leaked that told us what many already suspected: they lied about their numbers. This isn't much of a surprise, since they stopped giving any updates pretty quickly into the pandemic. I have family that live in…
Ah yes, "warned", by assuring us that the virus was no worse than the common cold, and we were rapidly "turning a corner", and that it would just "go away on its own".
> wanted to close the borders
If he really wanted to, what stopped him? He was clearly fully capable of closing borders, given that he did close the border to China (too late) and Europe (also too late). Where was the closure to South Korea when the virus was spiking there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To get worse than COVID you'd need a virus that takes a long time to develop symptoms and then has a high death rate. In that scenario there would be a lot more public fear and we'd have an easier time keeping people at home. So I'm still of the opinion it's harder to have a worse situation than COVID.
Yeah this pandemic has been described as the perfect middle ground for politicization, denialism, and just laissez-faire attitudes. Any more deadly (like Ebola) it becomes incredibly scary and people likely do whatever it takes when they see people around them dropping like flies (especially in horrific ways). Any less deadly (basically the yearly flu) and it becomes easy to ignore and just becomes part of the backgr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are millions of survivors of Covid, so every conceivable bad health outcome will be present in that population.
Yes. The question is not whether bad health outcomes exist, only the truly ignorant believe COVID is a total hoax. The question is whether COVID is significantly worse than the influenza, rhino, and corona viruses we generally get year-round. The answer, is resoundingly yes. COVID is much worse in terms of the short-term and long-term sequelae both in terms of the range of "bad health outcome[s]" and in terms of the…
I won't be surprised if Covid ends up being slightly more or slightly less correlated with post-infection issues, but we have seen no credible evidence of this at all, much less evidence that we should worry Covid turns you into a "mentally-challenged cripple."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another possibility: something that generates mild cold/flu symptoms but does long term damage that you won't notice right away. This would cause the "Bob had it and he's fine!" mentality to spread as it currently is. An example of this may be HIV.
Or COVID! There's been some reports about long term damage to people's lungs and such. To be frank, that's what scares me a lot more than the acute disease as someone who's still relatively young.
Not trying to minimise the seriousness of COVID, but simply suggesting there is no evidence of serious long term impact to the majority of cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sweeden is one example, the death toll is still manageable and the life is pretty much still normal. Not a country: florida, it is one of the state in the usa that has the least covid related restriction. They are doing very well. Went there myself to visit recently. Its not hard to see why lockdown is not worth it. According to cdc, covid has very very low ifr : 0-19 years: 0.00003 20-49 years: 0.0002 50-69 years: 0…
How is 1 in 200 people between the ages of 50 and 70 "very very low"? In the US, it would be hundreds of thousands of deaths in just that age group. And 1 in 20 people over 70 obviously isn't low.
I wouldn't ask my parent/grand parent to isolate, if they don't want it.
>And 1 in 20 people over 70 obviously isn't low
People in over 70 has already high chance of death regardless of covid or not. So given that they are infected with covid, 1 in 20 chance is not high.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or COVID! There's been some reports about long term damage to people's lungs and such. To be frank, that's what scares me a lot more than the acute disease as someone who's still relatively young.
There’s no evidence to suggest COVID causes serious damage to those with minor to medium level symptoms. When the media talks about lung damage they seem to be talking about those who nearly died from the disease. Not trying to minimise the seriousness of COVID, but simply suggesting there is no evidence of serious long term impact to the majority of cases.
I think lack of evidence is more a symptom of limited information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is the silver lining for this pandemic. Covid-19 is lethal, I'm not discounting that, but in terms of real lethality, this was a good test run to show that this approach works. (At least in my lay person's knowledge.) What really scares me are the highly lethal flu strains (I think H5N5?) The fact that we can produce a vaccine this quickly now gives me hope when we encounter a scenario like out of the mo…
High lethality is often associated with reduced transmissibility. Which makes sense - dead people certainly aren't going to cough on you. In a Sci Fi movie maybe the virus has a long delay, you're infectious for a month with no symptoms, then drop dead in seconds. But in the real world that's less likely the more extreme it gets. One thing that did make this virus more dangerous was that many humans became infectious…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is 1 in 200 people between the ages of 50 and 70 "very very low"? In the US, it would be hundreds of thousands of deaths in just that age group. And 1 in 20 people over 70 obviously isn't low.
Low or high can be very subjective, at least I consider it very very low. I wouldn't ask my parent/grand parent to isolate, if they don't want it. >And 1 in 20 people over 70 obviously isn't low People in over 70 has already high chance of death regardless of covid or not. So given that they are infected with covid, 1 in 20 chance is not high.
That this is not some uncontrollable inevitability is the whole point. Places that were proactive have less economic harm and far less death and illness. I suppose people aren't going to change, so the ship has sailed for much of the world, but it wasn't inevitable for vast numbers of people to get infected.
As far as 1/200 being subjectively low, if something had a 1/200 chance in killing you, would you do it 5 times a day? We can answer probably not of course, because you probably wouldn't do it once a week (or you wouldn't be).