Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lung damage in recovered Covid sufferers apparently permanent, research finds

rainews.it

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–78 of 78 posts

Re: Lung damage in recovered Covid sufferers apparently permanent, research finds

#71

Post by acqq »

pm_me_ur_fullzz wrote: post #58
acqq wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if anyone misread my quotes as personal opinion, they're not. The way they are written, then simply ending them with yours " Been watching the studies closely though! " and pointing afterwards "mild symptoms recovered at home have permanent lung damage and divers cannot dive anymore." the message could still not be expected to be considered seriously. The whole message did in fact give an impression of agreement wi…

> The whole message did in fact give an impression of agreement with the quotes, basically as if only those who have bigger risk should have problem with it. Op here. Only because you were looking for agreement. And there in lies the flaw. I stated what the filter bubbles exist and offered no opinion. Why? Because its equally as likely to encounter a hoard of people would be looking for me to agree with their point o…

I see your account is new. Let me explain, after many years being here, it's completely typical for HN that the posts get downvoted from those who don't share the same point of view, especially if the arguments appear to be weak (e.g. that that action reflects "a strong disagreement"). And there's some logic behind it: the intention is that the "assumed and practiced rules" somehow keep the quality of the discussion high enough. In your case, your post was a typical "low quality" post, having that "Been watching the studies closely though!" line as a (still completely trivial) contribution. On HN such posts aren't rated good, especially not when sandwiched between the claims that those who downvote see as worthless repetition of the common non-arguments.

You wroute "it is heavily disputed". Then you wrote "Been watching the studies closely though!" then questioned the source, then used again often heard argument "mild, only divers." That's I personally had the impression you haven't brought any substance to the discussion this time. And it looks to me, you are also not "Op" as it is used here (i.e. you haven posted the link "Lung damage..")

Re: Lung damage in recovered Covid sufferers apparently permanent, research finds

#72

Post by mirimir »

detaro wrote: post #66
happytoexplain wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ridiculous to claim as fact something as subjective as "[whether COVID-19 is serious ] is heavily disputed" (emphasis on the highly subjective words). It's also disingenuous to imply that the only thing a statement communicates is the factual part of the words. And, even disregarding all of that, you're ignoring this statement: >we are still at the "those people were going to die within a year anyway" phase.

We sadly still are in the phase where some people are saying that.

Yes, very sadly, we are. And I'd say that it's more than some. But unless you get inside the filter bubbles, you might not be aware just how many there are.

For example, given my anarchistic tendencies and love of the lulz, Trump's election was not at all a surprise to me. All my mainstream liberal friends were saying "no way", at least partly based on the polling. But I knew that many hard-core supporters would ignore the "damn libtard media" pollsters.

Justa sayin' ;)

Re: Lung damage in recovered Covid sufferers apparently permanent, research finds

#73

Post by mirimir »

happytoexplain wrote: post #65
mirimir wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the fuck have so many downvoted this? > This is heavily disputed. That is a fact . > edit: if anyone misread my quotes as personal opinion, they're not. I know that discussing downvotes is boring. But this is so egregiously stupid that it's justified.

It's ridiculous to claim as fact something as subjective as "[whether COVID-19 is serious ] is heavily disputed" (emphasis on the highly subjective words). It's also disingenuous to imply that the only thing a statement communicates is the factual part of the words. And, even disregarding all of that, you're ignoring this statement: >we are still at the "those people were going to die within a year anyway" phase.

The full quote is:

> Now that the death numbers are greater than the flu, we are still at the "those people were going to die within a year anyway" phase, and the "I am okay and have a BMI less than 30 so therefore people like me are okay" phase.

The user you're criticizing is expressing puzzlement at how many are still at those phases. They're not agreeing with those assessments. So you're picking a fight with the wrong person. Indeed, you're picking a fight with someone who likely agrees with you on the substantive issues.

Re: Lung damage in recovered Covid sufferers apparently permanent, research finds

#74

Post by tomhoward »

mirimir wrote: post #53
vmception wrote: post #2

> It is now undisputed that Covid-19 should be taken seriously as a serious illness. This is heavily disputed. I wonder what the threshold really is for changing that idea. Now that the death numbers are greater than the flu, we are still at the "those people were going to die within a year anyway" phase, and the "I am okay and have a BMI less than 30 so therefore people like me are okay" phase. Been watching the stu…

Why the fuck have so many downvoted this? > This is heavily disputed. That is a fact . > edit: if anyone misread my quotes as personal opinion, they're not. I know that discussing downvotes is boring. But this is so egregiously stupid that it's justified.

It's downvoted because it's phrased in a way that can easily confuse somebody scanning the comment quickly (like most HN readers), into thinking it is saying something different to what it's actually saying.

Re: Lung damage in recovered Covid sufferers apparently permanent, research finds

#75

Post by pm_me_ur_fullzz »

dang wrote: post #70
pm_me_ur_fullzz wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There are still people thinking it's not a big deal, I wonder what the threshold really is for changing that idea." username does not check out. But did you notice it doesn't really matter how people read what I wrote when > It is now undisputed that Covid-19 should be taken seriously as a serious illness. that's the point I was bringing attention to? That it is not undisputed because a non-negligible amount of peop…

I appreciate that this account has mostly been posting good comments, but would you mind changing your username? It's mildly trollish, and trollish usernames troll every thread an account posts to. Email hn@ycombinator.com with the name you prefer, or just reply here and we can change it for you.

vmception

Re: Lung damage in recovered Covid sufferers apparently permanent, research finds

#76

Post by Aeolun »

tom_mellior wrote: post #60
Aeolun wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As of April 20 , 238 out of the 21,551 (1.1%) positive SARS-CoV-2 patients under the age of 50 died. In particular, 54 of these were less than 40 years (34 men and 20 women), age range between 0 and 39 years. For 6 patients under the age of 40 years no clinical information is available; the remaining 38 had serious pre-existing pathologies (cardiovascular, renal, psychiatric pathologies, diabetes, obesity) and 10 h…

> I’m tempted to agree with OP that it seems like it’s more of a bad flu for younger people. The point of the article we are discussing here is that with COVID-19 this is not a binary live/die situation. You can live but still have serious lasting lung damage, possibly lasting neurological problems as well. I'm not aware of the flu having similar effects after recovery.

Fair point, we need more relevant research to know how prevalent this is.

I did find multiple references to 20-30% reduced lung capacity.

Re: Lung damage in recovered Covid sufferers apparently permanent, research finds

#77

Post by dang »

pm_me_ur_fullzz wrote: post #75
dang wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate that this account has mostly been posting good comments, but would you mind changing your username? It's mildly trollish, and trollish usernames troll every thread an account posts to. Email hn@ycombinator.com with the name you prefer, or just reply here and we can change it for you.

vmception

Ok, you're now vmception.

Re: Lung damage in recovered Covid sufferers apparently permanent, research finds

#78

Post by alt_f4 »

rpiguy wrote: post #33
Funes- wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>we are still at the "those people were going to die within a year anyway" phase. No, we are not. Young and healthy people are dying too. And that's with global confinement taking place. Just imagine in what kind of hell we would be if people were still roaming around freely; heaps of people would die just because they wouldn't have access to sanitary devices (ventilators, for instance) nor medicine. In any case, if…

Sweden doesn't look like hell. 99% of deaths in Italy were over 65. Study after study, LA, Massachusetts, Chicago, etc. show that many, many more people have gotten COVID asymptomatically and the actual mortality rate thus far is miniscule. Death projections continue to be revised down in the US and almost everywhere outside of NYC is far behind expected deaths and hospitalizations. NYC is sharing their ventilators w…

> At this point it is the alarmists arguing against evidence and actual data, now that we have some. It is rather amusing to behold.

You were also the one claiming US deaths will be under 60K per your imaginary CDC projections, but these are 56K right now and there are still 1K deaths per day.

And, no, 99% of deaths in Italy are not over 65. That's also imaginary.

So, your ability to make up data and then "reason" with it seems strong.

Post reply on HN