It is agreed that something gives people severe cases. Severe includes death and recovered with damage. We don't seem to have data letting you know who or what would land there.
we cannot gamble with our future so carelessly on the basis of preliminary data. here is a vignette to explain why.
once someone is infected with HIV, most people experience flu-like symptoms for a week or two which then resolve either with or without treatment. in some people, the virus is cleared so effectively after the initial infection that they will test negative for HIV. then, over the span of months and years, their immune system is silently and entirely asymptomatically destroyed, leaving them none the wiser until they progress to AIDS and get extremely sick.
COVID hasn't given us any indication of similar activity. but we know so very little that we can't take the risk, especially not with millions and millions of people. i will also note that we are unlikely to rule out these kinds of hypothetical risks anytime soon. so caution is our only defense against disaster.
We take that risk with other viruses and bacteria literally all the time. If hypothetical but unlikely risks become thejustification for destroying people's livelihoods and the world ecomony, we're all dead anyway.
it is this body of knowledge which allows our society to normally function even during a typical flu season. we understand the upper and lower boundaries of the consequences, and we can make an informed judgment about what we should do to navigate the environment accordingly.
the idea of throwing open the gates to allow everyone to get infected is a dangerous fantasy. at best, it's taking a leap of faith with other people's health without knowing whether there is a long way down or not.
How on earth are you going to isolate 30% of the population?
Now, I confess I am also making assumptions there. Data would be nice.
My assumptions are we could have saved a sizeable portion by tighter lockdowns on nursing homes. I also suspect we could have done things pre-infection to strengthen lungs of people with pre-existing lung conditions.
More pointedly, I think all of the havoc we have caused by closing schools is likely not amounting to a lot of saved lives. As a risk group, children are basically not at risk of severe cases.
Now, I hasten to add that no policy should be set by some random internet poster. I am hoping we are collecting data and running simulations to give us better data for the future.
Children aren't at risk, and that's not why schools were closed.
Your posts don't seem to be made in good faith. Either that or you are demonstrating a lack of information on par with Trump.
Closing schools was pitched at the time with a wide net, granted. Such that I could just be misremembering some of it. As a way of protecting the older workers in there, though, it feels weak. As more evidence comes out that it was wide spread by the time the schools closed, it also feels too late for that aim. (Again, this largely depends on if me and my family had it. If so, it had passed through all of us before closures happened.)
Not sure why you think I am bad faith posting. I am posting mainly from my phone, so I suspect some of my parts are bad quality. But if you think I am twisting your point in bad faith, I do not intend that.
There's little reason to believe it's significantly different to any other Coronavirus. Speculating that's it's suddenly going to be aids++ is pointless scaremongering.
The main* reason it was a "big deal" was the lack of common immunity thus leading to potentially rapid spread. Deaths in the vulnerable from the side effects of this kind of thing are perfectly normal and perfectly well understood and there is very little treatment
https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2010/09/02/sars...
A garden snake and a cobra are both snakes. Belonging to the same category says nothing about the potency of their bite. We have no idea what kind of snake this is yet.
Yes we can, and will. We’re gambling with every choice we make about how to respond to this, and anyone claiming that their plan is 100% “based on science” is full of shit. For example, every country enforcing a lockdown is gambling that it won’t lead to civil war.
Even without data on lingering deficiencies, we can speculate with confidence that it carries a cost.
If that is the extent of your point, then my response is "yes, and?"
Your framing, though, begs the question that mild cases have long term damage. We have zero evidence of that. Literally none.
I'm saying all sickness comes with a long term cost. It gives you a shove toward the grave. Covid19 falls into that category, regardless of how much or little we know about it.
Now you could argue that sickness and aging don't work that way. I don't think you'd be right, but you can make that argument.
Your argument about the long term effects of covid19 is not relevant to the point I made.
[1] https://www.rainews.it/tgr/tagesschau/articoli/2020/04/tag-C...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/comments/g3rv7h/permame...
Sounds like a promising lead to go down. I think my other criticisms are still unaddressed. Scarring damage is tough to place in age. Is plausible that they had some pre existing damage already.
Funny to see the comments talk if walking pneumonia. I had that a decade ago. Was cake compared to whatever hit me early March.
My link should be a direct link to the comment. The bottom of the comment is hidden by default, but half of it is visible (and you can unhide the rest using the big blue button). I hate the new reddit design.
I confess false confidence in CT scans from stories such as back pains paints me a skeptic here. :(
Could they have hidden damage that we can't detect? Plausible. But that is true of many activities. And illnesses.
The difference is that we know plenty about those illnesses and activities. This is a novel virus and we are just speculating.
We simply don't know the long term effects of this virus, even in recovered cases.
Until we know this virus well enough to make such statements, we should play it safe.
I for one am not willing to risk a lung because you think it's fear mongering
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/opinion/coronavirus-testi...