Coronavirus in Massachusetts (Provincetown: LGBT, university, club)

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns

Interesting take. Counterpoint: you should actually have a ballpark idea of how dangerous a virus is on a per-person basis if you're going to use it to justify restrictions on human life.

I’m curious how you’re assessing long term health risks given that it’s well established an infection is a vascular disease.

If your arguing pure on mortality/IFR data you’ve already lost the plot.

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

I’m curious how you’re assessing long term health risks given that it’s well established an infection is a vascular disease.

If your arguing pure on mortality/IFR data you’ve already lost the plot.

The way most of the media presents things, I'll take it as a compliment that I've lost the plot. A lot of people could stand to lose the plot, in my opinion. I kind of think we should take the plot out back and shoot it, to be honest.

I treat "long-term health risks" as proportionate to how sick you get. I have a lot of trouble believing you can catch this, have a headache and a sore throat for a couple days, and then suddenly have lung troubles 20 years down the road. I think that sounds like science fiction. I'm sorry I don't have a better answer, but it's a murkier question than infection fatality rate, which does have an answer sitting right in front of us in the data, which is why I wanted to correct people who were measuring it inaccurately.

I would be open to someone explaining to me, in a way similar to how I broke down infection fatality rate using decent-quality data, the chances of me having issues 20 years down the road, given that, say, I get infected with Sars-Cov-2 today.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

I’m curious how you’re assessing long term health risks given that it’s well established an infection is a vascular disease.

If your arguing pure on mortality/IFR data you’ve already lost the plot.

Honest question: are there are mild infections that permanently compromise health?

[YevTK]

Using current CDC numbers (CDC estimates 4.3 infections per confirmed case) here are the chances of death per infection (i.e. 1 in X):

0-4 Years 15,308
5-17 Years 37,642
18-29 Years 9,718
30-39 Years 3,118
40-49 Years 1,156
50-64 Years 313
65-74 Years 81
75-84 Years 33
85+ Years 17

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

Honest question: are there are mild infections that permanently compromise health?

I think it remains a bit early to draw absolute conclusions, but long term risks are presumably low. It’s why I’m not hyper concerned for the health and safety of my unvaccinated toddler despite some rare instances of pediatric deaths or health complications. However, I would prefer he gain immunity via vaccination if one becomes available.

What is still actively being studied is whether there are long term impacts relating to mild to moderate non-hospitalized cases such as those patients who complain of ‘brain fog’ and other ‘long hauler’ symptoms. Ongoing research suggests that even in some relatively mild cases patients do suffer potentially long-term or permanent organ damage (e.g., lung vasculature, kidneys, brain). For example, the UK Biobank study is yielding some potentially very valuable data within the 40-69yr populations as they were performing brain scans prior to the pandemic and can now directly compare brain scans post-infection. The early data suggests that even patients who claimed to experience mild cases still showed a reduction in grey matter, though as you suggest it tends to be proportional to the severity of the infection.

As a vaccinated individual I’m confident any break through infection will be extremely mild and damage limited. That’s my personal risk assessment. I do however find obnoxious that many still post mortality data as though it’s the sole metric by which society should evaluate risk. No, the long term health impacts are still being researched.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns

So your answer to the question of whether you want to remove restrictions if the virus is 99.9999% survivable is "maybe, it depends, I'll think about it?"

And yet you sit here just totally bewildered as to why some people don't buy the idea that following public health orders and recommendations will get us back to normal, and instead think that the goalposts will continue to be moved...

Massive reading comprehension fail.

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Massive reading comprehension fail.

I think your wording was confusing, but you are correct, I didn't fully comprehend what you were saying the first time. Now I think I get it, though I had to read your post a few more times to make sure. I asked whether a 99.9999% survival rate would be high enough for you to support removal of all restrictions, and you responded with a made-up scenario where the virus were 99.9999% survivable but somehow also caused long-term damage in 30-50% of people infected with it, and you said you would want to keep restrictions in place.

I'm not a logician, but this seems to be a form of begging the question. If you imagine a virus that somehow causes long-term damage to that high a percentage of people even though it kills virtually no one, then sure, it becomes a lot easier to rationalize a bunch of restrictions. If your implication is that Sars-Cov-2 is that virus, I think the evidence for that is very weak. Some of the more recent posts in this thread allude to this; I think quite a few of us are probably operating under the assumption that you're only really likely to have long-term effects from Sars-Cov-2 if you get really, really sick from it -- kind of like every other virus, if you think about it.

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns

I'm not a logician, but this seems to be a form of begging the question. If you imagine a virus that somehow causes long-term damage to that high a percentage of people even though it kills virtually no one, then sure, it becomes a lot easier to rationalize a bunch of restrictions. If your implication is that Sars-Cov-2 is that virus, I think the evidence for that is very weak. Some of the more recent posts in this thread allude to this; I think quite a few of us are probably operating under the assumption that you're only really likely to have long-term effects from Sars-Cov-2 if you get really, really sick from it -- kind of like every other virus, if you think about it.

Ongoing research suggests the long-term impacts are proportional to the severity of infection, but not necessary limited to patients who experienced severe infections.

I highly suggest you review some of the recent studies/research available in the public domain - the Lancet, JAMA, Nature all have Covid resource aggregates. Great bedtime reading so long as you’ve already become comfortable with the void. There have been some recently published studies regarding the brain and blood brain barrier which are of particular interest.

Being vaccinated I still consider my risk low and act accordingly, but I do think I’m going to scale back my risk tolerance as this Delta variant ramps … particularly in regards to me being an potentially asymptomatic spreader. For some family and friends, such as those with heavily suppressed immune systems, I’m back to outdoor and/or a mask. Im much more lax with low risk vaccinated groups such as my dev team.

[redplum33]

Provincetown July 4th outbreak

551 cases now

70% are vaccinated breakthrough cases

88% are men. Average age is 39.

53 tests were sent in for additional testing. All 53 came back as delta variant.

Source: saw this on Providence Channel 10 news

[rach5]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

Ongoing research suggests the long-term impacts are proportional to the severity of infection, but not necessary limited to patients who experienced severe infections.

I highly suggest you review some of the recent studies/research available in the public domain - the Lancet, JAMA, Nature all have Covid resource aggregates. Great bedtime reading so long as you’ve already become comfortable with the void. There have been some recently published studies regarding the brain and blood brain barrier which are of particular interest.

Being vaccinated I still consider my risk low and act accordingly, but I do think I’m going to scale back my risk tolerance as this Delta variant ramps … particularly in regards to me being an potentially asymptomatic spreader. For some family and friends, such as those with heavily suppressed immune systems, I’m back to outdoor and/or a mask. Im much more lax with low risk vaccinated groups such as my dev team.

I wouldn't suggest academic covid papers as great bedtime reading for anyone with even the slightest bit of insomnia.