You were responding to a subthread that started with someone claiming that the "vulnerable" should self isolate even if not required. I was arguing that the "vulnerable" were generally old enough to assess the data and make our own informed decisions. So that's my position you were arguing againt.
www.sciencenews.org
In other words, we're not sure yet whether Covid-19 can cause permanent damage, and the only reason we think it might is exactly because of assumed similarities to "[O]ther infections", the exact opposite of a "once in a lifetime" thing. In addition, the sources linked to in that article for long term "lung damage" of SARS and MERS make it sound like the effects were not serious, as in you had to take a CT scan to see them.
I was not arguing against your position; merely pointing out the mental gymnastics you’re employing to justify it. Nonetheless, I completely understand your frustration.
This is a new virus. Studies will follow for years. There is no published data as all the information we have is from physicians around the world that are connecting and sharing what we are seeing and learning from each other. We are flying blind- we can’t give you the citation you ask for because medical information takes years of analyzing, data gathering, using scientific principle and finally publishing that in medical journals, and finally text books. We are years away from that.
It’s going to take more than 3 weeks to know the effects of reopening. Death data as well as infection rates are lagging by about 2-3 weeks, not to mention that we are under testing, and feeling falsely reassured by the numbers- also the tests have anywhere from a 15-20 percent false negative rate, some as high as 30 percent false negative. Some patients who were highly suspicious and tested negative, were positive on their third or fourth test. The sample collection is also flawed as a lot of samples are not true naso pharyngeal swabs- because most staff are not trained to collect this particular sample. It has to literally stop short of your brain/eye, and most patients don’t tolerate that, and staff are collecting samples that are superficial, so they are ‘negative’. In addition, there are issues with the transport media, and storing the sample adequately so the test is not compromised. And if you are thinking the ‘rapid ‘ test is better- well it has as high as a 40 percent false negative. Abbot lab is aware of those issues.
There were no mental gymnastics, only realism. It's easy to say, for example, "just eat half as much and you'll lose weight". It's near impossible actually to do it. Exercise and proper diet only happen when you find options that you can realistically sustain.
You need some cheese with that whine?
One of the issues is that, to the extent this pandemic is new, the doctors themselves are not experts, yet they present themselves to be.
www.wsj.com
