U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Massachusetts
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-23-2021, 03:44 PM
 
3,790 posts, read 2,334,795 times
Reputation: 3313

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-23-2021, 04:05 PM
 
Location: Cleveland
3,089 posts, read 3,946,781 times
Reputation: 4464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrewsburried View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2021, 04:44 PM
 
Location: Westwood, MA
4,422 posts, read 5,661,974 times
Reputation: 5423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrewsburried View Post
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?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2021, 05:46 PM
 
99 posts, read 14,825 times
Reputation: 57
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
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2021, 07:00 PM
 
3,790 posts, read 2,334,795 times
Reputation: 3313
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2021, 09:43 PM
 
16,024 posts, read 11,780,372 times
Reputation: 8356
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2021, 04:30 PM
 
Location: Cleveland
3,089 posts, read 3,946,781 times
Reputation: 4464
Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71 View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2021, 09:30 PM
 
3,790 posts, read 2,334,795 times
Reputation: 3313
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns View Post

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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2021, 09:44 PM
 
Location: The ghetto
11,312 posts, read 4,345,402 times
Reputation: 11041
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
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2021, 11:17 PM
 
695 posts, read 186,513 times
Reputation: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrewsburried View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Massachusetts

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:56 PM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top