Did someone tell you we solved the problem of long-haulers? And if you don't know what the question means, you have some research to do about the virus.
-
-
Well, I definitely think that the hype around "long COVID" (I assume that's what you're referring to) is completely overblown, and to the extent it occurs it also occurs in other viruses we don't freak out about. But more importantly, I do take that into account. Briefly...
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
You base that "thinking" on what? A hunch?
5 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I would use the word "priors". I've looked at the literature that claimed long-term hard damage, long-term lung damage, etc. In almost all cases it's overblown or statistically irrelevant. Let me give you some studies here:
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @RyanKemper10 @ScottAdamsSays and
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-27359/v1 … > Radiological abnormalities in patients of severe COVID-19 could be completely absorbed with no residual lung injury in more than two months’ follow-up
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RyanKemper10 @ScottAdamsSays and
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1440-1843.2003.00522.x … (SARS-1 pathology) > Preliminary evidence suggests that these lung function abnormalities will improve over time This is obviously SARS-1 but I think SARS-1 is a great model of what severe COVID-19 looks like.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RyanKemper10 @ScottAdamsSays and
I know that a lot of the "long-term damage" claims are about more than just lung issues. Like I said, most of the literature I've seen is not very convincing. A couple months of fatigue following SARS-1 or severe SARS-2 infection? Sure. Life-long ME/CFS? Vanishingly unlikely.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RyanKemper10 @ScottAdamsSays and
Anyway, like I said above, the great thing about the reasoning here is that even if long-haul COVID is not just real but is incredibly common, you can still work it into the math just fine. When I've done the napkin math, I always end up with containment being far worse
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It isn't something we can model.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
If it's not something you can model, why are you citing it when discussing how to make rational policy considerations? Either you can model it and thus should consider it, or you shouldn't use it as an arg. You seem to be using "model" to mean "model perfectly accurately" tho?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
You don't need to model it. The risk of extra mask-wearing for healthy people is almost certainly minimal. The long term health consequences from what MIGHT be an engineered virus MIGHT be awful. Treat it like life insurance or accept being reckless as morally okay.
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.