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:
-
-
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
You do need to model it, otherwise it's not a rational decision you're advocating for. If you're in favor of guiding life-or-death policy decisions with tenuous emotional reasoning, you're free to do so, but should be explicit about it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RyanKemper10 @ScottAdamsSays and
I don't believe in evidence-less interventions. I'd hope that you don't too. It's not just the question "what if all this effort is for nothing"? It's much deeper: "What if this seemingly harmless intervention actually worsens things"? The hippocratic oath exists for a reason
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
In the real world, your doctor is making nearly every decision without the benefit of a SPECIFIC study. No one has ever studied your specific situation. This is no different. Doctors use judgement, and often that means creating harm no one intended.
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.