Coronavirus (Covid-19) informational thread

[Mainsail]

This is such crap. It appears that there is also a genetic component of degree of illness. But that aside, 'long Covid' is a thing, and even if you 'survive', you don't.

True, the chances of dying from Covid have been low, but that is no comfort for the people and families that have lost loved ones to the virus. To quibble over the number of deaths versus infected people is so ghoulish and ridiculous. People are dying here. There are ways to protect yourself, and mitigate the virus, and many, too many are not doing it. And proudly not doing it. Who pays for their long term Covid symptoms. Symptoms that will keep them from working and contributing to society, which ignores their basic treatment to begin with. The cost of treating the proudly ignorant is MASSIVE. That money is coming from somewhere.

Covid KILLS. Ignoring that, no matter how small the odds is insane. Especially when there are easy ways to help control the chances of becoming infected. I mean, I'm sure that people walking across a highway are not likely to die also, but would it be sane to do it?

Protect yourself! Take precautions! Get fully vaccinated! Stop wanting to be a statistic.

No one doubts that COVID kills. No one doubts that it is a tragic for the families. But, these alone are not a sufficient basis for establishing public health policy. Why? Because there are lots and lots of things that kill, and it is always tragic for the surviving families.

We need to understand the magnitude of the illness (severity and death). We need to understand who is at most risk and who is at relatively low risk. Then, we can develop sensible policy. Also, it is an ever changing situation. The magnitude and seriousness of illness may be different with Omnicron compared to Delta.

When you say; "Covid KILLS. Ignoring that, no matter how small the odds is insane." I say that nobody on this thread is advocating for ignoring it. To the contrary, people are asking for better data so the risk can be better understood. Honestly, I don't understand the "no matter how small the odds" mentality. Risk is defined by probability multiplied by consequence. To assess the risk to society we need to understand both components. You can not establish effective public health policy without an accurate assessment of risk. Risk that might vary based on age, comorbidity, and demographics. This notion of "no matter how small the odds" is not a basis for rational policy making.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

It just shows that healthy people are not at serious risk of death. Let's not get too worked up. It's totally the right thing for authorities to review the data in a scientific -- non emotional -- way. That is called science and facts are facts.

Also, please provide a citation for your claim about "it appears that there is also a genetic component of degree of illness." I have not heard about that claim. What genetic profile makes you more at risk of death?

Healthy people aren't at risk of death, until they become infected. DUH! So many have said that either 'not enough people are dying', or 'healthy people aren't getting sick', but both statements are wrong. Dead wrong. You are not at risk of dying, until you are infected, symptomatic infection or not. The fact that many walk among us, INFECTED, but not symptomatic (yet) makes all of that completely meaningless. ESPECIALLY now that Covid is much more highly contagious. More contagious, plus asymptomatic people walking around, PLUS tests that are known for false negative (and positive) results is like Russian roulette. Again, take precautions. Masking, social distancing, fully vaccinating.

Regarding the genetic component, that was announced as showing up in recent research. Apparently you didn't hear of it, but it is out there. It was shocking for researchers to find, obviously, which makes some people far more susceptible, obviously, to the viruses currently in circulation.

One more serious note: People that refuse to fully protect themselves are likely just serving as breading stock for the next virus mutations. I think that we will see a cross breed hybrid of Delta and Omicron, and it will be like a buzz saw to the proudly unprotected. Until humanity gets fully vaccinated and can stop the mutations, we will continue to suffer from them, and they will very likely get worse, more lethal. It's playing with fire, or a loaded revolver. Unprotected people are making the history of our future, and that future doesn't look so good.

 

[Mainsail]

Healthy people aren't at risk of death, until they become infected. DUH! So many have said that either 'not enough people are dying', or 'healthy people aren't getting sick', but both statements are wrong. Dead wrong. You are not at risk of dying, until you are infected, symptomatic infection or not. The fact that many walk among us, INFECTED, but not symptomatic (yet) makes all of that completely meaningless. ESPECIALLY now that Covid is much more highly contagious. More contagious, plus asymptomatic people walking around, PLUS tests that are known for false negative (and positive) results is like Russian roulette. Again, take precautions. Masking, social distancing, fully vaccinating.

Regarding the genetic component, that was announced as showing up in recent research. Apparently you didn't hear of it, but it is out there. It was shocking for researchers to find, obviously, which makes some people far more susceptible, obviously, to the viruses currently in circulation.

One more serious note: People that refuse to fully protect themselves are likely just serving as breading stock for the next virus mutations. I think that we will see a cross breed hybrid of Delta and Omicron, and it will be like a buzz saw to the proudly unprotected. Until humanity gets fully vaccinated and can stop the mutations, we will continue to suffer from them, and they will very likely get worse, more lethal. It's playing with fire, or a loaded revolver. Unprotected people are making the history of our future, and that future doesn't look so good.

Unfortunately with Omicron, the main benefit of vaccination is not stopping the infection and spread. Essentially everyone that I know that has recently been infected were vaccinated and if eligible boosted. However, they pretty much all had mild symptoms, which is the huge benefit vaccination offers. The one exception was my brilliant but nicotine addicted vaccinated friend that insistent on smoking (vapping) during his convalescence. It took him 10 days to get over it.

I understand the idealistic impulse, but humanity getting fully vaccinated is essentially impossible. There are almost 8 billion people on the planet. Not going to happen. We need public health solutions that are not dependent on a strategy that is highly unlikely to be achieved.

 

[Hunter5117]

People that refuse to fully protect themselves are likely just serving as breading stock for the next virus mutations. I think that we will see a cross breed hybrid of Delta and Omicron, and it will be like a buzz saw to the proudly unprotected. Until humanity gets fully vaccinated and can stop the mutations, we will continue to suffer from them, and they will very likely get worse, more lethal.

Can you offer some scientific reasoning for this as it flies in the face of how evolution actually works. It would be a literal "black swan" event for a more deadly form of the virus to appear naturally in the population. And with Omicron showing fairly equal capability to infect both vaccinated and unvaccinated alike, this argument really has no basis. Yes, unvaccinated are likely contributing to higher numbers in hospital but not much else at this point in the infection.

 

[eatrains]

Dr. Campbell is now reporting, with citation to new freedom of information disclosures, that in England and Wales there have only been about 17,000 deaths where the only attributable cause of death has been from Covid-19. So, if you are an otherwise healthy person with no comorbidities, it does not appear that Covid 19 represents a high likelihood of causing death.

This is a profound report if verified by other localities.

Do you know how many people have comorbidities? How many people have asthma, were smokers, are overweight, are pregnant? They're not some small, invisible population to just be written off.

This report isn't profound, all it says is that healthier people are healthier.

 

[Madhatter32]

Healthy people aren't at risk of death, until they become infected. DUH! So many have said that either 'not enough people are dying', or 'healthy people aren't getting sick', but both statements are wrong. Dead wrong. You are not at risk of dying, until you are infected, symptomatic infection or not. The fact that many walk among us, INFECTED, but not symptomatic (yet) makes all of that completely meaningless. ESPECIALLY now that Covid is much more highly contagious. More contagious, plus asymptomatic people walking around, PLUS tests that are known for false negative (and positive) results is like Russian roulette. Again, take precautions. Masking, social distancing, fully vaccinating.

Regarding the genetic component, that was announced as showing up in recent research. Apparently you didn't hear of it, but it is out there. It was shocking for researchers to find, obviously, which makes some people far more susceptible, obviously, to the viruses currently in circulation.

One more serious note: People that refuse to fully protect themselves are likely just serving as breading stock for the next virus mutations. I think that we will see a cross breed hybrid of Delta and Omicron, and it will be like a buzz saw to the proudly unprotected. Until humanity gets fully vaccinated and can stop the mutations, we will continue to suffer from them, and they will very likely get worse, more lethal. It's playing with fire, or a loaded revolver. Unprotected people are making the history of our future, and that future doesn't look so good.

Exactly nothing in your post is responsive to the video I posted or anything I said in my post. The video was about the death rates in England and Wales with Covid 19 being the only official attributable cause of death. The implication is that people without comorbilities are not at serious risk of death. That is all I posted about. I did not say people should not get vaccinated or take precautions. Jeez. My suggestion is to actually watch the video before commenting about it. Otherwise, your points really do not seem to be properly addressed to my post at all.

Regarding your claim about a genetic component, again, without any citations there is nothing to talk about and, frankly, I am surprised you are allowed to make such an unsupported claims here.

 

[Madhatter32]

Do you know how many people have comorbidities? How many people have asthma, were smokers, are overweight, are pregnant? They're not some small, invisible population to just be written off.

This report isn't profound, all it says is that healthier people are healthier.

I know many. These people are at increased risk of a lot different ailments and no one is writting them off. So don't worry. Nevertheless, the report is profound, at least to Dr. Campbell and I, for a whole host of reasons.

 

[eatrains]

I know many. These people are at increased risk of a lot different ailments and no one is writting them off. So don't worry. Nevertheless, the report is profound, at least to Dr. Campbell and I, for a whole host of reasons.

Profound in what way? Because it sounds like the usual attempts to pretend covid isn't a big deal because only those people are dying.

 

[Mainsail]

Exactly nothing in your post is responsive to the video I posted or anything I said in my post. The video was about the death rates in England and Wales with Covid 19 being the only official attributable cause of death. The implication is that people without comorbilities are not at serious risk of death. That is all I posted about. I did not say people should not get vaccinated or take precautions. Jeez. My suggestion is to actually watch the video before commenting about it. Otherwise, your points really do not seem to be properly addressed to my post at all.

Regarding your claim about a genetic component, again, without any citations there is nothing to talk about and, frankly, I am surprised you are allowed to make such an unsupported claims here.

As a relates to the claim about genetic component, I would assume that some of the comorbidity have genetic components. For example, heart disease and obesity. So, I guess you could say there is a genetic link there to the comorbidity. Albeit indirect.

 

[Madhatter32]

As a relates to the claim about genetic component, I would assume that some of the comorbidity have genetic components. For example, heart disease and obesity. So, I guess you could say there is a genetic link there to the comorbidity. Albeit indirect.

Ah. I see. That would make perfect sense. Not exactly news though. We have known that people with comorbilities -- some with a genetic component -- are at increased risk of negative outcomes for a very long time. What the previous poster said seemed to suggest that Covid 19 attacks people with a certain genetic make-up irrespective of comorbilities.

 

[poorcody]

Regarding your claim about a genetic component, again, without any citations there is nothing to talk about and, frankly, I am surprised you are allowed to make such an unsupported claims here.

Gene linked to doubling risk of COVID-19 death found by UK scientists

British scientists have identified a version of a gene that may be associated with double the risk of lung failure from COVID-19, a finding that provides new insights into why some people are more susceptible than othersto severe illness and which opens possibilities for targeted medicine.

www.reuters.com

 

[poorcody]

It would be a literal "black swan" event for a more deadly form of the virus to appear naturally in the population.

Delta was more deadly than previous variants.

 

[Mainsail]

Do you know how many people have comorbidities? How many people have asthma, were smokers, are overweight, are pregnant? They're not some small, invisible population to just be written off.

This report isn't profound, all it says is that healthier people are healthier.

You really need to look at the data. Otherwise healthy 20 y.o. pregnant woman are an incredibly small percentage of the deaths. As are otherwise healthy people with asthma. The vast majority of deaths are elderly with multiple comorbidity (like 4 or more). No one is writing these people off. However, this is a group that have always died at a higher rate than the general population. So, it just makes it more difficult to determine cause of death since there are multiple things happening here.

 

[Hunter5117]

Delta was more deadly than previous variants.

My mistake not being specific enough, I was referring to post Omicron. It's all about being able to out-compete the current dominant strain. Delta was an evolutionary step that increased both transmissibility and virulence. Omicron became more competitive by being even more contagious and less virulent, allowing people to spread the disease while being asymptomatic or only mildly sick and staying in public rather sick at home or hospital. You could theorize a variant that say was highly contagious, and asymptomatic for say 2-3 weeks while you spread it, then suddenly killed you. That is what I would refer to as a "black swan" event.

 

[eatrains]

You really need to look at the data. Otherwise healthy 20 y.o. pregnant woman are an incredibly small percentage of the deaths. As are otherwise healthy people with asthma. The vast majority of deaths are elderly with multiple comorbidity (like 4 or more). No one is writing these people off. However, this is a group that have always died at a higher rate than the general population. So, it just makes it more difficult to determine cause of death since there are multiple things happening here.

But there's still something that tipped their scale from living to dead. And if someone dies while they're sick with covid, it's not a stretch to say it was covid that tipped the scale.

 

[JamesMike]

I read this article and it sounds interesting.

A wearable COVID tracker? This clip-on accessory can detect the virus — USA TODAY

Yale researchers have developed a wearable device to detects the COVID-19 virus. It could monitor risk in restaurants, hospitals and other workplaces.

apple.news

 

[Mainsail]

But there's still something that tipped their scale from living to dead. And if someone dies while they're sick with covid, it's not a stretch to say it was covid that tipped the scale.

Well, it depends on the situation of course. And, this is the reason it becomes so complicated to get to the bottom of what tipped the scales. For example, last summer my father-in law had cancer. Lost 40 lbs. He was very weak. His platelets were like down to zero. We were all very frighten he would get COVID. But, the truth is that a bad cold would have killed him. Heck, a bad cut would have caused him to bleed out. Now, if he got a bad cold or a bad cut, would I say that cancer killed him or the cold or the cut killed him? To me, it is clear. Cancer would have been the cause of death. So, I agree it is complicated. I should say that my father-law got treatment for his cancer, and he is doing great. ?

This isn't a ghoulish fascination. It is about understand how the disease is truly impacting public health so we can respond properly. Per Dr Campbell's video that was shared, in the UK, the average age of deaths from COVID alone (no other underlying conditions) was 82 y.o. Which is actually older than the average life expectancy in the UK. So, how do you evaluate what tipped the scales?

 

[eatrains]

Well, it depends on the situation of course. And, this is the reason it becomes so complicated to get to the bottom of what tipped the scales. For example, last summer my father-in law had cancer. Lost 40 lbs. He was very weak. His platelets were like down to zero. We were all very frighten he would get COVID. But, the truth is that a bad cold would have killed him. Heck, a bad cut would have caused him to bleed out. Now, if he got a bad cold or a bad cut, would I say that cancer killed him or the cold or the cut killed him? To me, it is clear. Cancer would have been the cause of death. So, I agree it is complicated. I should say that my father-law got treatment for his cancer, and he is doing great. ?

This isn't a ghoulish fascination. It is about understand how the disease is truly impacting public health so we can respond properly. Per Dr Campbell's video that was shared, in the UK, the average age of deaths from COVID alone (no other underlying conditions) was 82 y.o. Which is actually older than the average life expectancy in the UK. So, how do you evaluate what tipped the scales?

Glad to hear your father-in-law is doing well!

But if you want to talk about the impact on public health, think about other cancer patients who haven't been able to get treatment because hospitals are filled with (mostly unvaccinated) covid patients and simply don't have any room. Surgeries canceled, procedures delayed, ICU beds unavailable, etc. Much of this obsession with "yeah but did they really die from covid?" ends up just being a way to pretend covid isn't actually a problem and excuse a lack of preventative action.

 

[Mainsail]

Glad to hear your father-in-law is doing well!

But if you want to talk about the impact on public health, think about other cancer patients who haven't been able to get treatment because hospitals are filled with (mostly unvaccinated) covid patients and simply don't have any room. Surgeries canceled, procedures delayed, ICU beds unavailable, etc. Much of this obsession with "yeah but did they really die from covid?" ends up just being a way to pretend covid isn't actually a problem and excuse a lack of preventative action.

I disagree. Understanding the data is important. I don't think we should suppress the facts because it might run counter to our personal narrative or because we are fearful that someone might us the facts to create a narrative we don't like. I just can't understand this reasoning that we don't want the unvarnished truth because someone might use it as an excuse to make a bad decision.

There are plenty of good reasons to get vaccinated. We don't need to distort the facts (ie. deaths due to COVID) to make the case. In fact, this is the worst thing public health officials could do because it destroys their credibility.

 

[Hunter5117]

I just checked the CDC hospital tracker and it looks like as of January 15 the hospital rates for all age groups have fallen significantly, by more than half in most cases. This was after 2 weeks of significant climbs since Christmas. Hopefully this means that we have peaked, same as it looks like they have in Britain.

 

[Madhatter32]

I disagree. Understanding the data is important. I don't think we should suppress the facts because it might run counter to our personal narrative or because we are fearful that someone might us the facts to create a narrative we don't like. I just can't understand this reasoning that we don't want the unvarnished truth because someone might use it as an excuse to make a bad decision.

There are plenty of good reasons to get vaccinated. We don't need to distort the facts (ie. deaths due to COVID) to make the case. In fact, this is the worst thing public health officials could do because it destroys their credibility.

I totally agree with you and think it is quite unfortunate -- even dangerous -- that many people seem to subordinate the importance of objective science (and the things we can learn from it) in favor of messaging for the purposes of public policy. Both are important but they are very different things.

 

[eatrains]

I disagree. Understanding the data is important. I don't think we should suppress the facts because it might run counter to our personal narrative or because we are fearful that someone might us the facts to create a narrative we don't like. I just can't understand this reasoning that we don't want the unvarnished truth because someone might use it as an excuse to make a bad decision.

There are plenty of good reasons to get vaccinated. We don't need to distort the facts (ie. deaths due to COVID) to make the case. In fact, this is the worst thing public health officials could do because it destroys their credibility.

I’m not suggesting we suppress facts, I’m suggesting we don’t use facts to suppress reality.

Unheathier people are more at risk for covid. We’ve known this for years. What exactly does this “profound” report change?

I’m saying we shouldn’t let this not-new info be an excuse for people to not take precautions.

 

[Mainsail]

I’m not suggesting we suppress facts, I’m suggesting we don’t use facts to suppress reality.

Unheathier people are more at risk for covid. We’ve known this for years. What exactly does this “profound” report change?

I’m saying we shouldn’t let this not-new info be an excuse for people to not take precautions.

I don't understand how facts are such dangerous things that they could be used to suppress reality. Facts reflect the reality of the situation. These are not two incompatible things. Are you suggesting that armed with the facts people will make bad decisions, so we should turn a blind eye to them or not discuss them? I just don't get this thinking.

Exactly who has suggested that we don't take precautions? Who has suggested that this data means folks should not get vaccinated? My family and I are fully vaccinated/boosted, and I am not suggesting anyone do otherwise. To my knowledge, nobody on this thread has suggested this either.

What is profound is that this data shows that the number of otherwise healthy people that have died from COVID is a very small fraction of the deaths in the UK. (I would not be surprised if it was the same in the US). Furthermore, it shows that the average age of those otherwise healthy people that died was 82 y.o., well over the life expectance in the UK. I assume these facts are not widely in circulation from health officials, since they had to be obtained via freedom of information. It is also not widely discussed in the UK media (i.e BBC per Dr Campbell). It certainly isn't widely discussed in the US media.

BTW - In no way am I suggesting anything nefarious on the part of health officials. Nor did Dr Campbell. They are working their butts off trying to do the right thing. But, now that this data is out there, they should take a good look at it to see how it might impact policy. Perhaps, it will change nothing. Just don't tell me it should not be publicly discussed and considered because someone might use facts to make a bad decision. I just don't buy that.

 

[eatrains]

I don't understand how facts are such dangerous things that they could be used to suppress reality. Facts reflect the reality of the situation. These are not two incompatible things. Are you suggesting that armed with the facts people will make bad decisions, so we should turn a blind eye to them or not discuss them? I just don't get this thinking.

Exactly who has suggested that we don't take precautions? Who has suggested that this data means folks should not get vaccinated? My family and I are fully vaccinated/boosted, and I am not suggesting anyone do otherwise. To my knowledge, nobody on this thread has suggested this either.

What is profound is that this data shows that the number of otherwise healthy people that have died from COVID is a very small fraction of the deaths in the UK. (I would not be surprised if it was the same in the US). Furthermore, it shows that the average age of those otherwise healthy people that died was 82 y.o., well over the life expectance in the UK. I assume these facts are not widely in circulation from health officials, since they had to be obtained via freedom of information. It is also not widely discussed in the UK media (i.e BBC per Dr Campbell). It certainly isn't widely discussed in the US media.

BTW - In no way am I suggesting anything nefarious on the part of health officials. Nor did Dr Campbell. They are working their butts off trying to do the right thing. But, now that this data is out there, they should take a good look at it to see how it might impact policy. Perhaps, it will change nothing. Just don't tell me it should not be publicly discussed and considered because someone might use facts to make a bad decision. I just don't buy that.

I never said facts were dangerous. I cautioned against anyone using facts to justify misrepresenting the reality of covid. You have people like

https://twitter.com/x/status/1480815053519654914

and

https://twitter.com/x/status/1480915130137337864

who think the fact that healthier people are healthier is some sort of gotcha.

What kind of policy impact would you expect? Again, this isn't new information, and it doesn't change anything; the healthcare system is still falling apart.

 

[Mainsail]

I never said facts were dangerous. I cautioned against anyone using facts to justify misrepresenting the reality of covid. You have people like

https://twitter.com/x/status/1480815053519654914

and

https://twitter.com/x/status/1480915130137337864

who think the fact that healthier people are healthier is some sort of gotcha.

What kind of policy impact would you expect? Again, this isn't new information, and it doesn't change anything; the healthcare system is still falling apart.

Well, the current CDC recommendations are to refrain from school sports, band, choir, and yelling on campus. Perhaps they might want to revisit this guidance in light of the data, since kids do not fall into this high risk category. (meanwhile, turning a blind eye to 100K screaming fans in an NFL stadium) Perhaps, they might not have closed down schools last year, which almost everyone (including health experts) now agrees was a huge mistake.

I am not so frightened of twitter posts to dismiss the possibility that we might learn something from this data. As we move from a pandemic to an endemic that we will be living with for years, we are probably going to have to go to a more tiered risk based approach with this disease. Again, I reject the idea that there is nothing to be learned. That our current health care policies are infallible. That merely discussing it or questioning it is an affront and disrespectful to the health care establishment.