> Long Covid is real.
But temporary -- and not all that long compared to the hell we've all had to endure for more than a year now -- except in extremely rare cases. Evidence to the contrary is welcome, after more than a year there should be some.
But temporary -- and not all that long compared to the hell we've all had to endure for more than a year now -- except in extremely rare cases. Evidence to the contrary is welcome, after more than a year there should be some.
You understand the burden of proof is on the person who's making a claim, not on people who disagree with the claim?
I've too suffered being stuck at home for more than a year, but in my book this is still better than me or somebody else getting sick with god-only-knows what long term complications, which we don't have data for one way or another, and won't for some time still.
Interesting idea, but false in this case unless you are arguing that lockdowns are and will be, in perpetuity, the status quo.
> this is still better than me or somebody else getting sick with god-only-knows what long term complications, which we don't have data for one way or another
Are you arguing your presence in society is outweighed by the mere possibility of you having a negative effect on it?
I am not arguing either way, what I am saying is shouting "here's what I think, prove me wrong" is not how it works. "Here's what I think, and here is the evidence" is how it works.
Lack of data can't support any claim. If we don't have good data on whether lockdowns are effective, it doesn't mean they aren't. It means we don't know. In which case we do a risk analysis, taking our uncertainty and potential benefits/drawbacks into account.
> Are you arguing your presence in society is outweighed by the mere possibility of you having a negative effect on it?
I don't consider myself absent from society. I am talking to you now, am I not? And yes, I consider my temporary suffering to be outweighed by potentially permanent suffering of myself or someone else.
> which we don't have data for one way or another, and won't for some time still.
Exactly. There is no evidence for "long Covid" as a frequent phenomenon. The pandemic has been going on for 15 months. Yet those who believe in long Covid still only provide evidence that people aren't always fully recovered after timespans like 3 months.
If Covid frequently caused permanent damage, there would be a lot of people who were infected, say, a year ago, who haven't recovered and show no sign of doing so (their condition has plateaued). There would be studies showing that, there isn't exactly a shortage of scientists researching the topic. And, obviously, people would provide that evidence as it would support their point better. Yet they don't.
Speak for yourself!
My life was largely unchanged by covid beyond wearing a facial covering in public which I actually prefer. What a joy to not only walk into banks dressed like a bandit without getting arrested, but to be asked to do it and thanked for cooperating!
This certainly hasn't been any sort of hell for me, but catching covid let alone "long covid" seems likely to be quite awful and potentially life-changing for anyone.
Living in US, NJ FWIW
So what you are saying is, despite "the experts" saying exactly the opposite... by slowing the spread of covid we'd somehow be out of this sooner?
Do you guys realize how insane this logic sounds? The goal of these lockdowns was to intentionally slow down the spread. Not stop or eradicate covid. Harder lockdowns mean this goes on much longer.
How can people genuinely think otherwise? It's like basic math.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-tragedy-of-the-post-...
Search for the term "covid long haulers" to get more information.
> Search for the term "covid long haulers" to get more information.
No. https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/09/27/dont-tell-people-to...
There is a minimum number of deaths that we should accept as a society just like we accept other causes of death.