Ive been trying hard for this in multiple threads. No luck. It really is the most important question.

The post you flagged was also removed. I'm assuming they're trying to keep that kind of discussion on another board.

The post I flagged was a personal attack that had nothing to do with the discussion. My post was simply discussing the issue of the thread.

Meh

pants said:

---

I'm not hoping for long-term effects. I just want to know their prevalence because that stat will affect how I behave in the coming 6-18 months. Just self interest should make you curious about that.

---

We may not know of long term effects until much later than 6-18 months.

HIPPA realy keeps that kind of patient info under tight wraps, i Agree with OP it would be informative to know how many people who end up hospitalized make full or near full recoveries.

Sq 17 said:

---

HIPPA realy keeps that kind of patient info under tight wraps, i Agree with OP it would be informative to know how many people who end up hospitalized make full or near full recoveries.

---

HIPAA protects an individual patient from being identified. It doesn't prevent statistical analysis of aggregated outcomes data.

Quite simply it's too soon to know the answer to the OP's question. We have only been dealing with this for a few months. People with current post Covid issues may improve over the next few months to a year and be fine.

I think 5 months in there is a lot of data and knowledge. But its not getting to the public.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

cbr said:

---

Ive been trying hard for this in multiple threads. No luck. It really is the most important question.

---

I agree...people dont seem to care about the body count. They dont seem to care about how horrible of a death it is. Maybe they might care if they find out that "sure, as a 40yo, you probably wont die but there is a x% chance that you are disabled for the rest of your life.

---

Except that a lot of "long term organ damage" is repairable damage and really rests in the person's ability to rehabilitate the "injured" organ in a lot of situations (not specifically Covid but look at smoking). Smokers lungs can look flat out horrible yet 10 years of being smoke free and the lungs can really amazingly. Add focused things like exercise to increase O2 max and that can be sped up.
At this point we really don't have the data yet for what type of long term damage could happen. Some things like those who have died from lung cancer who were working on Ground Zero after 9/11 could take years to see. My opinion is that overall, people who are in better physical shape will have much less long term damage to none. Those who aren't will be worse off. If they decide to get into shape and improve their health, they may mitigate those effects over time as well. Most of the studies on these things assume couch potatoes will stay couch potatoes.
But don't assume nobody cares about the body count, how it kills or if one is permanently damaged afterward in some way. As has been said, from a medical perspective the issue has been saving the lives of those who have complications now plus it may take 5-10 years to see what long term effects Covid can cause and what other health issues also contributed to those effects as well.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

cbr said:

---

Ive been trying hard for this in multiple threads. No luck. It really is the most important question.

---

I agree...people dont seem to care about the body count. They dont seem to care about how horrible of a death it is. Maybe they might care if they find out that "sure, as a 40yo, you probably wont die but there is a x% chance that you are disabled for the rest of your life.

---

Also, define "care". Because I have yet to run into a person that hasn't cared about the impact this has left on others, whether it's death, disability or even just getting sick. Are you trying to say that if we could see hard figures on possible permanent disabilities many would change their opinions as to how society should be approaching this virus (whether to open, meet socially, distance or not, etc) ? Or do you mean you feel that people are not being made aware of the possibility of long term or permanent disability after one survives the disease?

Another interesting point is certain other viruses like the flu can also have permanent disability associated with them. A woman my sister-in-law knows lost her legs due to complications associated with her having the flu.

ancientag67 said:

---

Old Buffalo said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

If you wont wear a mask to slow the spread so that fewer have to die before a vaccine or treatment is found, you dont care about the people hurt or killed by this. It is honestly that simple.

---

No it's not. Stop shunning people who don't share your belief.

Of course this post will also probably be deleted like my last 3 comments on this thread but the opinions of Duncan are acceptable.

---

So exactly how is it not that simple? Not trying to stir the pot. Genuinely wanting an explanation. Sure there are circumstances where it might not make sense ( like at a gym. Geez, seriously, that had to brought up). But if minimal sacrifice saves one life and gets back to some resemblance of normalcy in this country, why the resistance?

---

Of course I'd bring it up, it's where I work!

But seriously, it may be a point of contention when opening gyms. Especially the big box ones where large numbers of members will be in one space. TX doesn't require masks so it probably won't be an issue here, but I could see it as an issue in other states. And I still don't see how they can be required at restaurants as how does one and and drink? Once a person removes the mask, it sort of defeats the purpose.

ancientag67 said:

---

Old Buffalo said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

If you wont wear a mask to slow the spread so that fewer have to die before a vaccine or treatment is found, you dont care about the people hurt or killed by this. It is honestly that simple.

---

No it's not. Stop shunning people who don't share your belief.

Of course this post will also probably be deleted like my last 3 comments on this thread but the opinions of Duncan are acceptable.

---

So exactly how is it not that simple? Not trying to stir the pot. Genuinely wanting an explanation. Sure there are circumstances where it might not make sense ( like at a gym. Geez, seriously, that had to brought up). But if minimal sacrifice saves one life and gets back to some resemblance of normalcy in this country, why the resistance?

---

If you don't drive at the speed limit at all times, obey all traffic rules and recommendations scrupulously, and avoid any distractions while driving, you don't care about people who might be killed in a car accident. True statement, and truly that simple, or maybe not quite so simple after all? Is this where we will find that this thread, against all odds, has mostly readers who meticulously comply with every driving rule and recommendation?

DTP02 said:

---

ancientag67 said:

---

Old Buffalo said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

If you wont wear a mask to slow the spread so that fewer have to die before a vaccine or treatment is found, you dont care about the people hurt or killed by this. It is honestly that simple.

---

No it's not. Stop shunning people who don't share your belief.

Of course this post will also probably be deleted like my last 3 comments on this thread but the opinions of Duncan are acceptable.

---

So exactly how is it not that simple? Not trying to stir the pot. Genuinely wanting an explanation. Sure there are circumstances where it might not make sense ( like at a gym. Geez, seriously, that had to brought up). But if minimal sacrifice saves one life and gets back to some resemblance of normalcy in this country, why the resistance?

---

If you don't drive at the speed limit at all times, obey all traffic rules and recommendations scrupulously, and avoid any distractions while driving, you don't care about people who might be killed in a car accident. True statement, and truly that simple, or maybe not quite so simple after all? Is this where we will find that this thread, against all odds, has mostly readers who meticulously comply with every driving rule and recommendation?

---

Again, the driving analogies just never fit very well because we're not talking about a one-off event that could only impact one or two people.

Also, it's a bit different in the sense that the potential negative outcome of the events wouldn't actually be known by the person who caused them. If you're asymptomatic and you spread the disease to 10 other people at a grocery store, you'll never really have that guilt on your conscience cause you'll never really know.

But if you remove those two parts of the equation, then yeah I'd say purposely not wearing a mask when going into a heavily trafficked store is on-par with texting while driving. It shows a general thought process of "this is dangerous for other people to do, but not me" as well as simply not caring about other people.

It honestly comes off to me as a really insecure flex by some people, like doing something incredibly simple to insure the safety of others isn't macho enough and might make people question their toughness.

I don't want to devolve OP's original purpose into a should or shouldn't people wear masks, although he himself diverted this thread.

People should wear a mask if they feel comfortable, and people should not wear a mask if they chose so. The assumption here is those who don't wear a mask show reckless regard for life, when in all reality those people could be practicing social distancing and self-quarantining as regulated. Where is an individual supposed to prioritize this disease? This is the shtick that started this whole thread and has turned it into a divisive issue much like the "if you go outside you are killing others" that the stay at home turned into.

We accept risks everyday in our lives. It is not the responsibly of one person to make another feel safe. There are means for those who are higher risk to avoid being exposed, but to shame someone who is asymptomatic who passes it to another person, who passes it to Meemaw is a blame game that's being played.

Proposition Joe said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

ancientag67 said:

---

Old Buffalo said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

If you wont wear a mask to slow the spread so that fewer have to die before a vaccine or treatment is found, you dont care about the people hurt or killed by this. It is honestly that simple.

---

No it's not. Stop shunning people who don't share your belief.

Of course this post will also probably be deleted like my last 3 comments on this thread but the opinions of Duncan are acceptable.

---

So exactly how is it not that simple? Not trying to stir the pot. Genuinely wanting an explanation. Sure there are circumstances where it might not make sense ( like at a gym. Geez, seriously, that had to brought up). But if minimal sacrifice saves one life and gets back to some resemblance of normalcy in this country, why the resistance?

---

If you don't drive at the speed limit at all times, obey all traffic rules and recommendations scrupulously, and avoid any distractions while driving, you don't care about people who might be killed in a car accident. True statement, and truly that simple, or maybe not quite so simple after all? Is this where we will find that this thread, against all odds, has mostly readers who meticulously comply with every driving rule and recommendation?

---

Again, the driving analogies just never fit very well because we're not talking about a one-off event that could only impact one or two people.

Also, it's a bit different in the sense that the potential negative outcome of the events wouldn't actually be known by the person who caused them. If you're asymptomatic and you spread the disease to 10 other people at a grocery store, you'll never really have that guilt on your conscience cause you'll never really know.

But if you remove those two parts of the equation, then yeah I'd say purposely not wearing a mask when going into a heavily trafficked store is on-par with texting while driving. It shows a general thought process of "this is dangerous for other people to do, but not me" as well as simply not caring about other people.

It honestly comes off to me as a really insecure flex by some people, like doing something incredibly simple to insure the safety of others isn't macho enough and might make people question their toughness.

---

Let me offer an alternative perspective:

you don't like the driving analogies because it challenges your conception of COVID19. You've been driving for x years and you've become fairly numb to the associated risks. You're peripherally aware that driving a car is likely the most dangerous activity you engage in on a regular basis, but it doesn't seem dangerous because you do it all the time without serious incident.

COVID19 is something new and is much scarier. It's a constant focus of our attention and concerns. Sure, you may know intellectually that there's almost no chance you're infected and that if you are, wearing a mask may not actually do anything, but this thing is scary.

On the other hand, you've been driving for a long time. And while you picked the low-hanging fruit of not texting while driving as being unacceptably selfish, what about not snacking or drinking coffee while driving? What about not changing the radio while driving? Hands-free phone calls? What about not realizing you are somewhat close to missing your exit and making a quicker lane change than is ideal instead of allowing yourself to miss the exit and costing yourself time? You skipped right past speeding, which was the first example given. Isn't the science pretty settled that lower speed saves lives, certainly more settled than the efficacy of homemade masks on a novel virus? You never exceed the speed limit, do you? Unlike the vast majority of the population, we're all people who stay within the posted speed limits on here, right?

The driving analogy actually holds up pretty well, it's just that we don't really like what it says about us. It says that we make decisions all the time to act in a less than safe manner, thereby putting those around us at greater risk. It's just that we have come to accept those decisions because we are used to them.