> hasn't given us any indication of similar activity. but we know so very little that we can't take the risk

There's little reason to believe it's significantly different to any other Coronavirus. Speculating that's it's suddenly going to be aids++ is pointless scaremongering.

The main* reason it was a "big deal" was the lack of common immunity thus leading to potentially rapid spread. Deaths in the vulnerable from the side effects of this kind of thing are perfectly normal and perfectly well understood and there is very little treatment

I don't think necessarily aids++, but speculating about long term effects is not pointless, or unreasonable.

https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2010/09/02/sars...

As with any viral pneumonia

Any novel viral pneumonia.

A garden snake and a cobra are both snakes. Belonging to the same category says nothing about the potency of their bite. We have no idea what kind of snake this is yet.

We have a pretty good idea

> COVID hasn't given us any indication of similar activity. but we know so very little that we can't take the risk

We take that risk with other viruses and bacteria literally all the time. If hypothetical but unlikely risks become thejustification for destroying people's livelihoods and the world ecomony, we're all dead anyway.

as a former immunologist, i can assure you that with common viruses and bacteria, we have years and years of knowledge about how they perform, thereby making the risks of exposure calculable.

it is this body of knowledge which allows our society to normally function even during a typical flu season. we understand the upper and lower boundaries of the consequences, and we can make an informed judgment about what we should do to navigate the environment accordingly.

the idea of throwing open the gates to allow everyone to get infected is a dangerous fantasy. at best, it's taking a leap of faith with other people's health without knowing whether there is a long way down or not.

I didn't realize this thread was about throwing open the gates. That said, I think there is an argument for more directed isolation measures for at risk groups. Fearing that there may be other unknowns doesn't seem to allow for any progress.

"isolation measures for at risk groups" sound so easy. First, isolate the obese. Hmm, 30% in America so 98M. Next isolate diabetics. Roughly 35M. After this, isolate those with heart disease and hypertension. 30% in the US, 98M. Old people? 32M. Naturally there's some overlapping in these groups. We'll be generous and say that 98M is the lower bound.

How on earth are you going to isolate 30% of the population?

This is making a lot of assumptions on what the at risk crowd is.

Now, I confess I am also making assumptions there. Data would be nice.

My assumptions are we could have saved a sizeable portion by tighter lockdowns on nursing homes. I also suspect we could have done things pre-infection to strengthen lungs of people with pre-existing lung conditions.

More pointedly, I think all of the havoc we have caused by closing schools is likely not amounting to a lot of saved lives. As a risk group, children are basically not at risk of severe cases.

Now, I hasten to add that no policy should be set by some random internet poster. I am hoping we are collecting data and running simulations to give us better data for the future.

If you have compromised lung functionality, there's not much you can do to strengthen it against COVID.

Children aren't at risk, and that's not why schools were closed.

Your posts don't seem to be made in good faith. Either that or you are demonstrating a lack of information on par with Trump.

Depends what the compromise is. And a lot of my view depends on if I had it. I can't get tested, as that isn't offered here. I definitely had something that made walking pneumonia seem like a cake walk. And whatever I had, it was barely a fever on my kids and wife. That said, I am glad I had my inhaler and access to steroids. Without those, I'm confident I would be much worse off today. (Indeed, my emergency inhaler was empty. Had to call in an emergency refill and was basically bed confined waiting on that.)

Closing schools was pitched at the time with a wide net, granted. Such that I could just be misremembering some of it. As a way of protecting the older workers in there, though, it feels weak. As more evidence comes out that it was wide spread by the time the schools closed, it also feels too late for that aim. (Again, this largely depends on if me and my family had it. If so, it had passed through all of us before closures happened.)

Not sure why you think I am bad faith posting. I am posting mainly from my phone, so I suspect some of my parts are bad quality. But if you think I am twisting your point in bad faith, I do not intend that.

> we cannot gamble with our future so carelessly on the basis of preliminary data. here is a vignette to explain why.

Yes we can, and will. We’re gambling with every choice we make about how to respond to this, and anyone claiming that their plan is 100% “based on science” is full of shit. For example, every country enforcing a lockdown is gambling that it won’t lead to civil war.