> A German study found that even asymptomatic COVID patients have inflammation and damage to heart tissue that’s more than what you’d expect to see. We don’t know whether this will heal or affect the heart long term.

Are you referring to this study[0] and possibly this article[1]?

(In my experience, telling people to “do research” instead of giving them links to primary sources isn’t great if you want to educate people or have a high quality discussion.)

[0] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/...

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/08/long-haul...

I wish we started a campaign of "you don't have to die for it to suck". I don't know why we're stuck in the dichotomy of death or survival. Permanent damage isn't great either.

There was an article about a quite healthy looking PCA in his 30s who was intubated and essentially wasted away to a startling degree during his COVID convalescence that really drove that home for me.

same reason it's hard to steer an ocean liner. death rates dominated the way people thought and talked about this for months. now it's clearer death rates are obviously not so bad, but permanent damage and months-long recoveries and unclear immunity profile are massive unknowns, but the inertia of the previous narrative still overwhelms the minority trying to course correct. "we're all going to die" "no we're going to be fine" is much easier to latch onto than "it's more complicated than that and we don't really know." especially since most people got sick of lockdown and many are in grave economic danger because of it. people are doing a mental calculus of "well I'll probably be fine so I think we should open back up" and change their arguments to suit the conclusion they've decided on

this is unnecessary fear mongering without any actual statistics/studies linked. i've seen those studies linked, and they're definitely concerning, but using words like "many" without any backing is just harmful and just creates more paranoia/panic.

highly recommend /r/COVID19 (stay away from /r/coronavirus) for well moderated discussions that aren't politicized/sensationalist and are based on research/science/numbers.

Yes because we don’t know yet. Doesn’t mean it’s fearmongering. SARS patients had side effects for 5-10 years.

SARS has had 15+ years to be studied at this point. COVID has been around for half a year. Nobody knows anything so talking about it one way or another is dangerous. Too optimistic and you have people thinking its no big deal, and if youre too end of the world about it, then you've got everybody cowering in fear and anxiety about something that has an extremely low chance of happening to them.

Many people doubtless aren't even aware of the possibility of outcomes other than death or recovery, and not discussing the possibility of other outcomes tacitly supports their continued misunderstanding. You seem to be saying "we don't know for sure, so we should stay neutral and not talk imply an outcome either way," but saying nothing is not neutral.

I see your point, and you're not wrong. I guess my main gripe with OP was the way they wrote it. It just screams language used to incite fear amongst uncertainty.

SARS literally punched holes in the lungs of strongly affected patients according to the WHO. That's permanent, not 5-10 years.

We really need to define "many people". I try to avoid comments and papers like you referenced. They essentially represent the worst case scenario -- it's in the air, unkillable, easy to catch, victims never recover, you may have no symptoms but permanent damage, it makes sane people go crazy etc etc.

How about -- what's the max viral load one can sustain for it not to pass the 1st layer immune system? Is there really a 1st and 2nd layer? Can I resist it without getting antibodies? How much more effective is a KN95 / N95 mask in terms of viral load vs the others?

And why don't we have more high powered venting fans and permanent outside events and require building to open their windows or remove their walls in climates where that'd work?

I don’t have a clear number for many. But the hospitalization rate is 1-2 %. And if we assume that half of them have long term symptoms thats around 1 %.

You can do one thing to reduce your viral load. Wear a mask. N95 will do better than a surgical mask. But even mask wearing seems controversial. These things are really hard to study so you need to err on the side of caution.

Keep in mind that the current being on the safe side cautions have devastating effects on the vulnerable populations outside of the comfort of US and EU homes. "6,000 children could die every day as a direct consequence of the pandemic, that’s one child every 15 seconds, if we don’t act now." https://www.unicef.ie/stories/impact-covid-19-children/

Not locking down in the US will not save the lives of children in Yemen

This isn't true. The US threw away vast amount of food because of supply chain disruption, and a lot of raw production was interrupted. The US is a massive food exporter.

If the price of soybean, or wheat, or pork goes up 15% internationally as a result of US supply disruptions, that doesn't starve any Americans, but it absolutely causes deaths in Yemen, which is already in the middle of a famine.

You’ll be happy to know that soybean and swine prices are at 10 year lows and wheat is up slightly but lower than a year ago. [1,2,3]

I think your concern is real and well placed. When the economy is frozen for a pandemic, you have a demand shock and a supply shock, what happens to prices? I think this was genuinely unclear early in the pandemic. Interesting additional details here [4,5]

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSOYBUSDQ

[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PPORKUSDM

[3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PWHEAMTUSDQ

[4] https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/articles/2020-05-27/pa...

[5] https://mobile.twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/12416894220909...