[the_gastropod]

> We know a lot about COVID now - who's most vulnerable, how likely people are to die

I find this sentiment as funny as I do frustrating. This thing has been around ~8 months. We know some about this virus. We are still completely ignorant about the long-term effects. And we're continuously finding troubling signs about it. It's looking like even mild cases can result in long-term brain, heart, and lung damage [1].

The US has handled this absolutely horribly. Our "lock down" was so mild, even in NYC, so as to be the tiniest of inconveniences, hardly the prison sentence you imply. And yet, our "freedom"-loving compatriots bitch and complain nonstop about it, and ultimately just extend the time we have to live this way. If we'd taken it seriously earlier like virtually every other modern civilization, we'd be living in much more normal circumstances today.

[1] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/brain-fog-heart-dama...

[clairity]

> "We are still completely ignorant about the long-term effects."

news media likes to harp on this now that the initial novelty has worn off, with stories about extreme cases of serious complications to keep the fear train going and the ad bucks rolling in.

but bodies are complex. every ailment has a long tail of odd residuals. in fact, just living has a long tail of odd residuals. there's little evidence so far that this ailment has any special long-term effect.

[the_gastropod]

We all know news outlets profit from fear, outrage, and general negative emotions. We get it. But that doesn't mean you get to just chalk up any bad news as "Well, that's just the media for you!".

If you didn't find the article I posted above compelling, I'd love to hear why. Here's another [1] BBC article suggesting approximately 50% of covid cases result in brain damage. Why should we not take this seriously?

[1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200622-the-long-term-ef...

[vorpalhex]

> If we'd taken it seriously earlier like virtually every other modern civilization, we'd be living in much more normal circumstances today.

That's a line I hear repeated but it doesn't seem to align to reality. Even places that have taken this deadly seriously have seen reoccurent outbreaks including Hong Kong[^1] and Tokyo[^2]. Likewise some areas that had very loose restrictions initially.. never had it that bad.

The reality is that the lockdowns and shelter in place orders did very little, and factors such as airports and borders are much stronger indicators of whether we'll see more virus spread. Masks, including homemade masks, do seem to be very effective and pushing people to use them seems to make meaningful differences - but it's not by itself sufficient (at least not homemade masks).

> And yet, our "freedom"-loving compatriots bitch and complain nonstop about it,

Part of freedom means the freedom to disagree. Sure, you can disagree with them as well and they may be entirely wrong - and that's still OK. That isn't a failure of freedom, it's a success story and I'd much rather have some idiots shouting loudly than black bag them by secret police or have "Winnie the Pooh" start getting censored in private messages.

[^1]: They're past the worst of their resurgence from the current looks, but https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/hong-kong-sees-fewest-... has a nice graph showing their second spike

[^2]: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/08/04/national/japan-...

[the_gastropod]

> Even places that have taken this deadly seriously have seen reoccurent outbreaks including Hong Kong[^1] and Tokyo[^2]

Japan has had ~1,000 covid deaths. And Hong Kong has had something like 25 deaths. The US is about to hit 170,000.

> Part of freedom means the freedom to disagree. Sure, you can disagree with them as well and they may be entirely wrong - and that's still OK. That isn't a failure of freedom, it's a success story and I'd much rather have some idiots shouting loudly than black bag them by secret police or have "Winnie the Pooh" start getting censored in private messages.

There's a middle between these poles you've created. This is the ol' libertarian dilemma: when one person's freedom encroaches on another. People's "freedom" to not wear a mask encroaches on my freedom to not get sick. Freedom requires some modicum of social responsibility. Without it, freedom can't exist.

[xapata]

Yeah, lockdowns could probably have been avoided in most of the world if decent surgical masks had been shipped to each citizen, and they complied with wearing them.

[clairity]

the principle mitigation is distancing. lockdowns are wholly unnecessary if distancing adequately, because they add no marginal benefit on top of distancing (ignoring the obvious political dimension of benefits).

also, use a mask when distancing (indoors with strangers) isn't possible, but understand that masks are inferior to distancing for a host of reasons, including the non-transivity of controlled tests to the wider world and its astonishing variety. masks also add little marginal benefit on top of distancing for most folks, particularly if not meticulously adhering to a long list of proper usage rules.

distance, it does a body good (in these covid times).

[xapata]

Because of the potential aerosol transmission, I'd say we should wear masks when indoors regardless of whether anyone is nearby in the moment. People may occupy the same area later.