[floren]

> I've heard Covid referred to in some quarters as "aerosolised HIV", which should be at least taken seriously, even if it is (possibly) overly alarmist.

I've heard it too and it's definitely one of the more deranged takes I've run into.

[MrVandemar]

To be clear, I do find it alarmist, but I take it seriously in the sense that it's definitely clear that Sars-cov-2 isn't "just a cold", and it's perhaps promotes a more healthy and cautious attitude to the virus in the face of the dangerous community apathy and dismissal, even in medical spaces.

[aakresearch]

In other words, "there would be no smoke without fire". I believe, personally, that this truism is a major cause of injustice and grief in the world, historically and at present time. It is absolutely fair and warranted to be skeptical in every possible way every time it is pronounced.

[MrVandemar]

No, that's not an accurate paraphrasing.

I want to be crystal clear about this:

* Sars-cov-2 is a new virus to us and research into is ongoing.

* It demonstratably has short and long term health effects, and some of those lead to death or disability (see TFA). Repeat infections cause further damage.

* It is an easy virus to catch.

With those factors I believe in erring on the side of caution, and am alarmed at the way the a serious public health problem has become politicised and polarised.