Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I disagree, see my sister comment.

Even without data on lingering deficiencies, we can speculate with confidence that it carries a cost.



Speculation is fine. But we need data to back it. Right now, we don't. Could hypothesize that many being found with damage surviving, had damage going in. Would neatly explain why it hit them so hard.


I'm not speculating about the long term effects of covid19. I'm saying all sickness carries a cost as currently understood according to our theories of cellular senescence. You've missed my point entirely.


And you are missing mine. Agreed there could be long term things. Yes, we should study that and watch for it.

If that is the extent of your point, then my response is "yes, and?"

Your framing, though, begs the question that mild cases have long term damage. We have zero evidence of that. Literally none.


You're still missing my point.

I'm saying all sickness comes with a long term cost. It gives you a shove toward the grave. Covid19 falls into that category, regardless of how much or little we know about it.

Now you could argue that sickness and aging don't work that way. I don't think you'd be right, but you can make that argument.

Your argument about the long term effects of covid19 is not relevant to the point I made.


Your point feels vacuous, then. Yes, getting sick can have long term impact. Do you have evidence that that is relevant to our current scenario? More so than it would be for any other sickness that is running rampant?


But you shouldnt do that. Just like when we believe the death rate was 3% it seems we can't be confident in anything we've been told.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: