[loblollyboy]

Sounds like you’ve gone to the argument of “this can affect fit and healthy people in other ways that we may not even know.”

It is clear that the death toll is overwhelmingly skewed toward the elderly. Many of whom died in the first wave as corona prob got into many nursing homes before we knew better. We are now very careful w nursing homes/ elderly, we might see cases go up but as long as you protect them the deaths/ hospitalizations shouldn’t show similar levels to spring 2020. I don’t think you can deny this, so pro-lockdown people are now mainly using this “it can affect young people” argument to avoid cognitive dissonance - I have yet to see proof. I only have seen an article that says there is lung damage after infection which diminishes over the course of weeks. This is what you would expect with any kind of damage but the article had a ridiculous title like “coronavirus may lead to long lasting damage.” Lastly, I see a lot of ambulances these days - it serves as a reminder to check myself. But we’re all probably pretty analytical here and you can’t justify a strict lockdown from a utilitarian standpoint.

[Jedd]

> Sounds like you’ve gone to the argument of “this can affect fit and healthy people in other ways that we may not even know.”

Not so much an argument of, than an observation regarding, the unpredictable mid to long term impacts of this infection in the demographic that includes most of the 'it's harmless' crowd. Ie, the 20-40yo, relatively healthy individuals.

Most of whom, I hasten to add, are cautious rather than cavalier -- but within which group there are sufficient case studies of severe debilitation lasting very many months, and occasional signs of much longer term damage.

Basically my position is 'we don't know' with a consequence of 'let's assume it's worse than we hope'.

> It is clear that the death toll is overwhelmingly skewed toward the elderly.

Almost definitely. And if you're not in the 'elderly' demographic, or care about people who are, this is probably less worrying for you.

> ... similar levels to spring 2020.

Spring 2020 started two months ago.

I mean, TFA is about Coronavirus in Australia, and Australia is where I am right now, and Spring is what's happening here now.

> I don’t think you can deny this, so pro-lockdown people are now mainly using this “it can affect young people” argument to avoid cognitive dissonance - I have yet to see proof.

Apologies -- but I do not understand the point you are trying to make here.

> I only have seen an article that says there is lung damage after infection which diminishes over the course of weeks. This is what you would expect with any kind of damage but the article had a ridiculous title like “coronavirus may lead to long lasting damage.” Lastly, I see a lot of ambulances these days - it serves as a reminder to check myself. But we’re all probably pretty analytical here and you can’t justify a strict lockdown from a utilitarian standpoint.

You mention 'here' without describing where that actually is. And you mention an article that said something you didn't like, but don't provide a reference to that article. Apparently there are ambulances near you. You then conclude that a lockdown is not justifiable, despite TFA being about how lockdowns have effectively halted the spread of SARS-CoV2 within Australia.

[mikem170]

>Spring 2020 started two months ago

I think that the parent was referencing the improvements made in covid treatments over the past handful of months, which have been significant - not as many people in hospitals are dying

>Apologies -- but I do not understand the point you are trying to make here.

Young people, as a population, are not much impacted by this virus. As of Oct 10 there have been 5.3 deaths per 100,000 people under the age of 35 [0] in the United States. The headlines are often misleading about this. I think the parent may have been implying that young people are being misled.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_Unite...