What an interesting thing! I can comment in a somewhat informed way about both.
In flying, you file flight plans. Air traffic controllers make sure they are followed and orderly. All passengers are highly screened before entering secure areas and employees/food is similarly screened before making it to a terminal. Some flight officers need thousands of hours of experience. When planes are repaired the procedures are exhaustively documented, need to be done by qualified staff, and the replacement parts need to be traceable.
In the case of neurological side effects of COVID , it's largely an unknown and it can be reduced immensely by wearing a $0.10 piece of cloth, modified social interactions, and contact tracing (see most developed nations outside of the US and Sweden). COVID risk mitigation is much easier.
To quantify it a little: the article indicates a roughly 4x increase in a particular severe neurological condition (ADEM) over background incidence rate, and serology indicates < 5% of population exposure in most places. The 4x rate is on adult ADEM cases, and is very likely just [a subset of] cases that pass a threshold on a distribution. It's reasonable to spitball a 50-100x increased risk of neurological side effects. It's probably much higher because of the well documented clotting disregulation and the spectrum of mild to lethal strokes, and the structural damage strokes cause beyond that.
Ultimately, since the scientists in question are experts, I trust them instead of thinking I know better. I was wrong about mask efficacy early in the year, and that was humbling. Most of the scientists have studied this stuff for decades and the best strategy is to just listen.
We have a highly infectious virus in populations with no immunity. Across age ranges it has led to an increase in hospitalizations for ischemic stroke. This is completely in line with observed covid associated coagulopathy damage to other organs. It is likely that there is a high incidence of sub-acute cases that might lead to measurable population level cognitive deficit by the time this is done.
Until we have more hard numbers, this is really bad and it would be smart to react conservatively.
>>> It's reasonable to spitball a 50-100x increased risk [of ADEM].
>> Normally, one in 5.5 million UK residents tests positive for ADEM each year
If those statements are accurate, the new spitballed risk of ADEM would only be 1 in 55,000.
That's not going to lead to measurable population level cognitive deficit.
Nor should it change our perception of how dangerous COVID is, compared to a roughly 1 in 200 risk of death.
>>> It's probably much higher because of the well documented clotting disregulation and the spectrum of mild to lethal strokes, and the structural damage strokes cause beyond that.
Perhaps, but that's just speculation. Where is the evidence?
I don't know what you expect. This disease is about 8 months old and everyone is still learning a lot. First of all, you're being kind of demanding. Why don't you collect the numbers? The authors, in many cases, are busy on the side treating waves of critically ill covid-19 patients.
Also, this is from the journal "Brain". It's not in a epidemiology journal. They are just neurologists describing a possible tie between a new virus and a constellation of neurological symptoms. https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/doi/10.1093/brain/awa...
They call for further study in their abstract. This is a new discovery and you want population statistics? They want population statistics, too. The NUMBERS don't exist yet, because they published this on THURSDAY.
Why? Because people shouldn’t know about something scientists are investigating or because you think Covid19 is over blown and this is just another thing in the bucket of “it’s not over blown” and you don’t like that?
Some people have a really bad day if you hurt their bucket of cognizant dissonance. They have an image of the world if you chip at it in any way, it just pisses them off. You can't convince these people. I'd like to say I've given up.... but my facebook feed says differently lol.
Well, isn't this interesting. On this same thread I'm being downvoted for correcting another comment's outdated quote of the CDC's estimated IFR. I posted the latest (higher) figure from the CDC, which increased the estimated number of people who will die, and some folks didn't like that.
And over here modmans is accusing me of thinking Covid19 is over blown, while you accuse me of cognitive dissonance. It seems to me that you simply dislike any suggestion that Covid19 is less serious than you think, while other people dislike any suggestion that Covid19 is more serious than they think.
Here's what I think: I think honest, factual discussion of this topic is important, and that includes considering all facets of the evidence. I think describing a rare complication as a "potential wave" is overblown. And I think the level of discussion of this topic, even here on HN, is among the worst I've ever seen.
> this is more about whether to shut down schools and the economy.
Can you give me any reason why schools should not be shutdown?
What happens when teachers catch the virus? Is the expectation that they should come to work? If they're supposed to quarantine for 3ish weeks, who fills in for them? And what do you think happens when large portions of the school catch the virus, or kids catch it and bring it home to their parents and family?
Kids go to school, the coronavirus rapidly spreads and then the school has to shut down again. What exactly did opening up the schools in the first place even do?
Okay, but again you keep dancing around my actual question. You're not talking to me at all, you're talking so far past me that either you're ignoring my arguments or not seeing them.
If a teacher or a student catches the coronavirus, is the school supposed to stay open? If a teacher gets sick and has to stay home, who replaces the teacher? Who will risk themselves also getting sick to come in and substitute when there are confirmed coronavirus cases?
You know kids don't get infected at all, right? Or at least that's the latest "scientific consensus". There's no risk from schools re-opening, but children trapped at home unable to see their friends or learn things definitely has risks for them.
Plenty of adults work at schools. I understand the frustration. I cry for the lost year here in my kids’ lives. But I’m also not thrilled to sacrifice teachers and other educational workers on a bonfire. Will you personally volunteer to spend days in cramped classrooms with 25 kids?
Where would this "bonfire" come from? Have other professions experienced with a "bonfire" when they went back to work?
Will you personally volunteer to spend days in cramped classrooms with 25 kids?
Volunteer, no, obviously not. Pay me more than what I get now, sure. I'm not afraid of children. Nor am I retired or in any risk group. I know the data about the risks perfectly well - I'm in far more danger from simply getting to and from the school in the first place. It's other adults that can infect me, not children:
Worldwide, relatively few children have been reported with COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. Data from the Netherlands also confirms the current understanding: that children play a minor role in the spread of the novel coronavirus. The virus is mainly spread between adults and from adult family members to children. The spread of COVID-19 among children or from children to adults is less common.
Where did this 'kids don't get infected' lie come from? Kids absolutely can catch the coronavirus, it's just far less likely to cause adverse effects.
They're still a vector of infection which means they're going to spread it to their family or teachers who can and will get sick and suffer adverse effects. Saying that there's no risk is wrong and harmful to spread.
Lie? Given how much chaos and contradiction comes out of the public health establishment every day, do you really think people who disagree are just lying, or have they seen other reports than you?
Here's the public health arm of the Dutch government summarising the evidence:
Worldwide, relatively few children have been reported with COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. Data from the Netherlands also confirms the current understanding: that children play a minor role in the spread of the novel coronavirus. The virus is mainly spread between adults and from adult family members to children. The spread of COVID-19 among children or from children to adults is less common.
The reasons to keep schools open are simple: Kids from 1-10 are immune against COVID-19 and they don't spread the virus.
The risk for kids 11-18 is lower than the risk to survive the traffic to school. The risk to transmit from those older kids to their parents or grandparents are higher, esp. with comorbidity factors. So parents need to decide by their own.
Note that parents need to decide that for every years flu season. This year's flu season is pretty soft on kids, and higher risks on normal age groups - in the US only, everywhere else the risk is lower. Most countries are below the normal morbidity rates this flu season. next year's flu season will be H1N1, which has a much higher morbity, but vaccines.
Kids from 1-10 are not immune. They still carry and spread the virus. They just don't get very sick.
There was a recent case locally where an infected child spread it to her entire daycare, infecting all the kids, and in turn infecting all the parents - one of whom died.
> it can be reduced immensely by wearing a $0.10 piece of cloth, modified social interactions, and contact tracing (see most developed nations outside of the US and Sweden).
And what about Spain, Italy, Belgium and France? All have worse rates than those two.
What about them? Tell me about when the virus started spreading and before they started policy to prevent the spread? What has the spread been like since those policies were put in place? How does that compare to the US?
You can actually look at that within the US, which has NY/New England type curves (including Seattle, Michigan, Chicago, and San Francisco) and the Texas, Florida, Arizona, Louisiana, et al. type spread.
All of the examples you noted had large, uncontrolled spread in mid-March that was gradually brought under control in lockdowns, and kept low via social policy (mask wearing, distancing, testing/contact tracing).
To answer your question indirectly: Spain, France, Italy, and Belgium all together are currently having fewer new daily cases than just Arizona on its own. And Arizona has less cases daily than Georgia, California, Texas, and Florida.
The US would be the laughingstock of the world if it weren't so sad. The US response is too tragic to laugh at.
In flying, you file flight plans. Air traffic controllers make sure they are followed and orderly. All passengers are highly screened before entering secure areas and employees/food is similarly screened before making it to a terminal. Some flight officers need thousands of hours of experience. When planes are repaired the procedures are exhaustively documented, need to be done by qualified staff, and the replacement parts need to be traceable.
In the case of neurological side effects of COVID , it's largely an unknown and it can be reduced immensely by wearing a $0.10 piece of cloth, modified social interactions, and contact tracing (see most developed nations outside of the US and Sweden). COVID risk mitigation is much easier.
To quantify it a little: the article indicates a roughly 4x increase in a particular severe neurological condition (ADEM) over background incidence rate, and serology indicates < 5% of population exposure in most places. The 4x rate is on adult ADEM cases, and is very likely just [a subset of] cases that pass a threshold on a distribution. It's reasonable to spitball a 50-100x increased risk of neurological side effects. It's probably much higher because of the well documented clotting disregulation and the spectrum of mild to lethal strokes, and the structural damage strokes cause beyond that.
Ultimately, since the scientists in question are experts, I trust them instead of thinking I know better. I was wrong about mask efficacy early in the year, and that was humbling. Most of the scientists have studied this stuff for decades and the best strategy is to just listen.