In March-May I didn’t interact with anyone in-person outside of my housemates, who were doing the same. One of us went shopping, about once a month, and we made an effort to get most things delivered. We quarantined the mail for 3 days before opening it, etc. We were pretty intense.
Now, we don’t quarantine the mail at all (not really worried about surface transmission in general), and we do “go into work” but in our case it’s a huge building and 90% of the time we’re only in the same room as people in our germ pod. We also frequently host some small gatherings now but it’s always outdoors, with some rare exceptions for like a 10-minute tour of our building for just a few people. We shop every 10 days or so, and have added a few “frivolous” trips to the hardware store.
We get burritos several times a week from our favorite food cart, but otherwise prepare all of our own meals now—we used to eat at restaurants 6 or 7 times a week, but indoor and patio dining are still a no-go for us.
I don’t expect we’ll revert to normal-ish behavior until we have a widespread vaccine, treatment improves significantly, or some other unforeseen turn of events...
Covid has turned out to be something like 5x less severe IFR than many of us were worried about in March, but it still seems bad enough to take a lot of precaution. My personal risk of dying is super low—I’m healthy and 31. However, I’m still being really cautious because of the not-well-understood long-term effects. SARS was really nasty on that front. What evidence convinced you that’s not a big deal? If you don’t already have evidence for that, then rationality isn’t the reason you changed your behavior.
A third explanation for your behavior (besides monkeying and being rational) is that you and others grew tired of bearing the costs of lockdown at similar times. Lockdown got significantly harder for us, psychologically, after about 4 months—it wouldn’t surprise me if there’s a bell curve in the population for “lockdown tolerance”.
However, I’m still being really cautious because of the not-well-understood long-term effects. SARS was really nasty on that front. What evidence convinced you that’s not a big deal? If you don’t already have evidence for that, then rationality isn’t the reason you changed your behavior.
Not sure this is directed at me or just a question for poetic reasons, but I’m going to answer it anyway:
The “bradykinin hypothesis” is the only one that has a reasonable model of long term damage, basically attributing it to ACE2 expression in tissues where it would be normally close-to-absent and bradykinin overproduction being triggered in part by that an synergizing badly with it.
This is “hopeful” in that it predicts side effects are non-random and instead associated with a poor immune response. That is to say, youth’s protective role against death also protects against side effects.
I found no quantifiable studies of side effects after the infection, the ones that exist are case studies and/or very small n and in older demographics (i.e. the kind that needs to attend the hospital in the first place and is then monitored long term after the infection passed)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and a model of infection is just a useful tool not a predictor of reality, plus my understanding of it is likely simplistic. But that same statement I could make about a lot of coronavrisues and influenza viruses I expose myself to every year.
(I can’t say more because the study is still being done, but recovered covid patients which have relevant medical complaints having to do with the blood clotting regulation cascade might probably want to keep track of soluble fibrin in their plasma. I do promise to make a note here if the study doesn’t find an effect and to add a link to the publication, whenever it is out, regardless of the findings.)
In March-May I didn’t interact with anyone in-person outside of my housemates, who were doing the same. One of us went shopping, about once a month, and we made an effort to get most things delivered. We quarantined the mail for 3 days before opening it, etc. We were pretty intense.
Now, we don’t quarantine the mail at all (not really worried about surface transmission in general), and we do “go into work” but in our case it’s a huge building and 90% of the time we’re only in the same room as people in our germ pod. We also frequently host some small gatherings now but it’s always outdoors, with some rare exceptions for like a 10-minute tour of our building for just a few people. We shop every 10 days or so, and have added a few “frivolous” trips to the hardware store.
We get burritos several times a week from our favorite food cart, but otherwise prepare all of our own meals now—we used to eat at restaurants 6 or 7 times a week, but indoor and patio dining are still a no-go for us.
I don’t expect we’ll revert to normal-ish behavior until we have a widespread vaccine, treatment improves significantly, or some other unforeseen turn of events...
Covid has turned out to be something like 5x less severe IFR than many of us were worried about in March, but it still seems bad enough to take a lot of precaution. My personal risk of dying is super low—I’m healthy and 31. However, I’m still being really cautious because of the not-well-understood long-term effects. SARS was really nasty on that front. What evidence convinced you that’s not a big deal? If you don’t already have evidence for that, then rationality isn’t the reason you changed your behavior.
A third explanation for your behavior (besides monkeying and being rational) is that you and others grew tired of bearing the costs of lockdown at similar times. Lockdown got significantly harder for us, psychologically, after about 4 months—it wouldn’t surprise me if there’s a bell curve in the population for “lockdown tolerance”.
Not sure this is directed at me or just a question for poetic reasons, but I’m going to answer it anyway:
The “bradykinin hypothesis” is the only one that has a reasonable model of long term damage, basically attributing it to ACE2 expression in tissues where it would be normally close-to-absent and bradykinin overproduction being triggered in part by that an synergizing badly with it.
This is “hopeful” in that it predicts side effects are non-random and instead associated with a poor immune response. That is to say, youth’s protective role against death also protects against side effects.
I found no quantifiable studies of side effects after the infection, the ones that exist are case studies and/or very small n and in older demographics (i.e. the kind that needs to attend the hospital in the first place and is then monitored long term after the infection passed)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and a model of infection is just a useful tool not a predictor of reality, plus my understanding of it is likely simplistic. But that same statement I could make about a lot of coronavrisues and influenza viruses I expose myself to every year.
(I can’t say more because the study is still being done, but recovered covid patients which have relevant medical complaints having to do with the blood clotting regulation cascade might probably want to keep track of soluble fibrin in their plasma. I do promise to make a note here if the study doesn’t find an effect and to add a link to the publication, whenever it is out, regardless of the findings.)