Is there a good source for data on the non-fatal outcomes from this?

Not the CFR, not the IFR, what i am looking for is data about the strokes, renal damage, lung damage, heart disease, etc that survivors are experiencing.

I know it isn't 99.5% of people that get infected are fine.

I just don't know if it is 99% of people are fine, but .5% die and .5% get a life long medical condition or if it is 90% will be fine and only somewhere between 200,000 and 1mm people will die but another 9% will have a permanent disability.

I imagine that will be tough to collect since so many of the people sickest with COVID were in poor health to begin with

Ive been trying hard for this in multiple threads. No luck. It really is the most important question.

cbr said:

---

Ive been trying hard for this in multiple threads. No luck. It really is the most important question.

---

I agree...people dont seem to care about the body count. They dont seem to care about how horrible of a death it is. Maybe they might care if they find out that "sure, as a 40yo, you probably wont die but there is a x% chance that you are disabled for the rest of your life.

The response to the virus is hurting those around you. The statistics on that aren't theoretical.

If we know the facts, we can make good decisions for our families and employees, and ourselves.

Or we can just be ignorant irresponsible dumb****s and make assumptions that could cost loves, jobs, or both.

We won't know until some longitudinal studies are done.

We need to give people time to recover first.

I think I am more afraid of not dying, but surviving with a miserable prognosis. I have only heard anecdotal things about that and they are not good. Just don't know how much data there is on that yet. You might ask some of the Family Physician docs that question directly to see what they say.

I can give you plenty of anecdotal stories of people we discharged from the hospital who will likely be just fine.

There are some other people who will be discharged with diminished function, but I can tell you based on what I've seen personally the percentage of the former is much higher than that of the latter.

What the long-term issues will end up looking like we don't know, because we don't have the data yet. It hasn't been long enough.

Moxley with a great answer. Virus is novel, or new, and the focus has been on preventing people from death and preventing high levels of outbreak that will overwhelm the healthcare system. The very logical answer as to why there is scarce data on "long term" effects is right there in front of you.

I agree with you. It's hard to believe that clarification was needed.

That's the problem with this disease, as seems to mirror Polio, in regards to its wide-ranging outcomes stretching from A-Z. Extremes from complete recovery to death, with a wide range of crippling and debilitating outcomes in between.

This idea that it's no big deal, that 99% of everyone who gets is going to fully recover, and go on about their merry way as if nothing ever happened is akin to the old folk tale about ostriches sticking their heads in the sand (which they don't really do, but that's a discussion for the Outdoor board). If people were staring down the reality that they might indeed survive, but spend the rest of their now-shortened natural lives dealing with neurological, renal and pulmonary issues, they might not quite be as cavalier about the whole thing as they are at the moment.

The post you flagged was also removed. I'm assuming they're trying to keep that kind of discussion on another board.

The post I flagged was a personal attack that had nothing to do with the discussion. My post was simply discussing the issue of the thread.

Meh

I'm not hoping for long-term effects. I just want to know their prevalence because that stat will affect how I behave in the coming 6-18 months. Just self interest should make you curious about that.

pants said:

---

I'm not hoping for long-term effects. I just want to know their prevalence because that stat will affect how I behave in the coming 6-18 months. Just self interest should make you curious about that.

---

We may not know of long term effects until much later than 6-18 months.

The evidence now shows that likely 90% never even know they have it. So, ai would out good money in it that 90% of people under 60 that do know will fully recover. That would put that cohort as 99% going on as if nothing ever happened.

HIPPA realy keeps that kind of patient info under tight wraps, i Agree with OP it would be informative to know how many people who end up hospitalized make full or near full recoveries.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

Is there a good source for data on the non-fatal outcomes from this?

Not the CFR, not the IFR, what i am looking for is data about the strokes, renal damage, lung damage, heart disease, etc that survivors are experiencing.

I know it isn't 99.5% of people that get infected are fine.

I just don't know if it is 99% of people are fine, but .5% die and .5% get a life long medical condition or if it is 90% will be fine and only somewhere between 200,000 and 1mm people will die but another 9% will have a permanent disability.

---

No data but just speculation.

Folks who recover from COVID 19 without any complication likey had no cytokines storm and they should have no long term consequences.

Patients who had significant sequelae from COVID 19 like strokes, renal damage, lung damage, heart disease, etc are in part due to the prothrombotic effect of COVID-19. Once damage to end-organ has occurred, you aren't truly getting better biologically. Once you lose your myocardium, renal nephron, alveoli in the lungs, etc, it is replaced with a scar. Adults aren't going to generate more brain cells, more renal nephron, etc, unfortunately.

Functionally with proper medication and time, your brain can rewire, myocardial cell compensate with proper medication...

Lastly, the % disability will be determined by severity of said end-organ damage from thrombus and inflammation.

Sq 17 said:

---

HIPPA realy keeps that kind of patient info under tight wraps, i Agree with OP it would be informative to know how many people who end up hospitalized make full or near full recoveries.

---

HIPAA protects an individual patient from being identified. It doesn't prevent statistical analysis of aggregated outcomes data.

Quite simply it's too soon to know the answer to the OP's question. We have only been dealing with this for a few months. People with current post Covid issues may improve over the next few months to a year and be fine.

I think 5 months in there is a lot of data and knowledge. But its not getting to the public.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

cbr said:

---

Ive been trying hard for this in multiple threads. No luck. It really is the most important question.

---

I agree...people dont seem to care about the body count. They dont seem to care about how horrible of a death it is. Maybe they might care if they find out that "sure, as a 40yo, you probably wont die but there is a x% chance that you are disabled for the rest of your life.

---

Except that a lot of "long term organ damage" is repairable damage and really rests in the person's ability to rehabilitate the "injured" organ in a lot of situations (not specifically Covid but look at smoking). Smokers lungs can look flat out horrible yet 10 years of being smoke free and the lungs can really amazingly. Add focused things like exercise to increase O2 max and that can be sped up.
At this point we really don't have the data yet for what type of long term damage could happen. Some things like those who have died from lung cancer who were working on Ground Zero after 9/11 could take years to see. My opinion is that overall, people who are in better physical shape will have much less long term damage to none. Those who aren't will be worse off. If they decide to get into shape and improve their health, they may mitigate those effects over time as well. Most of the studies on these things assume couch potatoes will stay couch potatoes.
But don't assume nobody cares about the body count, how it kills or if one is permanently damaged afterward in some way. As has been said, from a medical perspective the issue has been saving the lives of those who have complications now plus it may take 5-10 years to see what long term effects Covid can cause and what other health issues also contributed to those effects as well.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

cbr said:

---

Ive been trying hard for this in multiple threads. No luck. It really is the most important question.

---

I agree...people dont seem to care about the body count. They dont seem to care about how horrible of a death it is. Maybe they might care if they find out that "sure, as a 40yo, you probably wont die but there is a x% chance that you are disabled for the rest of your life.

---

Also, define "care". Because I have yet to run into a person that hasn't cared about the impact this has left on others, whether it's death, disability or even just getting sick. Are you trying to say that if we could see hard figures on possible permanent disabilities many would change their opinions as to how society should be approaching this virus (whether to open, meet socially, distance or not, etc) ? Or do you mean you feel that people are not being made aware of the possibility of long term or permanent disability after one survives the disease?

Another interesting point is certain other viruses like the flu can also have permanent disability associated with them. A woman my sister-in-law knows lost her legs due to complications associated with her having the flu.

If you wont wear a mask to slow the spread so that fewer have to die before a vaccine or treatment is found, you dont care about the people hurt or killed by this. It is honestly that simple.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

If you wont wear a mask to slow the spread so that fewer have to die before a vaccine or treatment is found, you dont care about the people hurt or killed by this. It is honestly that simple.

---

No it's not. Stop shunning people who don't share your belief.

Of course this post will also probably be deleted like my last 3 comments on this thread but the opinions of Duncan are acceptable.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

If you wont wear a mask to slow the spread so that fewer have to die before a vaccine or treatment is found, you dont care about the people hurt or killed by this. It is honestly that simple.

---

While I understand and appreciate your concerns that others should be wearing masks, there's a very small chance anyone would be hurt or killed by a person not wearing a mask. Your statement seems to presume that there will be people hurt and killed when one doesn't have a mask on in public. That is very much an overstatement.
I honestly don't care if someone isn't wearing a mask. If stores want to require it, as some do, to shop there that's great. Not sure how it would work at restaurants. I'm a personal trainer. It's not possible to train hard in a mask. It cuts off air flow. I won't have clients wearing them. And I strongly recommend not wearing them to exercise. Sure, wearing a mask while taking a walk around the block is fine, that's not training and not very exhaustive. Wearing a mask while doing 5 reps of 300lbs squats? A very bad idea.

Old Buffalo said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

If you wont wear a mask to slow the spread so that fewer have to die before a vaccine or treatment is found, you dont care about the people hurt or killed by this. It is honestly that simple.

---

No it's not. Stop shunning people who don't share your belief.

Of course this post will also probably be deleted like my last 3 comments on this thread but the opinions of Duncan are acceptable.

---

So exactly how is it not that simple? Not trying to stir the pot. Genuinely wanting an explanation. Sure there are circumstances where it might not make sense ( like at a gym. Geez, seriously, that had to brought up). But if minimal sacrifice saves one life and gets back to some resemblance of normalcy in this country, why the resistance?

There is talk of permanent pulmonary fibrosis s/p COVID-19. I can't find any published studies yet. For pulmonary it is still an unknown. Like everything with it.

ancientag67 said:

---

Old Buffalo said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

If you wont wear a mask to slow the spread so that fewer have to die before a vaccine or treatment is found, you dont care about the people hurt or killed by this. It is honestly that simple.

---

No it's not. Stop shunning people who don't share your belief.

Of course this post will also probably be deleted like my last 3 comments on this thread but the opinions of Duncan are acceptable.

---

So exactly how is it not that simple? Not trying to stir the pot. Genuinely wanting an explanation. Sure there are circumstances where it might not make sense ( like at a gym. Geez, seriously, that had to brought up). But if minimal sacrifice saves one life and gets back to some resemblance of normalcy in this country, why the resistance?

---

Of course I'd bring it up, it's where I work!

But seriously, it may be a point of contention when opening gyms. Especially the big box ones where large numbers of members will be in one space. TX doesn't require masks so it probably won't be an issue here, but I could see it as an issue in other states. And I still don't see how they can be required at restaurants as how does one and and drink? Once a person removes the mask, it sort of defeats the purpose.

ancientag67 said:

---

Old Buffalo said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

If you wont wear a mask to slow the spread so that fewer have to die before a vaccine or treatment is found, you dont care about the people hurt or killed by this. It is honestly that simple.

---

No it's not. Stop shunning people who don't share your belief.

Of course this post will also probably be deleted like my last 3 comments on this thread but the opinions of Duncan are acceptable.

---

So exactly how is it not that simple? Not trying to stir the pot. Genuinely wanting an explanation. Sure there are circumstances where it might not make sense ( like at a gym. Geez, seriously, that had to brought up). But if minimal sacrifice saves one life and gets back to some resemblance of normalcy in this country, why the resistance?

---

If you don't drive at the speed limit at all times, obey all traffic rules and recommendations scrupulously, and avoid any distractions while driving, you don't care about people who might be killed in a car accident. True statement, and truly that simple, or maybe not quite so simple after all? Is this where we will find that this thread, against all odds, has mostly readers who meticulously comply with every driving rule and recommendation?

DTP02 said:

---

ancientag67 said:

---

Old Buffalo said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

If you wont wear a mask to slow the spread so that fewer have to die before a vaccine or treatment is found, you dont care about the people hurt or killed by this. It is honestly that simple.

---

No it's not. Stop shunning people who don't share your belief.

Of course this post will also probably be deleted like my last 3 comments on this thread but the opinions of Duncan are acceptable.

---

So exactly how is it not that simple? Not trying to stir the pot. Genuinely wanting an explanation. Sure there are circumstances where it might not make sense ( like at a gym. Geez, seriously, that had to brought up). But if minimal sacrifice saves one life and gets back to some resemblance of normalcy in this country, why the resistance?

---

If you don't drive at the speed limit at all times, obey all traffic rules and recommendations scrupulously, and avoid any distractions while driving, you don't care about people who might be killed in a car accident. True statement, and truly that simple, or maybe not quite so simple after all? Is this where we will find that this thread, against all odds, has mostly readers who meticulously comply with every driving rule and recommendation?

---

Again, the driving analogies just never fit very well because we're not talking about a one-off event that could only impact one or two people.

Also, it's a bit different in the sense that the potential negative outcome of the events wouldn't actually be known by the person who caused them. If you're asymptomatic and you spread the disease to 10 other people at a grocery store, you'll never really have that guilt on your conscience cause you'll never really know.

But if you remove those two parts of the equation, then yeah I'd say purposely not wearing a mask when going into a heavily trafficked store is on-par with texting while driving. It shows a general thought process of "this is dangerous for other people to do, but not me" as well as simply not caring about other people.

It honestly comes off to me as a really insecure flex by some people, like doing something incredibly simple to insure the safety of others isn't macho enough and might make people question their toughness.

I don't want to devolve OP's original purpose into a should or shouldn't people wear masks, although he himself diverted this thread.

People should wear a mask if they feel comfortable, and people should not wear a mask if they chose so. The assumption here is those who don't wear a mask show reckless regard for life, when in all reality those people could be practicing social distancing and self-quarantining as regulated. Where is an individual supposed to prioritize this disease? This is the shtick that started this whole thread and has turned it into a divisive issue much like the "if you go outside you are killing others" that the stay at home turned into.

We accept risks everyday in our lives. It is not the responsibly of one person to make another feel safe. There are means for those who are higher risk to avoid being exposed, but to shame someone who is asymptomatic who passes it to another person, who passes it to Meemaw is a blame game that's being played.

Proposition Joe said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

ancientag67 said:

---

Old Buffalo said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

If you wont wear a mask to slow the spread so that fewer have to die before a vaccine or treatment is found, you dont care about the people hurt or killed by this. It is honestly that simple.

---

No it's not. Stop shunning people who don't share your belief.

Of course this post will also probably be deleted like my last 3 comments on this thread but the opinions of Duncan are acceptable.

---

So exactly how is it not that simple? Not trying to stir the pot. Genuinely wanting an explanation. Sure there are circumstances where it might not make sense ( like at a gym. Geez, seriously, that had to brought up). But if minimal sacrifice saves one life and gets back to some resemblance of normalcy in this country, why the resistance?

---

If you don't drive at the speed limit at all times, obey all traffic rules and recommendations scrupulously, and avoid any distractions while driving, you don't care about people who might be killed in a car accident. True statement, and truly that simple, or maybe not quite so simple after all? Is this where we will find that this thread, against all odds, has mostly readers who meticulously comply with every driving rule and recommendation?

---

Again, the driving analogies just never fit very well because we're not talking about a one-off event that could only impact one or two people.

Also, it's a bit different in the sense that the potential negative outcome of the events wouldn't actually be known by the person who caused them. If you're asymptomatic and you spread the disease to 10 other people at a grocery store, you'll never really have that guilt on your conscience cause you'll never really know.

But if you remove those two parts of the equation, then yeah I'd say purposely not wearing a mask when going into a heavily trafficked store is on-par with texting while driving. It shows a general thought process of "this is dangerous for other people to do, but not me" as well as simply not caring about other people.

It honestly comes off to me as a really insecure flex by some people, like doing something incredibly simple to insure the safety of others isn't macho enough and might make people question their toughness.

---

Let me offer an alternative perspective:

you don't like the driving analogies because it challenges your conception of COVID19. You've been driving for x years and you've become fairly numb to the associated risks. You're peripherally aware that driving a car is likely the most dangerous activity you engage in on a regular basis, but it doesn't seem dangerous because you do it all the time without serious incident.

COVID19 is something new and is much scarier. It's a constant focus of our attention and concerns. Sure, you may know intellectually that there's almost no chance you're infected and that if you are, wearing a mask may not actually do anything, but this thing is scary.

On the other hand, you've been driving for a long time. And while you picked the low-hanging fruit of not texting while driving as being unacceptably selfish, what about not snacking or drinking coffee while driving? What about not changing the radio while driving? Hands-free phone calls? What about not realizing you are somewhat close to missing your exit and making a quicker lane change than is ideal instead of allowing yourself to miss the exit and costing yourself time? You skipped right past speeding, which was the first example given. Isn't the science pretty settled that lower speed saves lives, certainly more settled than the efficacy of homemade masks on a novel virus? You never exceed the speed limit, do you? Unlike the vast majority of the population, we're all people who stay within the posted speed limits on here, right?

The driving analogy actually holds up pretty well, it's just that we don't really like what it says about us. It says that we make decisions all the time to act in a less than safe manner, thereby putting those around us at greater risk. It's just that we have come to accept those decisions because we are used to them.