Yeah, everyone I've talked to who is not taking it used it as a secondary argument as to why people who don't have other concerns should still be cautious.
The point I was trying to make though is that people that almost certainly didn't have it are assuming that they did, which is dangerous because now they'll be much less cautious
Yup, we lead lives where it's simply not that big an issue to protect ourselves. While I think my chance of dying from getting it would be very low the issue of long term damage is another matter--it certainly looks to me like it damages everybody, just not always to the point they notice. The damage is probably cumulative.
You're assuming that they are aware of the dangers. I think that's incorrect.
It's much safer to assume people making "obviously" bad decisions are getting exposed to a different narrative than you are, and making sensible decisions given what they've been exposed to.
I have an autoimmune disorder, so I am reluctant to take it, considering how early it is, and that I have been exposed to COVID-19 and I most likely have/had it.
No, I am just saying that you cannot realistically expect everyone to care about your health, so you should take precautions as much as you can, because presumably you care about your health (much more than randoms). That is all.
Yes, for most people it isn't much to fear. Even children seem to fare well.
But since it is very contagious and dangerous to the elderly, it's still a good idea to distance yourself from at-risk groups. The panicked overreaction probably won't see the backlash that it deserves, because there is a kernel of truth that social distancing can help to protect a small number of the most vulnerable people.
Also, it's easy to point fingers in hindsight. A lot of the decision-making up to this point has been based on extrapolations from very incomplete information.
Right and yet most everyone in this thread can agree that it wouldn’t be the most prudent use of it when there are other lives more at risk than yours.
They prove that it is generally safe on a group less likely to throw spurious correlations at you ...because they are at risk Of just about everything not just covid
I'm sure people will fear this too. Driving by the same people who probably will make a ton of money speaking about how bad it is for you. Of course in both cases that science says there is no harm is best shouted down.
Within my family, they weigh the risks of what they believe the side-effects are and the disease.
They all live in very remote areas with few people so the risk is low to begin with. They aren't entirely "unintelligent", and I respect their decisions.
Oh, definitely — my point was simply that it's good to think about how that would sound to someone who _isn't_ used to that risk. Saying “no big deal” runs the risk of sounding like ”I don't know what I'm talking about” or even “I'm downplaying this for some reason”. I don't think the person I replied to was in either category but I do think with medical concerns it's important to acknowledge that someone's concerns are reasonable before introducing some things which might make the risk more palatable (e.g. doctors now are far more likely to quickly recognize it and treat it aggressively since there's been a lot of awareness that this is becoming endemic in many areas where it didn't used to be common).
Moreover the most important thing people that deny risk is the following:
It doesn't matter at all if experts disagree. Even a 30% chance we all die is enough to treat it as 100%. We should not care at all if 51% think it's a non issue.
I agree with you and this was my reasoning anytime anyone’s suggested I’m being overly cautious. I’ve given up vocalizing the reasoning for the most part, it’s felt like strapping on another head and begging people not to look at me as if I’ve three heads. But I’m glad I’m not totally alone in wanting to protect others around me from trivially avoided infectious diseases.
The problem is people don't know how to quantify the risk, including myself.
However there a number of people who panic! And the panicky people have loud voices. They treat everything like DDT or asbestos. That's not to say that caution is not warranted. It is, but take it easy, the frogs aren't turning gay and people are living longer, so long as they don't get hooked on addictive drugs, including tobacco, alcohol, MJ, amphetamines, etc.
I feel like knowledgeable people have always encouraged the general public to understand statistics and realize that, as dangerous as some things might seem, the risk from them is very low, i.e. “Don’t be afraid to do common activity X, because many more people perish in a year from heavy things falling on them at home, or in car crashes” etc. But now with the virus that calm and sober thinking is all going out the window and some are suggesting that it is fine for the public to fret and panic.
Still not sure what your point is or why you feel the need to tell people that may considering it not to buy it. I would guess a lot more people are in the risk zone than your post may suggest (especially elderly) and maybe it happens that someone decides not to buy it now that actually should because of your comment.
I mean I see the point, I think their comments made a lot more sense in the context of where things were back then, and they didn't consider how they would be viewed after the initial panic phase was over.
> the result is eroded trust that health advice being given is in your immediate best interest.
I would argue that they are making health advice that minimizes the population-wide risk; I don't expect them to tell me the optimal thing for me to do to protect myself if that advice means that the population-wide payoff is worse (i.e. "hey everybody the best thing you can do is to grab an N95 mask" might be optimal for everyone who is able to do that but that is not the optimal thing to do for the population). I kind of understand people's frustration but I just don't personally feel that this was that controversial.
I understand your mindset and also live this way, but we are the outliers. Normal people don't see a risk with this, and the upside is that it's there.
Many seem to have been completely taken in to it, yes. And given it seems to have lead to deadly consequences already, I don't think it's unreasonable for these companies to consider it a huge liability.
reply