Minor: how can we say this is "permanent" damage, when it's only been analyzed for less than a year? Maybe it's just "slow recovering" damage? (Consider the stuff from some years ago that showed that lung damage from smoking even can be repaired over time).
My understanding is that it causes lung scarring, which is permanent damage. A transplant is possible in very bad cases, though having an organ transplant comes with its own set of permanent consequences/problems.
Also - almost any illness is an illness you can get from work/school/mass transit, bring it home, and spread around to your family and loved ones. Including things that can have complications for at-risk populations.
Yep, definitely true, though the data we have so far suggests that this virus is very good at transmitting across populations while at the same time having a higher-than-normal rate of major problems. Though, as you say, the data we have on death rate and the like is not settled, what data we do have merits real concern.
I wouldn't call this apocalyptic or anything, just that it could be a lot worse than anything we've seen since days when the world population (and density) were much smaller - e.g. during the 1918 flu the world population was less than 2 billion compared to the 7+ billion we have today.
Edit: We obviously have much better medical technology than we did then, of course. But that assumes e.g. we have medical capacity, which in some situations has become a major limitation on treatment.
But we are basically creating a generation that is going to be afraid to socialize at all, when it was already suffering from too much "online-only" socializing. This is a significant "hidden" cost to the whole thing and I think people are overlooking it.
Based on my (obviously limited) information, I can't say I'm getting that impression. Lots of grumbling following of recommendations, less so terror.
And even that 1.2% IFR is... misleading. It's too aggregate and leads to the fear I'm talking about.
There is a difference between being responsible and being paralyzed by fear. I mean how many people do you indirectly kill by using the output of modern industry?
It's odd how selective people can be in conceptualizing the indirect costs/consequences of actions, as you say. I work for an environmental group, so 'numbers of people killed by output of modern industry' is something I work on, and for me personally it's a pretty tough question. Coal plant is cheap power (which is disproportionately good for those with less wealth), coal plant also kills people (and disproportionately kills those with less wealth/power). It's something people need to grapple with, at the very least, and not just shrug their shoulders about.
There have been times historically when babies with birth problems (or even just babies over #X per family) were just left outside to die, and that was seen as normal. (I'm not advocating for that, of course.) In many ways society is no longer like that... except for the times it still is. And there isn't an easy line to say one can't cross.
I just don't want to live in a world of surveillance and fear. I'm sad that I've had to live in a world where people are asking for it.
Yeah, this is the 6 million dollar question & issue.
Assuming that China's death/infection numbers aren't
too far off one can say that their totalitarian approach is effective, but even so I don't think I'd rather live in China.
Going back to my baby example above, reportedly during the one child policy that sort of practice was effectively enforced for those without political connections.
Other countries seem to have had similar success, though via similar levels of 'tracing' and other invasive practices. How much is good enough, and how much risk does either side entail? I admit I'm glad I don't have to make that decision, but I am happy to do what I can to not risk spreading the virus around.