Covid update from Florida

[Cr1028]

3 hours ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

I don't think this is true. If we got back to a living wage instead of a minimum wage, made higher education actually affordable so students aren't drowning in debt right out of college and made health care something that won't bankrupt you -- that goes a long way. 

I don’t want to be disrespectful and am in no way saying that there aren’t many folks out there underpaid. I am simply stating that you can’t change math. If some rich dude has $10 million in a savings account earning half a percent interest, he would earn over $50k in interest in one year. If you tripled the minimum wage earner, to a pay rate of $21.75, the earner would still make only a little over $45k for the year. So even though the wage earner got a whopping 200% raise, they still made $5k less on the year than the millionaire who made a paltry half a percent on his savings.
 

I’m a dumb guy so I’m hoping you can educate me to what exactly a living wage would look like? It doesn’t sound tangible to me.
 

I agree with you on higher education. I think American education should be free through the doctoral level provided the individual continues to make a minimum level of progress towards a degree in each given year with some exceptions for extenuating circumstances. Ability to pay should not be the driver to educational attainment in this country. It should be based on effort and aptitude.

I also agree that the cost of health  care in this nation is outrageous and it seems (at least to me) that it costs more to visit the hospital for the insured than the uninsured. I feel like I’ve been on a payment plan with the local hospital group for the last decade.

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

13 hours ago, Cr1028 said:

I don’t want to be disrespectful and am in no way saying that there aren’t many folks out there underpaid. I am simply stating that you can’t change math. If some rich dude has $10 million in a savings account earning half a percent interest, he would earn over $50k in interest in one year. If you tripled the minimum wage earner, to a pay rate of $21.75, the earner would still make only a little over $45k for the year. So even though the wage earner got a whopping 200% raise, they still made $5k less on the year than the millionaire who made a paltry half a percent on his savings.

I’m a dumb guy so I’m hoping you can educate me to what exactly a living wage would look like? It doesn’t sound tangible to me.

I highly doubt you consider yourself a dumb guy. 

I think you are you looking at the variables incorrectly and drawing the wrong conclusion. I don't know why any interest from a $10 million dollar account affects the person at minimum wage - it doesn't. 

In the current minimum wage at a full time week the yearly income in $15k. After an increase to $21.75 - they make $45k. There is no way to argue that a $30k more a year will hurt them financially and they are better off at $15k. Perhaps they can afford insurance, school, retirement and save for a rainy day fund.  Not likely all - but they can prioritize based on their needs.

Will this now $45k yearly income person be able to get $10M ... no. Of course not. But - if they start to save $2000 year in a simple IRA form the age of 18?  There is a reasonable chance at saving 2k a year with $45k a year. There is NO chance at that savings with $15k.
 

Given my best case scenario and a Traditional pre-tax IRA - they can have over $360k for retirement.

The average retirement account RIGHT NOW for a person in their 60's is $172k! Appalling. 

A living wage allows for the person to be able to make the right choices and living a life where they are not eating dogfood from a can when they are 70 years old. 

Also, there are dozens of studies on Seattle's raising the minimum wage on the cost of living - and overall it doesn't show much of an impact. Seattle still has a thriving economy. Daycare cost increased (but different topic - maybe this should be a benefit of work). Cost of food did not increase. And the cost of housing was not attributed to the raise in minimum wage.  
 

Edited August 4, 2020 by SteaminWillieBeamin

[Cr1028]

3 hours ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

I highly doubt you consider yourself a dumb guy. 

I think you are you looking at the variables incorrectly and drawing the wrong conclusion. I don't know why any interest from a $10 million dollar account affects the person at minimum wage - it doesn't. 

In the current minimum wage at a full time week the yearly income in $15k. After an increase to $21.75 - they make $45k. There is no way to argue that a $30k more a year will hurt them financially and they are better off at $15k. Perhaps they can afford insurance, school, retirement and save for a rainy day fund.  Not likely all - but they can prioritize based on their needs.

Will this now $45k yearly income person be able to get $10M ... no. Of course not. But - if they start to save $2000 year in a simple IRA form the age of 18?  There is a reasonable chance at saving 2k a year with $45k a year. There is NO chance at that savings with $15k.
 

Given my best case scenario and a Traditional pre-tax IRA - they can have over $360k for retirement.

The average retirement account RIGHT NOW for a person in their 60's is $172k! Appalling. 

A living wage allows for the person to be able to make the right choices and living a life where they are not eating dogfood from a can when they are 70 years old. 

Also, there are dozens of studies on Seattle's raising the minimum wage on the cost of living - and overall it doesn't show much of an impact. Seattle still has a thriving economy. Daycare cost increased (but different topic - maybe this should be a benefit of work). Cost of food did not increase. And the cost of housing was not attributed to the raise in minimum wage.  
 

First off, I didn’t downvote you.

The point I was making about the millionaire is that no matter how much you help bring up the lower middle class, the wealth will always be skewed toward the top earners/wealth holders due to percentage growth.
 

The problem in my view withthe concept of a living wage is that it is a moving target. Let’s say you bump the the 18yo fry cook up to $15/hr. Then the shift leader that was making $14//hr says that’s bull and now he/she wants $22/hr. The manager that was making $50k says well hell, the $22/hr shift leader is making $45k now so the manager wants $60k+. Naturally at these wage demands a business with thin margins will either have to cut staff or increase prices.  The staff cut would be the worst option for the workers, the price increase would be better but would still reduce the net benefit of their wage increase. That is, if the public is willing to purchase a similar quantity of fries at the increased price.
 

I don’t want anyone to live in poverty, I agree with the idea of everyone earning a sufficient amount to allow them to live a satisfactory life and be secure in retirement, I just don’t know the best way to get there.

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

49 minutes ago, Cr1028 said:

if the public is willing to purchase a similar quantity of fries at the increased price.

They won't really have a choice though. That is the point. If the prices increase - it will be across the board for all four fast food places on the four corners in that town.  But again - the studies that followed the cities who raised the minimum wage did not find that to be the case. 

Since you are talking restaurants - let's say that instead of price increases, we see portion decreases? That is a win-win situation. In the United States alone, 40% of food gets tossed every year—and that amounts to $162 billion in waste annually. Maybe it can chip away at the obesity problem in our country too. 

If you've ever travelled to the EU (outside tourist areas that cater to Americans) - you will find that food prices are lower or maybe the same, but with smaller portions. I've never once been hungry after a meal overseas .... and I've never been asked for a "doggy bag." What a crazy concept - doggy bag.  They focus on costs and waste - instead of bulk and perceived value. 

My international friends who moved here for work are amazed how how expensive it is to live here. We focus on how pricey gas is over there, but ignore how almost everything else is more expensive (outside the super-cities obviously). 

Of course the incredible wealthy will be able to amass huge chunks of wealth, but we can work on the bottom side to bring that population up - and give them a chance to pass on the generational wealth. 

BTW: I am cool with down votes. When I get them on the most even keeled and reasoned response - I know that my four valued fans have read my post. 
 

Edited August 4, 2020 by SteaminWillieBeamin

[Cr1028]

22 minutes ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

They won't really have a choice though. That is the point. If the prices increase - it will be across the board for all four fast food places on the four corners in that town.  But again - the studies that followed the cities who raised the minimum wage did not find that to be the case. 

Since you are talking restaurants - let's say that instead of price increases, we see portion decreases? That is a win-win situation. In the United States alone, 40% of food gets tossed every year—and that amounts to $162 billion in waste annually. Maybe it can chip away at the obesity problem in our country too. 

If you've ever travelled to the EU (outside tourist areas that cater to Americans) - you will find that food prices are lower or maybe the same, but with smaller portions. I've never once been hungry after a meal overseas .... and I've never been asked for a "doggy bag." What a crazy concept - doggy bag.  They focus on costs and waste - instead of bulk and perceived value. 

My international friends who moved here for work are amazed how how expensive it is to live here. We focus on how pricey gas is over there, but ignore how almost everything else is more expensive (outside the super-cities obviously). 

Of course the incredible wealthy will be able to amass huge chunks of wealth, but we can work on the bottom side to bring that population up - and give them a chance to pass on the generational wealth. 

BTW: I am cool with down votes. When I get them on the most even keeled and reasoned response - I know that my four valued fans have read my post. 
 

I think you may be onto something with the smaller portions at the same price. The part about people willing to purchase the same amount t at a higher price we will have to disagree on. Unless they too are getting an increase in income, they would have to spend less somewhere else to cover the increase in the cost of the fries. If their income did increase then their business will also need to increase the price of their products or services on and on throughout the economy to where you’ve just inflated your wage increase away again. The studies that say that didn’t happen I’d take with a grain of salt. I’ve learned over the year that “consultants” can craft a study to tell you whatever you want them to. You give them the answer you want and they craft a methodology to get that result.

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

10 minutes ago, Cr1028 said:

...to spend less somewhere else to cover the increase in the cost of the fries

Perhaps - but we all can find ways to reduce costs when we are at a comfortable level. For instance, I would just stop ordering overpriced beer with my dinner. My kids would not get a kid sized drink and would drink water instead. Which is healthier anyhow. 
 

As far as studies, I know what you are saying, but I do tend to trust studies from academics and not private industry consultants. Since they are peer reviewed and welcome to feedback. But to your point - you have to belief something from someone. You can't spit ball everything. There are some markets that do not adjust properly for this single life we have to live on this round blue ball. A living wage is not moving... it's been 11 years since the last increase and definitely does not adjust for cost of living (locally or nationally).

 

[Cr1028]

10 minutes ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

Perhaps - but we all can find ways to reduce costs when we are at a comfortable level. For instance, I would just stop ordering overpriced beer with my dinner. My kids would not get a kid sized drink and would drink water instead. Which is healthier anyhow. 

This makes perfect sense for your family but you’ve defeated the point of the price increase on the fries. Now you’ve taken the high margin fountain drink out of the restaurant’s profitability. It’s all part of that old “no such thing as a free lunch” saying. You’re total spending stayed the same, you just rearranged how you spent it so the business still hasn’t recovered the increased labor cost.

[Cr1028]

21 minutes ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

A living wage is not moving... it's been 11 years since the last increase and definitely does not adjust for cost of living (locally or nationally).

I’d agree that the minimum wage has not moved in that time span and doesn’t adjust for cost of living (which I believe would be a reasonable goal). However, a living wage is constantly moving because it would be based on an ever-increasing cost of living.

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

12 minutes ago, Cr1028 said:

This makes perfect sense for your family but you’ve defeated the point of the price increase on the fries. Now you’ve taken the high margin fountain drink out of the restaurant’s profitability. It’s all part of that old “no such thing as a free lunch” saying. You’re total spending stayed the same, you just rearranged how you spent it so the business still hasn’t recovered the increased labor cost.

I keep being told that businesses are the best at minimizing cost and maximizing profit. I am sure they will work it out. 

Maybe I will keep my beer if they just make the portions smaller to keep the price the same. Done deal. 

I remember during the ACA debates how Papa John's (racist) CEO complained that he would have to raise the price of a pizza by a dollar to cover his employees for full insurance. He used this as some justification that people would revolt and be angry -- but the internet had the opposite reaction. They were like "duh! I'd pay a dollar to make sure the dude handing me my pizza would have insurance. What kind of asshole are you?!" 
 

Edited August 4, 2020 by SteaminWillieBeamin

[Cr1028]

3 hours ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

I keep being told that businesses are the best at minimizing cost and maximizing profit. I am sure they will work it out. 

Big businesses are good at that which is why so much of what you find on the shelves at the big box stores is made in China. Big manufacturers realized that they could increase their profits by using the cheapest labor on the planet even with the increased transport costs. Mom and pop businesses will struggle to make it, independent franchisees will  struggle to make it while the corporate office continues to collect their franchise fees, but box box stores, corporate stores, and big manufacturers will find a way. This is why you’ve heard of fast food places testing out kiosks to replace cashiers.

[Cr1028]

3 hours ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

I remember during the ACA debates how Papa John's (racist) CEO complained that he would have to raise the price of a pizza by a dollar to cover his employees for full insurance. He used this as some justification that people would revolt and be angry -- but the internet had the opposite reaction. They were like "duh! I'd pay a dollar to make sure the dude handing me my pizza would have insurance. What kind of asshole are you?!" 

Haha I love the quote. I don’t think racism was a part of the argument Papa John was trying to make. When Herman Cain died recently I came across a video of him and President Clinton having a similar discussion. 
 

 

Edited August 5, 2020 by Cr1028

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

I was just pointing out how wonderful the Papa John's former CEO is. Lovely guy. 

I watched the Herman Cain clip a couple days ago too... Somehow Godfathers Pizza stayed in business with ACA! Despite all the consternation. 

[Cr1028]

13 minutes ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

I was just pointing out how wonderful the Papa John's former CEO is. Lovely guy. 

I watched the Herman Cain clip a couple days ago too... Somehow Godfathers Pizza stayed in business with ACA! Despite all the consternation. 

You make a fair point. I enjoyed the discourse.

[UNTLifer]

https://fee.org/articles/npr-mounting-evidence-suggests-covid-not-as-deadly-as-thought-did-the-experts-fail-again/?fbclid=IwAR3gJ6ZAZw4x6O8CfaobN7DZvLDUnLyf_g5PNSMyu2y_OtUL2H2wLJWqaec

[Cr1028]

1 hour ago, UNTLifer said:

https://fee.org/articles/npr-mounting-evidence-suggests-covid-not-as-deadly-as-thought-did-the-experts-fail-again/?fbclid=IwAR3gJ6ZAZw4x6O8CfaobN7DZvLDUnLyf_g5PNSMyu2y_OtUL2H2wLJWqaec

While I do think the virus is much less deadly than it is made out to be for most of us, this story is a month and a half out of date and could stand substantial updates.
 

I have always thought the best test case we had was the Diamond Princess cruise ship where nobody knew to wear masks or socially distance. Practically everyone on the ship was exposed to the virus and the death rate was 0.27%. I haven’t seen anything since to convince me it is any deadlier than that. It is one of the earliest and best samples we have of an entire population being exposed, the entire population tested, and the population subsequently recovered or expired.
 

I will say that it does appear to be quite a bit more deadly to persons a few years above the average American lifespan than I initially thought because folks in nursing home don’t typically hit the cruise ships even though retirees do hit them in large numbers.. I would be interested to see how the death count by natural causes has changed for that same population group this year.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Cr1028

[UNTLifer]

So the article I posted was from June 12 and the article I found on the Diamond Princess was from June 15.  Age of study must not be that important.  The point being, the original reaction and fear where faulty.  Yes, some populations are more apt to contract the virus and have difficulty with it, older populations and those with conditions or compromised health such as diabetes, heart conditions, obesity, etc..., but to the healthy individual, the effects are not nearly as deadly as first expected and in many cases, the symptoms are not too bad.

[CMJ]

1 hour ago, Cr1028 said:

While I do think the virus is much less deadly than it is made out to be for most of us, this story is a month and a half out of date and could stand substantial updates.
 

I have always thought the best test case we had was the Diamond Princess cruise ship where nobody knew to wear masks or socially distance. Practically everyone on the ship was exposed to the virus and the death rate was 0.27%. I haven’t seen anything since to convince me it is any deadlier than that. It is one of the earliest and best samples we have of an entire population being exposed, the entire population tested, and the population subsequently recovered or expired.
 

I will say that it does appear to be quite a bit more deadly to persons a few years above the average American lifespan than I initially thought because folks in nursing home don’t typically hit the cruise ships even though retirees do hit them in large numbers.. I would be interested to see how the death count by natural causes has changed for that same population group this year.

Well, for the sake of argument let's say the 0.27% thing is accurate - I think it is likely a higher number but I'll play along.  For herd immunity to kick in, we'd need about 70% of the population to get infected, so about 231 million people give or take.  If .027% of 231 million succumb, that would be 623,700.

 

That's a helluva number.

[Cr1028]

7 hours ago, CMJ said:

Well, for the sake of argument let's say the 0.27% thing is accurate - I think it is likely a higher number but I'll play along.  For herd immunity to kick in, we'd need about 70% of the population to get infected, so about 231 million people give or take.  If .027% of 231 million succumb, that would be 623,700.

 

That's a helluva number.

In a vacuum, absolutely. It will be interesting to see how many more deaths 2020 has than usual. Typically about 2.8 million Americans die each year from one cause or another. We know for sure that some deaths classified as Covid would’ve happened this year regardless of Covid, so we need to determine how many people die this year that would not have died for any other reason but Covid. That would be the true Covid fatality impact.

We aren’t talking about healthy, college aged students dying in some far away land where most would’ve gone on to live long lives, we are talking about a large number of deaths in the +85 crowd where statistically you are already on borrowed time. That may sound cold but as human beings, our lifespan is finite and sometimes people forget that.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Cr1028

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

8 hours ago, Cr1028 said:

..we are talking about a large number of deaths in the +85 crowd where statistically you are already on borrowed time.

Let's look at the death report from Dallas yesterday: 

https://twitter.com/JudgeClayJ/status/1290757479232679944/photo/1

From 20's to 90s.  Majority are way under your 85 year line in the sand.

The death rate is an odd thing to watch. As the scientists and medical communities study treatments and therapies - the death rate will trend down. That is just fact. However, after they go and tally deaths after this is over, the rate will go up again, but not to the original death rate it saw in Itally and Spain  -- which is where the original estimates were coming from. 

But again, as we learn more, we discover the other effects of COVID for those that didn't die and had minor symptoms. 

CDC released the finding on long term symptoms:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm

Doctors are reporting very irregular clotting in covid patients - which goes along with the sky rocketing cardiac events this year:
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/autopsies-indicate-blood-clots-are-lethal-in-covid-19-67727

Mortality and major complications for elective surgeries for people post-covid:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31182-X/fulltext

"Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths"

So the point is - I wish people would stop being so quick to say that symptoms are minor  - it only kills old people. We just don't know quite yet the long term. Will there be generation of adults that die from pulmonary complications  in their 50s because they played youth soccer or college football? 

No one is saying to stop living or live in fear, but may some  activities can be put on the sideline until we get a vaccine and and learn more about this crazy virus. 

[Cr1028]

46 minutes ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

Let's look at the death report from Dallas yesterday: 

https://twitter.com/JudgeClayJ/status/1290757479232679944/photo/1

From 20's to 90s.  Majority are way under your 85 year line in the sand.

The death rate is an odd thing to watch. As the scientists and medical communities study treatments and therapies - the death rate will trend down. That is just fact. However, after they go and tally deaths after this is over, the rate will go up again, but not to the original death rate it saw in Itally and Spain  -- which is where the original estimates were coming from. 

But again, as we learn more, we discover the other effects of COVID for those that didn't die and had minor symptoms. 

CDC released the finding on long term symptoms:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm

Doctors are reporting very irregular clotting in covid patients - which goes along with the sky rocketing cardiac events this year:
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/autopsies-indicate-blood-clots-are-lethal-in-covid-19-67727

Mortality and major complications for elective surgeries for people post-covid:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31182-X/fulltext

"Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths"

So the point is - I wish people would stop being so quick to say that symptoms are minor  - it only kills old people. We just don't know quite yet the long term. Will there be generation of adults that die from pulmonary complications  in their 50s because they played youth soccer or college football? 

No one is saying to stop living or live in fear, but may some  activities can be put on the sideline until we get a vaccine and and learn more about this crazy virus. 

I have questions about a vaccine’s efficacy. If surviving from the actual virus doesn’t give you immunity for a reasonable amount of time, how could a vaccine possibly do that? Why are Covid recoverees required to wear a mask like the rest of us? Also, if we send 18 year old volunteers to war to die for some other country’s freedom, why can’t we allow low-risk individuals to volunteer to be intentionally inoculated with the virus, serve their 2 week quarantine and then get back to life? I would’ve jubilantly gone through two weeks of hellish sickness to go back to regular life instead of what we’ve endured the past 5 months and will continue to endure for the foreseeable future.

I can’t argue what you said about the more recent death ages as I haven’t looked at that data yet. But I will take your word for it.  

In the grand scheme of things, the best case scenario would’ve been the city of Wuhan throwing a net over it instead of censoring doctors who tried to warn everyone. Then it could’ve been contained to just that area but it wasn’t. The next best thing would’ve been to stop all international travel to the US, by land, air, or sea and to Quarantine everyone who had internationally traveled within the prior two weeks of implementation of the travel ban. Neither of these things happened and the toothpaste left the tube. I’m glad the powers that be weren’t as careless when Ebola came through Dallas a few years ago.

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

9 minutes ago, Cr1028 said:

I have questions about a vaccine’s efficacy. If surviving from the actual virus doesn’t give you immunity for a reasonable amount of time, how could a vaccine possibly do that? Why are Covid recoverees required to wear a mask like the rest of us? Also, if we send 18 year old volunteers to war to die for some other country’s freedom, why can’t we allow low-risk individuals to volunteer to be intentionally inoculated with the virus, serve their 2 week quarantine and then get back to life? I would’ve jubilantly gone through two weeks of hellish sickness to go back to regular life instead of what we’ve endured the past 5 months and will continue to endure for the foreseeable future.

 Most vaccines need a booster because the efficacy wears off over time. COVID will be no different. 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/adult.html

We don't need volunteers to test inoculation - since there are over 4.5M US citizens that have already tested positive. There are studies on plasma treatment, immunity and all of that. 

Even once you are vaccinated and don't catch a virus, you can still spread the virus - which is why recovered patients need to wear a facemask. It is stop the spread to others, not about them not getting it. That is really what the facemask is supposed to stop - the aerosol from that person getting into the air. Even if the RNA isn't going to hurt the person with immunity (via short term live immunity or vaccine), it will still possibly be in their sinuses can ready to spread in the air. 

I hope the anti-vaxxers don't come out in force. I know our top leader of this country has voiced his anti-vaxx stances in the past. 

[Cr1028]

1 hour ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

 Most vaccines need a booster because the efficacy wears off over time. COVID will be no different. 

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/adult.html

We don't need volunteers to test inoculation - since there are over 4.5M US citizens that have already tested positive. There are studies on plasma treatment, immunity and all of that. 

Even once you are vaccinated and don't catch a virus, you can still spread the virus - which is why recovered patients need to wear a facemask. It is stop the spread to others, not about them not getting it. That is really what the facemask is supposed to stop - the aerosol from that person getting into the air. Even if the RNA isn't going to hurt the person with immunity (via short term live immunity or vaccine), it will still possibly be in their sinuses can ready to spread in the air. 

I hope the anti-vaxxers don't come out in force. I know our top leader of this country has voiced his anti-vaxx stances in the past. 

I am completely ignorant some of this stuff. So you are saying I can be immune to the virus while still having it in my system? I don’t really understand how all that works.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Cr1028

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

4 minutes ago, Cr1028 said:

I am completely ignorant some of this stuff. So you are saying I can be immune to the virus while still having it in my system? I don’t really understand how all that works.

Yep. If you breath in the COVID aerosol and it is in your sinuses ... they will not hurt you. But you can still spread them by sneezing them into the air.  Same for washing your hands - you would still want to practice the same hand washing procedures to stop spreading any covid even though it won't harm you.  

[Cr1028]

6 minutes ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

Yep. If you breath in the COVID aerosol and it is in your sinuses ... they will not hurt you. But you can still spread them by sneezing them into the air.  Same for washing your hands - you would still want to practice the same hand washing procedures to stop spreading any covid even though it won't harm you.  

Interesting, good to know, thanks.

[97and03]

I am not sure how many studies I need to post on this site showing unexpected lingering effects from COVID - and not just lungs. But let’s say lungs are the primary concern. How does that work out for an aspiring young athlete (or dancer, singer, firefighter, or any physical profession)? Not so great. You don’t go on a ventilator one week and back to practice the next. 
But it isn’t just lungs: there have been studies showing patients with brain, kidney, and heart damage as well. Still early to know for sure everything or how lasting this damage is, but I keep asking myself: why is it worth the risk?