Follow Ups on asymptomatic patients is also tricky (have to find them first in an organized way and not having them monitored continously would be an issue) and as with many, many other things it is a matter of ressources. A lot of which are still invested in figuring out why it kills and how to prevent it, then next also into what happens with recovered patients from hospitals or even sick-at-home (and the outlook here is not stellar...)
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...d-19-infection
From lung scarring to heart damage, COVID-19 may leave lingering marks | Berkeley News
Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopMVP
Yep, we have no idea if it will cause long term damage. So why are supposed to assume it will instead of waiting to see? (And why aren't there any studies by now?!?)
|
Once you "wait and see" while going ahead, you
have already decided. And can't take it back, if it turns out to be a bigger problem.
I am not going to claim i know what the right decision is (Football being played or not DOES have other ramifications as well, it isn't just a luxury), but basing it on "we don't know yet so we might as well go ahead" seems flawed as a basis for any decision.
And is partly what landed us in this mess in the first place. Plenty of warning signs were ignored along the way in favour of assuming a lack of evidence meant a certain thing isn't happening (like asymptomatic spread or even cases being a major issue or mask efficiency being doubted because it had not been proven 'in vitro' or for this specific virus etc).
People do have a tendency to go with the glas half full option.
And while i am not entirely cynical on the issue, whatever happens with these college athletes is not exactly an open book or independently monitored.