3 ms·

> Vaccines included, some of us were never told that "a flu" could frequently provide long term impairment The article you link does not claim that long term i

> Vaccines included, some of us were never told that "a flu" could frequently provide long term impairment The article you link does not claim that long term impairment is frequent. From the article: > A UK study estimates that between 7% and 18% of people who had COVID-19 went on to develop some symptoms of long COVID that lingered for at least 5 weeks. However, this study does not consider severity of symptoms. Someone with a persistent cough for 5 weeks after infection is considered to have “long COVID,” just as someone with massive loss of pulmonary function is considered to have “long COVID.” It also does not control for long COVID symptoms that are merely correlatory, e.g. insomnia. I had intermittent insomnia for the first few months of the pandemic, because I was afraid for the state of the world. Yet if I had contracted COVID in those months, I too could be considered a long COVID sufferer. I have yet to see a study that estimates the prevalence of severe long-term symptoms causally stemming from COVID infections. My guess is that it’s vanishingly small; given the sheer number of COVID infections, it would be obvious to everyone if a sizable portion of them actually went on to develop severe long-term symptoms. If 7-18% of COVID infections actually resulted in the severe long COVID symptoms described in the article (e.g. “extreme fatigue, breathlessness, [or] difficulty concentrating”), it would be extremely evident on a societal level.

mdp2021 5y ago
> vanishingly small You do not have relevant acquaintances to confirm that anecdotally - numbers aside, as a real risk? > it would be extremely evident on a societal level For the cognitive aspect, I am not sure it could become so evident, given the already suboptimal situation. (If you live in a place where "all are bright", please let me know what that encouraging utopia is: I will relocate within the month.) This is not sarcasm or even irony: I believe that cognitive issues are ignored in many societies, and/hence a further decline will hardly be visible. Again, a few in my circle have noted that, but they just go on working as before. This friend of mine had an accident years ago, and started losing his "laser-like precision": he mentioned his concern with the director, who replied «You are simply getting older». I believe that the consideration of relative cognitive falls is very normally relegated to either passing episodes or normal ageing as revealed in natural jerks.
- spurgu 5y ago
  > You do not have relevant acquaintances to confirm that anecdotally - numbers aside, as a real risk? That seems like a weak counter-argument. If this was the case we'd be hearing, and reading, about it everywhere.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    > counter-argument The poster was referring to post infection "long covid", and stated suspect that the number of actual cases of "infection caused consequences" could be small. Before, in priority, challenging that idea, the poster was asked whether he actually met acquaintances who were "normal" before infection, and claiming being dramatically hit many months after. This is to pose a preliminary point about the existence of the problem, before considering the magnitude - one black swan entails black swans exist. That was the scope. So, not really an argument (to the poster's full point). > If this was the case we'd be hearing, and reading, about it everywhere Hearing, it depends who you hear; reading, I think mention of long covid can be found with reasonable frequency. I submitted one of the divulgative articles in mid October ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28854321 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28854321 ). Progress in the development of information leaves could "always" be faster and better.
fragmede 5y ago
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2784918 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
- MontyCarloHall 5y ago
  The patients surveyed in this study are not representative of the general population: >The mean (SD) age of survivors was 54.4 (8.9) years, 140 196 (56%) were male, and 197 777 (79%) were hospitalized during acute COVID-19 I would expect the prevalence of severe long-term symptoms to be much higher in a population that was predominantly hospitalized for acute COVID than in the general population. I could not find any stratification by age/risk group/vaccination status from a cursory look at the study, although maybe it’s buried somewhere. I still have yet to see a study that assesses, given full vaccination, the risk of developing severe long-term symptoms for different risk groups (e.g. ages/comorbidities). This is the most relevant metric for easing restrictions, since acute symptoms for vaccinated individuals have already been shown to be on par with a flu. If chronic symptoms are nonexistent, then there’s no reason to not totally ease restrictions amongst highly vaccinated populations.

mdp2021 5y ago

> vanishingly small You do not have relevant acquaintances to confirm that anecdotally - numbers aside, as a real risk? > it would be extremely evident on a societal level For the cognitive aspect, I am not sure it could become so evident, given the already suboptimal situation. (If you live in a place where "all are bright", please let me know what that encouraging utopia is: I will relocate within the month.) This is not sarcasm or even irony: I believe that cognitive issues are ignored in many societies, and/hence a further decline will hardly be visible. Again, a few in my circle have noted that, but they just go on working as before. This friend of mine had an accident years ago, and started losing his "laser-like precision": he mentioned his concern with the director, who replied «You are simply getting older». I believe that the consideration of relative cognitive falls is very normally relegated to either passing episodes or normal ageing as revealed in natural jerks.

spurgu 5y ago
> You do not have relevant acquaintances to confirm that anecdotally - numbers aside, as a real risk? That seems like a weak counter-argument. If this was the case we'd be hearing, and reading, about it everywhere.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  > counter-argument The poster was referring to post infection "long covid", and stated suspect that the number of actual cases of "infection caused consequences" could be small. Before, in priority, challenging that idea, the poster was asked whether he actually met acquaintances who were "normal" before infection, and claiming being dramatically hit many months after. This is to pose a preliminary point about the existence of the problem, before considering the magnitude - one black swan entails black swans exist. That was the scope. So, not really an argument (to the poster's full point). > If this was the case we'd be hearing, and reading, about it everywhere Hearing, it depends who you hear; reading, I think mention of long covid can be found with reasonable frequency. I submitted one of the divulgative articles in mid October ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28854321 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28854321 ). Progress in the development of information leaves could "always" be faster and better.

fragmede 5y ago

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2784918 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

MontyCarloHall 5y ago
The patients surveyed in this study are not representative of the general population: >The mean (SD) age of survivors was 54.4 (8.9) years, 140 196 (56%) were male, and 197 777 (79%) were hospitalized during acute COVID-19 I would expect the prevalence of severe long-term symptoms to be much higher in a population that was predominantly hospitalized for acute COVID than in the general population. I could not find any stratification by age/risk group/vaccination status from a cursory look at the study, although maybe it’s buried somewhere. I still have yet to see a study that assesses, given full vaccination, the risk of developing severe long-term symptoms for different risk groups (e.g. ages/comorbidities). This is the most relevant metric for easing restrictions, since acute symptoms for vaccinated individuals have already been shown to be on par with a flu. If chronic symptoms are nonexistent, then there’s no reason to not totally ease restrictions amongst highly vaccinated populations.