[ETA: This question is specifically about risk analysis of long covid, given current knowledge. Discussion should be about things such as:
- base rates
- priors and posteriors for LC risk
- evidence that would make one update in favor of certain new policies with regard to covid
- other decision-relevant considerations.
Moderation guidelines have been added to reflect this.]
Much of the attention on here to the long 'rona [LC] seems to have fizzled out about a year ago. Zvi continued to occasionally report on it, but often in the form of roundly mocking poorly designed studies or sloppy conclusions. This study, also from last year (h/t Zvi), found 50 - 80% reduction in LC in fully vaxx'd folks.
A Q largely asking the same thing from last year.
This recent Zvi 'rona report cites a promising study on LC symptoms controlled against other viral infections. I do worry about Zvi having a sampling or reporting bias, I feel that a systematic review of these LC results would be a great service to the community and perhaps even humanity.
Having said that, this quote from Zvi's December is choice:
Long Infection is a thing across infections. Getting sick is not good for you. We do not pay enough attention to Long Infection, but Long Covid is not special.
There have also been a handful of LC doomers around these parts, eg, Siebe has a gloomy estimate of up to 15% chance of LC even among the vax'd.
I know talking about [long] covid after labor day is gauche, but it is still a thing, and naive waife that I am, I would have hoped a year later our civ's understanding of the risk profile would be "a year better." Whatever the heck that means.
The UK source you link for this month says:... (read more)