[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.
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.
But what is the base rate? How do demographic factors affect the base rate? Vaccination status?