I have returned to normal life and am essentially ignoring Covid risk going forward.
[...]
what’s the alternative? Covid’s not going to go anywhere. You can live your life or you can… never live your life and hide in your apartment forever.
This seems to require the premise that ~all of the risk comes from your first covid infection (or perhaps from your first few). If that were true, then most people would indeed have to choose between accepting that risk or living an extremely restricted lifestyle indefinitely. But if it’s not true, the huge middle ground between ‘precautions necessary to avoid covid forever’ and ‘precautions necessary to significantly reduce the number of times you get covid’ comes into play.
There’s also the value of buying time. Our understanding of covid will only grow, and the future could bring any or all of much more effective vaccines, much more effective treatments, and new knowledge that meaningfully changes your personal risk calculation. In the first two cases, avoiding covid for [unpredictable but finite length of time] could have similar value to avoiding covid entirely, even if we never come close to literally eradicating it.
Even if the alternative is minimal exposure but regular vaccination? I would have expected that to give most of the immunity boost at significantly lower risk.
One thing I’m not clear on is the effect of exposure that doesn’t lead to a detectable infection. (I mean a situation where a person has definitely breathed in or otherwise ingested some virus particles, but they don’t last long enough or multiply sufficiently to cause symptoms or register on a test.) My current impression is that it probably tends not to make any significant difference to the body’s ability to deal with subsequent exposures, but I haven’t seen strong evidence either way. (It seems like observational studies would struggle to distinguish between those casual contacts who breathed in some virus and those who didn’t; and for household contacts who ~certainly must have got some virus in them, but didn’t get infected, it would be hard to tease out the protective effect of this exposure from the selection effect.)
How much more mitigation do you think you’re going to buy by stalling for time? We already have vaccines and Paxlovid, each of which reduces the likelihood of severe COVID effects by at least 90%, and that’s coming down from a baseline of less than 1% for people who are young and healthy.
The poster’s concern is with long COVID, which can certainly have effects that a lot of people would consider severe. The “severe” COVID that has a baseline of less than 1% for the young and healthy refers to COVID that requires hospitalization. Long Covid rates are higher.
Also, some LWers are neither young nor healthy, and/or have family responsibilities that would become problematic or impossible at some levels of lasting lung or organ damage, whether you call it “long covid” or not. So I’m definitely waiting for more understanding of long-term effects before I change my risk profile.
This seems to require the premise that ~all of the risk comes from your first covid infection (or perhaps from your first few). If that were true, then most people would indeed have to choose between accepting that risk or living an extremely restricted lifestyle indefinitely. But if it’s not true, the huge middle ground between ‘precautions necessary to avoid covid forever’ and ‘precautions necessary to significantly reduce the number of times you get covid’ comes into play.
There’s also the value of buying time. Our understanding of covid will only grow, and the future could bring any or all of much more effective vaccines, much more effective treatments, and new knowledge that meaningfully changes your personal risk calculation. In the first two cases, avoiding covid for [unpredictable but finite length of time] could have similar value to avoiding covid entirely, even if we never come close to literally eradicating it.
I find it plausible it’s better to be exposed to covid early and often, so your immunity never wains.
Even if the alternative is minimal exposure but regular vaccination? I would have expected that to give most of the immunity boost at significantly lower risk.
One thing I’m not clear on is the effect of exposure that doesn’t lead to a detectable infection. (I mean a situation where a person has definitely breathed in or otherwise ingested some virus particles, but they don’t last long enough or multiply sufficiently to cause symptoms or register on a test.) My current impression is that it probably tends not to make any significant difference to the body’s ability to deal with subsequent exposures, but I haven’t seen strong evidence either way. (It seems like observational studies would struggle to distinguish between those casual contacts who breathed in some virus and those who didn’t; and for household contacts who ~certainly must have got some virus in them, but didn’t get infected, it would be hard to tease out the protective effect of this exposure from the selection effect.)
How much more mitigation do you think you’re going to buy by stalling for time? We already have vaccines and Paxlovid, each of which reduces the likelihood of severe COVID effects by at least 90%, and that’s coming down from a baseline of less than 1% for people who are young and healthy.
The poster’s concern is with long COVID, which can certainly have effects that a lot of people would consider severe. The “severe” COVID that has a baseline of less than 1% for the young and healthy refers to COVID that requires hospitalization. Long Covid rates are higher.
Also, some LWers are neither young nor healthy, and/or have family responsibilities that would become problematic or impossible at some levels of lasting lung or organ damage, whether you call it “long covid” or not. So I’m definitely waiting for more understanding of long-term effects before I change my risk profile.