You’re… citing someone with a PhD in nutritional science primarily interpreting a study with n=76, and trying to deduce from that a 96% decrease in fatality risk. That’s not how those statistics work. You simply can’t get that level of information from the studies cited.
One 35 year old friend of mine was on oxygen for four months and out of work for six months.
Another’s (31) autonomic nervous system is fried and needs to be on vasoconstrictor drugs so she does not faint every time she stands up.
Four more in their thirties fought it off like a horrible flu plus smell issues.
There is evidence that the immunity provided by the RNA vaccines is stronger and possibly more reliable than that produced by natural infection for 3⁄4 of the population.
There is evidence of very weird and interesting infection of cardiac cells early in infection with implications that are not understood and might have interesting effects forty years down the line. Precautionary.
I also do not want to spread to people around me who are unvaccinated.
On another note, I remain flabbergasted and angry that very little research is going on in Europe and America about indomethacin and ivermectin.
I strong-upvoted this comment from CheerfulWarrior, to bring it from the negatives to the positives. I think CellBioGuy’s comment was good, and a valuable contribution to the discussion. I think it’s also useful for CheerfulWarrior to ask for citations, and useful to remind us of the risk of anecdotes here: we should share data like this, but it’s true that there are meaningful risks of mis-reporting, of selection effects, and of over-updating-due-to-emotional-salience.
E.g., imagine 99⁄100 LessWrongers deciding not to comment because they haven’t heard of their friends suffering long-term effects, while the 1⁄100 LWer whose friends are seeing serious sequelae does decide to comment, since they have the more interesting story to tell.
(I’m making these points as a procedural point, not because I disagree with CellBioGuy’s conclusions. In this case, I do think long-term effects of COVID are not-super-rare in 30-50-year-olds, based on a variety of cobbled-together sources of varying quality, and based on first- and second-hand reports from my friends, people I follow on Twitter, etc.)
(Added: The tone is maybe not optimally friendly, but I think it’s better to focus on epistemic content in this context.)
Whether you think there is evidence of “lasting” negative health consequences is going to depend on what you interpret as “lasting.” There is lots of evidence SOME people still have symptoms a few months after infection.
Care to share some links? I did some quick Googling about SARS back in Spring but couldn’t find anything that didn’t look to me like clickbait and scare-mongering. But I only scratched the surface, so it’s quite likely that I have missed quality information.
Among the 181 individuals who participated in clinical interviews at follow-up, 6 (3.3%) had a history of psychiatric disorders before contracting SARS. At the time of follow-up, a total of 77 (42.5%) had experienced at least 1 active psychiatric illness as determined by the SCID. The most common diagnoses were posttraumatic stress disorder (42 of 77 survivors [54.5%]), depression (30 of 77 [39.0%]), somatoform pain disorder (28 of 77 [36.4%]), panic disorder (25 of 77 [32.5%]), and obsessive compulsive disorder (12 of 77 [15.6%]).
[...]
Chronic fatigue was found to be common among both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric groups. The prevalence rate according to the Chalder fatigue questionnaires (chronic fatigue score ≥4 and symptoms lasting for >6 months) and the modified CDC 1994 criteria15 for CFS were 40.3% and 27.1%, respectively. Those with fatigue symptoms were more likely to have comorbid active psychiatric disorders (Table 3).
That’s simply false. In fact, there is an abundance of evidence of it.
https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---30-october-2020
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-30992030701-5/fulltext
You’re… citing someone with a PhD in nutritional science primarily interpreting a study with n=76, and trying to deduce from that a 96% decrease in fatality risk. That’s not how those statistics work. You simply can’t get that level of information from the studies cited.
One 35 year old friend of mine was on oxygen for four months and out of work for six months.
Another’s (31) autonomic nervous system is fried and needs to be on vasoconstrictor drugs so she does not faint every time she stands up.
Four more in their thirties fought it off like a horrible flu plus smell issues.
There is evidence that the immunity provided by the RNA vaccines is stronger and possibly more reliable than that produced by natural infection for 3⁄4 of the population.
There is evidence of very weird and interesting infection of cardiac cells early in infection with implications that are not understood and might have interesting effects forty years down the line. Precautionary.
I also do not want to spread to people around me who are unvaccinated.
On another note, I remain flabbergasted and angry that very little research is going on in Europe and America about indomethacin and ivermectin.
ąnecdotes from a stranger on the Internet.
[citation needed]
I strong-upvoted this comment from CheerfulWarrior, to bring it from the negatives to the positives. I think CellBioGuy’s comment was good, and a valuable contribution to the discussion. I think it’s also useful for CheerfulWarrior to ask for citations, and useful to remind us of the risk of anecdotes here: we should share data like this, but it’s true that there are meaningful risks of mis-reporting, of selection effects, and of over-updating-due-to-emotional-salience.
E.g., imagine 99⁄100 LessWrongers deciding not to comment because they haven’t heard of their friends suffering long-term effects, while the 1⁄100 LWer whose friends are seeing serious sequelae does decide to comment, since they have the more interesting story to tell.
(I’m making these points as a procedural point, not because I disagree with CellBioGuy’s conclusions. In this case, I do think long-term effects of COVID are not-super-rare in 30-50-year-olds, based on a variety of cobbled-together sources of varying quality, and based on first- and second-hand reports from my friends, people I follow on Twitter, etc.)
(Added: The tone is maybe not optimally friendly, but I think it’s better to focus on epistemic content in this context.)
Whether you think there is evidence of “lasting” negative health consequences is going to depend on what you interpret as “lasting.” There is lots of evidence SOME people still have symptoms a few months after infection.
The priors we have from SARS suggests that those symptoms are lasting.
Care to share some links? I did some quick Googling about SARS back in Spring but couldn’t find anything that didn’t look to me like clickbait and scare-mongering. But I only scratched the surface, so it’s quite likely that I have missed quality information.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/415378
https://bmcneurol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2377-11-37
Both are scientific papers published years after SARS and before our present issues with COVID-19