[Question] Any significant updates on long covid risk analysis?

[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.

No comments.