Thanks for this!
Question: It seems possible that long COVID prevalence / impact falls short of the level that would qualify a significant proportion of the American workforce for disability, but would still be very concerning for folks with cognitively intensive professions (i.e., the majority of LW readers). How likely do you think this is?
[I removed the other question I’d included here earlier, quoting the insurer Unum from the last article you cited, because I only saw the part where “it has approved “hundreds of thousands” of additional disability claims since the beginning of the pandemic, with an increase from pre-pandemic levels of 35 percent” but missed the part where they said “In general, disability and leave claims connected to covid-19 have been primarily short-term events with the majority of claimants recovering before completing the normal qualification period for long term disability insurance.” Incidentally, per https://caveylaw.com/practice-areas/long-term-disability-erisa-lawyer/medical-conditions/ it seems like the threshold for LTD is to be out of work for more than 3-6 months.]
Other comments:
The stats you cited regarding disability claims seem compelling in assessing this question. (I wonder if there are countervailing (non COVID-related) forces that would drive down the aggregate rates of disability claims, but the stats on COVID-related disability specifically would seem to avoid that concern.)
I tend to be wary of arguments which say “the press is just lying” (perhaps because it’s really hard for me to assess that, and seems like a convenient way to dismiss evidence that doesn’t fit your favored model), but I could believe that the press’s assertions are driven by the desire for a dramatic headline, and full of sloppy thinking (and subject to the same sorts of issues that you and Zvi have noted). Regardless, if you have stats on disability claims, and the press does not have better stats, then that seems to settle the issue.
Thanks very much for looking into this, and sharing all those details about the conclusion you came to!
I have the PM-type skills for this, but if the consensus of smart people far more numerate than I is that the risk of debilitating long COVID is low enough that it’s comparable to other risks normal people routinely tolerate, it doesn’t seem worth it.
Some follow-up questions for you:
1) Is this still your assessment (i.e. how your assessment evolved since the post you wrote 8 months ago, if at all)?
My assessment that, post-vaccination, covid was in the range of other health concerns, and most people had lower hanging fruit to pick on their health.
2) How likely do you think it is that this would change with further variants? Do you think it is likely enough that this is worth keeping tabs on? (My guess is that this is covered in your overall comment above, but thought I’d check, in case your overall conclusion was about updating risk assessment to reflect new studies, rather than new variants).
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/selfreportedlongcovidafterinfectionwiththeomicronvariant/6may2022 which a couple other commenters shared seems to indicate that Omicron certainly hasn’t been more likely to cause long COVID than Delta (based on a quick read of the summary at the beginning)