Here’s the thing - has the science changed? Has the virus and long-COVID risks changed?
These stories never tell me that. I don’t care what’s “normal,” I just want to not be exhausted or have brain fog for life.
I know I’m in the minority, everyone wants to move to “endemic” land and treat this as the new flu, but I still really don’t want to get COVID and roll the dice on lifelong problems.
The science hasn’t changed. If anything we are now more aware of post-viral syndromes to a greater degree, in SARS-CoV-2, AND Influenza, at the very least. I’ve managed, so far, with diligent masking, hand washing, HEPA filtration, Neti washing, etc to avoid covid, influenza RSV, parapneumovirus, etc. And I hope to continue doing so. One researcher had the phrase, ARDS Roulette, and it’s not a game I want to play. Stay strong. Stay healthy.
That is a whole lot of work.
Are you immunocompromised?
The virus has changed quite a bit over the last 4 years. It’s pretty common for a deadly virus to get less deadly over time. Killing your host isn’t very conducive to survival.
But, I haven’t seen data on how the risk of long covid has changed over time.
A virus doesn’t care if the host lives or dies. Just like evolution doesn’t care if YOU live or die, so long as it happens after you have kids.
A virus only has to have a living host long enough to spread to others, and the long asymptomatic infectious period observed with this coronavirus already fits that bill.
Think of Rabies, nearly 100% fatal, still incredibly widespread and infectious.
Exactly this. The whole “viruses evolve to be less deadly/severe” trope is just wishful thinking masquerading as science.
Evolution isn’t some sort of get-of-pandemic-free card, no matter how much we all wish it was.
There’s lots of counter examples of viruses that are still as deadly as ever, but I’d go beyond that; I’ve never seen anyone give a concrete example of a virus that actually did evolve to be less deadly.
The closest anyone has come to that is the 1918 flu pandemic, but there’s no evidence that it’s less deadly now due to evolution. It’s more like that it is simply less deadly because there isn’t as much widespread malnutrition as there was in 1918.
killing your host isn’t very conducive to survival.
Ebola has entered the chat…
Disclaimer: i’m not a doctor or an epidemiologist…
With vaccination the risk of PASC (long covid) decreases. It is a commonly held belief that viruses become less deadly over time, but that is not supported by the science. The truth is far more complex. Approx. 2300 people die from covid each week in the US. I can’t quote numbers for other countries. I can highly recommend TWIV (This Week in Virology, https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/), and related podcasts (https://www.microbe.tv/science-shows-by-scientists/), if you want to keep up to speed on the current science in infectious disease.
It doesn’t really matter if the science has changed, public health isn’t (correctly) based exclusively on the science. It’s about risk mitigation, following the best advice regarding morbidity from virologists means nothing if the population you’re attempting to protect won’t follow the guidance. Public health policy is about the possible and finding the most effective part of the curve plotted between pure science and social behavior.
That’s a very reasonable and rational response, thank you. I do wish, however, that for people like me who absolutely do want to take the optimal approach and don’t care very much about getting back to “normal” if it means materially increasing the risk of COVID, that they would tell me what that best path is. Maybe modeling for multiple types of social behavior is too labor-intensive for them, I don’t know.
I’m waiting for the CDC guideline on avoiding licking urinals whenever possible, but not when necessary.
We need to meet people where they are, not where the science says they should be.
If the science says one thing and has strong evidence, it doesn’t matter where you are. You don’t hold a rod of cobalt-60 just because you think you can tank the radiation.
Yes, I was being sarcastic and thought it was obvious enough not to need a /s. People wanting to lick urinals in no way makes it a good recommendation for the organization that’s supposed to be keeping them healthy. Their purpose isn’t to validate people’s feelings (or protect companies from liability), it’s to tell them how to stay healthy.
I mean, you could for a little bit. Once.
Cobalt is pussy shit. I’ve been dosing uranium salts for a few years now to build my tolerance.
I’m pretty sure, both that the science says quite specifically and in great detail to not lick urinals, AND that u/FlyingSquid is being humerus. ;-)
No, this is humerus.
You tryna pick a bone with me?
deleted by creator
Well, I guess it’s time to step up and tell them that you don’t share air with fashy people. Just because you share a family tree doesn’t mean you are obligated to like or associate with them.
Just tell them political ideology is a choice. What they’re doing isn’t natural, and you don’t want filth like that around. There could be children nearby that will be tempted into fascism so if they want to live like that, they need to hide it.
Tell them you think you may be coming down with a case of the gay.
Just tell them that you only associate with good people.
