No, it isn’t the data I was looking for. And I wasn’t trying to be snarky, just hoping someone had the data. The risk of long term effects has been written about to great extent, especially early on. Most of the news stories though implicitly stated that it was an observation, not a scientific study. Then the frequency of those articles dropped dramatically.This data doesnt provide what John74 requested. I said there are younger people with comorbidities that put them in a greater risk. I also stated just because people live there are other hardships, health and financial, that they will have. The CDC charts just reaffirm what myself, john74 and everyone else knows. The older you are the more vulnerable you are. I'm saying there's more than just age that the CDC charts dont show. And in the case of financial burden or lingering problems the CDC cant give you that data
It’s something that gets brought up still. And that is one of my biggest issues with the scientific community on this whole response. What is the frequency of long haulers? Is it better or worse than typical viral and bacterial infections? What was the treatment protocol of the long haulers? The data set is big enough and mature enough to be able to answer these questions. All I have ever been able to garnish is that during a nationwide outbreak of Covid, there were times visits to general practitioners was down as much as 90%. If there was truly a wide ranging issues with the lasting impacts of the disease, that extreme of a drop doesn’t seem to support that narrative.
And answering the question with data, not single case news articles, is what is needed to get through this thing. I had Covid and so has a large majority of my family and friends. Thankfully for all, it was pretty much a nothing-burger. So as everyone assesses the situation of getting back to normal and whether or not to get an emergency use vaccine, how do we navigate the risk decision without a true understanding of long term effects and future infections?