You are confusing the fabled and undefined Long Covid that depending on what you want to argue can be made out to encompass just about anything, and the specific issue of lung damage this article is about.
Talking about narrowly defined specific things is scientific. Musing about something that has no useful definition and drawing conclusions from that is pseudoscience.
> 'the effects, be they some or none of X'
Whether there are effects or not and what they are is science. But not defining the effects and then stating they appear in half of the cases is useless and not science.
Just to keep it practical, people say ‘I know this one guy and he got covid and it was terrible for a long time’. So that’s the image that’s conjured up for Long Covid. And then on the other side there’s what you describe, Long Covid is just any complaint people have after contracting covid, from lung damage to occasional slight headaches, you know, the things that are in the list of side effects for every type of medicine on the planet. Next is the claim that a large amount of people get these extremely slight side effects.
Now because there is no scientifically useful definition of Long Covid, this large amount of people that get slight side effects is confused with the original image of the terrible Long Covid. Ultimately it seems like a very large proportion of the people that get covid will develop debilitating lung problems. But the reality is that that is just not the case because a very large amount of people have already been infected and while yes there are a lot of people with serious problems, they are still a small minority.
It does fit the narrative quite nicely of scaring a lot of people into taking the vaccinations, wearing the masks, whatever measure you want to sell. But it’s not science and in the long run it just devalues real science and fosters skepticism and conspiracy theories. Because ultimately everyone can just clearly see that not half of the people they know has developed these terrible symptoms.
I am not at all confused. I am well aware of the contents of the article, and that the article never mentions specifically the combination of characters known as 'Long Covid'. I responded specifically to your unreferenced statement of a supposed fact (that there is a claim) 'half of the people that get infected get Long Covid'.
Your claim that this is either the case or being claimed to be the case is entirely baseless.
> people say ‘I know this one guy and he got covid and it was terrible for a long time’. So that’s the image that’s conjured up for Long Covid.
I have never once heard that, and my reaction to that scenario, is that the guy had covid. Long covid did not enter my thoughts, the image you have conjured here is of someone fighting an active infection. It sounds like they were in hospital for a long time. Hopefully that friend is better now.
> Long Covid is just any complaint people have after contracting covid, from lung damage to occasional slight headaches, you know, the things that are in the list of side effects for every type of medicine on the planet
You know how if you get shot, you often bleed. Well its not like that is unique to being shot, if you cut yourself you will also bleed.
> Now because there is no scientifically useful definition of Long Covid
The Long term Effects of infection with COVID.
> Whether there are effects or not and what they are is science.
> But it’s not science.
For a while I thought we had come to an agreement on what science was.
Talking about narrowly defined specific things is scientific. Musing about something that has no useful definition and drawing conclusions from that is pseudoscience.
> 'the effects, be they some or none of X'
Whether there are effects or not and what they are is science. But not defining the effects and then stating they appear in half of the cases is useless and not science.
Just to keep it practical, people say ‘I know this one guy and he got covid and it was terrible for a long time’. So that’s the image that’s conjured up for Long Covid. And then on the other side there’s what you describe, Long Covid is just any complaint people have after contracting covid, from lung damage to occasional slight headaches, you know, the things that are in the list of side effects for every type of medicine on the planet. Next is the claim that a large amount of people get these extremely slight side effects.
Now because there is no scientifically useful definition of Long Covid, this large amount of people that get slight side effects is confused with the original image of the terrible Long Covid. Ultimately it seems like a very large proportion of the people that get covid will develop debilitating lung problems. But the reality is that that is just not the case because a very large amount of people have already been infected and while yes there are a lot of people with serious problems, they are still a small minority.
It does fit the narrative quite nicely of scaring a lot of people into taking the vaccinations, wearing the masks, whatever measure you want to sell. But it’s not science and in the long run it just devalues real science and fosters skepticism and conspiracy theories. Because ultimately everyone can just clearly see that not half of the people they know has developed these terrible symptoms.