I understand your sentiment, around people treating different diseases differently, but I am also not so sure that comparing polio and SARS-CoV-2 makes sense. Polio created a lot of psychological fear due to the graphic imagery of children dying or becoming permanently deformed. The WHO says (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/poliomyelit...) that 1 in 200 infected with polio experience irreversible paralysis (usually the legs), and 5-10% of those with paralysis die, meaning the IFR was 0.025%. The IFR for COVID-19 is incredibly low for those under 50, as most of the deaths impacted senior citizens. Even the CDC's conservative planning scenarios (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...) use a planning IFR for minors of 20 in 1M infections (0.002%) - which is an order of magnitude less than polio.
The side effects you called out (like loss of smell) are rare to begin with, subside over time for most people, and aren't as serious as having to live on an iron lung. Additionally, it isn't clear if "long COVID" is even a real thing or just a casual/imprecise term for the unknown. My speculation is that many illnesses like the common cold have similar side effects, but we're only now rigorously studying and measuring them because of the prominence of COVID-19 in the public's mind.
I would also point out that there are potential consequences from a lot of things we've done in response to COVID. Limiting social interaction, hiding faces/emotions, reducing oxygen intake via masks, normalizing government overreach, hurting the economy, keeping children out of schools, and so on can have impacts we don't yet understand. And then there's the potential for vaccines to have some kind of long-term side effect of their own. My sense of the probabilities and risks is that it is preferable to take the vaccine, implement some basic hygiene protocol, and avoid the worst of it. But I also feel there is a fairly wide spectrum of reasonable choices and policies in this situation.
I'm also not sure what you're expecting in terms of taking it "seriously". COVID is going to be endemic. Everyone will be exposed to it over time. In terms of government intervention, I don't think it ever made sense to do more than 'flattening the curve', and even that was perhaps a step too far since those who are healthy and under 50 can more or less treat COVID like any other common illness. It may have even been preferable for that group to simply contract it and build up antibodies so that others who are more vulnerable could re-enter society with a lesser chance of transmission.
Not sure if 20% (at least for the original strain) qualifies as rare. And, it doesn't matter if it goes away after months, the question is - is there long term neurological damage from that process.
> reducing oxygen intake via masks
This is not true. Breathing is more difficult but oxygen intake is the same. Especially for n95 designs which have really tiny volume
> I'm also not sure what you're expecting in terms of taking it "seriously"
I mean that there is real chance of serious brain damage and long term consequences due to neuroinvasion. Instead we're thinking of COVID as if its the flu or cold.
> My speculation is that many illnesses like the common cold have similar side effects, but we're only now rigorously studying and measuring them because of the prominence of COVID-19 in the public's mind.
And this is precisely what I mean - its in the general mindset to treat SARS-2 like the flu. We think flu, we think fatality rates etc - we dismiss long term consequences, we dismiss long covid brain fog as psychological. I think that's a fatal mistake. It may not be Polio exactly, but it should be placed at similar distance from the flu in our minds.
The writing is all over the wall, but we're in optimistic denial, trying to cope, grasping at any (sophisticated) potential straws.
We can split hairs about what constitutes "long-term" and what doesn't, but if I can't smell anything for a year - not knowing for sure if I ever again will be able to - I'd consider that pretty devastating.
The point is that there are basic steps (vaccination being one, but not the only) that too many people still refuse to follow that can spare many people from having to wonder if they will ever be able to smell again (or worse).
> We can split hairs about what constitutes "long-term" and what doesn't,
Pretty easy to define. Long-term = chronic illness. There are tons of such conditions around. Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriasis, or even viral infections with flares that never go away for the lack of good cures. 1 year is nothing.
> too many people still refuse to follow that can spare many people from having to wonder if they will ever be able to smell again (or worse).
What a ridiculous position to have. You also have a simple way to avoid STDs, is to never have sex in your life ever again. If you want to avoid risks at all costs, you don't have a life anymore.
> Pretty easy to define. Long-term = chronic illness.
Not that easy. If I'm unable to exercise for a year due to COVID complications, that is a major life changing event and has long-term impact. Does it have permanent impact on my health? Maybe, maybe not, but certainly enough that I want people to take this shit seriously.
> You also have a simple way to avoid STDs, is to never have sex in your life ever again.
Fortunately I don't have to, because we have condoms. Do you see where I'm going with this?
The side effects you called out (like loss of smell) are rare to begin with, subside over time for most people, and aren't as serious as having to live on an iron lung. Additionally, it isn't clear if "long COVID" is even a real thing or just a casual/imprecise term for the unknown. My speculation is that many illnesses like the common cold have similar side effects, but we're only now rigorously studying and measuring them because of the prominence of COVID-19 in the public's mind.
I would also point out that there are potential consequences from a lot of things we've done in response to COVID. Limiting social interaction, hiding faces/emotions, reducing oxygen intake via masks, normalizing government overreach, hurting the economy, keeping children out of schools, and so on can have impacts we don't yet understand. And then there's the potential for vaccines to have some kind of long-term side effect of their own. My sense of the probabilities and risks is that it is preferable to take the vaccine, implement some basic hygiene protocol, and avoid the worst of it. But I also feel there is a fairly wide spectrum of reasonable choices and policies in this situation.
I'm also not sure what you're expecting in terms of taking it "seriously". COVID is going to be endemic. Everyone will be exposed to it over time. In terms of government intervention, I don't think it ever made sense to do more than 'flattening the curve', and even that was perhaps a step too far since those who are healthy and under 50 can more or less treat COVID like any other common illness. It may have even been preferable for that group to simply contract it and build up antibodies so that others who are more vulnerable could re-enter society with a lesser chance of transmission.