Our Endemic COVID Future Is Probably Not What You Think--Why More Action Is Necessary Now (A long 🧵 ):
Many think we're already “post-COVID.” We're not, but it does beg the question of what the future has in store for us. If we ignore how tired everyone is of #COVID19 and instead explore the latest data and studies, we may see that we've not yet fully understood or adjusted to our COVID future. We've gone back to “old normal” when a “new normal” is necessary.
WHY WE'RE NOT POST-COVID
No, the pandemic is not over. The World Health Organization says we're still in a pandemic. WHO declared the public health emergency on 30 January 2020 and a pandemic on 11 March 2020, and it's the entity that gets to decide it's over--not you, me, or President Biden. Days ago, WHO held a meeting to discuss COVID, and it determined the pandemic remains a public health emergency of international concern.
https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/01/30/who-to-keep-highest-alert-over-covid-as-public-health-emergency-of-international-concern
Some claim COVID is endemic, but this is not true. It will be endemic, eventually, but it isn't yet. For a disease to be endemic, it must be consistently present and cause a steady, predictable number of people to get sick. This is far from the case with COVID-19 right now. In the last three months, the US has seen two variants become predominant in rapid succession, and these were variants scientists had only just discovered four months earlier. That is not predictable. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#variant-proportions
The US has also had three surges of hospitalizations in the past year. Unlike the flu, which has a predictable annual season, COVID is not yet steady.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#new-hospital-admissions
The US has not had a significant surge in COVID death ina year, although it continues to have a troubling level of COVID fatalities, losing around 3,500 people a week. But, we may yet see another significant wave of deaths. Other nations, like Japan and Sweden, have experienced their first- or second-highest levels of #COVID19 deaths of the pandemic in the past month or so.
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-03-01..latest&facet=none&pickerSort=desc&pickerMetric=new_deaths_smoothed_per_million&Metric=Confirmed+deaths&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=SWE~JPN~NOR~AUS~HKG~FIN
None of this suggests that we've yet reached a stable place with COVID. Experts warn new variants could soon cause yet another surge of illness and hospitalization.
https://today.tamu.edu/2023/01/30/what-you-need-to-know-about-xbb-1-5-covids-latest-variant/
BUT WHAT MIGHT OUR COVID-ENDEMIC FUTURE LOOK LIKE?
Too many folks repeat the discredited idea that COVID is “just the flu.” It's led to folks thinking that COVID will be a minor inconvenience for the vast majority of the public on some annual basis. First of all, "just another flu" would be nothing to take lightly. The flu hospitalizes between 250,000 to 600,000 people in the US most years, and it kills between 20,000 to 60,000 people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_influenza_statistics_by_flu_season
But #COVID19 is not "just the flu.” A new study suggests that our endemic future is one with risks that demand much more public, not just individual, action. It concludes that “individuals seeking to opt out of adverse outcomes upon SARS-CoV-2 infection will find it challenging to do so, as large reductions in contact rate are required to reduce the risk of infection.”
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.22.23284884v1.full
Some specific findings from this study include:
There's little individuals can do to protect themselves short of enormous sacrifice if we don't implement public health solutions. Vaccinated people wishing to reduce their frequency of infection by half will need to reduce their contact rate 10-fold. People who only reduce their contact rate by half will “experience infections rates only marginally less” than those who have a median level of contacts with others.
People who are vaccinated and not taking measures to reduce their contact rate can expect to spend an average of 6 days a year acutely sick with COVID-19 and be infected 1.4x annually. That's a #COVID19 infection every 8.5 months on average. Now is a good time to remind the "just the flu" folks that the average American gets the flu once every 10 years or so.
“… of the ***vaccinated***”
So, among those who’ve done all they can to protect themselves from the impacts. One presumes that the impact will be even higher among the unvaccinated.
I've read this paper a couple of times now and please point out if I'm wrong, but they don't ever define "long COVID" do they?
I also found it a little odd that their paper says:
"In this analysis, we used data on long COVID risk after infection published by the Minneapolis Fed...
Under these assumptions, we found that at steady-state, approximately 25% of unvaccinated individuals with the median contact rate have long COVID at any given time, while 12% of vaccinated individuals have long COVID..."
When the data they reference goes to a paper that states:
"I first find about 24.1% of individuals who have had COVID are long-haulers"
Which doesn't appear to discuss vaccinated vs non-vaccinated, so all I can assume is that there's underlying data there that they've seen, that I'm not finding.
I appreciate the fact that people are trying to apply modeling to all of this, though.
If it's of interest to anyone, to the best of my knowledge the most complete data I've seen is from last fall:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(22)00354-6/fulltext#back-bib0040
And seems to show varying numbers in each study they reviewed, along with the problem that everyone defines "long COVID" differently.
"First, the effects of vaccines on long-term post-COVID symptoms are scarce, since most studies identified in this review investigated the risk of long-COVID in people infected the first month after being vaccinated. Second, there was no consistent definition of long-COVID in the published literature."
"In conclusion, low level of evidence suggests that vaccination before SARS-CoV-2 infection could reduce the risk of developing subsequent long-COVID."