[ACow_Adonis]

No, indeed, neither have I. And it may or may not be coming or true, i don't know :) That's why I keep asking to see the evidence when I keep seeing someone making the claim: I actually want to see it if it exists or if they're just repeating the news stories.

To me, it's not the position that Covid has long term effects that's incredulous, because we know that a proportion of a lot of viral infections can develop into longer term complications and effects. But it's the idea/observation that the longer term effects are both comparatively worse than other viruses, and splitting the quantumn of those effects into a "general covid effect" (that is to say, the probability of the effect for a given case of covid), and those of a "general pandemic effect" (that is to say, the population-size effect of having all these infections happening at once due to a relatively vulnerable population with little immunity, in contrast to some of the older/other viruses).

But I admit myself a little more than disturbed how every time I ask to see comparable figures/studies to see how we have knowledge of long-term effects of a virus that's only been around for the short-term, and claims that are usually made without any reference to the viruses to which covid needs to be compared, that I generally get hit by a quick wave of downvotes.

[ljf]

Fair enough, give it time. On the inverse - SARs which this seems to be similar in some ways to (though more transmissible and less deadly) is well known to have a wide range of long term effects on a proportion of those that get ill with it.

Come join some of the long covid reddit, Facebook, slack or other groups if you want to research first hand - there are plenty out there!