[brnt]

> Severe and mild are measurable, clinical terms. It’s not subjective.

Obviously, but we don't have to re-use the same definitions of some group who wrote a paper. We can think of the impact of a life-long of diminished performance as much more grave than a temporary low oxygenation level. It's up to us to decide what's worse, there is no god-given criterion.

[parkingrift]

> Obviously, but we don't have to re-use the same definitions of some group who wrote a paper.

I’m not sure what you’re arguing here. We’re not discussing “some group who wrote a paper.” These are accepted standards worldwide, and the link is from the National Institute of Health.

> It's up to us to decide what's worse, there is no god-given criterion.

Sure. Fortunately the Pfizer trial made it easy. Every single case was mild.

It may be true that the Pfizer vaccine is effective in some way for children 5-11, but Pfizer have not proven that.

[brnt]

> These are accepted standards worldwide, and the link is from the National Institute of Health.

That does not mean they are not up for debate, which is the thing I'm trying to raise. Global criteria are mostly there to make comparisons easy, which nebulous things like Long Covid are not. That does not mean the problem does not exist, or that it is not potentially much more severe, and you won't find anyone writing these papers argue that.

You tend to rate your results according to widely accepted standards in your scientific community, unless you're specific in discussing them. Which is why most publications with data don't go into it.