It’s not getting worse. The treatments are now good enough that your chance of dying is extremely low if you’re vaccinated. Honestly starting to wonder why people are so worried.
My understanding is that the potential for long lasting Covid symptoms is not insignificant, vaccinated or not, and from what I’ve read of long covid, it should be avoided.
The idea of facing issues with exhaustion and worsened mental health for months on end sounds like a nightmare.
From what I’ve read long lasting symptoms are very rare too, but the longer this goes on the more we’ll know about the long term effects of both COVID and vaccines. It’s kind of like a chronic lyme disease thing though, it’s really hard to prove whats going on with some people.
My whole family caught covid around 5-6 weeks ago. Kids had super-mild symptoms (way less than the flu). I had pretty mild symptoms, but have had a persistent cough (I've had that with some other colds though).
My wife got hit pretty hard (no hospital though). She would up with a cough too, but the worst part has been headaches. Worst headaches of her life for almost 3 weeks. Thankfully, they seem to be getting more intermittent and less intense.
I'm worried about being in a traffic accident and not getting timely treatment because all nearby ICUs are already filled beyond capacity with Covid patients.
People are still dying at a rate of about a thousand a day due to Covid in the U.S.. The vast majority of those people are unvaccinated, but still a death is a death, and a thousand deaths a day is definitely newsworthy even if (or even especially if) it was avoidable.
In spite of some propaganda trying to instil the epistemological blasphemy that called anecdotal phenomena irrelevant, "some of us know people directly" to have the notion that consequences should not be taken lightly. And this is valid for the bad-lottery tickets in both infection and vaccination. The risk averse have material for concern.
> Is COVID going to continuously mutate worse and worse forever?
Evolution does not have objectives like "let's make an eye" or "let's get worse". Organisms mutate and either thrive and reproduce (with mutations) or die off over time.
Because of this, I think the answer to your question is: There is no way to know.
There might be epidemiologists or researchers on HN who could offer a different perspective. I am sure there are other mechanisms at play. There's also understanding the statistical behavior of mass infections.
It'll mutate to be better. Virus does not want to kill its host. Virus wants its host to be alive and well and just sneeze all the time, spreading virus around. That's the long time game, though, of course in the short time there could be worse kinds. Omicron seems like a step in right direction.
My comment is in response to a 100% scientifically false statement. It's like saying that heat flows from cold to hot. Saying that viruses "want" is as false as that, if not worse.
The correction I posted is 100% scientifically correct, does not personally attack anyone and isn't even pedantic. Are we in favor of misinformation now?
To be fair, articles like this one [0], don't help when they get loose with language and say things like "SARS-CoV-2 is one smart virus". Ironic, when the site's tagline includes the term "academic rigor".
At one point in the article they say:
"Of course, viruses and bacteria don’t have brains so they don’t “think,” per se. But like all life forms, these particular living creatures are trying to maximize their chances of reproducing and having their offspring survive and reproduce."
That starts out well. The first sentence is accurate. The second sentence is false as can be. A sad failure for a publication that claims to have "academic rigor".
Viruses don't "try" --which implies a directed objective, thought, intent, goals-- to do anything. Evolution is brutally simple and ridiculously stupid. It has no intent. It has no objectives. I doesn't say "let's make an eye" for a million years until done. It just happens. I know this is hard for some to understand, yet this is the truth.
I can understand how people who have not studied and understood the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection can develop false ideas about how it works, particularly when exposed to material, such as this article, that mix false statements with accurate information.
That second word, understood, is important. Every high school student learns about evolution. I don't think I can say most of them understand it.
SARS-CoV-2 is as smart as a key with 30,000 teeth. Evolution is a process with stochastic mutation that cuts the teeth in different configurations. If a given configuration happens to be effective at penetrating human defenses and do damage, it can be serious. Other configurations could penetrate and have little to mild effects (this, so far, appears to be the case with Omicron). And yet others could be completely ineffective. The mutation isn't directed, it's stochastic.
Above all, I think rigor is important because, without it, crazy ideas like "intelligent design" can find footholds that can be used or further distorted to support them.
Lockdowns (and masks?) have shown that the spread of COVID and the 'flu can be slowed down. If governments can implement lockdowns and not cause too much harm to the population, I reckon we can beat these diseases.
Lockdowns by definition harm the population psychologically and economically. For merely slowing it down when it won't stop it from circulating or mutating, I don't see what the point would be by now unless we get a variant that is dramatically more dangerous than Delta and renders vaccines utterly useless which doesn't seem to be the case with this one (and even then it's a last recourse that isn't to be taken lightly).
Judging by how long other viruses have been around, we will not see the end game within our lifetimes assuming no dramatic advances in life extension occur. So don’t worry about it, this is our life now.
