That would be a useful data point if the claim was that everybody who got COVID developed long term damage, but nobody is making that claim or anything like it.

Less than 1% of Polio infections cause paralysis. But Polio does cause paralysis.

Only about half of infected, untreated people die of bubonic plague. It's still a deadly disease.

You are being uselessly pedantic.

If there is a statistic that guns killed 40,000 people last year in the USA, everyone knows that it doesn't mean that every gun contributed to the deaths of those people. If someone says the Earth is spherical, the discussion is made worse by saying, "Actually, it is an oblate spheroid, blah blah". When some source states that polio paralyzed xxx thousand people in 1930, what is the value add of saying:

> It only causes paralysis in the people who become paralyzed.

Tautologies are by definition true, but don't really contribute much to an argument.

There's at least one known person who survived a fall from more than 33,000ft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulović

So by your logic, a fall from 33,000ft does not cause death.

First line of the study:

> Long COVID, as currently defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) and other authorities, is a symptomatic condition that has been shown to affect an estimated 10-30% of non-hospitalized patients after one infection.

Doesn't say 100%.

> Then they need to stop saying that Covid causes these things.

Well, if it does cause these things, and it's looking like from the literature that's the case, they wouldn't actually need to stop saying that.

People wouldn't have had those issues had it not been for COVID.

So how do you phrase it? Enlighten us without making us laugh.

As someone put it earlier: it would be stupid to say "a gun is a lethal weapon only to someone who's been lethally shot".

How do you know? According to the article, you can have long term damage without having any symptoms.

I suspect that the majority of people could lose 10% or so of their lung capacity, heart strength, memory, analytical ability, fitness recovery, immune system, etc. without ever noticing. People don't use their bodies to the fullest and they have no idea what they are capable of, so if their maximums dropped a bit, it would be practically asymptomatic.

I thought I was fine after my infection until I tried running some high-intensity intervals (max heart rate), I quickly discovered I was not fine. But non-athletes don't push themselves that hard, and even athletes avoid it.

There's also the fact that the body can compensate for injury in subconscious ways, and it is impossible to separate the impact from the Covid-19 infection from everything else that has changed in the past few years, including the constant impact of aging.

Yes, and?

The majority of smokers don't get lung cancer either. Just because it thankfully didn't happen to you, doesn't mean it isn't something that happens to people regularly.

It’s important because in these distinctions, we find what causes disease. For example schizophrenics are less likely to get lung cancer, even though they smoke much more than the average population.

Smoking does not cause lung cancer. Smoking raises the risk of lung cancer.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951592/#:~:tex...).

Smoking is a carcinogen. As is alcohol and processed meats and the sun and a whole host of other things.

The point is that simply because the poster didn't get long Covid, that doesn't mean it's not something that people get. And it doesn't mean it's not attributable to Covid. While these people could be more susceptible to long Covid because they also have some other quality, trying to downplay either Covid or long Covid because of your individual experience is always a bad move.

And the biggest irony is that people will do that to downplay Covid while pushing "vaccines are dangerous" ideology despite far, far more people having taken any vaccine than having gotten Covid. And those people experiencing far far fewer complications from that vaccine.