I hope that you'll be as fortunate as I was.

I knew something had changed when I was sitting in the living room one Sunday and realized that I could smell the food that I was making in the kitchen oven. I had not had that good a sense of smell since before I had had COVID.

The weekend after that, I did light work in the garden and I could work for hours without issue, while 2 weeks prior I had to stop after half an hour.

I did avoid any strenuous activities as long as I had long COVID, maybe this helped my recovery. I wasn't going to go on a hiking trip or fight with bushes, if I couldn't even do a half hour of light work without fainting. I could still do local walks, thanks to my country being as flat as a pancake.

One very big frustration I had, was the feeling of being perceived as an imposter. I was ill, but tests were unable to show anything wrong, as if it was all in my head. But now there's definite scientific proof that long COVID really is a thing, even when traditional tests show nothing wrong with the patient.

That 10% in the article is people with long COVID, which is not necessarily debilitating. Just having a reduced sense of smell is a symptom of long COVID, but it's not going to stop a runner from running. I tried looking for statistics and I found that in a USA survey, 26% of people with long COVID, reported significant activity limitations. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7232a3.htm

It's also all uncharted territory: traditional tests can't identify long covid and there are still breakthroughs being made to figure out what is actually going on with long COVID. It'll be some time before it can actually be tested at scale and even if it can be tested, I doubt that this will be done. As the article suggests, it'll probably be more convenient to try and sweep it under the rug, definitely cheaper.

For now all these statistics are based on external symptoms: people who were diagnosed with COVID (not everyone who had it, was diagnosed), who found that they had long lasting effects (before ending up in statistics, it had to be bad enough for them to seek help) of whom a part has very noticable negative effects (people who did not do much physical activities before, might not even be aware that they can no longer do the physical activities that they didn't used to do), ... So it's error on top of error, a whole lot of unknowns. The percentages in the doomsday article could be accurate, but without the ability of testing, we're not going to find out for a bit longer.

That you personally don't know anyone who has long COVID, does not surprise me. It's such a vague disease that it's not a good talking subject, people just carry on as good as they can. Personally I only communicated my struggle with it to people who were affected by my change in behaviour: I cancelled walking trips and I wanted people to know that it was me, not them. And my garden was a shithole, which was also a me issue.

The correct response to being reminded that anecdotes aren't data isn't trying to do more math on your anecdata.

Actual studies measure these rates. Your limited knowledge of your extended acquaintance group means jack shit for whether they're correct. I only know of a single person in my extended acquaintances who had heart disease. It doesn't mean that general population statistics on heart disease are wrong, it means some combination of I'm missing information and my sample is biased. Your sample is not random (so multiplying a statistic of the general population against them is not valid) and you don't actually know who's experienced long COVID symptoms. Some may have had some and gotten better, some may not even recognize a lingering cough or being more worn out as a symptom, and some may just not feel like it's necessary to tell you.

I was thinking about a particular study which identifies why some people seem to get long term effects and others don't. To my knowledge - and from a quick search - that doesn't seem to exist.