Doctors who treat Covid describe the ways the illness has gotten milder and shifted over time to mostly affect the upper respiratory tract.

Doctors say they’re finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish Covid from allergies or the common cold, even as hospitalizations tick up.

The illness’ past hallmarks, such as a dry cough or the loss of sense of taste or smell, have become less common. Instead, doctors are observing milder disease, mostly concentrated in the upper respiratory tract.

“It isn’t the same typical symptoms that we were seeing before. It’s a lot of congestion, sometimes sneezing, usually a mild sore throat,” said Dr. Erick Eiting, vice chair of operations for emergency medicine at Mount Sinai Downtown in New York City.

The sore throat usually arrives first, he said, then congestion.

  • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Is this propaganda? My wife just recovered from covid and it knocked her on her ass. Yes upper respiratory was true, but nausea, fever, fatigue, fainting, body pain, loss of taste all happened

    • Stuka@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      78
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just because an individual case doesn’t fit the trend does not automatically make the news propaganda.

      • darq@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        This article is a bit of propaganda though. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true or anything. But running an article in the news about how much milder the disease is, is still going to have an effect on how people respond to it.

        • Stuka@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          30
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think you might be using too broad a definition of propaganda. The result of influencing opinion does not make something propaganda. Propaganda needs some intent to persuade or push an agenda.

          The article might be propaganda, largely that depends on the motivations for writing and publishing it. But the fact that the content of the article might change people’s opinions does not make it propaganda.

          • darq@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think you might be using too broad a definition of propaganda.

            Nah.

            The result of influencing opinion does not make something propaganda. Propaganda needs some intent to persuade or push an agenda.

            A bar this article very easily clears. What to publish is a choice. A choice was made to publish this article, with obvious influence on opinion and action.

            The article might be propaganda, largely that depends on the motivations for writing and publishing it. But the fact that the content of the article might change people’s opinions does not make it propaganda.

            Nah. Intent a nonsense metric. We can bicker forever about intent. Because we cannot know anyone’s mind.

            Using intent as a metric gives a lot of propaganda a free pass. Because we can’t prove intent.

              • darq@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I didn’t say it did? I didn’t even say that propaganda is universally bad?

                • cloaker@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sure, but propaganda has to have intent. The article itself cannot be propaganda without it. It may advance a claim of COVID being trivial, but those who advance it must bend the article in some way. What they say then is the propaganda.

                  • darq@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The choice of what to publish at all, is intent. News outlets are not just firehoses of all facts. They choose what to publish.

                    There is no need for the article to be “bent” in any way.

    • ramble81@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      There will always be outliers in any population distribution, your wife being one it seems. This is talking about the general outcome now.

    • Bipta@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There is a ton of, “COVID is mild now” propaganda which is not supported by the science. More evidence points to increased immunity than a reduction in the lethality of the virus itself.

      Omicron is less severe than Delta, but that’s really misleading because Delta was the most dangerous variant.

    • TBi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think what they are trying to say is that harsh reactions are becoming less common. Which is good for everyone. Although it can still affect people a lot, like it affected your wife.

      Although it could be propaganda, at this moment I hope it’s the former.

      • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I just wouldn’t want people to get the impression that it’s nothing, or that it’s like a common cold. My wife is really happy to be alive. I was really scared of losing her.

      • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        An effort to downplay the risks we are under in order to avoid a panic or shutdown like before during a bad economy?

        One idea, I don’t know, I’m sure there are other possibilities, I’m wasn’t thinking of anything specific.

    • Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel like the comments are dragging you unnecessarily. Maybe one variant presents mildly, but the first line says hospitalizations are increasing. Is hospitalization ‘mild’?
      The article contradicts its core premise in the first line.

      • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        The core premise is that the “common” symptoms follow a different pattern than they used to. The common symptoms are not the ones that have ever sent anyone to hospital. Hospitalization can still be up and not refute that point.

        • Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          At the risk of sounding argumentative: The byline of the article says that COVID has gotten milder. The first line of the article says hospitalizations are on the uptick. I feel it’s a bit downhill from there.

          I don’t disagree with the premise. As soon as it became clear that COVID was a pandemic and not something that could be quarantined out of circulation, epidemiologists and armchair experts alike have supposed that COVID would become milder. (It’s not evolutionarily advantageous for a virus to be too deadly to its host organisms. That’s sort of a self-limiter.).
          I think a milder, more cold-like (or perhaps indistinguishable from cold) COVID may be the ultimate outcome.

          That said: To get more into it - I don’t like the article because it appears to contradict itself and it doesn’t account for the same sorts of things that the guy I responded to was being criticized for - variants, vaccination status, immune systems, and anecdotes.
          The one bit of real science in it is a paper published in April 2022. And while I’m sure the scientists who wrote that paper did fine work, their research was weeks or months old by the time the paper was published.
          That means the only information referenced in the story that isn’t an anecdote is over a year and a half old - published only a few months after Omicron was even recognized as a COVID variant.

          And I guess that’s my main issue. It’s a non-story. It asserts something it doesn’t validate. But the commenter asserted something they can’t validate either (to us), and folks dragged him for it.
          For what it’s worth, 3 people I know, and myself recently experienced symptoms similar to what OP described. My doctor and a PA at an urgent care both said something to the effect of those symptoms being on the rise. Not saying I should be more trusted but I have a contradictory experience to the article.

          If we’re going to be critical of people who have no reason to be misleading, then perhaps we should also be critical of folks who are trying to serve us advertising.