I think the question is: in the absence of solid experimental evidence why would you assume that the effect is psychological when post-viral effects are well documented across multiple viruses, and have been confirmed by clinical diagnoses by Doctors in thousands of covid cases.
Being skeptical until proven unequivocally is a good approach to scientific enquiry, but it is not good public policy where we must take decisions and act despite uncertainty.
I don't have objective proof of this in the sense of "2+2=4", but I think what I've been talking about in many previous posts is a logical systemic explanation and has been repeatedly observed in the last few years.
The media's business model has changed.
At one point the media's business model was based on trust. People watched a guy like Dan Rather repeatedly because they thought he seemed genuine about telling the truth. I'm sure they knew he'd have his own feelings and human biases, but they came back to him because they thought he was focused on truth and felt trustworthy.
The media's business model has changed because of technology such as the ability to measure clicks, measure the intensity of emotion, and social-media and search algorithms that promotes what gets the most activity. Once the media has the ability to essentially drive their own profit via algorithms promoting the emotionally most intense news stories and ideas that gets people sharing and watching, the fear-porn or outrage-porn of the current news cycle will become the only reality for many people.
As an example, many people went from being overly scared about Omicron and Covid-19 fear a few weeks ago, to supreme outrage about Putin and Ukraine and making that the central part of their identity without skipping a beat. And I have to note that almost nobody gave half a shit about past Russian invasions of Ukraine or Georgia until the media told them that they needed to care about this. (Not suggesting that people shouldn't care about this, but the intensity of this switch and suddenly caring about this part of the world feels notably shaped by the media promoting it this time.)
Outrage or fear porn is the new ruler of reality. The media has supreme influence in shaping peoples' perceptions, and if a study about Covid after-affects is done, I'm sure that peoples' fears that are magnified by this new media business model will have some impact in how people report symptoms. If you tell people that Covid is super-scary and long-covid is the new big concern, at least some people will feel panic and be more likely to go to the doctor and express concern over identical symptoms that they otherwise might have not cared about if they experienced it in say 2014 with a flu.
I get where you're coming from, and agree with you on the effects of media focus.
But I don't think that's a reason not to be worried about this. Reading various threads here, there are people describing pretty awful post-COVID conditions, some that seem way more severe than anything associated with post-flu conditions.
Yes, these are anecdotes. But if we believe them to be true, they should still worry us, even if the incidence is less than 1%. Because if there is even a 0.1% (or maybe even 0.01%)[0] chance that, after recovering from COVID, I might end up physically debilitated for months or years, I will absolutely change my behavior to make it less likely that I get COVID in the first place, regardless of loosening of masking and distancing restrictions. Some might consider that an overreaction, but that's my choice to make.
As you and others point out in this thread, it's not just incidence that matters; severity is important too. If I have a 0.1% chance of dying doing a particular optional activity, I would not do that activity. If instead I have a 0.1% chance of a minor injury doing that activity, I would probably still do it if it was something I believe I'd enjoy.
[0] Just to give you an idea of my own personal risk tolerance: I just did a quick search on fatalities from skydiving, and it looks like it's around 0.0002% (tandem, not solo, based on 2019 reports). That's pretty low, but still high enough for me to not be particularly interested in doing it, even though I think it would be fun. Granted, this is a very different situation than trying to avoid getting COVID.
> Yes, these are anecdotes. But if we believe them to be true, they should still worry us, even if the incidence is less than 1%. Because if there is even a 0.1% (or maybe even 0.01%)[0] chance that, after recovering from COVID, I might end up physically debilitated for months or years, I will absolutely change my behavior to make it less likely that I get COVID in the first place, regardless of loosening of masking and distancing restrictions. Some might consider that an overreaction, but that's my choice to make.
You and I have somewhat different thought-processes when it comes to thinking about risk. All other things being equal, I wouldn't want to risk even a 0.001% chance of significant problems either: but the deciding factor for me is valuing my freedom and not wanting to be scared for the rest of my life. Also, there's no guarantee that you can still avoid Covid anyway even if you do 100% of things perfectly anyway.
That said, I respect everybody's right to choose. That's one value that I hope everybody can learn to respect again.
Being skeptical until proven unequivocally is a good approach to scientific enquiry, but it is not good public policy where we must take decisions and act despite uncertainty.