There is a reason "corporate medicine" is frowned upon, but I fear it will become the only kind allowed anymore. Doctors have licences as individuals to practice medicine because they are not to treat patients as stats but look at the individual and unique circumstances in each case. But, since medicine has been reduced to matching a drug to symptoms, and fashion and profit, doctors might not give the matter much thought-- and when they are associated with any bigger institution, hospital but also taking insurance, the corporatization of medicine has already begun.

The idea that statistically symptoms might be less could be valid, but there is so much obfuscation in this shit-show that it will be difficult to really say that firmly. "Delta", or "Omicron", or "Original" or "extra crispy"? What are the comorbidities or just unique individual circumstances that might influence the severity of a symptom vs another? Just as it is extremely difficult to sue a polluting corporation for some illness you get because there is very little chance of proving there product did it as opposed to the thousands of others we're all exposed to that cause similar problems, it can not be said that any individuals symptoms would have been worse or less had they done something different. It is just unprovable, even if the notion that statistically it could be valid. It is like blaming CO2 for Hurricanes Sandy or Katrina. If those hurricanes had lawyers they could point to all sorts of other, nautral, phenomena and escape blame via reasonable doubt.