NIH Long Covid study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you explain my cardiac issues that are very clearly seen via MRI and echocardiogram? And no, they weren’t there previously. I am in my 30s, incredibly fit, was running 35-40 miles per week before I got sick (this was pre-vaccine; first wave). Literally couldn’t breathe even though my lung capacity is usually off the charts. I needed inhalers for the first time in my life and even those didn’t work super well. Ekg and blood work showed many abnormalities. I was declared disabled for 1.5 years because I had medical evidence of my persistent illness. These are all very objective measures. Nothing psychosomatic about it.

So you had MRIs and echocardiograms before your 30s? I would have to ask why? If these were not visible before COVID and are now, I could see how you would jump to causation and not correlation. However, I assume you actually never had an MRI or echo before, so you have no evidence. My sister developed the problems that you describe in her mid-30s--in 2002! Long before Covid. And many thousands of others develop these issues in their 30s as well. Please, understand, correlation is not causation. Talk a bit about your mindset overall. What are your stress and anxiety levels like generally?

I had had cardiac work ups before long covid thank you very much. I have been an athlete (former college athlete) my entire life. Now what else do you want to tell me is all in my head?

Why? I was a division 1 college athlete in an actual, cardio intensive sport and never once had a cardiac work up involving EKGs, MRIs, and bloodwork. I assume, then, there was a red flag at some point in time. Wouldn't that be just as likely a suspect in your case of shortness of breath and abnormalities? Related to whatever prompted the testing earlier in your life?

I don’t need to justify any of my medical diagnoses to you — someone who seems intent on telling me that it’s all in my head. And no, there were no red flags prior to being infected with covid, but thanks. You never once had bloodwork done? Never a complete physical including imaging? OK. Good for you. Let’s hope you don’t have some latent issue waiting to rear its ugly head since it sounds like you’ve never had to see a doctor. I’m glad I’ve had more thorough medical care throughout my life. Good luck to you. And maybe try being less of an ass at some point.

This is a really odd response. I believe everything you're saying, but you're clearly not telling the whole story if you've had a cardiac workup in or before your 30s. That's not part of a standard physical. It's just not done. They're only going to do that if you have a relevant preexisting condition, a related complaint, or, perhaps, a family history of certain cardiac problems.

So I believe you. And it seems perfectly possible that COVID may have triggered the issues you're experiencing. But you're leaving out something significant, and I don't get why you're so intent on keeping it a secret.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the takeaway this, which most people here don't seem to be understanding: the physical ailments that would generally be responsible for causing the reported symptoms of "long Covid" are not present in higher rates in the Covid test group than in the control group. Meaning, there is, according to this study, no evidence of Covid causing long-term health problems. There is some evidence that those symptoms may be caused by underlying anxiety. So many posters seem to be interpreting this as "long term Covid exists and we still don't know why."

No, that is not the correct interpretation (scientist here). The correct interpretation is not that there are no health problems. In fact, there are numerous studies that connect COVID with increased risk for vascular problems, diabetes, even impotence. That said, long covid is not about increased risk but about symptoms.

The correct interpretation is that “none of the tests performed in this study were significantly different between the two groups.”

There are numerous illnesses we accept as real and that there are no physiological tests for, just reports of symptoms or fuzzy cognitive tests that are impossible to standardize. Examples include schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s, ADHD, and chronic back or knee pain. We assume many many people are sick with colds even without finding their specific virus or physiological signals. So the conclusion of this study doesn’t say much. It definitely does not say long covid is just a bunch of lazy fakers, and it definitely doesn’t say it isn’t, either. Science is slow, and is abused if you jump to conclusions.

Ir

Like jumping to the conclusion that covid will cause rampant long term damage to the health of the majority of people who get it? Is that the type of conclusion you’re worried about people jumping to?

That would not be a warranted conclusion of this study, but your histrionics are unwarranted. This is one study. It was a high quality study. It ran some good tests. We can draw the conclusions I stated above from it. We cannot address your agenda particular at this stage.

It takes us hundreds of studies to figure out that smoking is bad for you and hundreds of studies to see that oat bran is not a heart panacea. We are learning. We will keep learning, if we continue to be methodical, rigorous and open minded. If you want to be sure of something one way or the other in terms of the far future of this pandemic, sadly science has little to offer you at this stage. This study did not identify physiological signatures of long covid. That is all.

There were long term effects of the 1918 influenza pandemic (for example, increased risk of Parkinson’s by sufferers). There has also a lot of speculation of some sort of post viral syndrome for that pandemic too for which there is reasonably strong circumstantial evidence for this (there is a good discussion of this along with some more speculative ideas in “The Great Influenza,” if you are looking for a popular treatment), but few scientists would say we are able to have conclusive evidence of this being true or not.

This is all reasonable, but the problem is that this reasonable approach is not reflected in the way long Covid is covered in the media, nor in the way many individuals draw conclusions about what we as a society should be doing regarding Covid mitigation. If everyone talked about long Covid like this, I don't think you'd get a lot of pushback. Unfortunately, most people who are discussing long Covid these days talk about it as though it is killing as many or more people than Covid itself. They cherry pick anecdotes of people who are suffering with genuinely debilitating issues (often omitting important aspects of that person's medical history) in order to argue in favor of whatever Covid policy they want that day. It's disingenuous and genuinely damaging.

+100. I am a psychiatrist and I can't tell you how many of my anxious patients' lives have been seriously adversely affected by fear of long covid due to sensationalism in the media. It's really irresponsible and manipulative.

Irresponsible and manipulative to inform the public about the long term effects of a pandemic that an entire political party (and our then President) dismissed as made up? You do realize that the irresponsible brainwashing done byt FOX and the Republicans will have long lasting damage for decades. Kids will have life long effects from Covid and many could have avoided it if the adults around them took necessary precautions.

Don't you think that perhaps some people had added anxiety about Covid because they saw so many people not taking it seriously? I question your ethics and empathy when you blame people who are justifiably nervous about a virus that could lead to death or long term disability. I have a previously healty family member with long Covid and it's truly devastating. Let's stop saying this isn't a real problem. It's not irresponsible to talk about this - it's irresponsible to dismiss it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the takeaway this, which most people here don't seem to be understanding: the physical ailments that would generally be responsible for causing the reported symptoms of "long Covid" are not present in higher rates in the Covid test group than in the control group. Meaning, there is, according to this study, no evidence of Covid causing long-term health problems. There is some evidence that those symptoms may be caused by underlying anxiety. So many posters seem to be interpreting this as "long term Covid exists and we still don't know why."

No, that is not the correct interpretation (scientist here). The correct interpretation is not that there are no health problems. In fact, there are numerous studies that connect COVID with increased risk for vascular problems, diabetes, even impotence. That said, long covid is not about increased risk but about symptoms.

The correct interpretation is that “none of the tests performed in this study were significantly different between the two groups.”

There are numerous illnesses we accept as real and that there are no physiological tests for, just reports of symptoms or fuzzy cognitive tests that are impossible to standardize. Examples include schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s, ADHD, and chronic back or knee pain. We assume many many people are sick with colds even without finding their specific virus or physiological signals. So the conclusion of this study doesn’t say much. It definitely does not say long covid is just a bunch of lazy fakers, and it definitely doesn’t say it isn’t, either. Science is slow, and is abused if you jump to conclusions.

Ir

Like jumping to the conclusion that covid will cause rampant long term damage to the health of the majority of people who get it? Is that the type of conclusion you’re worried about people jumping to?

That would not be a warranted conclusion of this study, but your histrionics are unwarranted. This is one study. It was a high quality study. It ran some good tests. We can draw the conclusions I stated above from it. We cannot address your agenda particular at this stage.

It takes us hundreds of studies to figure out that smoking is bad for you and hundreds of studies to see that oat bran is not a heart panacea. We are learning. We will keep learning, if we continue to be methodical, rigorous and open minded. If you want to be sure of something one way or the other in terms of the far future of this pandemic, sadly science has little to offer you at this stage. This study did not identify physiological signatures of long covid. That is all.

There were long term effects of the 1918 influenza pandemic (for example, increased risk of Parkinson’s by sufferers). There has also a lot of speculation of some sort of post viral syndrome for that pandemic too for which there is reasonably strong circumstantial evidence for this (there is a good discussion of this along with some more speculative ideas in “The Great Influenza,” if you are looking for a popular treatment), but few scientists would say we are able to have conclusive evidence of this being true or not.

This is all reasonable, but the problem is that this reasonable approach is not reflected in the way long Covid is covered in the media, nor in the way many individuals draw conclusions about what we as a society should be doing regarding Covid mitigation. If everyone talked about long Covid like this, I don't think you'd get a lot of pushback. Unfortunately, most people who are discussing long Covid these days talk about it as though it is killing as many or more people than Covid itself. They cherry pick anecdotes of people who are suffering with genuinely debilitating issues (often omitting important aspects of that person's medical history) in order to argue in favor of whatever Covid policy they want that day. It's disingenuous and genuinely damaging.

+100. I am a psychiatrist and I can't tell you how many of my anxious patients' lives have been seriously adversely affected by fear of long covid due to sensationalism in the media. It's really irresponsible and manipulative.

Irresponsible and manipulative to inform the public about the long term effects of a pandemic that an entire political party (and our then President) dismissed as made up? You do realize that the irresponsible brainwashing done byt FOX and the Republicans will have long lasting damage for decades. Kids will have life long effects from Covid and many could have avoided it if the adults around them took necessary precautions.

Don't you think that perhaps some people had added anxiety about Covid because they saw so many people not taking it seriously? I question your ethics and empathy when you blame people who are justifiably nervous about a virus that could lead to death or long term disability. I have a previously healty family member with long Covid and it's truly devastating. Let's stop saying this isn't a real problem. It's not irresponsible to talk about this - it's irresponsible to dismiss it.

Thank you. Also, as a style note to covid-denying trolls, you reveal yourselves when you complain about "the media." We don't have a problem with "the media." Many of us are ourselves "the media." You're talking to moms from DC, remember. We don't share your vocabulary of disdain for our culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the takeaway this, which most people here don't seem to be understanding: the physical ailments that would generally be responsible for causing the reported symptoms of "long Covid" are not present in higher rates in the Covid test group than in the control group. Meaning, there is, according to this study, no evidence of Covid causing long-term health problems. There is some evidence that those symptoms may be caused by underlying anxiety. So many posters seem to be interpreting this as "long term Covid exists and we still don't know why."

No, that is not the correct interpretation (scientist here). The correct interpretation is not that there are no health problems. In fact, there are numerous studies that connect COVID with increased risk for vascular problems, diabetes, even impotence. That said, long covid is not about increased risk but about symptoms.

The correct interpretation is that “none of the tests performed in this study were significantly different between the two groups.”

There are numerous illnesses we accept as real and that there are no physiological tests for, just reports of symptoms or fuzzy cognitive tests that are impossible to standardize. Examples include schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s, ADHD, and chronic back or knee pain. We assume many many people are sick with colds even without finding their specific virus or physiological signals. So the conclusion of this study doesn’t say much. It definitely does not say long covid is just a bunch of lazy fakers, and it definitely doesn’t say it isn’t, either. Science is slow, and is abused if you jump to conclusions.

Ir

Like jumping to the conclusion that covid will cause rampant long term damage to the health of the majority of people who get it? Is that the type of conclusion you’re worried about people jumping to?

That would not be a warranted conclusion of this study, but your histrionics are unwarranted. This is one study. It was a high quality study. It ran some good tests. We can draw the conclusions I stated above from it. We cannot address your agenda particular at this stage.

It takes us hundreds of studies to figure out that smoking is bad for you and hundreds of studies to see that oat bran is not a heart panacea. We are learning. We will keep learning, if we continue to be methodical, rigorous and open minded. If you want to be sure of something one way or the other in terms of the far future of this pandemic, sadly science has little to offer you at this stage. This study did not identify physiological signatures of long covid. That is all.

There were long term effects of the 1918 influenza pandemic (for example, increased risk of Parkinson’s by sufferers). There has also a lot of speculation of some sort of post viral syndrome for that pandemic too for which there is reasonably strong circumstantial evidence for this (there is a good discussion of this along with some more speculative ideas in “The Great Influenza,” if you are looking for a popular treatment), but few scientists would say we are able to have conclusive evidence of this being true or not.

This is all reasonable, but the problem is that this reasonable approach is not reflected in the way long Covid is covered in the media, nor in the way many individuals draw conclusions about what we as a society should be doing regarding Covid mitigation. If everyone talked about long Covid like this, I don't think you'd get a lot of pushback. Unfortunately, most people who are discussing long Covid these days talk about it as though it is killing as many or more people than Covid itself. They cherry pick anecdotes of people who are suffering with genuinely debilitating issues (often omitting important aspects of that person's medical history) in order to argue in favor of whatever Covid policy they want that day. It's disingenuous and genuinely damaging.

+100. I am a psychiatrist and I can't tell you how many of my anxious patients' lives have been seriously adversely affected by fear of long covid due to sensationalism in the media. It's really irresponsible and manipulative.

Irresponsible and manipulative to inform the public about the long term effects of a pandemic that an entire political party (and our then President) dismissed as made up? You do realize that the irresponsible brainwashing done byt FOX and the Republicans will have long lasting damage for decades. Kids will have life long effects from Covid and many could have avoided it if the adults around them took necessary precautions.

Don't you think that perhaps some people had added anxiety about Covid because they saw so many people not taking it seriously? I question your ethics and empathy when you blame people who are justifiably nervous about a virus that could lead to death or long term disability. I have a previously healty family member with long Covid and it's truly devastating. Let's stop saying this isn't a real problem. It's not irresponsible to talk about this - it's irresponsible to dismiss it.

Thank you. Also, as a style note to covid-denying trolls, you reveal yourselves when you complain about "the media." We don't have a problem with "the media." Many of us are ourselves "the media." You're talking to moms from DC, remember. We don't share your vocabulary of disdain for our culture.

I’m a mom in DC, I’ve worked in the media (literally as a reporter for an international news org you probably read), I abhor trump, I know covid is real, I wear a mask, I’m vaccinated, AND

I agree with the psychiatrist PP that media coverage of long Covid has irresponsibly given many the impression that serious chronic illness in the form of long Covid is commonplace, and that many people have an outsized fear of LC based on what studies like the ones discussed in this thread are actually showing to be the case.

Oh, guess what, I used to report on public health issues, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the takeaway this, which most people here don't seem to be understanding: the physical ailments that would generally be responsible for causing the reported symptoms of "long Covid" are not present in higher rates in the Covid test group than in the control group. Meaning, there is, according to this study, no evidence of Covid causing long-term health problems. There is some evidence that those symptoms may be caused by underlying anxiety. So many posters seem to be interpreting this as "long term Covid exists and we still don't know why."

No, that is not the correct interpretation (scientist here). The correct interpretation is not that there are no health problems. In fact, there are numerous studies that connect COVID with increased risk for vascular problems, diabetes, even impotence. That said, long covid is not about increased risk but about symptoms.

The correct interpretation is that “none of the tests performed in this study were significantly different between the two groups.”

There are numerous illnesses we accept as real and that there are no physiological tests for, just reports of symptoms or fuzzy cognitive tests that are impossible to standardize. Examples include schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s, ADHD, and chronic back or knee pain. We assume many many people are sick with colds even without finding their specific virus or physiological signals. So the conclusion of this study doesn’t say much. It definitely does not say long covid is just a bunch of lazy fakers, and it definitely doesn’t say it isn’t, either. Science is slow, and is abused if you jump to conclusions.

Ir

Like jumping to the conclusion that covid will cause rampant long term damage to the health of the majority of people who get it? Is that the type of conclusion you’re worried about people jumping to?

That would not be a warranted conclusion of this study, but your histrionics are unwarranted. This is one study. It was a high quality study. It ran some good tests. We can draw the conclusions I stated above from it. We cannot address your agenda particular at this stage.

It takes us hundreds of studies to figure out that smoking is bad for you and hundreds of studies to see that oat bran is not a heart panacea. We are learning. We will keep learning, if we continue to be methodical, rigorous and open minded. If you want to be sure of something one way or the other in terms of the far future of this pandemic, sadly science has little to offer you at this stage. This study did not identify physiological signatures of long covid. That is all.

There were long term effects of the 1918 influenza pandemic (for example, increased risk of Parkinson’s by sufferers). There has also a lot of speculation of some sort of post viral syndrome for that pandemic too for which there is reasonably strong circumstantial evidence for this (there is a good discussion of this along with some more speculative ideas in “The Great Influenza,” if you are looking for a popular treatment), but few scientists would say we are able to have conclusive evidence of this being true or not.

This is all reasonable, but the problem is that this reasonable approach is not reflected in the way long Covid is covered in the media, nor in the way many individuals draw conclusions about what we as a society should be doing regarding Covid mitigation. If everyone talked about long Covid like this, I don't think you'd get a lot of pushback. Unfortunately, most people who are discussing long Covid these days talk about it as though it is killing as many or more people than Covid itself. They cherry pick anecdotes of people who are suffering with genuinely debilitating issues (often omitting important aspects of that person's medical history) in order to argue in favor of whatever Covid policy they want that day. It's disingenuous and genuinely damaging.

+100. I am a psychiatrist and I can't tell you how many of my anxious patients' lives have been seriously adversely affected by fear of long covid due to sensationalism in the media. It's really irresponsible and manipulative.

Irresponsible and manipulative to inform the public about the long term effects of a pandemic that an entire political party (and our then President) dismissed as made up? You do realize that the irresponsible brainwashing done byt FOX and the Republicans will have long lasting damage for decades. Kids will have life long effects from Covid and many could have avoided it if the adults around them took necessary precautions.

Don't you think that perhaps some people had added anxiety about Covid because they saw so many people not taking it seriously? I question your ethics and empathy when you blame people who are justifiably nervous about a virus that could lead to death or long term disability. I have a previously healty family member with long Covid and it's truly devastating. Let's stop saying this isn't a real problem. It's not irresponsible to talk about this - it's irresponsible to dismiss it.

You’re literally perpetuating made up hysteria. How many kids do you really think will have “life long effects from covid?” And please tell me how people could have avoided having their kid get covid? You’re arguing that KIDS need to be isolated indoors forever bc of the fear of long covid. You are insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the takeaway this, which most people here don't seem to be understanding: the physical ailments that would generally be responsible for causing the reported symptoms of "long Covid" are not present in higher rates in the Covid test group than in the control group. Meaning, there is, according to this study, no evidence of Covid causing long-term health problems. There is some evidence that those symptoms may be caused by underlying anxiety. So many posters seem to be interpreting this as "long term Covid exists and we still don't know why."

No, that is not the correct interpretation (scientist here). The correct interpretation is not that there are no health problems. In fact, there are numerous studies that connect COVID with increased risk for vascular problems, diabetes, even impotence. That said, long covid is not about increased risk but about symptoms.

The correct interpretation is that “none of the tests performed in this study were significantly different between the two groups.”

There are numerous illnesses we accept as real and that there are no physiological tests for, just reports of symptoms or fuzzy cognitive tests that are impossible to standardize. Examples include schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s, ADHD, and chronic back or knee pain. We assume many many people are sick with colds even without finding their specific virus or physiological signals. So the conclusion of this study doesn’t say much. It definitely does not say long covid is just a bunch of lazy fakers, and it definitely doesn’t say it isn’t, either. Science is slow, and is abused if you jump to conclusions.

Ir

Like jumping to the conclusion that covid will cause rampant long term damage to the health of the majority of people who get it? Is that the type of conclusion you’re worried about people jumping to?

That would not be a warranted conclusion of this study, but your histrionics are unwarranted. This is one study. It was a high quality study. It ran some good tests. We can draw the conclusions I stated above from it. We cannot address your agenda particular at this stage.

It takes us hundreds of studies to figure out that smoking is bad for you and hundreds of studies to see that oat bran is not a heart panacea. We are learning. We will keep learning, if we continue to be methodical, rigorous and open minded. If you want to be sure of something one way or the other in terms of the far future of this pandemic, sadly science has little to offer you at this stage. This study did not identify physiological signatures of long covid. That is all.

There were long term effects of the 1918 influenza pandemic (for example, increased risk of Parkinson’s by sufferers). There has also a lot of speculation of some sort of post viral syndrome for that pandemic too for which there is reasonably strong circumstantial evidence for this (there is a good discussion of this along with some more speculative ideas in “The Great Influenza,” if you are looking for a popular treatment), but few scientists would say we are able to have conclusive evidence of this being true or not.

This is all reasonable, but the problem is that this reasonable approach is not reflected in the way long Covid is covered in the media, nor in the way many individuals draw conclusions about what we as a society should be doing regarding Covid mitigation. If everyone talked about long Covid like this, I don't think you'd get a lot of pushback. Unfortunately, most people who are discussing long Covid these days talk about it as though it is killing as many or more people than Covid itself. They cherry pick anecdotes of people who are suffering with genuinely debilitating issues (often omitting important aspects of that person's medical history) in order to argue in favor of whatever Covid policy they want that day. It's disingenuous and genuinely damaging.

+100. I am a psychiatrist and I can't tell you how many of my anxious patients' lives have been seriously adversely affected by fear of long covid due to sensationalism in the media. It's really irresponsible and manipulative.

Irresponsible and manipulative to inform the public about the long term effects of a pandemic that an entire political party (and our then President) dismissed as made up? You do realize that the irresponsible brainwashing done byt FOX and the Republicans will have long lasting damage for decades. Kids will have life long effects from Covid and many could have avoided it if the adults around them took necessary precautions.

Don't you think that perhaps some people had added anxiety about Covid because they saw so many people not taking it seriously? I question your ethics and empathy when you blame people who are justifiably nervous about a virus that could lead to death or long term disability. I have a previously healty family member with long Covid and it's truly devastating. Let's stop saying this isn't a real problem. It's not irresponsible to talk about this - it's irresponsible to dismiss it.

You’re literally perpetuating made up hysteria. How many kids do you really think will have “life long effects from covid?” And please tell me how people could have avoided having their kid get covid? You’re arguing that KIDS need to be isolated indoors forever bc of the fear of long covid. You are insane.

+1

PP is a prime example of the alternate, non-evidence-based, politically driven reality so many now live in with regard to Covid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the takeaway this, which most people here don't seem to be understanding: the physical ailments that would generally be responsible for causing the reported symptoms of "long Covid" are not present in higher rates in the Covid test group than in the control group. Meaning, there is, according to this study, no evidence of Covid causing long-term health problems. There is some evidence that those symptoms may be caused by underlying anxiety. So many posters seem to be interpreting this as "long term Covid exists and we still don't know why."

No, that is not the correct interpretation (scientist here). The correct interpretation is not that there are no health problems. In fact, there are numerous studies that connect COVID with increased risk for vascular problems, diabetes, even impotence. That said, long covid is not about increased risk but about symptoms.

The correct interpretation is that “none of the tests performed in this study were significantly different between the two groups.”

There are numerous illnesses we accept as real and that there are no physiological tests for, just reports of symptoms or fuzzy cognitive tests that are impossible to standardize. Examples include schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s, ADHD, and chronic back or knee pain. We assume many many people are sick with colds even without finding their specific virus or physiological signals. So the conclusion of this study doesn’t say much. It definitely does not say long covid is just a bunch of lazy fakers, and it definitely doesn’t say it isn’t, either. Science is slow, and is abused if you jump to conclusions.

Ir

Like jumping to the conclusion that covid will cause rampant long term damage to the health of the majority of people who get it? Is that the type of conclusion you’re worried about people jumping to?

That would not be a warranted conclusion of this study, but your histrionics are unwarranted. This is one study. It was a high quality study. It ran some good tests. We can draw the conclusions I stated above from it. We cannot address your agenda particular at this stage.

It takes us hundreds of studies to figure out that smoking is bad for you and hundreds of studies to see that oat bran is not a heart panacea. We are learning. We will keep learning, if we continue to be methodical, rigorous and open minded. If you want to be sure of something one way or the other in terms of the far future of this pandemic, sadly science has little to offer you at this stage. This study did not identify physiological signatures of long covid. That is all.

There were long term effects of the 1918 influenza pandemic (for example, increased risk of Parkinson’s by sufferers). There has also a lot of speculation of some sort of post viral syndrome for that pandemic too for which there is reasonably strong circumstantial evidence for this (there is a good discussion of this along with some more speculative ideas in “The Great Influenza,” if you are looking for a popular treatment), but few scientists would say we are able to have conclusive evidence of this being true or not.

This is all reasonable, but the problem is that this reasonable approach is not reflected in the way long Covid is covered in the media, nor in the way many individuals draw conclusions about what we as a society should be doing regarding Covid mitigation. If everyone talked about long Covid like this, I don't think you'd get a lot of pushback. Unfortunately, most people who are discussing long Covid these days talk about it as though it is killing as many or more people than Covid itself. They cherry pick anecdotes of people who are suffering with genuinely debilitating issues (often omitting important aspects of that person's medical history) in order to argue in favor of whatever Covid policy they want that day. It's disingenuous and genuinely damaging.

+100. I am a psychiatrist and I can't tell you how many of my anxious patients' lives have been seriously adversely affected by fear of long covid due to sensationalism in the media. It's really irresponsible and manipulative.

Irresponsible and manipulative to inform the public about the long term effects of a pandemic that an entire political party (and our then President) dismissed as made up? You do realize that the irresponsible brainwashing done byt FOX and the Republicans will have long lasting damage for decades. Kids will have life long effects from Covid and many could have avoided it if the adults around them took necessary precautions.

Don't you think that perhaps some people had added anxiety about Covid because they saw so many people not taking it seriously? I question your ethics and empathy when you blame people who are justifiably nervous about a virus that could lead to death or long term disability. I have a previously healty family member with long Covid and it's truly devastating. Let's stop saying this isn't a real problem. It's not irresponsible to talk about this - it's irresponsible to dismiss it.

Thank you. Also, as a style note to covid-denying trolls, you reveal yourselves when you complain about "the media." We don't have a problem with "the media." Many of us are ourselves "the media." You're talking to moms from DC, remember. We don't share your vocabulary of disdain for our culture.

I’m a mom in DC, I’ve worked in the media (literally as a reporter for an international news org you probably read), I abhor trump, I know covid is real, I wear a mask, I’m vaccinated, AND

I agree with the psychiatrist PP that media coverage of long Covid has irresponsibly given many the impression that serious chronic illness in the form of long Covid is commonplace, and that many people have an outsized fear of LC based on what studies like the ones discussed in this thread are actually showing to be the case.

Oh, guess what, I used to report on public health issues, too.

Same here. I am a mom in DC as well, not with a media but with an academic job, and I also agree with the psychiatrist. Yes, I know, denigrating the "MSM" used to be a right-wing thing. Unfortunately, with Covid, many liberals have come to see them more critically, too. I used to watch Rachel Maddow almost nightly, but stopped in 2020, because I couldn't stand her pandemic coverage and complete silence on school closures. And don't get me started on the New York Times or WaPo on this issue, or anything Covid related. The Atlantic really became my favorite news outlet, because they at least published some critical articles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the takeaway this, which most people here don't seem to be understanding: the physical ailments that would generally be responsible for causing the reported symptoms of "long Covid" are not present in higher rates in the Covid test group than in the control group. Meaning, there is, according to this study, no evidence of Covid causing long-term health problems. There is some evidence that those symptoms may be caused by underlying anxiety. So many posters seem to be interpreting this as "long term Covid exists and we still don't know why."

No, that is not the correct interpretation (scientist here). The correct interpretation is not that there are no health problems. In fact, there are numerous studies that connect COVID with increased risk for vascular problems, diabetes, even impotence. That said, long covid is not about increased risk but about symptoms.

The correct interpretation is that “none of the tests performed in this study were significantly different between the two groups.”

There are numerous illnesses we accept as real and that there are no physiological tests for, just reports of symptoms or fuzzy cognitive tests that are impossible to standardize. Examples include schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s, ADHD, and chronic back or knee pain. We assume many many people are sick with colds even without finding their specific virus or physiological signals. So the conclusion of this study doesn’t say much. It definitely does not say long covid is just a bunch of lazy fakers, and it definitely doesn’t say it isn’t, either. Science is slow, and is abused if you jump to conclusions.

Ir

Like jumping to the conclusion that covid will cause rampant long term damage to the health of the majority of people who get it? Is that the type of conclusion you’re worried about people jumping to?

That would not be a warranted conclusion of this study, but your histrionics are unwarranted. This is one study. It was a high quality study. It ran some good tests. We can draw the conclusions I stated above from it. We cannot address your agenda particular at this stage.

It takes us hundreds of studies to figure out that smoking is bad for you and hundreds of studies to see that oat bran is not a heart panacea. We are learning. We will keep learning, if we continue to be methodical, rigorous and open minded. If you want to be sure of something one way or the other in terms of the far future of this pandemic, sadly science has little to offer you at this stage. This study did not identify physiological signatures of long covid. That is all.

There were long term effects of the 1918 influenza pandemic (for example, increased risk of Parkinson’s by sufferers). There has also a lot of speculation of some sort of post viral syndrome for that pandemic too for which there is reasonably strong circumstantial evidence for this (there is a good discussion of this along with some more speculative ideas in “The Great Influenza,” if you are looking for a popular treatment), but few scientists would say we are able to have conclusive evidence of this being true or not.

This is all reasonable, but the problem is that this reasonable approach is not reflected in the way long Covid is covered in the media, nor in the way many individuals draw conclusions about what we as a society should be doing regarding Covid mitigation. If everyone talked about long Covid like this, I don't think you'd get a lot of pushback. Unfortunately, most people who are discussing long Covid these days talk about it as though it is killing as many or more people than Covid itself. They cherry pick anecdotes of people who are suffering with genuinely debilitating issues (often omitting important aspects of that person's medical history) in order to argue in favor of whatever Covid policy they want that day. It's disingenuous and genuinely damaging.

+100. I am a psychiatrist and I can't tell you how many of my anxious patients' lives have been seriously adversely affected by fear of long covid due to sensationalism in the media. It's really irresponsible and manipulative.

Irresponsible and manipulative to inform the public about the long term effects of a pandemic that an entire political party (and our then President) dismissed as made up? You do realize that the irresponsible brainwashing done byt FOX and the Republicans will have long lasting damage for decades. Kids will have life long effects from Covid and many could have avoided it if the adults around them took necessary precautions.

Don't you think that perhaps some people had added anxiety about Covid because they saw so many people not taking it seriously? I question your ethics and empathy when you blame people who are justifiably nervous about a virus that could lead to death or long term disability. I have a previously healty family member with long Covid and it's truly devastating. Let's stop saying this isn't a real problem. It's not irresponsible to talk about this - it's irresponsible to dismiss it.

Thank you. Also, as a style note to covid-denying trolls, you reveal yourselves when you complain about "the media." We don't have a problem with "the media." Many of us are ourselves "the media." You're talking to moms from DC, remember. We don't share your vocabulary of disdain for our culture.

I’m a mom in DC, I’ve worked in the media (literally as a reporter for an international news org you probably read), I abhor trump, I know covid is real, I wear a mask, I’m vaccinated, AND

I agree with the psychiatrist PP that media coverage of long Covid has irresponsibly given many the impression that serious chronic illness in the form of long Covid is commonplace, and that many people have an outsized fear of LC based on what studies like the ones discussed in this thread are actually showing to be the case.

Oh, guess what, I used to report on public health issues, too.

Same here. I am a mom in DC as well, not with a media but with an academic job, and I also agree with the psychiatrist. Yes, I know, denigrating the "MSM" used to be a right-wing thing. Unfortunately, with Covid, many liberals have come to see them more critically, too. I used to watch Rachel Maddow almost nightly, but stopped in 2020, because I couldn't stand her pandemic coverage and complete silence on school closures. And don't get me started on the New York Times or WaPo on this issue, or anything Covid related. The Atlantic really became my favorite news outlet, because they at least published some critical articles.

Criticizing the media isn’t a right-wing phenomenon. There’s a big difference between high-quality investigative journalism and the fluff/clickbait content that keep news organizations solvent. People on the left have long criticized 24 hour news channels and news websites for the latter. And that’s what most of the reporting on long covid has been. The authors of news articles on long covid aren’t doing multi-week deep dives into the issues. They’re looking at press releases and abstracts of new studies, collecting some eye-catching quotes, and pounding out a superficial article in the course of an afternoon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the takeaway this, which most people here don't seem to be understanding: the physical ailments that would generally be responsible for causing the reported symptoms of "long Covid" are not present in higher rates in the Covid test group than in the control group. Meaning, there is, according to this study, no evidence of Covid causing long-term health problems. There is some evidence that those symptoms may be caused by underlying anxiety. So many posters seem to be interpreting this as "long term Covid exists and we still don't know why."

No, that is not the correct interpretation (scientist here). The correct interpretation is not that there are no health problems. In fact, there are numerous studies that connect COVID with increased risk for vascular problems, diabetes, even impotence. That said, long covid is not about increased risk but about symptoms.

The correct interpretation is that “none of the tests performed in this study were significantly different between the two groups.”

There are numerous illnesses we accept as real and that there are no physiological tests for, just reports of symptoms or fuzzy cognitive tests that are impossible to standardize. Examples include schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s, ADHD, and chronic back or knee pain. We assume many many people are sick with colds even without finding their specific virus or physiological signals. So the conclusion of this study doesn’t say much. It definitely does not say long covid is just a bunch of lazy fakers, and it definitely doesn’t say it isn’t, either. Science is slow, and is abused if you jump to conclusions.

Ir

Like jumping to the conclusion that covid will cause rampant long term damage to the health of the majority of people who get it? Is that the type of conclusion you’re worried about people jumping to?

That would not be a warranted conclusion of this study, but your histrionics are unwarranted. This is one study. It was a high quality study. It ran some good tests. We can draw the conclusions I stated above from it. We cannot address your agenda particular at this stage.

It takes us hundreds of studies to figure out that smoking is bad for you and hundreds of studies to see that oat bran is not a heart panacea. We are learning. We will keep learning, if we continue to be methodical, rigorous and open minded. If you want to be sure of something one way or the other in terms of the far future of this pandemic, sadly science has little to offer you at this stage. This study did not identify physiological signatures of long covid. That is all.

There were long term effects of the 1918 influenza pandemic (for example, increased risk of Parkinson’s by sufferers). There has also a lot of speculation of some sort of post viral syndrome for that pandemic too for which there is reasonably strong circumstantial evidence for this (there is a good discussion of this along with some more speculative ideas in “The Great Influenza,” if you are looking for a popular treatment), but few scientists would say we are able to have conclusive evidence of this being true or not.

This is all reasonable, but the problem is that this reasonable approach is not reflected in the way long Covid is covered in the media, nor in the way many individuals draw conclusions about what we as a society should be doing regarding Covid mitigation. If everyone talked about long Covid like this, I don't think you'd get a lot of pushback. Unfortunately, most people who are discussing long Covid these days talk about it as though it is killing as many or more people than Covid itself. They cherry pick anecdotes of people who are suffering with genuinely debilitating issues (often omitting important aspects of that person's medical history) in order to argue in favor of whatever Covid policy they want that day. It's disingenuous and genuinely damaging.

+100. I am a psychiatrist and I can't tell you how many of my anxious patients' lives have been seriously adversely affected by fear of long covid due to sensationalism in the media. It's really irresponsible and manipulative.

Irresponsible and manipulative to inform the public about the long term effects of a pandemic that an entire political party (and our then President) dismissed as made up? You do realize that the irresponsible brainwashing done byt FOX and the Republicans will have long lasting damage for decades. Kids will have life long effects from Covid and many could have avoided it if the adults around them took necessary precautions.

Don't you think that perhaps some people had added anxiety about Covid because they saw so many people not taking it seriously? I question your ethics and empathy when you blame people who are justifiably nervous about a virus that could lead to death or long term disability. I have a previously healty family member with long Covid and it's truly devastating. Let's stop saying this isn't a real problem. It's not irresponsible to talk about this - it's irresponsible to dismiss it.

Thank you. Also, as a style note to covid-denying trolls, you reveal yourselves when you complain about "the media." We don't have a problem with "the media." Many of us are ourselves "the media." You're talking to moms from DC, remember. We don't share your vocabulary of disdain for our culture.

I’m a mom in DC, I’ve worked in the media (literally as a reporter for an international news org you probably read), I abhor trump, I know covid is real, I wear a mask, I’m vaccinated, AND

I agree with the psychiatrist PP that media coverage of long Covid has irresponsibly given many the impression that serious chronic illness in the form of long Covid is commonplace, and that many people have an outsized fear of LC based on what studies like the ones discussed in this thread are actually showing to be the case.

Oh, guess what, I used to report on public health issues, too.

Same here. I am a mom in DC as well, not with a media but with an academic job, and I also agree with the psychiatrist. Yes, I know, denigrating the "MSM" used to be a right-wing thing. Unfortunately, with Covid, many liberals have come to see them more critically, too. I used to watch Rachel Maddow almost nightly, but stopped in 2020, because I couldn't stand her pandemic coverage and complete silence on school closures. And don't get me started on the New York Times or WaPo on this issue, or anything Covid related. The Atlantic really became my favorite news outlet, because they at least published some critical articles.

Criticizing the media isn’t a right-wing phenomenon. There’s a big difference between high-quality investigative journalism and the fluff/clickbait content that keep news organizations solvent. People on the left have long criticized 24 hour news channels and news websites for the latter. And that’s what most of the reporting on long covid has been. The authors of news articles on long covid aren’t doing multi-week deep dives into the issues. They’re looking at press releases and abstracts of new studies, collecting some eye-catching quotes, and pounding out a superficial article in the course of an afternoon.

That is certainly true, but during the pandemic, even quality outlets such as the NYTimes and WaPo, from whom we used to expect more than clickbait, have published ostensibly well-sourced articles that have fed a particular narrative rather than critically evaluating it. Liberals weren't really used to taking the reporting of these outlets with as much of a grain of salt as some, including myself, are now.