[ACow_Adonis]

Do you (or anyone else) have scientific numbers, sources and/or comparisons for:

a) quantification and definition of lasting cardiovascular/ nervous system damage

b) quantification of a significant number of people

c) comparisons to rates comparable to other respiratory diseases (like influenza strains or the bird flu strains etc. )

Understand I ask this not as a coronavirus skeptic, but as a science-literacy proponent who hasn't yet read any reliable source or study for the claim you're making.

[ljf]

I'm putting the kids to bed so don't have time to dig out any figures of interest, but my wife caught covid back in March, was OK but pretty ill, but then moved into the long covid phase and was wiped out. Heart rate all over the place and terrible numbness and loads of other rubbish. A full body scan showed issues with her heart function back in August, which is only just starting to recover now, a 'low ejection fraction' and other bits I forget. Latest scans show improved function but nothing like she should see at her age or fitness. This time last year she was lifting 47kg in the gym and working out 4 days a week.

The long term studies showing what you are asking are only just starting to show results - but everything we see so far shows that this is causing more issues, in more people than flu.

Also of note, a partner of my wife's friend got covid (positive test) back in April with only light symptoms. Just got it again (tested again) and is very ill this time - had to go to hospital but wasn't kept in. So immunity might not be what we think.

[ACow_Adonis]

I realise covid is highly politicised right now, but give me the benefit of the doubt. I said I'm not a covid skeptic and I meant it. In its current form it's more virulent than the flu (albeit with a different distribution of mortality outcomes). And of course we have to deal with the general additional affect of immunity (or lack thereof) in the general populace.

But it's possible to seek out new information on covid, and also to seek to stop spreading disinformation on it, while still accepting its serious nature.

[ljf]

I've not yet seen a lot of good research released due to it being so new.

It felt like we spent 3 months trying to convince doctors here that long covid was even a thing, then another couple helping them understand how they can help people like my wife and it is only that last couple of months that there has been a mobilisation of research and interest in this area, so good quality information is currently hard to find.

CoverScan.com moved quite early - https://coverscan.com/news-%26-updates - have done some great work and are starting to release info - my wife was part of the trial. I'm sure there are others, but these things take time.

I'm sure that we will have loads of useful data points next year, but right now even the collection of the data has been poor to understand anything other than just 'deaths' and in some countries 'recoveries' (which was generally just a measure of those that were ill enough to be hospitalised)

[ACow_Adonis]

No, indeed, neither have I. And it may or may not be coming or true, i don't know :) That's why I keep asking to see the evidence when I keep seeing someone making the claim: I actually want to see it if it exists or if they're just repeating the news stories.

To me, it's not the position that Covid has long term effects that's incredulous, because we know that a proportion of a lot of viral infections can develop into longer term complications and effects. But it's the idea/observation that the longer term effects are both comparatively worse than other viruses, and splitting the quantumn of those effects into a "general covid effect" (that is to say, the probability of the effect for a given case of covid), and those of a "general pandemic effect" (that is to say, the population-size effect of having all these infections happening at once due to a relatively vulnerable population with little immunity, in contrast to some of the older/other viruses).

But I admit myself a little more than disturbed how every time I ask to see comparable figures/studies to see how we have knowledge of long-term effects of a virus that's only been around for the short-term, and claims that are usually made without any reference to the viruses to which covid needs to be compared, that I generally get hit by a quick wave of downvotes.

[ljf]

Fair enough, give it time. On the inverse - SARs which this seems to be similar in some ways to (though more transmissible and less deadly) is well known to have a wide range of long term effects on a proportion of those that get ill with it.

Come join some of the long covid reddit, Facebook, slack or other groups if you want to research first hand - there are plenty out there!

[rusk]

I think the burden of proof is on you since you are the one contradicting the prevailing thought. You must “reject the bull hypothesis” as it were. Personally I have seen one case of a 17 y/o with lingering nerve damage covered on national news.

[zaroth]

It is logically impossible to prove a negative. The burden of proof can only possibly be on the people claiming there is an effect.

To put it technically, it is "inappropriate to draw substantive conclusions on the basis of a lack of statistically significant effects." You are not proving the null-hypothesis, you are failing to demonstrate the alternative hypothesis.

Or to put it another way, lack of evidence is not evidence that a thing doesn't exist.

[rusk]

Ehhh but there is evidence? There are plenty of cases. It’s not even reported any more it’s a given.

[ACow_Adonis]

Not even reported any more?

My good man, i propose that outside of news stories focusing on relatively small samples and individual case studies, which generally make no comparison to other virus' comparative effects or mention of the biases inherent in their sample, it is no longer being reported because it has not yet been established.

And the reason for this is nothing conspiratorial or denialist, but just due to the fundamentals of good science: that is to say, it's REALLY REALLY hard to accurately establish the long-term effects of a novel virus that has only been around in the human population for the short-term.

[rusk]

Nicely put. I appreciate you taking the time to be civil. Such a rareity these days. A nice change from being insulted for daring to think different. For what it's worth I have evaluated some of my premises based on our exchange here. Thank you.

[ACow_Adonis]

I fundamentally disagree that I'm conflicting with prevailing thought (at least of medical experts), both because I don't accept that it's prevailing thought, but also because I'm just being proactively and constructively sceptical.

If someone proclaims to know the long term effects of a recent novel virus, that's an interesting claim. then they compare the outcomes to other viruses (or declare its fundamentally different), that's also interesting.

I've seen news articles about specific cases, and alarmist tabloid-esque case studies, but as someone who actually reads medical studies, I don't let media or hand-picked cases set my opinion, because in a pandemic with countless millions infected, and with a disease that disproportionately affects co morbid patients, of course one will find individual reports of bad cases and complications. But the information I asked for is presumably the minimum required for your claim to be justified. And if it is so "prevailing", it would be widespread and easily findable, whereas I have yet to see a single source that has them.