[irq11]

So your best evidence of this phenomenon is an uncontrolled survey of people who knew they had covid, asking them if they feel bad? And the most commonly reported symptom is hypertension, at 13%?

I’ll let the researchers do the talking here:

”Study limitations include small sample size, single study location, and potential bias from self-reported symptoms, the researchers acknowledged.”

This is certainly not a rebuttal to the fact that there have been hundreds of millions of infections globally, yet the cumulative evidence for “long covid” continues to be a vague constellation of self-reported, mostly mild symptoms in a tiny fraction of people.

If even .1% of 100M infections had severe, long-lasting damage, it wouldn’t be a debate. There would be hundreds of thousands of people to point to.

[TheOtherHobbes]

There are hundreds of thousands of people to point to. You're just trying to ignore them.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-tragedy-of-the-post-...

How many more cites do you want? There are plenty out there.

[irq11]

Are there? This is an opinion piece. This is your evidence? Really?

The OP linked to an uncontrolled, self-reported survey of those who claim to have long covid, and the most that showed is that a small (<13%) number of people show a constellation of mild symptoms, like hypertension. Even the much-discussed “brain fog” was only reported 2% of the time in that biased sample.

Downvote all you want, but you keep making big claims, and backing it with anecdotes and editorials.

Want people to believe you? Bring data. Not blogposts. If there’s so much evidence, it should be easy for you.

[sdenton4]

That was the "let me Google that for you" response to your own completely unsupported claim. It seems like you're unwilling to look at evidence contrary to your opinions; the 'debate' is amongst deniers who aren't looking at evidence. I suggest some self reflection is in order; you're arguing with the same tactics as a climate change denier.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-tragedy-of-the-post-...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_COVID

[irq11]

You’re making the claim. Prove it. Don’t give me an editorial. Don’t give me a wikipedia page. Link to the controlled studies, showing the widespread damage that you’ve claimed.

You can’t, because they don’t exist. You linked to the best there is, and it doesn’t rise to any reasonable standards of scientific evidence. Self-reported data is almost worthless. Uncontrolled, self-reported data is worthless.

I’m perfectly willing to believe you, but editorials won’t convince me.

[oliwarner]

I'm sorry to hear your search engine got a flat tyre. Belligerently sniping about exactly what it is you want us —your research assistants, seemingly— to hand deliver you, doesn't seem like the best way to retain karma here, let alone have a discussion about something...

But anyway, some more material for you.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.19.20214494v... https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3026

It's going to be many years until we have a proper handle on this. Until then you might have to be willing to accept a flood of more anecdotal field data as having some analytical value.

[sdenton4]

There are two studies linked directly from the Harvard health article, one tracking Italian outpatients, and the other using randomized phone follow-up. Feel free to go read them, and more besides.

There's a constellation of individually imperfect studies pointing in the exact same direction; that's basically how science happens. The studies exist in the first place because people observed Something Strange was happening, and wanted to quickly get a sense of severity and prevalence, to inform public health response.

And if you're not willing to update your priors, I'll be here waiting for the perfect study that proves long covid doesn't exist...