| > Can you please propose a "randomized, longitudinal, controlled trials" one might conduct to figure that out? This is not a herculean problem. It's essentially the definition of any halfway decent medical study: * pick a set of measurable endpoints from the pantheon of "long covid" symptoms that are likely to be real. Objectively measurable endpoints should be mixed in with subjective ones (e.g. "fatigue", "loss of smell", "reduced lung capacity", "heart inflammation"). * pre-register these endpoints, so that you can't go back on a fishing expedition later, when your first choices don't pan out. * pick a set of participants at random (balancing for demographics of interest: age, co-morbidities, weight, gender, etc.) * measure those endpoints at the start of the study so that you have a pre-trial baseline. * follow those people over time for the endpoints of interest. * some percentage will get infected with SARS-CoV2. verify this via testing. * at the end of the study, compare the group that caught SARS-CoV2 with the ones who did not along the endpoints of interest. compare both groups with their own pre-trial baselines. This is not the ONLY way of doing such a study, but it would be vastly better than any data currently reported. The biggest challenge is that it has to be done before the pandemic passes, and the number of cases drops too low to get a significant result in a reasonable period of time. The window on this is rapidly closing. > As a footnote, a year isn't a long time in the world of research. That's sometimes quite literally how long it takes from when you apply for a grant to when funding lands in your account. And you're asking about a phenomenon which often occurs months later. There have been multiple RCTs conducted during the pandemic, despite the bureaucratic inertia of the academy, and "long covid" is one of the biggest remaining controversies. There's no universe in which you couldn't get funding and approval for such a study in short order. |
> This is not a herculean problem. It's essentially the definition of any halfway decent medical study:
You're running in circles. That's not a randomized control trial. You'll get biases since the set of people infected with COVID19 isn't random.
This is not much better than existing studies. They're not preregistered, but that's the only upside of your methodology.
> There have been multiple RCTs conducted during the pandemic, despite the bureaucratic inertia of the academy, and "long covid" is one of the biggest remaining controversies. There's no universe in which you couldn't get funding and approval for such a study in short order.
IRBs are set up to prevent subject harm. An RCT, in this case, would involve randomly infecting people with COVID19 to eliminate the bias above. That will never fly.