[Nanana909]

> For COVID to cause severe illness in a few % -- enough to kill in rare cases -- but to not cause permanent lung or heart or kidney damage etc. in some significant percent who got very sick is implausible, even incoherent with all other theories about how viral diseases cause disease.

So then why do we never talk about long flu? Long meningitis? I don’t think people are in disbelief COVID can cause long term damage to specific people. Obviously that’s a possibility.

I think they don’t believe there is a specific disease called “long COVID”. Call it what it is - be that a damaged lung or heart or kidney. Hell even “post COVID symptomatic disease”. But “long COVID” strongly implies that you have a long, currently present case of COVID. That somehow just doesn’t show up on any tests. After 2 years.

[bigbillheck]

> So then why do we never talk about long flu?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2826837/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34694344/

> Long meningitis?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27105658/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01634...

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7587542/

[Nanana909]

Your first article:

> Lingering prenatal effects

So not “long influenza”.

“Lingering effects of influenza”, which I stated obviously can exist. Would you associate the words “long marriage” with “lingering effects of marriage”?

Not a single one of your sources used “long X” terminology. I wonder why that is? Perhaps because “long X” in the English language refers to either a large length or a large duration of time. Not “after effects”.

I suspect the authors of each paper knew this and intentionally made sure not to imply it was a continued disease. But I suppose when something is politicized people find it hard to move on, such as the COVID era.

[bigbillheck]

> I wonder why that is?

The thing about a neologism--the one that's relevant here anyway--is that it's neo, and the linear nature of time means that one would not expect to see it in use before it was coined.

[retrac]

> So then why do we never talk about long flu?

With both RSV and influenza, infection as a baby or toddler seems to increase the likelihood of asthma in later life. Do we talk about asthma?

I think it is just so ordinary, an accepted part of life, and often not thought of in terms of being caused by an identifiable pathogen, that it's not really remarkable. Sort of like the fact that viral pneumonia is what kills the very elderly -- if nothing else gets them first -- the older someone is the more likely viral pneumonia will be the cause of death, rising to around half of all deaths in the 90 yo+ demographic. RSV, rhinoviruses, influenza. We're used to it. And short of getting our influenza shots and washing our hands, there's not terribly much we can do about it.

> currently present case of COVID

Well, that's just people abusing terminology. Technically, COVID is not the virus; it's the illness caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2. Same sort of distinction as between HIV/AIDS. A person with severe AIDS who hypothetically was cured of HIV, would still have severe AIDS until/unless they manage to recover some immune function.

It is poorly named I guess. People still mix up AIDS/HIV today and I don't even bother to correct them; can't really blame them for conflating two closely related concepts.

Anyway. A popsci article from 2018: https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/31/health/flu-body-effects-partn... And if you want to dive in to it, the relevant search terms are: influenza pulmonary fibrosis

[Nanana909]

> With both RSV and influenza, infection as a baby or toddler seems to increase the likelihood of asthma in later life. Do we talk about asthma?

I think this reinforces my point succinctly. It’s not “extended RSV” or “persistent influenza”, it’s asthma.

COVID is a completely politicized term and dying on a hill to use it to describe symptoms people are stuck with after recovering from the acute disease, especially in a way that implies they’re still infected, is just - well you can see what it does.

[retrac]

Asthma induced by influenza would be about right, I think.

Much of this is novel, in having the ability to attribute to a specific viral cause, easily and cheaply and widely. This is new ground, new technology. Much of this was until recently, put up to non-specific viral infection, or even idiopathic.

We may start to re-conceive of asthma as different diseases if we could attribute the factors which went into causing a particular person's asthma. Flu-asthma, toxin-asthma, autoimmune-asthma, and COVID-asthma - and hybrid cases.

[Nanana909]

Those interested in seeing funding devoted towards the study of this would do well do steer away from the political COVID branding. And if that’s too hard, call it “post COVID disease” or something.

[cjbgkagh]

That’s not what LongCovid implies, that’s possibly referring to persistent spike proteins but that a separate thing. LongCovid specifically refers to post covid sequelae, as in not a chronic infection but the after effects from an acute infection.

Viral impairments were called ME/CFS, the main difference now is that such a large number of people got it at one time which is making it more difficult to ignore.

[Nanana909]

99.999% of the population, including those who claim they have long COVID, do not know the words “persistent spike proteins” or “post COVID sequelae”.

Therefore I assert you are incorrect, “long COVID” implies a “long case of COVID”. Similar to how no one would interpret “long marriage” to mean the after-effects of marriage.

P.S. no I will not cite a source for the statistic nor will I cite one for the sky being blue.

[cjbgkagh]

Not sure what to say other than that you are flagrantly wrong.

[Nanana909]

> Long COVID is broadly defined as signs, symptoms, and conditions that continue or develop after initial COVID-19 infection.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects/...

Emphasis on “Continue or develop”.

[cjbgkagh]

"post-acute"

[bigbillheck]

I thought we weren't supposed to do 'shallow dismissals' on this site.

[ipqk]

We now suspect that many pre-2020 ME/CFS cases were caused by a viral infection, so in some sense it is Long-Flu or Long-RSV, but we just don't call it that.

I myself still have long-term issues from a non-Covid viral infection a few years back, probably RSV.

[rjsw]

Maybe we should talk about long flu, you can have post-viral fatigue after it, the only difference with COVID is the duration.

[Nanana909]

Wasn’t COVID a virus? So it seems like we already have a word to describe this? post-viral fatigue

[Izkata]

Exactly, it's the exact same thing under a new branding. Because of that new branding, most people seem to think it's new and unique when it really isn't.