[minsight]

Not necessarily the best or the latest evidence...

See: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-022-00846-2

[ETH_start]

The 10% claim of that review is based on this study:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

This study does not control for psychosocial factors, like the impact of anxiety and social isolation emanating from a positive COVID diagnosis.

So this is another example of the lack of rigor seen in claims about long COVID.

[xkbarkar]

Sigh, That's not a study that's an article reviewing other cherry picked articles. It doesn't really mean all that much tbh. You would have to review what this review is reviewing.

Long covid is still not properly defined and is more of a blanket term of feeling like shit after virus infection

List includes https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/covid-19/long-term-effects-of-...

* extreme tiredness (fatigue) * feeling short of breath * loss of smell * muscle aches

OR.

* problems with your memory and concentration ("brain fog") * chest pain or tightness * difficulty sleeping (insomnia) * heart palpitations * dizziness * pins and needles * joint pain * depression and anxiety * tinnitus, earaches * feeling sick, diarrhoea, stomach aches, loss of appetite * a high temperature, cough, headaches, sore throat, changes to sense of smell or taste * rashes

Many of these symptoms are simply post viral fatigue https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326619#what-is-it. Post-viral syndrome may cause additional symptoms, such as:

* confusion * trouble concentrating * headaches * aches and pains in the muscles * stiff joints * a sore throat * swollen lymph nodes Which was considered perfectly normal before the big C.

Maybe long covid is a thing, but it really needs proper definition then.

How sick I am of the Covid nutters. If you want research money for something it seems to be just enough to slap some covid label or other and a cheque will be written no questions asked.

Also nature is falling from grace as a top notch elite non-partisan publisher as they have definitely turned partisan in the last few years, they still had the courage to publish the devastating outcome of their political agenda though

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01537-5.

[hotdogscout]

I've got 3 friends with brain fog symptoms after 3 years of a COVID infection.

I myself take 6 months to have my brain work like before after contact with someone with COVID.

Wym "maybe long covid is a thing"? Didn't the deaths show the response to COVID is extremely varied already? I'm happy you didn't have it but I bet you know someone that does.

I agree Nature is admittedly dodgy to the left if the issue is political (climate change models, the infamous proximal Origins) but I honestly don't see long COVID being one.

[ETH_start]

Correlation doesn't equate to causation. Sub-optimal health is pervasive. Misattributing it to long COVID—as the evidence suggests is what's happening—is entirely plausible.

[2devnull]

With a totally straight face,

“With significant proportions of individuals with long COVID unable to return to work7, the scale of newly disabled individuals is contributing to labour shortages”

And I thought it was the Fed!

[Spivak]

So this line needs a lot of context due to the nature of academia. It's best not to read much into it. What ends up happening is that you do some research, type it all up into a paper and then your advisor makes you add something to connect your results to the "real world." And because it's a study on virology not economics the author will just speculate on some stuff that'll later be used for marketing fodder or grant writing to say the university is working on important things. Which they are, but important work doesn't sell. Important work that laypeople recognize as important sells. And when you want government money connecting it to jobs -- ooo boy.