Re:As Their Numbers Grow, Covid-19 “Long Haulers” Stump Experts
by btilly on Friday September 25, 2020 @10:04PM
(#24595861)
You claim zero. But the article links to the following studies: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768351, https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S11..., https://n.neurology.org/content/early/2020/08/10/WNL.0000000..., https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3026, and https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm?s_cid=mm.... Google also turns up https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02598-6.
That doesn't seem like "zero" to me.
Furthermore note that the result wouldn't be surprising. Long-term followup on SARS finds that 15 years after being infected, 4.6% still had visible lesions in the lungs and 38% had reduced diffusion capacity. Given that, the claim that a significant minority (eg > 5%) of people with COVID-19 should still have significant symptoms after several months seems quite plausible.
Right, which is still pure speculation. And by the way: CFS is a diagnosis of exclusion. The man is obviously not validating that thousands of people have an illness based on anecdotes. That would be a sure way to lose his medical license.
” You can add to that the many scientific publications cited about what fraction of people seem to encounter these symptoms and what symptoms they are.”
So far, that number is “zero”.
There have been no publications showing any evidence that “these symptoms” occur at any rate above baseline in the population. If any existed, sure they’d have mentioned them in this article?
There have been a few publications suggesting cardiac involvement in a small number of patients. To date, most of these have been withdrawn or debunked. Beyond this, the “publications“ on “long-haul Covid” consist almost exclusively of self-reported symptom data from people who self-select for feeling crummy.
But I am always interested in evidence, and I welcome you to cite the research upon which you’re basing your conjecture.