Long-haul Covid-19 afflicts 1 in 4 patients, regardless of severity (2021) | Hacker News Reader

Long-haul Covid-19 afflicts 1 in 4 patients, regardless of severity (2021)

health.ucdavis.edu

8 pointsmitchbob11 comments

This particular non-peer-reviewed study cited is NOT controlled:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.03.21252086v...

We have no idea if it was COVID that was responsible for these symptoms (the most common of which is anxiety) or a response to COVID, like stress, or two weeks isolation after diagnosis, or the pandemic-related restrictions on social interaction.

This study attempts to isolate for the effects of COVID infection by comparing people with previous COVID infection, who were unaware that they had COVID, from those who were aware, and also people who believed they had a previous COVID infection, but that were confirmed to not have had it, and concludes most cases of long-COVID are misattribution:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...

Statistically, seems just as likely a long COVID sufferer could have depression, as it is they have activated MS.

What's really important to know is the actual ratio of Covid infections/Long Haul suffers. The number is above zero, but I have a hard time believing that it's as high as 25%. Plugging that number into the the PASC dashboard[1] at results in 17 Million long haul cases in the US. I have a very hard time believing it's that high of a ratio. I suspect it is more in the 1-3% range.

[1] https://pascdashboard.aapmr.org/

Note: I'm dealing with Long Covid. I have no affiliation, nor do I endorse [1], it just does the math in a nice manner.

> Sandrock said. “This is not something we’ve seen with any other infectious disease.”

It would be helpful to see this fleshed out. This statement strikes me as being the result of the spotlight on Covid. *That* is focus and sample size unprecedented. That is, just because something was noticed previously doesn't mean it wasn't there. It means there weren't significant numbers to be noticed, and/or bias and conventional wisdom pushed perceptions elsewhere.

I'm not questioning the existence of long Covid. But the context matters, and the science should be aware of how unique that is.

I've wondered this too. There are lots of anecdotes about coughs that stay for a long time after a cold or not feeling right for some time after the flu. How much study has there been of these.

And frankly, how much of a placebo effect is there? People rush to point out how many (the majority) of vaccine reactions can be explained by placebo / nocebo or just spurious correlation between vaccination and some other event. I agree fully with this, it's common sense. But no doubt it also applies to actual infection. Anything contemporaneous or in the weeks afterwards is going to be "long covid". Have there been any studies that disentangled this somehow?

I'd be interested to know where these patients predominantly live, is it seen more in urban areas / cities with high levels of air pollution etc

A number of recent studies have investigated whether "long COVID" symptoms are more strongly correlated to a belief that you had COVID or to you actually having COVID. The basic answer seems to be that "Long COVID" is entirely an aftereffect of thinking you had COVID, and it (mostly) doesn't matter whether the patient was actually infected.

Link?

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2787741

Good question. My SO and I both got sick with (what we decided was) the flu back in the early 2000s ... and it took us both over a month to feel normal (not continually fatigued) again. I don't think I've ever seen such things addressed anywhere - so maybe this will fix that.

It's my understanding that long covid is not something new and unexpected. Apparently any virus attacking the organs can cause problems. These problems usually go away after some time.

Long flu is definitely a thing. I saw a meta study on that and was humbled by how common it could be, even after mild cases. Here's an article talking about the many complaints of such after the 1918 flu [0].

[0] https://time.com/5915616/long-flu-1918-pandemic/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com