The article links to a study as proof of this. The study is based on "self-reported long COVID" data.
So, once again, zero scientific evidence for long covid, only that people reported that they thought they had long covid.
For example, https://www.dovepress.com/positive-predictive-value-of-the-i..., A Danish cohort of over 20k people that had a positive Covid test, 1.4% have subsequently been diagnosed with long Covid.
Now, you could continue to be really skeptical (are these really Covid related, or would these have happened absent Covid?). To say zero scientific evidence though seems to me to be sticking your head in the sand.
A brief look through the history of those ICD and DSM codes emphasize how their are sorts of factors that go into establishing, revising, and retracting codes — political, administrative, clinical, epidemiological, etc etc
In fact, it’s normal for a code to show up as a bucket to help broadly track purported cases well before any etiological basis or scientific consensus is established. The codes are more of an input to science than an output.
My interest is less in long covid than in whether the medical community is finally going to get itself together on viral induced damage instead of making up funny names for different combinations of damage.