Can't possibly be secondary effects of Covid-19, right?
Because that would mean we would have to acknowledge long covid, and possible immune system damage of repeated infections.
That won't do at all, people might want not to die for the ecconomy.
Because that would mean we would have to acknowledge long covid, and possible immune system damage of repeated infections.
That won't do at all, people might want not to die for the ecconomy.
It could be because of that, which is why the article address it, and accounts for in in their modelling.
[1]: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects/...
[2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-022-00846-2
(etc.; there are numerous studies that are not hard to find?)
>For example, some studies look for the presence of Long COVID based on self-reported symptoms, while others collect symptoms and conditions recorded in medical records. Some studies focus only on people who have been hospitalized, while others include people who were not hospitalized.
Can serious health conditions can arise as a lasting consequence of infection? Absolutely. Can we easily distinguish between those and other symptoms or conditions which may arise out of stress, anxiety, other unrelated conditions, or symptoms which in some (not all) cases may be psychosomatic? Can we accurately draw conclusions as to how many long-COVID patients there are in total, then apply that conclusion in other areas with confidence as the GP commenter has done? Not yet.
Elevated vascular transformation blood biomarkers in Long-COVID indicate angiogenesis as a key pathophysiological mechanism, https://molmed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s10020-022...
Plasma Proteome of Long-covid Patients Indicates Hypoxia-mediated Vasculo-proliferative Disease With Impact on Brain and Heart Function (Preprint), https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-2448315/v1/8043bd...
The first paper used a random forest-based decision tree classifier built on markers in blood assays. Neat.
However, this study has a major flaw. They rated their classifier's accuracy on classifying blood marker profiles of acutely ill COVID patients, long COVID patients experiencing "diffuse symptoms" referred with "no selection process", and a healthy control group. The control group consisted of healthy patients whose blood samples had been banked prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
It's not clear whether they compared their classifier's results against people who've had COVID and recovered without issue, versus those who had COVID and continued to experience symptoms long after recovery. That is the entire point of developing such a classifier. This paper is worthless without that comparison.
Second paper has the same problem, and is honest about it:
>The healthy control subjects were individuals without disease, acute illness or prescription medications and were previously banked in the Translational Research Centre, London, ON (Directed by Dr. D.D. Fraser; https://translationalresearchcentre.com/). These latter samples were obtained prior to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in our region and therefore, were considered not to have been exposed to the virus.
I only added these to say there's enough evidence to be questionable of the null hypothesis with regard to long COVID physiopathology.