> It is because of these specific factors as well as inherent limitations of the study methodology itself, that their conclusion that it is “time to stop using terms like ‘long COVID’” is overstated and potentially unhelpful. Long COVID has been a global phenomenon, recognised by WHO.
> Unfortunately, this question cannot be simply answered in this work. The study is observational, based on reported symptoms with no physiological or detailed functional follow-up data. Without laboratory pathophysiological assessment of individual patients, it is impossible to say that this is indistinguishable from flu-related or any other post-viral syndrome.
Of course, every 'puchy-headline' paper deserves to be considered on its own merits, but perhaps read the paper not an article about the paper if you want to take it as 'The Truth'.
"Long covid is not a thing" plays into the "Covid is not a thing" conspiracy theory; it's probably a harmful trope, rather than meaningfully helpful for the people suffering symptoms.
There is universal agreement the symptoms are real.
It's unclear what benefit using a different name for it offers.