4 ms·

These anecdotes are useful to remind us that many covid survivors still suffer from its damage. The data doesn't quantify these things yet, so cynical people,

These anecdotes are useful to remind us that many covid survivors still suffer from its damage. The data doesn't quantify these things yet, so cynical people, maybe people especially like you, might do well to pay them attention. Just because you're unlikely to die from covid, doesn't mean you won't be part of the 10% who retain symptoms past 3 months. It's not a binary outcome.

irq11 6y ago
Here’s the problem: you cite anecdotes of second- and third-hand stories that are exceptional at best, implausible at worst, then you claim these to be representative of the common case. They are not. There have now been hundreds of millions of infections, worldwide. Of these, the vast majority (>99.9%) resolve with no major sequelae. These are facts. People need to know this.
- sdenton4 6y ago
  'Earlier studies focused largely on long-term effects in hospitalized COVID patients, McCulloch noted. "Our study is unique in characterizing a group consisting of mostly outpatients: 90% of our cohort experienced only a mild COVID-19 illness, yet one-third continue to have lingering effects," she said. '"Many of these individuals are young and have no pre-existing medical conditions, indicating that even relatively healthy individuals may face long-term impacts from their illness."' https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/91270 https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/91270 0.01%, 33%... Basically a rounding error, right?
  - irq11 6y ago
    So your best evidence of this phenomenon is an uncontrolled survey of people who knew they had covid, asking them if they feel bad? And the most commonly reported symptom is hypertension, at 13%? I’ll let the researchers do the talking here: ”Study limitations include small sample size, single study location, and potential bias from self-reported symptoms, the researchers acknowledged.” This is certainly not a rebuttal to the fact that there have been hundreds of millions of infections globally, yet the cumulative evidence for “long covid” continues to be a vague constellation of self-reported, mostly mild symptoms in a tiny fraction of people. If even .1% of 100M infections had severe, long-lasting damage, it wouldn’t be a debate. There would be hundreds of thousands of people to point to.
    - sdenton4 6y ago
      That was the "let me Google that for you" response to your own completely unsupported claim. It seems like you're unwilling to look at evidence contrary to your opinions; the 'debate' is amongst deniers who aren't looking at evidence. I suggest some self reflection is in order; you're arguing with the same tactics as a climate change denier. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-tragedy-of-the-post-covid-long-haulers-2020101521173 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-tragedy-of-the-post-... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_COVID https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_COVID
      - irq11 6y ago
        You’re making the claim. Prove it. Don’t give me an editorial. Don’t give me a wikipedia page. Link to the controlled studies, showing the widespread damage that you’ve claimed. You can’t, because they don’t exist. You linked to the best there is, and it doesn’t rise to any reasonable standards of scientific evidence. Self-reported data is almost worthless. Uncontrolled, self-reported data is worthless. I’m perfectly willing to believe you, but editorials won’t convince me.
        sdenton4 6y ago
        There are two studies linked directly from the Harvard health article, one tracking Italian outpatients, and the other using randomized phone follow-up. Feel free to go read them, and more besides. There's a constellation of individually imperfect studies pointing in the exact same direction; that's basically how science happens. The studies exist in the first place because people observed Something Strange was happening, and wanted to quickly get a sense of severity and prevalence, to inform public health response. And if you're not willing to update your priors, I'll be here waiting for the perfect study that proves long covid doesn't exist...
        oliwarner 6y ago
        I'm sorry to hear your search engine got a flat tyre. Belligerently sniping about exactly what it is you want us —your research assistants, seemingly— to hand deliver you, doesn't seem like the best way to retain karma here, let alone have a discussion about something... But anyway, some more material for you. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.19.20214494v2.full-text https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.19.20214494v... https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3026 https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3026 It's going to be many years until we have a proper handle on this. Until then you might have to be willing to accept a flood of more anecdotal field data as having some analytical value.
inglor_cz 6y ago
"Of these, the vast majority (>99.9%) resolve with no major sequelae." Citation needed. > 99.9% is an extraordinary number and probably needs extraordinary support.
- cheschire 6y ago
  Worldwide deaths are a little over 2% of total cases so it doesn’t seem extraordinary, just wrong.
- oliwarner 6y ago
  "99.9%" is usually what you see when people are talking about the numbers of people in their whole population who haven't died from it yet. I appreciate the problems in test data when talking about case-mortality, but population-mortality is utter nonsense. Not to mention that in many places the whole population-mortality is now more than 0.1%. 0.2% of the UK has died from Covid. A few places are worse than that, and many places are on a trajectory for 1% if they can't control it.
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    Yes, including the Czech Republic, where I live. We have about 0,25% of the entire population dead from the Covid pandemics, one of the worst results worldwide, if not number 1... So I was really interested in OPs sources.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

irq11 6y ago

Here’s the problem: you cite anecdotes of second- and third-hand stories that are exceptional at best, implausible at worst, then you claim these to be representative of the common case. They are not. There have now been hundreds of millions of infections, worldwide. Of these, the vast majority (>99.9%) resolve with no major sequelae. These are facts. People need to know this.

sdenton4 6y ago
'Earlier studies focused largely on long-term effects in hospitalized COVID patients, McCulloch noted. "Our study is unique in characterizing a group consisting of mostly outpatients: 90% of our cohort experienced only a mild COVID-19 illness, yet one-third continue to have lingering effects," she said. '"Many of these individuals are young and have no pre-existing medical conditions, indicating that even relatively healthy individuals may face long-term impacts from their illness."' https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/91270 https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/91270 0.01%, 33%... Basically a rounding error, right?
- irq11 6y ago
  So your best evidence of this phenomenon is an uncontrolled survey of people who knew they had covid, asking them if they feel bad? And the most commonly reported symptom is hypertension, at 13%? I’ll let the researchers do the talking here: ”Study limitations include small sample size, single study location, and potential bias from self-reported symptoms, the researchers acknowledged.” This is certainly not a rebuttal to the fact that there have been hundreds of millions of infections globally, yet the cumulative evidence for “long covid” continues to be a vague constellation of self-reported, mostly mild symptoms in a tiny fraction of people. If even .1% of 100M infections had severe, long-lasting damage, it wouldn’t be a debate. There would be hundreds of thousands of people to point to.
  - sdenton4 6y ago
    That was the "let me Google that for you" response to your own completely unsupported claim. It seems like you're unwilling to look at evidence contrary to your opinions; the 'debate' is amongst deniers who aren't looking at evidence. I suggest some self reflection is in order; you're arguing with the same tactics as a climate change denier. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-tragedy-of-the-post-covid-long-haulers-2020101521173 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-tragedy-of-the-post-... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_COVID https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_COVID
    - irq11 6y ago
      You’re making the claim. Prove it. Don’t give me an editorial. Don’t give me a wikipedia page. Link to the controlled studies, showing the widespread damage that you’ve claimed. You can’t, because they don’t exist. You linked to the best there is, and it doesn’t rise to any reasonable standards of scientific evidence. Self-reported data is almost worthless. Uncontrolled, self-reported data is worthless. I’m perfectly willing to believe you, but editorials won’t convince me.
      - sdenton4 6y ago
        There are two studies linked directly from the Harvard health article, one tracking Italian outpatients, and the other using randomized phone follow-up. Feel free to go read them, and more besides. There's a constellation of individually imperfect studies pointing in the exact same direction; that's basically how science happens. The studies exist in the first place because people observed Something Strange was happening, and wanted to quickly get a sense of severity and prevalence, to inform public health response. And if you're not willing to update your priors, I'll be here waiting for the perfect study that proves long covid doesn't exist...
      - oliwarner 6y ago
        I'm sorry to hear your search engine got a flat tyre. Belligerently sniping about exactly what it is you want us —your research assistants, seemingly— to hand deliver you, doesn't seem like the best way to retain karma here, let alone have a discussion about something... But anyway, some more material for you. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.19.20214494v2.full-text https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.19.20214494v... https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3026 https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3026 It's going to be many years until we have a proper handle on this. Until then you might have to be willing to accept a flood of more anecdotal field data as having some analytical value.

inglor_cz 6y ago

"Of these, the vast majority (>99.9%) resolve with no major sequelae." Citation needed. > 99.9% is an extraordinary number and probably needs extraordinary support.

cheschire 6y ago
Worldwide deaths are a little over 2% of total cases so it doesn’t seem extraordinary, just wrong.
oliwarner 6y ago
"99.9%" is usually what you see when people are talking about the numbers of people in their whole population who haven't died from it yet. I appreciate the problems in test data when talking about case-mortality, but population-mortality is utter nonsense. Not to mention that in many places the whole population-mortality is now more than 0.1%. 0.2% of the UK has died from Covid. A few places are worse than that, and many places are on a trajectory for 1% if they can't control it.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  Yes, including the Czech Republic, where I live. We have about 0,25% of the entire population dead from the Covid pandemics, one of the worst results worldwide, if not number 1... So I was really interested in OPs sources.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]