3 ms·

About zero for children. Long-term symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection in school children: population-based cohort with 6-months follow-up (Preprint) https://

About zero for children. Long-term symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection in school children: population-based cohort with 6-months follow-up (Preprint) https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.16.21257255v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.16.21257255v... Reddit discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/obm0wy/longterm_symptoms_after_sarscov2_infection_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/obm0wy/longterm_sy...

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> About zero for children. That's not what the study says. They found that the seropositive group of 6 to 16 year olds was more likely to report a symptom beyond 12 weeks than the seronegative group. 4% of the seropositive students versus only 2% for the control group. The study authors conclude that the prevalence is low, but they do not conclude that it's about zero. For comparison, Polio is estimated to be asymptomatic or extremely mild in 90% or 95% of cases. Polio only moves to the central nervous system in about 0.5% of cases, and only about 2-5% of children with CNS infection die (15-30% of adults with CNS involvement). That's a relatively small percentage, but at scale it's a devastating number of people impacted. At epidemic scales, you can't simply waive away small percentages in the 2% range as inconsequential when it translates to millions of people impacted.
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
"9% versus 10% reported at least one symptom beyond 4 weeks, and 4% versus 2% at least one symptom beyond 12 weeks" That's not low for a virus which is infectious as Delta, and it's certainly not "about zero".
- Gwypaas 5y ago
  So 9% of seropositive and 10% of seronegative reported at least one symptom beyond 4 weeks. I.e. the background level is around 10% and the seronegative had "more" long covid than the ones who actually had covid in that group. Although this is pure randomness with such close measurements.
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    It's also a preprint and other studies contradict it.
  - PragmaticPulp 5y ago
    4% versus 2% in the longer term study. > Although this is pure randomness with such close measurements. That's not how this works at scale. We need larger studies, yes, but you can't simply dismiss a doubling of long-term symptom reports. At population scale, even a 1-2% incidence means millions of people.
    - anoncake 5y ago
      There is no doubling here – only random noise.
    - unishark 5y ago
      It is pretty weak though. There were only 109 seropositive kids in the follow-up according to the table, so you're talking about 2 more kids reporting a cough or headache as the entire basis of your concern.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> About zero for children. That's not what the study says. They found that the seropositive group of 6 to 16 year olds was more likely to report a symptom beyond 12 weeks than the seronegative group. 4% of the seropositive students versus only 2% for the control group. The study authors conclude that the prevalence is low, but they do not conclude that it's about zero. For comparison, Polio is estimated to be asymptomatic or extremely mild in 90% or 95% of cases. Polio only moves to the central nervous system in about 0.5% of cases, and only about 2-5% of children with CNS infection die (15-30% of adults with CNS involvement). That's a relatively small percentage, but at scale it's a devastating number of people impacted. At epidemic scales, you can't simply waive away small percentages in the 2% range as inconsequential when it translates to millions of people impacted.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago

"9% versus 10% reported at least one symptom beyond 4 weeks, and 4% versus 2% at least one symptom beyond 12 weeks" That's not low for a virus which is infectious as Delta, and it's certainly not "about zero".

Gwypaas 5y ago
So 9% of seropositive and 10% of seronegative reported at least one symptom beyond 4 weeks. I.e. the background level is around 10% and the seronegative had "more" long covid than the ones who actually had covid in that group. Although this is pure randomness with such close measurements.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  It's also a preprint and other studies contradict it.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago
  4% versus 2% in the longer term study. > Although this is pure randomness with such close measurements. That's not how this works at scale. We need larger studies, yes, but you can't simply dismiss a doubling of long-term symptom reports. At population scale, even a 1-2% incidence means millions of people.
  - anoncake 5y ago
    There is no doubling here – only random noise.
  - unishark 5y ago
    It is pretty weak though. There were only 109 seropositive kids in the follow-up according to the table, so you're talking about 2 more kids reporting a cough or headache as the entire basis of your concern.