8 ms·

Study suggests long-Covid may be mostly psychological

45 points by CryptoPunk 5y ago

scotuswroteus 5y ago
Gotta be honest, while I'd love for this conclusion to be the case, I really don't care what one study "suggests."
CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>Findings In this cross-sectional analysis of 26 823 adults from the population-based French CONSTANCES cohort during the COVID-19 pandemic, self-reported COVID-19 infection was associated with most persistent physical symptoms, whereas laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection was associated only with anosmia. Those associations were independent from self-rated health or depressive symptoms.
- hammock 5y ago
  There are a lot of people who report they had covid but never had it confirmed via PCR test or serology. This is a problem because data from this group purportedly about covid, such as "long covid" symptoms or the robustness of natural immunity, is seriously compromised. You can see that idea here in this study and also in the difference between natural immunity studies which use self-reported data (which may indicate weak, declining or no protection), compared to studies which use PCR or serological confirmation. The studies in the latter group unanimously confirm the robustness and longevity of natural immunity.
  - dbsights 5y ago
    I can't believe natural immunity was ever in doubt. Is there a single disease for which natural immunity is not superior to acquired (via vaccine) immunity? I can't find one.
    - scohesc 5y ago
      You're not supposed to ask those types of questions - you're not a scientist. Leave the health mandates and questions to the scientists that we trust to lead us through the pandemic.
      - atomicUpdate 5y ago
        I really hope this is sarcasm.
        hammock 5y ago
        You must not do your own research when it comes to science: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/30/you-must-not-do-your-own-research-when-it-comes-to-science/?sh=721b9ba2535e https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/30/you-...
        josters 5y ago
        I took it as such.
    - jjeaff 5y ago
      I don't know if it has been studied much, but it stands to reason that a vaccine might impart superior immunity, especially considering variants and the fact that the vaccine is given in separate doses spread out long enough to induce more memory.
richardatlarge 5y ago
Makes sense when you think of the very high rate of ‘symptomatic’ people who get tested and are negative. Signal/noise: and ‘placebo’ effects are stronger when it produces ‘side effects’ rather than being inert
- jan_Inkepa 5y ago
  >Signal/noise: and ‘placebo’ effects are stronger when it produces ‘side effects’ rather than being inert I don't follow. What do you mean? What's the difference between an "effect" and a "side effect"? And what's an "inert" effect?
  - richardatlarge 5y ago
    When it comes to attributing a symptom you're feeling to a cause, the number of correct-negatives in COVID testing indicates a lot of noise (not covid) vs signal (true covid symptom). With placebo effects it's the same problem. So I mean that when 'active placebos' are used, rather than ones that have no side effect (like dry mouth), the effects are larger. So in basic terms, the more noise there is in the system, the more signal error there is. The main point is about the reason they do blind control studies. People are not very good at correct attribution.
- alphabettsy 5y ago
  > ‘symptomatic’ people who get tested and are negative. I don’t follow. These people likely have one of any number of other illnesses though right? Allergies, common cold, flu, etc?
  - richardatlarge 5y ago
    Yes, I think we all have had symptoms of one thing or another and thought, 'do I need to get tested.' So we have some of the listed symptoms for covid but because those symptoms are so general, most tests turn out negative
tediousdemise 5y ago
Keep in mind that there is a reproducibility crisis[0] currently plaguing academia. The quantity of papers has skyrocketed and the quality has plummeted. Until the SNR is fixed, take all of it with a grain of salt. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  By that same logic, research showing the dangers posed of COVID, or the efficacy of vaccines, should be taken with a grain of salt.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    That is correct. Usually it is better to wait and see if the results are corroborated by different research teams, preferably in different countries.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      Right, and we should definitely not assume long-COVID exists without compelling, reproducible evidence. Much policy around COVID is now based on the assumption that long-COVID is a significant public health threat and justifies extremely heavy handed and disruptive interventions and policies, respectively. This is despite no large randomized controlled studies proving that it is exists as a widespread phenemenon, and nothing in the pathophysiology of COVID to suggest it would create the kind of pervasiveness of long-term complications that many media stories have sounded the alarm about.
      - angelzen 5y ago
        In practice there is the bureaucratic state ratchet. Everything that favors their policies is taken as gospel on the whimsiest of the evidence. "My aunt's gardner third cousin works in an ER, they are seeing mountains of children in ICUs". Everything counter their policies must be proven via large RCTs. Regulatory capture functions in the same way, creating a sea of red tape that somehow large incumbents are not subject to, but have significant relative costs for smaller upstarts.
jabthedang 5y ago
Dangerous misinformation! Oh most wise and honorable dang, please save us!!
Invictus0 5y ago
It doesn't take a PhD to know this conclusion is total bullshit. I know long covid sufferers personally--one, a former marathon runner, has spent months unable to go up a single flight of stairs without crushing fatigue. I don't doubt that there is a psychological component to long-covid, but to suggest the entire ailment is some cousin of anxiety is dismissive, insulting, and most importantly, plain wrong. There's a large contingent of HN readers that seem to think long covid doesn't exist because it hasn't been firmly confirmed by a study. To be more accurate, they would prefer it didn't exist because its existence would justify some of the stricter covid restrictions. I imagine these are the same people that would let their Tesla drive them into a wall because the camera didn't see it there. Not proven to exist != proven not to exist. If it hasn't been proven to exist, then we'll need to do better science until we find it, because it definitely exists without any measure of doubt. And by the way, this is the exact same nonsense that has quagmired ME/CFS research for decades. The government requires that diseases have a biomarker in order to claim disability--the lack of a biomarker for this illness doesn't meant that it doesn't exist, but it has meant that research on it has been tragically and dramatically underfunded and sufferers struggle to claim disability benefits.
- Pyramus 5y ago
  Came here to say something very similar. There is a very good podcast in Germany that involves two of the country's leading virologists [1]. In a recent episode they reviewed the current literature on long Covid. One of the key take-aways was that it's likely not a single disease but a combination of several distinct components. E.g. there is a component that's related to lung damage, one related to fatigue and exhaustion, there's a neurological component related to loss of taste etc. - it's very much work in progress what these components are and how to best treat them. [1] https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/podcast4684.html https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/podcast4684.html
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    That's not a scientific answer. Physical symptoms of stress include: Low energy Headaches Upset stomach, including diarrhea, constipation, and nausea Aches, pains, and tense muscles Chest pain and rapid heartbeat Insomnia Frequent colds and infections Loss of sexual desire and/or ability Nervousness and shaking, ringing in the ear, cold or sweaty hands and feet Dry mouth and difficulty swallowing Clenched jaw and grinding teeth Sounds like all of the physical symptoms of so-called long-COVID. On top of the stress that would undoubtedly afflict a significant fraction of COVID patients, due to the massively inflated fears surrounding COVID, is the effects of physical isolation. One of the requirements for all COVID positive cases is two weeks of total physical isolation. Numerous studies have shown that humans being physically isolated has significant negative health effects. No in person contact. No physical touch. For two weeks. All COVID positive cases, even asymptomatic ones. There are no randomized studies, that control for factors, like the aforementioned psychological distress emanating from fear of COVID, and physical isolation, that suggests COVID causes these long-term symptoms. There are a host of potential confounding factors that could explain these correlations better than damage from the COVID infection. Notice how extreme rigor is demanded for the ivermectin studies but then really just mere correlations is enough to draw scare mongering conclusions about COVID.
aaron695 5y ago
What! But I had this theory since all symptoms clearly crossed over with Havana syndrome the Russian were giving it to us through sonic weapons in 5G. Next thing you'll be saying we live in a clown land because so many people believe this stuff and they can't all be wrong can they? Could there be other things I shouldn't believe? Global Warming won't kill all our children? The Chinese don't have drone swarms all over the USA attacking infrastructure? A bunch of unarmed middle aged people stealing chairs are not an insurection? This is just just Covid being in the news constantly and constantly changing our lives? That might be stressful and stress causes illness?
scohesc 5y ago
Maybe we should finally realize that the people reporting "long-covid" symptoms without a conclusive test might just be suffering from the multitude of health issues that come with the changes we've seen in society the past couple of years. Since "long-covid" isn't an issue endemic to the people of France and has been reported about globally, let me post my individual opinion on what might be causing these "fake" cases of "long-covid" with what I guess will be deemed as hyperbole here - I leave it open to discussion. The lockdowns haven't helped anybody other than the severely vulnerable population both with or without pre-existing conditions, as well as put a temporary band-aid on the failing/already failed medical systems of the countries that implemented them. You've got MAJOR factors causing uncalculated amounts of mental strain on everybody, like: - Increases in (un)diagnosed mental health illnesses from any variety of reasons - domestic violence, emotional abuse, new drug addictions (prescription or otherwise), decreased/non-existant IN-PERSON social interactions with your friends and family definitely don't help. Humans need face-to-face in-person contact. - Constant bombardment by the media about how we're horrible people if we meet with our families and friends, Articles about how inflation is starting to catch up to us, "But that's okay, and here's why!" (I am completely convinced that government, corporations, and media outlets are colluding behind the scenes to control the national narrative of the pandemic and the economy, though I'm more talking about my home country USA) - Failures of the healthcare systems in NUMEROUS countries (in Canada, I know 2 people who have been on the wait-list for joint replacement for TWO YEARS with no estimated date, meanwhile they're taking HEAVY doses of painkillers, destroying their liver/kidneys in order to just function normally. All they're told is "there's nothing we can do but wait". - (again, in the USA) The constant run-around by public officials about how "this is what's going to get us out of this. BE HONEST straight from the start. Say "this virus has the potential to infect everyone in X country, we don't know anything about it (at the time), please try not to panic" - but instead we got platitudes and slogans like "two weeks to flatten the curve!" "Don't wear masks!" "wait, actually wear masks!" I'm not surprised that there's lots of people getting sick with something either viral, or mental, and then say they've got long-covid afterwards due to everything we're being subjected to today. 'We're all in this together' lmao. We should be absolutely livid about our medical systems worldwide and ask our world governments why they haven't been preparing for these types of events. The answer is usually "cost savings" unfortunately.
ShroudedNight 5y ago
> Participants who reported having an initial COVID-19 infection only after completing the serology test were excluded. Does this mean that they excluded those who changed their opinion based on the test results? Or those that believed they had a novel infection after they had been tested?
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  They compared those who had COVID, as determined by antibody tests, and were not aware of having had COVID, to those who believed they had COVID, but had not had it, again according to antibody tests. This was to isolate the psychosocial impact on health of believing one has COVID from the direct biological effects of having COVID.
  - theGeatZhopa 5y ago
    At first I also thought that. But: "...during the COVID-19 pandemic, *self-reported COVID-19* infection was associated *with most persistent physical symptoms*, whereas *laboratory-confirmed* COVID-19 infection was associated *only with anosmia*. ..." They all have been infected, but the ones self reported experienced much more symptoms of COVID infections that were longer persistent as with the other's, who had intentionally/unintentionally a positive lab test as their first confirmation of infection. That group experienced just anosmia.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      It looks like they looked at both infected and not infected individuals: >>The crude prevalence of persistent physical symptoms was first calculated for 4 groups of participants according to both belief (ie, self-reported COVID-19 infection) and serology test results: belief negative and serology negative; belief positive and serology negative; belief negative and serology positive; and belief positive and serology positive.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
theGeatZhopa 5y ago
As I understand that is: >Findings In this cross-sectional analysis of 26 823 adults from the population-based French CONSTANCES cohort during the COVID-19 pandemic, self-reported COVID-19 infection was associated with most persistent physical symptoms, whereas laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection was associated only with anosmia. Those associations were independent from self-rated health or depressive symptoms. They are just saying that some guys who had experienced, and following, self reported their infection, did show the most persistent symptoms. ..., lost senses, etc.. That makes the group A. While Other's, who obviously did not experience heavy symptoms, where confirmed tested by lab at some point in time. The only symptom this group B experienced in long term was anosmia. So there is a discrepancy in that, which is or might be psychological. Yes. But it's just perception? A lot of mild symptoms are resulting in unrecognized infections, because they're .. mild. So why that person should think he/she/it is infected? .... Of course, at some point they've been tested, because they've did start to show anosmia. That's group B. The ones thinking they're infected and experiencing symptoms (yet having COVID not a big surprise), they self reported by going to see the ICS. Group A. So, is it not obvious to see the doctor if one starts to show symptoms of an infection with covid in the midth of a worldwide pandemic situation? If one is I'll enough to go to doctors, one can expect the illness to be severe. And is it not obvious to just do a test (which at some point became mandatory in situations) when one's experiences very mild symptoms and not self report to ICS? SO, what's the sense to compare A an B for obvious? As I understand, the study is about comparing A to B at the time when A/B got their infection. The grade of severeness/feeling ill is directly connected with persistent symptoms, if I may say so? The psychological part I could derive from thinking could be that anxious people do pay more attention to every mosquito bite ("AHH it's itchi. Could be corona. Let's see the doc") and thus, they're self reporting. in contrary to the ones who say "it's not necessary to report, because it's just a nightsover or a little snooze". And of course, that anxious people will have psychological persistent thinking they still having the same symptoms as they were at ICS. But is it thinking or perception? Some perceive the purest pain as nothing while others wizzles by the look at a spider. But why compare that?! For me it would make more sense to compare severeness vs self report vs persistence
cestith 5y ago
The study says nothing about the symptoms being psychological. It says that people who self-diagnosed as having COVID-19 attributed those symptoms to COVID-19 whether or not they showed antibodies for the virus. The symptoms and symptom clusters mentioned - like fatigue, body ache, breathlessness, headache, and strained attention or focus - have many causes both physical and psychological. What the study is saying is that people think they've had COVID-19 because they experience these symptoms or that they've had these symptoms in addition to COVID-19 and have perhaps mistakenly attributed these symptoms to the disease. In the words of the article itself, from the Discussion section: Two main mechanisms may account for our findings. First, having persistent physical symptoms may have led to the belief in having had COVID-19, especially in the context of a growing concern regarding long COVID. Although adjusting for self-rated health before the pandemic did not affect our results, another disease may underlie symptoms attributed to COVID-19 infection. Second, the belief in having had COVID-19 infection may have increased the likelihood of symptoms, either directly by affecting perception19,20 or indirectly by prompting maladaptive health behaviors, such as physical activity reduction or dietary exclusion. These mechanisms are thought to contribute to the long-described persistence of physical symptoms after acute infections.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  The study concluded that COVID infection does not correlate with most of the long-COVID symptoms, does it not? It was only the belief of having a COVID infection that correlated with them. That implies that people only believe that they have long-COVID symptoms, when in fact some other phenomenon is causing them. You're right that the cause may not be psychological however.
  - cestith 5y ago
    > The study says nothing about the symptoms being psychological. > It says that people who self-diagnosed as having COVID-19 attributed those symptoms to COVID-19 whether or not they showed antibodies for the virus.
    - 5y ago
spywaregorilla 5y ago
This seems pretty moronic to me. People who don't realize they had covid were likely to have few, if any symptoms. People who had heavy symptoms knew they had covid. Nobody, save for those living in complete denial, is going to lose their sense of smell and taste and go bedridden for a few days and think they did not have covid. The paper doesn't seem to make any effort to ask the far more relevant question: "Do stronger initial symptoms correlate with stronger long term effects?". They probably do. A lot of it is just straight up long term damage that requires a lot of time to recover. The data seems questionable to me. You really need to dig into it but they've got 50% of people who said they thought had COVID got a negative test in the study. However, 66% of people who believed they had covid actually got diagnosed by a test or doctor. It seems to me that the false negative rate of their serological rate must be abnormally high. Do I really believe that half of people who think they got covid didn't actually have it even though two thirds of them were confirmed by another test? I don't. It seems much more likely to me that their test is just bad they've got mostly believed-positive vs !believed-negative; and believed-positive vs. !believed-postive-but-minor-infection if that makes sense. Hard doubt.

45 points by CryptoPunk 5y ago

Gotta be honest, while I'd love for this conclusion to be the case, I really don't care what one study "suggests."

>>Findings In this cross-sectional analysis of 26 823 adults from the population-based French CONSTANCES cohort during the COVID-19 pandemic, self-reported COVID-19 infection was associated with most persistent physical symptoms, whereas laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection was associated only with anosmia. Those associations were independent from self-rated health or depressive symptoms.

hammock 5y ago
There are a lot of people who report they had covid but never had it confirmed via PCR test or serology. This is a problem because data from this group purportedly about covid, such as "long covid" symptoms or the robustness of natural immunity, is seriously compromised. You can see that idea here in this study and also in the difference between natural immunity studies which use self-reported data (which may indicate weak, declining or no protection), compared to studies which use PCR or serological confirmation. The studies in the latter group unanimously confirm the robustness and longevity of natural immunity.
- dbsights 5y ago
  I can't believe natural immunity was ever in doubt. Is there a single disease for which natural immunity is not superior to acquired (via vaccine) immunity? I can't find one.
  - scohesc 5y ago
    You're not supposed to ask those types of questions - you're not a scientist. Leave the health mandates and questions to the scientists that we trust to lead us through the pandemic.
    - atomicUpdate 5y ago
      I really hope this is sarcasm.
      - hammock 5y ago
        You must not do your own research when it comes to science: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/30/you-must-not-do-your-own-research-when-it-comes-to-science/?sh=721b9ba2535e https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/30/you-...
      - josters 5y ago
        I took it as such.
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    I don't know if it has been studied much, but it stands to reason that a vaccine might impart superior immunity, especially considering variants and the fact that the vaccine is given in separate doses spread out long enough to induce more memory.

richardatlarge 5y ago

Makes sense when you think of the very high rate of ‘symptomatic’ people who get tested and are negative. Signal/noise: and ‘placebo’ effects are stronger when it produces ‘side effects’ rather than being inert

jan_Inkepa 5y ago
>Signal/noise: and ‘placebo’ effects are stronger when it produces ‘side effects’ rather than being inert I don't follow. What do you mean? What's the difference between an "effect" and a "side effect"? And what's an "inert" effect?
- richardatlarge 5y ago
  When it comes to attributing a symptom you're feeling to a cause, the number of correct-negatives in COVID testing indicates a lot of noise (not covid) vs signal (true covid symptom). With placebo effects it's the same problem. So I mean that when 'active placebos' are used, rather than ones that have no side effect (like dry mouth), the effects are larger. So in basic terms, the more noise there is in the system, the more signal error there is. The main point is about the reason they do blind control studies. People are not very good at correct attribution.
alphabettsy 5y ago
> ‘symptomatic’ people who get tested and are negative. I don’t follow. These people likely have one of any number of other illnesses though right? Allergies, common cold, flu, etc?
- richardatlarge 5y ago
  Yes, I think we all have had symptoms of one thing or another and thought, 'do I need to get tested.' So we have some of the listed symptoms for covid but because those symptoms are so general, most tests turn out negative

tediousdemise 5y ago

Keep in mind that there is a reproducibility crisis[0] currently plaguing academia. The quantity of papers has skyrocketed and the quality has plummeted. Until the SNR is fixed, take all of it with a grain of salt. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

CryptoPunk 5y ago
By that same logic, research showing the dangers posed of COVID, or the efficacy of vaccines, should be taken with a grain of salt.
- angelzen 5y ago
  That is correct. Usually it is better to wait and see if the results are corroborated by different research teams, preferably in different countries.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    Right, and we should definitely not assume long-COVID exists without compelling, reproducible evidence. Much policy around COVID is now based on the assumption that long-COVID is a significant public health threat and justifies extremely heavy handed and disruptive interventions and policies, respectively. This is despite no large randomized controlled studies proving that it is exists as a widespread phenemenon, and nothing in the pathophysiology of COVID to suggest it would create the kind of pervasiveness of long-term complications that many media stories have sounded the alarm about.
    - angelzen 5y ago
      In practice there is the bureaucratic state ratchet. Everything that favors their policies is taken as gospel on the whimsiest of the evidence. "My aunt's gardner third cousin works in an ER, they are seeing mountains of children in ICUs". Everything counter their policies must be proven via large RCTs. Regulatory capture functions in the same way, creating a sea of red tape that somehow large incumbents are not subject to, but have significant relative costs for smaller upstarts.

jabthedang 5y ago

Dangerous misinformation! Oh most wise and honorable dang, please save us!!

Invictus0 5y ago

It doesn't take a PhD to know this conclusion is total bullshit. I know long covid sufferers personally--one, a former marathon runner, has spent months unable to go up a single flight of stairs without crushing fatigue. I don't doubt that there is a psychological component to long-covid, but to suggest the entire ailment is some cousin of anxiety is dismissive, insulting, and most importantly, plain wrong. There's a large contingent of HN readers that seem to think long covid doesn't exist because it hasn't been firmly confirmed by a study. To be more accurate, they would prefer it didn't exist because its existence would justify some of the stricter covid restrictions. I imagine these are the same people that would let their Tesla drive them into a wall because the camera didn't see it there. Not proven to exist != proven not to exist. If it hasn't been proven to exist, then we'll need to do better science until we find it, because it definitely exists without any measure of doubt. And by the way, this is the exact same nonsense that has quagmired ME/CFS research for decades. The government requires that diseases have a biomarker in order to claim disability--the lack of a biomarker for this illness doesn't meant that it doesn't exist, but it has meant that research on it has been tragically and dramatically underfunded and sufferers struggle to claim disability benefits.

Pyramus 5y ago
Came here to say something very similar. There is a very good podcast in Germany that involves two of the country's leading virologists [1]. In a recent episode they reviewed the current literature on long Covid. One of the key take-aways was that it's likely not a single disease but a combination of several distinct components. E.g. there is a component that's related to lung damage, one related to fatigue and exhaustion, there's a neurological component related to loss of taste etc. - it's very much work in progress what these components are and how to best treat them. [1] https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/podcast4684.html https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/podcast4684.html
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  That's not a scientific answer. Physical symptoms of stress include: Low energy Headaches Upset stomach, including diarrhea, constipation, and nausea Aches, pains, and tense muscles Chest pain and rapid heartbeat Insomnia Frequent colds and infections Loss of sexual desire and/or ability Nervousness and shaking, ringing in the ear, cold or sweaty hands and feet Dry mouth and difficulty swallowing Clenched jaw and grinding teeth Sounds like all of the physical symptoms of so-called long-COVID. On top of the stress that would undoubtedly afflict a significant fraction of COVID patients, due to the massively inflated fears surrounding COVID, is the effects of physical isolation. One of the requirements for all COVID positive cases is two weeks of total physical isolation. Numerous studies have shown that humans being physically isolated has significant negative health effects. No in person contact. No physical touch. For two weeks. All COVID positive cases, even asymptomatic ones. There are no randomized studies, that control for factors, like the aforementioned psychological distress emanating from fear of COVID, and physical isolation, that suggests COVID causes these long-term symptoms. There are a host of potential confounding factors that could explain these correlations better than damage from the COVID infection. Notice how extreme rigor is demanded for the ivermectin studies but then really just mere correlations is enough to draw scare mongering conclusions about COVID.

aaron695 5y ago

What! But I had this theory since all symptoms clearly crossed over with Havana syndrome the Russian were giving it to us through sonic weapons in 5G. Next thing you'll be saying we live in a clown land because so many people believe this stuff and they can't all be wrong can they? Could there be other things I shouldn't believe? Global Warming won't kill all our children? The Chinese don't have drone swarms all over the USA attacking infrastructure? A bunch of unarmed middle aged people stealing chairs are not an insurection? This is just just Covid being in the news constantly and constantly changing our lives? That might be stressful and stress causes illness?

scohesc 5y ago

Maybe we should finally realize that the people reporting "long-covid" symptoms without a conclusive test might just be suffering from the multitude of health issues that come with the changes we've seen in society the past couple of years. Since "long-covid" isn't an issue endemic to the people of France and has been reported about globally, let me post my individual opinion on what might be causing these "fake" cases of "long-covid" with what I guess will be deemed as hyperbole here - I leave it open to discussion. The lockdowns haven't helped anybody other than the severely vulnerable population both with or without pre-existing conditions, as well as put a temporary band-aid on the failing/already failed medical systems of the countries that implemented them. You've got MAJOR factors causing uncalculated amounts of mental strain on everybody, like: - Increases in (un)diagnosed mental health illnesses from any variety of reasons - domestic violence, emotional abuse, new drug addictions (prescription or otherwise), decreased/non-existant IN-PERSON social interactions with your friends and family definitely don't help. Humans need face-to-face in-person contact. - Constant bombardment by the media about how we're horrible people if we meet with our families and friends, Articles about how inflation is starting to catch up to us, "But that's okay, and here's why!" (I am completely convinced that government, corporations, and media outlets are colluding behind the scenes to control the national narrative of the pandemic and the economy, though I'm more talking about my home country USA) - Failures of the healthcare systems in NUMEROUS countries (in Canada, I know 2 people who have been on the wait-list for joint replacement for TWO YEARS with no estimated date, meanwhile they're taking HEAVY doses of painkillers, destroying their liver/kidneys in order to just function normally. All they're told is "there's nothing we can do but wait". - (again, in the USA) The constant run-around by public officials about how "this is what's going to get us out of this. BE HONEST straight from the start. Say "this virus has the potential to infect everyone in X country, we don't know anything about it (at the time), please try not to panic" - but instead we got platitudes and slogans like "two weeks to flatten the curve!" "Don't wear masks!" "wait, actually wear masks!" I'm not surprised that there's lots of people getting sick with something either viral, or mental, and then say they've got long-covid afterwards due to everything we're being subjected to today. 'We're all in this together' lmao. We should be absolutely livid about our medical systems worldwide and ask our world governments why they haven't been preparing for these types of events. The answer is usually "cost savings" unfortunately.

ShroudedNight 5y ago

> Participants who reported having an initial COVID-19 infection only after completing the serology test were excluded. Does this mean that they excluded those who changed their opinion based on the test results? Or those that believed they had a novel infection after they had been tested?

CryptoPunk 5y ago
They compared those who had COVID, as determined by antibody tests, and were not aware of having had COVID, to those who believed they had COVID, but had not had it, again according to antibody tests. This was to isolate the psychosocial impact on health of believing one has COVID from the direct biological effects of having COVID.
- theGeatZhopa 5y ago
  At first I also thought that. But: "...during the COVID-19 pandemic, *self-reported COVID-19* infection was associated *with most persistent physical symptoms*, whereas *laboratory-confirmed* COVID-19 infection was associated *only with anosmia*. ..." They all have been infected, but the ones self reported experienced much more symptoms of COVID infections that were longer persistent as with the other's, who had intentionally/unintentionally a positive lab test as their first confirmation of infection. That group experienced just anosmia.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    It looks like they looked at both infected and not infected individuals: >>The crude prevalence of persistent physical symptoms was first calculated for 4 groups of participants according to both belief (ie, self-reported COVID-19 infection) and serology test results: belief negative and serology negative; belief positive and serology negative; belief negative and serology positive; and belief positive and serology positive.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

theGeatZhopa 5y ago

As I understand that is: >Findings In this cross-sectional analysis of 26 823 adults from the population-based French CONSTANCES cohort during the COVID-19 pandemic, self-reported COVID-19 infection was associated with most persistent physical symptoms, whereas laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection was associated only with anosmia. Those associations were independent from self-rated health or depressive symptoms. They are just saying that some guys who had experienced, and following, self reported their infection, did show the most persistent symptoms. ..., lost senses, etc.. That makes the group A. While Other's, who obviously did not experience heavy symptoms, where confirmed tested by lab at some point in time. The only symptom this group B experienced in long term was anosmia. So there is a discrepancy in that, which is or might be psychological. Yes. But it's just perception? A lot of mild symptoms are resulting in unrecognized infections, because they're .. mild. So why that person should think he/she/it is infected? .... Of course, at some point they've been tested, because they've did start to show anosmia. That's group B. The ones thinking they're infected and experiencing symptoms (yet having COVID not a big surprise), they self reported by going to see the ICS. Group A. So, is it not obvious to see the doctor if one starts to show symptoms of an infection with covid in the midth of a worldwide pandemic situation? If one is I'll enough to go to doctors, one can expect the illness to be severe. And is it not obvious to just do a test (which at some point became mandatory in situations) when one's experiences very mild symptoms and not self report to ICS? SO, what's the sense to compare A an B for obvious? As I understand, the study is about comparing A to B at the time when A/B got their infection. The grade of severeness/feeling ill is directly connected with persistent symptoms, if I may say so? The psychological part I could derive from thinking could be that anxious people do pay more attention to every mosquito bite ("AHH it's itchi. Could be corona. Let's see the doc") and thus, they're self reporting. in contrary to the ones who say "it's not necessary to report, because it's just a nightsover or a little snooze". And of course, that anxious people will have psychological persistent thinking they still having the same symptoms as they were at ICS. But is it thinking or perception? Some perceive the purest pain as nothing while others wizzles by the look at a spider. But why compare that?! For me it would make more sense to compare severeness vs self report vs persistence

cestith 5y ago

The study says nothing about the symptoms being psychological. It says that people who self-diagnosed as having COVID-19 attributed those symptoms to COVID-19 whether or not they showed antibodies for the virus. The symptoms and symptom clusters mentioned - like fatigue, body ache, breathlessness, headache, and strained attention or focus - have many causes both physical and psychological. What the study is saying is that people think they've had COVID-19 because they experience these symptoms or that they've had these symptoms in addition to COVID-19 and have perhaps mistakenly attributed these symptoms to the disease. In the words of the article itself, from the Discussion section: Two main mechanisms may account for our findings. First, having persistent physical symptoms may have led to the belief in having had COVID-19, especially in the context of a growing concern regarding long COVID. Although adjusting for self-rated health before the pandemic did not affect our results, another disease may underlie symptoms attributed to COVID-19 infection. Second, the belief in having had COVID-19 infection may have increased the likelihood of symptoms, either directly by affecting perception19,20 or indirectly by prompting maladaptive health behaviors, such as physical activity reduction or dietary exclusion. These mechanisms are thought to contribute to the long-described persistence of physical symptoms after acute infections.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
The study concluded that COVID infection does not correlate with most of the long-COVID symptoms, does it not? It was only the belief of having a COVID infection that correlated with them. That implies that people only believe that they have long-COVID symptoms, when in fact some other phenomenon is causing them. You're right that the cause may not be psychological however.
- cestith 5y ago
  > The study says nothing about the symptoms being psychological. > It says that people who self-diagnosed as having COVID-19 attributed those symptoms to COVID-19 whether or not they showed antibodies for the virus.
  - 5y ago

spywaregorilla 5y ago

This seems pretty moronic to me. People who don't realize they had covid were likely to have few, if any symptoms. People who had heavy symptoms knew they had covid. Nobody, save for those living in complete denial, is going to lose their sense of smell and taste and go bedridden for a few days and think they did not have covid. The paper doesn't seem to make any effort to ask the far more relevant question: "Do stronger initial symptoms correlate with stronger long term effects?". They probably do. A lot of it is just straight up long term damage that requires a lot of time to recover. The data seems questionable to me. You really need to dig into it but they've got 50% of people who said they thought had COVID got a negative test in the study. However, 66% of people who believed they had covid actually got diagnosed by a test or doctor. It seems to me that the false negative rate of their serological rate must be abnormally high. Do I really believe that half of people who think they got covid didn't actually have it even though two thirds of them were confirmed by another test? I don't. It seems much more likely to me that their test is just bad they've got mostly believed-positive vs !believed-negative; and believed-positive vs. !believed-postive-but-minor-infection if that makes sense. Hard doubt.