4 ms·

Watching how poorly some professional athletes perform during long Covid recovery makes me highly doubt CFS as the root cause. Also, people have reported long-t

by rp1 5y ago

Watching how poorly some professional athletes perform during long Covid recovery makes me highly doubt CFS as the root cause. Also, people have reported long-term loss of smell which also isn’t a typical post-illness or CFS thing.

whimsicalism 5y ago
it's almost like you didn't read my comment. as i've said, long-term sequelae certainly exist - and they are different for covid probably. i also have had long-term loss of smell and modification of taste after getting a breakthrough delta case. that said, demographically (as well as by diversity of symptoms reported), it does appear that there is also a "CFS-like" disease population being super-imposed on top of those that are experiencing long-term sequelae. much of the conversation around long covid is also being funded by ME/CFS lobbying/patient advocacy groups [0]. i think there are two distinct phenomena, and the fact that women are over-represented as long covid patients may be due to the CFS-like phenomena rather than the sequelae one. [0]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dubious-origins-of-long-covid-11616452583 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dubious-origins-of-long-cov...
- melling 5y ago
  That’s an Opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. They tend to not be trustworthy The Journal has told us twice this year that “Herd Immunity is Near” “Herd Immunity Is Near, Despite Fauci’s Denial” https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/herd-immunity-is-near-despite-faucis-denial-11616624554 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/herd-immunity-is-near-despi...
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    i'm not citing the opinion piece as a general endorsement of the wall street journal, or even this article. merely citing it because it condenses the evidence showing that CFS patient advocacy groups are heavily funding many of the prominent long covid organizations.
  - xorcist 5y ago
    Is this part of some weird political debate or something? The only thing I got out of that article is that one needs to count both the vaccinated and the recovered towards immunity levels, which is very much not controversial.
    - melling 5y ago
      it was in March 2021: “Herd Immunity Is Near, Despite Fauci’s Denial” It’s December 2021. What went wrong? So, in March people should have said the opinion was reasonable and made corresponding policy decisions. Include any facts that support a belief and omit all others. Anyway, I’m simply saying the track record of the Journal leans more in one direction, and is frequently wrong. Furthermore, no one ever follows up to correct all those incorrect opinions Perhaps the steady diet of “coronavirus is no big deal” and “climate change “ opinions has skewed my opinion but to me the wsj seems to have an agenda. “ Climate Change Calls for Adaptation, Not Panic” https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/climate-change-adaptation-panic-exaggerating-disaster-11634760376 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/climate-change-adaptation-p...
      - xorcist 5y ago
        From my point of view, the scientific consensus how covid spreads was pretty good from the start, and has only gotten better. With more information, the picture is more detailed, not fundamentally different. What a completely unrelated piece by Bjørn Lomborg has to do with covid is not easy to understand. Hopefully no one is surprised if Lomborg has a simplified view of any given environmental problem. He is a business school professor after all and pretty well known for these things.
      - whimsicalism 5y ago
        Look, I don't really love the WSJ - but "what went wrong" is the exact same thing that went wrong with the government's story around vaccination. If we would have reached herd immunity at 70-80% vaccinated (which is what was being said) then the argument was we would reach it sooner due to antibodies. Given that delta evolved and rendered both of those stories bunk, I think it is silly to solely blame the WSJ for being wrong at predicting the future here.
- jquery 5y ago
  The Wall Street Journal opinion page has a long history of publishing absolute garbage-tier Covid takes.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by rp1 5y ago

whimsicalism 5y ago

it's almost like you didn't read my comment. as i've said, long-term sequelae certainly exist - and they are different for covid probably. i also have had long-term loss of smell and modification of taste after getting a breakthrough delta case. that said, demographically (as well as by diversity of symptoms reported), it does appear that there is also a "CFS-like" disease population being super-imposed on top of those that are experiencing long-term sequelae. much of the conversation around long covid is also being funded by ME/CFS lobbying/patient advocacy groups [0]. i think there are two distinct phenomena, and the fact that women are over-represented as long covid patients may be due to the CFS-like phenomena rather than the sequelae one. [0]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dubious-origins-of-long-covid-11616452583 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dubious-origins-of-long-cov...

melling 5y ago
That’s an Opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. They tend to not be trustworthy The Journal has told us twice this year that “Herd Immunity is Near” “Herd Immunity Is Near, Despite Fauci’s Denial” https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/herd-immunity-is-near-despite-faucis-denial-11616624554 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/herd-immunity-is-near-despi...
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  i'm not citing the opinion piece as a general endorsement of the wall street journal, or even this article. merely citing it because it condenses the evidence showing that CFS patient advocacy groups are heavily funding many of the prominent long covid organizations.
- xorcist 5y ago
  Is this part of some weird political debate or something? The only thing I got out of that article is that one needs to count both the vaccinated and the recovered towards immunity levels, which is very much not controversial.
  - melling 5y ago
    it was in March 2021: “Herd Immunity Is Near, Despite Fauci’s Denial” It’s December 2021. What went wrong? So, in March people should have said the opinion was reasonable and made corresponding policy decisions. Include any facts that support a belief and omit all others. Anyway, I’m simply saying the track record of the Journal leans more in one direction, and is frequently wrong. Furthermore, no one ever follows up to correct all those incorrect opinions Perhaps the steady diet of “coronavirus is no big deal” and “climate change “ opinions has skewed my opinion but to me the wsj seems to have an agenda. “ Climate Change Calls for Adaptation, Not Panic” https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/climate-change-adaptation-panic-exaggerating-disaster-11634760376 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/climate-change-adaptation-p...
    - xorcist 5y ago
      From my point of view, the scientific consensus how covid spreads was pretty good from the start, and has only gotten better. With more information, the picture is more detailed, not fundamentally different. What a completely unrelated piece by Bjørn Lomborg has to do with covid is not easy to understand. Hopefully no one is surprised if Lomborg has a simplified view of any given environmental problem. He is a business school professor after all and pretty well known for these things.
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      Look, I don't really love the WSJ - but "what went wrong" is the exact same thing that went wrong with the government's story around vaccination. If we would have reached herd immunity at 70-80% vaccinated (which is what was being said) then the argument was we would reach it sooner due to antibodies. Given that delta evolved and rendered both of those stories bunk, I think it is silly to solely blame the WSJ for being wrong at predicting the future here.
jquery 5y ago
The Wall Street Journal opinion page has a long history of publishing absolute garbage-tier Covid takes.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]