I may have misunderstood one or both of your numerical dismissals, then. As I read it, your first post suggested this was a blip, similar to some subset of the

I may have misunderstood one or both of your numerical dismissals, then. As I read it, your first post suggested this was a blip, similar to some subset of the 8000 people in a village that thought they had increased cancer risk from a fission power plant accident. I wasn't sure what you meant by 'paltry numbers', given the study was across 2.5m patients. This post is now saying that (extrapolating) the 2 million people in the UK with long COVID are not compelling to you, either because you believe there's no connection to COVID, or because that's not many people -- I'm not sure which?