Certainly misattribution explains _some_ amount of what people think is "Long Covid". It's very hard to say how much, because "Long Covid" itself lacks a proper

Certainly misattribution explains _some_ amount of what people think is "Long Covid". It's very hard to say how much, because "Long Covid" itself lacks a proper definition. However, that study is not the best evidence available. I agree that the original study could be improved, but the Jama Network paper doesn't account for the fact that many people test negative for Covid antibodies after a true infection (as explained in the original study). We can't start talking about the true prevalence of Long Covid until we have a sensible definition.