4 ms·

> So then why do we never talk about long flu? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2826837/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2826837/ http

> So then why do we never talk about long flu? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2826837/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2826837/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34694344/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34694344/ > Long meningitis? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27105658/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27105658/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0163445316300366 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01634... Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7587542/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7587542/

Nanana909 3y ago
Your first article: > Lingering prenatal effects So not “long influenza”. “Lingering effects of influenza”, which I stated obviously can exist. Would you associate the words “long marriage” with “lingering effects of marriage”? Not a single one of your sources used “long X” terminology. I wonder why that is? Perhaps because “long X” in the English language refers to either a large length or a large duration of time. Not “after effects”. I suspect the authors of each paper knew this and intentionally made sure not to imply it was a continued disease. But I suppose when something is politicized people find it hard to move on, such as the COVID era.
- meinmissoula 3y ago
  [flagged]
- bigbillheck 3y ago
  > I wonder why that is? The thing about a neologism--the one that's relevant here anyway--is that it's neo, and the linear nature of time means that one would not expect to see it in use before it was coined.