3 ms·

> I highly doubt you read through the relevant bits and instead jumped to argue further: What do the relevant bits you cited have to do with you providing evid

> I highly doubt you read through the relevant bits and instead jumped to argue further: What do the relevant bits you cited have to do with you providing evidence that the research on long covid is high-quality or conclusive? I guess I should define conclusive while I'm here: 1) conclusively defines and scopes long COVID symptoms and disambiguates those symptoms from symptoms of other conditions. 2) conclusively determines the cause(s) of long COVID. 3) conclusively determines a treatment. We already know, even from your links, that there is little to nothing for 2) or 3), and we can argue that 1) still isn't well-defined to this day. Here's another direct reference for you from June of this year: https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/long-covid-symptoms https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/long-covid-symptoms Begin Quote: The World Health Organization (WHO) defines Long COVID as “the continuation or development of new symptoms 3 months after the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection, with these symptoms lasting for at least 2 months with no other explanation.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) adds that Long COVID includes a wide range of ongoing health problems that can last weeks, months, or years. The condition can affect any part of the body, and serious cases may affect multiple body systems, including the heart, lungs, kidneys, skin, and brain. End Quote. If the definition of symptoms includes any "new symptom" after 3 months "with no other explanation" and if it includes a "wide range of ongoing health problems", then it's pretty clear no one has conclusively scoped out what long COVID is and what it is not. "Oh, I see you're sick and we can't come up with a reason why. Let's chalk it up long COVID!" And, of course, the best quote: "Long COVID, the condition where symptoms that surface after recovering from COVID-19 linger for weeks, months, or even years, is still a mystery to doctors and researchers.". So there you have it. Thousands of research articles, no conclusive set of symptoms, no conclusive causes, no conclusive treatments, and still a mystery to researchers.

thenerdhead 3y ago
Go read my upvoted comment on this post. It gives you insights into #1 and #2. #3 doesn't exist. That's why there's over 800(400 long covid, 400 covid) clinical trials going on right now for it.
- PathOfEclipse 3y ago
  Well, here's your first link: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(23)00053-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... It says nothing remotely conclusive about 1), 2), or 3). It literally only says "Here's some hypotheses. We need more research." And I think I'm done wasting my time with you. I've given you ample opportunity come up with something even a tiny fraction as definitive as the references I've given you and you've failed multiple times in a row.
  - thenerdhead 3y ago
    Good luck! Science isn't definitive by the way. Wishing you the best.
VikingCoder 3y ago
Early on in the AIDS epidemic, what did we know from your 1) 2) 3)? We had no effective treatments. 3) is gone. We didn't know about HIV yet, or the link to AIDS. 2) is gone. AIDS makes you susceptible to a ton of infections that healthy people normally don't get, so the list of possible symptoms was large - and we couldn't disambiguate those symptoms from other conditions - they were those other conditions. Isn't that 1) gone? Thank goodness we kept researching. And concerns about long-term health impact of AIDS were well-founded, weren't they? I also think you're forgetting that we can measure things about populations, and correlate conditions with people who have had a known COVID diagnosis. Then, when symptoms are more common, even years later, in the people who have had COVID, if you want us to say "people who have had a known COVID diagnosis" all of the time, we could... Or maybe it's okay to just say "Long COVID." Clinical practice is not epidemiology is not actuarial science. I think you're (rightly?) disappointed that we don't have the Long COVID Manual for clinical practitioners. But people who study epidemics are for sure seeing a thing, and it's measurable. And it has long-term impacts on human health.

thenerdhead 3y ago

Go read my upvoted comment on this post. It gives you insights into #1 and #2. #3 doesn't exist. That's why there's over 800(400 long covid, 400 covid) clinical trials going on right now for it.

PathOfEclipse 3y ago
Well, here's your first link: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(23)00053-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... It says nothing remotely conclusive about 1), 2), or 3). It literally only says "Here's some hypotheses. We need more research." And I think I'm done wasting my time with you. I've given you ample opportunity come up with something even a tiny fraction as definitive as the references I've given you and you've failed multiple times in a row.
- thenerdhead 3y ago
  Good luck! Science isn't definitive by the way. Wishing you the best.

VikingCoder 3y ago

Early on in the AIDS epidemic, what did we know from your 1) 2) 3)? We had no effective treatments. 3) is gone. We didn't know about HIV yet, or the link to AIDS. 2) is gone. AIDS makes you susceptible to a ton of infections that healthy people normally don't get, so the list of possible symptoms was large - and we couldn't disambiguate those symptoms from other conditions - they were those other conditions. Isn't that 1) gone? Thank goodness we kept researching. And concerns about long-term health impact of AIDS were well-founded, weren't they? I also think you're forgetting that we can measure things about populations, and correlate conditions with people who have had a known COVID diagnosis. Then, when symptoms are more common, even years later, in the people who have had COVID, if you want us to say "people who have had a known COVID diagnosis" all of the time, we could... Or maybe it's okay to just say "Long COVID." Clinical practice is not epidemiology is not actuarial science. I think you're (rightly?) disappointed that we don't have the Long COVID Manual for clinical practitioners. But people who study epidemics are for sure seeing a thing, and it's measurable. And it has long-term impacts on human health.