5 ms·

Recently read an article suggesting that we should drop the term Long Covid, as it implies that there is something unique about it, when the research seems to s

Recently read an article suggesting that we should drop the term Long Covid, as it implies that there is something unique about it, when the research seems to show that the impairment post-Covid is very similar to that from Influenza: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/15/long-covid-symptoms-flu-cold https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/15/long-covid-s...

foreverobama 3y ago
[dead]
KerrAvon 3y ago
Minimizing the impact of COVID has a long and ugly history for such a young virus. One paper contradicting every other source so far certainly shouldn’t be accepted as gospel.
- kyrra 3y ago
  I think the point here is that we don't know either way, so maybe we shouldn't attribute it all specifically to COVID. When we were told to act like hypochondriacs for a year or 2, it shifted behavior. COVID was the devil virus and people were attributing many things to it. And since there is no diagnostic test for "long COVID", we are sorta just guessing everywhere here.
  - jonReadingNews 3y ago
    You may not know either way but the scientific community absolutely does. Over 350,000 papers published here referencing long covid specifically and growing: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/
j16sdiz 3y ago
Flu like or not, long convid is a collection of many different syndrome. It need to be more specific to be useful.
- dennis_jeeves2 3y ago
  Alternatively, you could view ( flu, colds, covid etc.) it to be the same syndrome with several facets and diversities.
wokwokwok 3y ago
Experts react: https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/expert-reaction-long-covid-may-be-no-different-to-other-long-term-virus-effects https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/expert-reaction-long-covid-m... > It is because of these specific factors as well as inherent limitations of the study methodology itself, that their conclusion that it is “time to stop using terms like ‘long COVID’” is overstated and potentially unhelpful. Long COVID has been a global phenomenon, recognised by WHO. > Unfortunately, this question cannot be simply answered in this work. The study is observational, based on reported symptoms with no physiological or detailed functional follow-up data. Without laboratory pathophysiological assessment of individual patients, it is impossible to say that this is indistinguishable from flu-related or any other post-viral syndrome. Of course, every 'puchy-headline' paper deserves to be considered on its own merits, but perhaps read the paper not an article about the paper if you want to take it as 'The Truth'. "Long covid is not a thing" plays into the "Covid is not a thing" conspiracy theory; it's probably a harmful trope, rather than meaningfully helpful for the people suffering symptoms. There is universal agreement the symptoms are real. It's unclear what benefit using a different name for it offers.
- petesergeant 3y ago
  > "Long covid is not a thing" plays into the "Covid is not a thing" conspiracy theory; it's probably a harmful trope, rather than meaningfully helpful for the people suffering symptoms. That something plays into a harmful trope doesn’t speak to its veracity though, and diminishing smaller inconvenient truths so as to not lead people astray in my opinion exacerbates rather than diminishes conspiracy theories. Could probably have prevented a lot of wasted time, money, and endless internet arguments by saying something early on like “ivermectin, which humans are regularly prescribed, does look promising for treating Covid, but only at dosages that are very toxic to humans, or in populations that might have parasites, as a result of curing those parasites”, instead of the “lol it’s only for horses!” stuff, or by clearly stating “lab leak is possible, and not the same thing as an intentionally man-made bioweapon unleashed by Chinese people”.
  - npunt 3y ago
    If the potential effect of a message is rather harmful, it's reasonable to hold the veracity of that message to a higher standard of scrutiny than if a message is benign. This wasn't a good study, scientifically. Scrutiny was not applied before reporting on it, and now we have a harm on our hands. The fact that we're discussing it attests to that, since its a sideshow leeching attention away from the main topic of long covid's effects. Agree that public messaging could have and should be a lot better on the topics you mentioned, but disagree that harm should not be at least a part of the calculus.
downWidOutaFite 3y ago
Instead of wanting people to ignore Long Covid wouldn't it be better to make people more aware of Long Flu?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ReptileMan 3y ago
  We have enough people self diagnosing wrongly already.
tdudhhu 3y ago
When you look at the Epstein-Barr virus we call the result of the infection all kinds of syndromes. Personally I had Long Epstein-Barr for almost a year. So I know it's no joke. Most virus infections can cause long term problems.
- blagie 3y ago
  > Most virus infections can cause long term problems. This is very, very false. Your body is currently fighting off a very large number of virus and bacterial infections. Most are innocuous, and don't even raise the symptoms of a cold. Now, going out on more of a limb and moving into speculation: There is a tiny minority of diseases -- most very new and poorly-understood -- which do this. There's some evidence that prior to around 10,000 BC -- the rise of civilization -- very few diseases like this existed. What appears to have changed was that with civilization -- and now with population density and travel -- diseases can co-evolve with humans, and integrate into our various chemical signalling pathways. Things like Covid or AIDS can explicitly target our immune system, for example, to try to avoid being caught. * Prior to civilization, a successful disease had to work across a broad range of species. * When the population was a fraction of what it is today, there was less opportunity for disease to evolve. * Without travel, there was less opportunity for spread (and for crosstalk between viruses) ... and so on. These relatively new diseases can cause long-term problems. There's a lot of them, and it's not always the same ones as cause acute symptoms!
  - LorenPechtel 3y ago
    Fundamentally, prior to civilization there was not a sustainable host population for human diseases. Anything that could only target humans would quickly burn out as everyone around would either be dead or resistant from prior infection. As our population grew and contact grew there were enough people around that a disease could sweep through a population then go elsewhere while a new generation grew up to be vulnerable when it finally came back. Even with that, though, most of our disease are minor variants on stuff from the animal world. Covid appears to be simply the latest iteration of something that has periodically spilled into the human population in the past--except with the extremely nasty trait of asymptomatic spread. HIV is simply a minor variant on the already-existing SIV. It learned to target the immune system long before it targeted humans.
graeme 3y ago
That might make a case for replacing the name but not eliminating it. Eliminating it would be akin to removing the name "stomach cancer" because other cells can also become cancerous. You need a name for things. And long flu might have different etiology than long covid despite similar symptoms, so it doesn't make sense to lump them together as "long virus".
- SammyStacks 3y ago
  I think replacing it is the way to go. It's important to differentiate between the acute symptoms of COVID and the chronic, persistent long-term symptoms, even if they both emanate from the effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus on the body. It will be helpful for research, treatment, and the general understanding of physicians, mental health practitioners in the general public. I think there's precedent for such a decision in how concussions are generally viewed. An individual can be diagnosed with a concussion, which has common, acute symptoms. If the acute symptoms last longer than is typical for a concussion of a given severity, the individual could be diagnosed with persistent post-concussive symptoms (a.k.a. post-concussion syndrome). Of course brain injuries are different than viral infections, and we still have a ton to learn about brain injuries, but it's the idea of clearly differentiating between the acute effects and the chronic, persistent long-term effects. To be clear, I'm not trying to relate COVID with concussions beyond the medical nomenclature, but I think the nomenclature is effective in making the distinction to which I'm referring. It's not perfect, but we'll never have perfection in research. Edit: It's unclear if the paragraph breaks are displaying properly, so I apologize if it appears as a wall of text.
  - graeme 3y ago
    >post-concussion syndrome Isn't that akin to "long covid"? No one mistakes post-concussion syndrome for a concussion, and no one mistakes long covid for an acute infection. We do have a formal name for long covid: PASC (Post-Acute-Sequaelae of Covid) It won't catch on a regular name because it's unpronounceable, but it there for the scientific literature and those who wish to speak formally. I'm open to there being a better way, but ultimately you need something people can refer to, as it is a common phenomenon.
_ugfj 3y ago
You could read https://theconversation.com/why-scrapping-the-term-long-covid-would-be-harmful-for-people-with-the-condition-225880 https://theconversation.com/why-scrapping-the-term-long-covi... which meets these claims head on and highlights why the research is faulty. The Guardian published https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/15/long-covid-symptoms-cdc https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/15/long-covid-sym... as well which is more truthful. And of course, if you had not relied on a politically motivated, faulty, non-peer reviewed study you would find the following problems caused by Long Covid: viral persistence https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-023-01601-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-023-01601-2 Microclots in the blood and endothelial dysfunction (leading to vascular problems, organ failure, cardiac events) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8883497/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8883497/ Immune system dysregulation https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adg7942 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adg7942 Mitochondrial damage https://www.news-medical.net/news/20240104/Study-identifies-mitochondrial-dysfunction-as-cause-of-long-COVID-fatigue.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20240104/Study-identifies-... And finally yes, blood-brain barrier disruption https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-024-01576-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-024-01576-9
- abrookewood 3y ago
  Thanks for pointing those out. Note I don't really have an opinion either way, just reporting the study.
  - chx 3y ago
    The next thing you need to read is How the press manufactured consent for never-ending COVID reinfections https://www.thegauntlet.news/p/how-the-press-manufactured-consent https://www.thegauntlet.news/p/how-the-press-manufactured-co... and then stop spreading harmful propaganda. That's what you are doing, not "reporting a study", faugh!
wahnfrieden 3y ago
Are you saying that influenza also results in the findings of the article I posted, that the blood brain barrier breaks down? If not, then I don't know why you'd say it isn't distinct unless you're just commenting without reading. Your linked article does not address the OP article's findings.
rsynnott 3y ago
Given how poorly-understood post-viral stuff is _in general_, lumping them together at this point feels extremely premature.
nradov 3y ago
This Medscape article summarizes research on the issue with greater clinical detail. Post infection symptoms appear to depend more on the severity of the infection rather than the particular virus involved. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/993373 https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/993373

foreverobama 3y ago

[dead]

KerrAvon 3y ago

Minimizing the impact of COVID has a long and ugly history for such a young virus. One paper contradicting every other source so far certainly shouldn’t be accepted as gospel.

kyrra 3y ago
I think the point here is that we don't know either way, so maybe we shouldn't attribute it all specifically to COVID. When we were told to act like hypochondriacs for a year or 2, it shifted behavior. COVID was the devil virus and people were attributing many things to it. And since there is no diagnostic test for "long COVID", we are sorta just guessing everywhere here.
- jonReadingNews 3y ago
  You may not know either way but the scientific community absolutely does. Over 350,000 papers published here referencing long covid specifically and growing: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/coronavirus/

j16sdiz 3y ago

Flu like or not, long convid is a collection of many different syndrome. It need to be more specific to be useful.

dennis_jeeves2 3y ago
Alternatively, you could view ( flu, colds, covid etc.) it to be the same syndrome with several facets and diversities.

wokwokwok 3y ago

Experts react: https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/expert-reaction-long-covid-may-be-no-different-to-other-long-term-virus-effects https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/expert-reaction-long-covid-m... > It is because of these specific factors as well as inherent limitations of the study methodology itself, that their conclusion that it is “time to stop using terms like ‘long COVID’” is overstated and potentially unhelpful. Long COVID has been a global phenomenon, recognised by WHO. > Unfortunately, this question cannot be simply answered in this work. The study is observational, based on reported symptoms with no physiological or detailed functional follow-up data. Without laboratory pathophysiological assessment of individual patients, it is impossible to say that this is indistinguishable from flu-related or any other post-viral syndrome. Of course, every 'puchy-headline' paper deserves to be considered on its own merits, but perhaps read the paper not an article about the paper if you want to take it as 'The Truth'. "Long covid is not a thing" plays into the "Covid is not a thing" conspiracy theory; it's probably a harmful trope, rather than meaningfully helpful for the people suffering symptoms. There is universal agreement the symptoms are real. It's unclear what benefit using a different name for it offers.

petesergeant 3y ago
> "Long covid is not a thing" plays into the "Covid is not a thing" conspiracy theory; it's probably a harmful trope, rather than meaningfully helpful for the people suffering symptoms. That something plays into a harmful trope doesn’t speak to its veracity though, and diminishing smaller inconvenient truths so as to not lead people astray in my opinion exacerbates rather than diminishes conspiracy theories. Could probably have prevented a lot of wasted time, money, and endless internet arguments by saying something early on like “ivermectin, which humans are regularly prescribed, does look promising for treating Covid, but only at dosages that are very toxic to humans, or in populations that might have parasites, as a result of curing those parasites”, instead of the “lol it’s only for horses!” stuff, or by clearly stating “lab leak is possible, and not the same thing as an intentionally man-made bioweapon unleashed by Chinese people”.
- npunt 3y ago
  If the potential effect of a message is rather harmful, it's reasonable to hold the veracity of that message to a higher standard of scrutiny than if a message is benign. This wasn't a good study, scientifically. Scrutiny was not applied before reporting on it, and now we have a harm on our hands. The fact that we're discussing it attests to that, since its a sideshow leeching attention away from the main topic of long covid's effects. Agree that public messaging could have and should be a lot better on the topics you mentioned, but disagree that harm should not be at least a part of the calculus.

downWidOutaFite 3y ago

Instead of wanting people to ignore Long Covid wouldn't it be better to make people more aware of Long Flu?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ReptileMan 3y ago
We have enough people self diagnosing wrongly already.

tdudhhu 3y ago

When you look at the Epstein-Barr virus we call the result of the infection all kinds of syndromes. Personally I had Long Epstein-Barr for almost a year. So I know it's no joke. Most virus infections can cause long term problems.

blagie 3y ago
> Most virus infections can cause long term problems. This is very, very false. Your body is currently fighting off a very large number of virus and bacterial infections. Most are innocuous, and don't even raise the symptoms of a cold. Now, going out on more of a limb and moving into speculation: There is a tiny minority of diseases -- most very new and poorly-understood -- which do this. There's some evidence that prior to around 10,000 BC -- the rise of civilization -- very few diseases like this existed. What appears to have changed was that with civilization -- and now with population density and travel -- diseases can co-evolve with humans, and integrate into our various chemical signalling pathways. Things like Covid or AIDS can explicitly target our immune system, for example, to try to avoid being caught. * Prior to civilization, a successful disease had to work across a broad range of species. * When the population was a fraction of what it is today, there was less opportunity for disease to evolve. * Without travel, there was less opportunity for spread (and for crosstalk between viruses) ... and so on. These relatively new diseases can cause long-term problems. There's a lot of them, and it's not always the same ones as cause acute symptoms!
- LorenPechtel 3y ago
  Fundamentally, prior to civilization there was not a sustainable host population for human diseases. Anything that could only target humans would quickly burn out as everyone around would either be dead or resistant from prior infection. As our population grew and contact grew there were enough people around that a disease could sweep through a population then go elsewhere while a new generation grew up to be vulnerable when it finally came back. Even with that, though, most of our disease are minor variants on stuff from the animal world. Covid appears to be simply the latest iteration of something that has periodically spilled into the human population in the past--except with the extremely nasty trait of asymptomatic spread. HIV is simply a minor variant on the already-existing SIV. It learned to target the immune system long before it targeted humans.

graeme 3y ago

That might make a case for replacing the name but not eliminating it. Eliminating it would be akin to removing the name "stomach cancer" because other cells can also become cancerous. You need a name for things. And long flu might have different etiology than long covid despite similar symptoms, so it doesn't make sense to lump them together as "long virus".

SammyStacks 3y ago
I think replacing it is the way to go. It's important to differentiate between the acute symptoms of COVID and the chronic, persistent long-term symptoms, even if they both emanate from the effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus on the body. It will be helpful for research, treatment, and the general understanding of physicians, mental health practitioners in the general public. I think there's precedent for such a decision in how concussions are generally viewed. An individual can be diagnosed with a concussion, which has common, acute symptoms. If the acute symptoms last longer than is typical for a concussion of a given severity, the individual could be diagnosed with persistent post-concussive symptoms (a.k.a. post-concussion syndrome). Of course brain injuries are different than viral infections, and we still have a ton to learn about brain injuries, but it's the idea of clearly differentiating between the acute effects and the chronic, persistent long-term effects. To be clear, I'm not trying to relate COVID with concussions beyond the medical nomenclature, but I think the nomenclature is effective in making the distinction to which I'm referring. It's not perfect, but we'll never have perfection in research. Edit: It's unclear if the paragraph breaks are displaying properly, so I apologize if it appears as a wall of text.
- graeme 3y ago
  >post-concussion syndrome Isn't that akin to "long covid"? No one mistakes post-concussion syndrome for a concussion, and no one mistakes long covid for an acute infection. We do have a formal name for long covid: PASC (Post-Acute-Sequaelae of Covid) It won't catch on a regular name because it's unpronounceable, but it there for the scientific literature and those who wish to speak formally. I'm open to there being a better way, but ultimately you need something people can refer to, as it is a common phenomenon.

_ugfj 3y ago

You could read https://theconversation.com/why-scrapping-the-term-long-covid-would-be-harmful-for-people-with-the-condition-225880 https://theconversation.com/why-scrapping-the-term-long-covi... which meets these claims head on and highlights why the research is faulty. The Guardian published https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/15/long-covid-symptoms-cdc https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/15/long-covid-sym... as well which is more truthful. And of course, if you had not relied on a politically motivated, faulty, non-peer reviewed study you would find the following problems caused by Long Covid: viral persistence https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-023-01601-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41590-023-01601-2 Microclots in the blood and endothelial dysfunction (leading to vascular problems, organ failure, cardiac events) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8883497/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8883497/ Immune system dysregulation https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adg7942 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adg7942 Mitochondrial damage https://www.news-medical.net/news/20240104/Study-identifies-mitochondrial-dysfunction-as-cause-of-long-COVID-fatigue.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20240104/Study-identifies-... And finally yes, blood-brain barrier disruption https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-024-01576-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-024-01576-9

abrookewood 3y ago
Thanks for pointing those out. Note I don't really have an opinion either way, just reporting the study.
- chx 3y ago
  The next thing you need to read is How the press manufactured consent for never-ending COVID reinfections https://www.thegauntlet.news/p/how-the-press-manufactured-consent https://www.thegauntlet.news/p/how-the-press-manufactured-co... and then stop spreading harmful propaganda. That's what you are doing, not "reporting a study", faugh!

wahnfrieden 3y ago

Are you saying that influenza also results in the findings of the article I posted, that the blood brain barrier breaks down? If not, then I don't know why you'd say it isn't distinct unless you're just commenting without reading. Your linked article does not address the OP article's findings.

rsynnott 3y ago

Given how poorly-understood post-viral stuff is _in general_, lumping them together at this point feels extremely premature.

nradov 3y ago

This Medscape article summarizes research on the issue with greater clinical detail. Post infection symptoms appear to depend more on the severity of the infection rather than the particular virus involved. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/993373 https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/993373