By that definition, anyone experiencing chronic illness symptoms "following" (said another way, "after") a Covid infection has "Long Covid" - even if Covid had nothing to do with those chronic illness symptoms developing or continuing.
I personally share your skepticism of self-reported diagnoses for such a vaguely defined condition. But it seems to me that a key part of developing a better definition would be to perform investigations like those in the source article, studying people with self-reported Long Covid to identify similarities between people who report it and/or differences with those who don't. How else could you research something like this?
I think at this point diagnosing long covid necessarily involves trusting patients. If you had no chronic illness symptoms you were aware of, and then get covid, and then have chronic illness symptoms - that's long covid. Until we understand what it is better, there's not going to be any way to objectively test for it, or define it more clearly.
After two years of confinement I have exhibited several of the symptoms associated with long covid.
I have done an asymptomatic COVID, so by all definition, I do suffer of long COVID.
Of course it could also be due to the fact that I am just generally getting older, being more tired and having a bit more headaches. Also, like many people I am doing a bit less sports than I used to, and my alcohol consumption has increased. The economy has gone to shit and my stress level have increased. It's probably unrelated tho and I will assume that the cause of my aliments is COVID.
"Long COVID" was used to describe the leftover symptoms of people suffering from a very hard COVID infection, leaving their lung half destroyed. Even tho they left the ICU, they still weren't back to 100%, and that's perfectly understandable. It could easily be identified by looking at a scan of a patient lungs.
It's now used as a catch-all name for purely subjective and self reported symptoms, which are also caused by bad diet, lack of exercise, excessive stress levels. No amount of scan/x-ray/... can be used to diagnose it, which is extremely convenient.
I do believe that "long COVID" is real. I just don't believe that self-diagnosis is the right way to measure it.
Because if you're saying "self diagnosis is the wrong way", but there is no other way yet, you're effectively saying you don't believe anyone who has it has it. And that isn't helpful.
As per my message: we have the CT scan/Xray to the chest showing clear signs of reduced lungs capacity following a COVID infection. Let's call this "doctor diagnosed long covid".
We also have the other self reported symptom. Because it's crazy to give it the same name, let's give it another one. We might call it the "I am feeling less well than 2 years ago" disease. It's a very common one.
Now the "I am feeling less well than 2 years ago" disease might have many origin. COVID being one of them. But considering that it has been rampant for years before COVID appeared, it's unlikely that it is the main origin of it.
According to me, it's not up to patient to diagnose it, just like we don't let patient self-diagnose brain cancer after letting them read 5 health article on Google otherwise everyone would have it - you know that joke, since why shouldn't it apply to COVID as well ? And since "long COVID" is discussed everywhere online and in the media, so it's natural people will associate with that, that does not make it true.
Sure, but until we know what it is and how to measure if you have it - there is no difference between a coincidence and it. Would you rather we tell everybody who says they have it they don't, or accept everybody's self-assessment? Because until we have a way to diagnose it using an objective measure, those are the options.
I'd love to agree with you, but having engaged with local school board trustees on a number of tangential issues, I'm pessimistic. I think there's a lot of people who have permanent scar tissue as a result of the last two years, and aren't likely to ever go back to normal.
That’s pretty normal anyway - it’s a spike in total count, but there have always been folks who couldn’t handle life who act out in ways directed at public servants. It’s unfortunate, but if you attend any city council meetings you can’t miss them.
The reality is, we can’t stop that and we can’t let everything else stop because of that either.
They somewhat reduce it. Perhaps by 50%, against currently dominant variant (which is itself of course subject to change.)
Everything that helps to reduce prevalence helps kids stay in the classroom.
Here in the UK there's a huge subpandemic among 5-11 year old schoolchildren, a group which are not vaccinated. I have a child of this age, off twice with covid in the last few months. I wonder if it'd be more effective to vaccinate them or to just do away with self isolation rules for them. The problem is the spillover into parents, who will be at higher risk due to age and possobly at much higher risk if clinically vulnerable.
On this one I find it hard to form a strong opinion.
The data released by public health here in Ontario suggests that 2-doses has no impact at all on transmission, while boosters - which 5-11's aren't eligible for - reduce transmission against Omicron by about 40% for about 6-8 weeks.
While vaccines should be available to any 5-11 year old child whose parents want them, the idea that they help in keeping schools open doesn't seem at all logical.
It's less true for Omicron, but the study there looked at transmission in Danish households. Against Delta, vaccinated individuals were much less likely to get infected. Against Omicron, boosted individuals are less likely to get infected, and vaccinated are similar to unvaccinated.
Not commenting on the particular issue/article, but can we dispense with blind faith in pre-prints as gospel and final instance of truth?
"This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."
Consider all pre-prints complete bunk until proven otherwise. Anyone can publish whatever they want to support whatever conclusion they want in a pre-print.
We have a clear picture of what schools would look like without the myriad of restrictions we have in Ontario - the Scandinavian countries.
No masking of young children. Minimal masking of older children, or teachers. No quadmesters. No banning of assemblies, or proms, or extra curriculars.
Your guess is not grounded in the data we are seeing from dozens of other countries.
I think we need a better definition.