Do you remember when you joined X? I do! (It was actually a few years before this, but my @OmegaMom account was attached to an email address I had lost, and I forgot my password, so…) #MyXAnniversary
Anywhere I see a person saying “study shows that x % of y population have Long Covid!”, I want you to stop. Think. Find the study and read it.
Because it *usually* means that *of the people in y population who GOT COVID and WERE STUDIED, x% have Long Covid*. Big difference.
@TheEconomist Well, gee. Y’all could just look at the latest US stats on people who are disabled, y’know? You might get the impression that it’s not just the UK, and that maybe—just maybe—it’s not “lax UK policies incentivizing people to not work”.
1. What concerns me the most, by far, about SARS-CoV-2, is that, in the absence of better vaccines and therapeutics, we are heading towards an inexorable reduction in global population health. Even if the virus maintains the same virulence, the data we now have on the average...
Which is not to say it’s zero. It’s like lowering it from (to take it from the metformin study) a risk of 13.8% to a risk of 7.3%. Good, but still staggeringly high.
The decision about boosters isn't only about risk of severe Covid. All studies reviewed to date show vaccine protection associated with reduced #LongCovid (range 18-75%, avg ~40% ⬇️)
https://t.co/CSCN8xV6Ao
https://t.co/JfjAZ3fFl9
https://t.co/C2jBuB55dZ
The decision about boosters isn't only about risk of severe Covid. All studies reviewed to date show vaccine protection associated with reduced #LongCovid (range 18-75%, avg ~40% ⬇️)
https://t.co/CSCN8xV6Ao
https://t.co/JfjAZ3fFl9
https://t.co/C2jBuB55dZ
@loscharlos B-b-but the anti-vaxxes say that “they” have been pushing Long Covid as an excuse to get vaccinated for years!
Which is just darned interesting to me, because it seemed like nobody talked about Long Covid much (outside X) until the beginning of this year…
Not from someone ostensibly on the Covid cautious side.
Welp. It’s been much nicer over where the sky is blue anyway, just a lot less news and info on climate and LC. That’s all I come over to Xitter for these days.
It’s amazing how instantaneously being told “Fuck off” can set one’s teeth on edge and make one want to reply in kind. I’m used to getting that shit from climate change deniers, Long Covid deniers, and any number of unpleasant blue checks or MAGA types… 1/
@ArmchairBrain Y’know, the generally agreed upon rate of 10% is staggering enough, and you can point to plenty of sources that demonstrate a rate right around there. (Interestingly enough, if you ratio that 482 LC cases into the 6,000 positives, it’s around 8%.) We don’t need to exaggerate.
@LauraMiers No.
Read the article, track down and read the study. Out of some 6,000+ students who *tested positive for Covid*, the researchers were able to follow up with 1,338 students.
Of *those 1,338 students*, 36% had developed Long Covid.
@initbutnotofit1 @LCawarenessInt Meta-analyses estimate that vaccines *lower* the risk of developing Long Covid by about 45%.
A recent double-blinded placebo-controlled study of Metformin to treat acute Covid, that followed patients for 9 months, shows unvaxxed rate of 13.8%, vaxxed rate of 7.2%.
@TODAYshow@ashishkjha A risk of one accident in 20 drives would have you getting in an accident every two weeks.
Your auto insurance company would drop you like a hot potato.
Interestingly enough, life insurance policies are asking about Long Covid history…
@TODAYshow@ashishkjha I would like @ashishkjha to point out, clearly, that while vaccines do *lessen* the risk of Long Covid, by about 45% according to meta-analyses, that means you still have a risk of Long Covid in 1 out of 20 infections. You drive to and back from work 20 times in two weeks… 1/
@ArmchairBrain No.
Read the article.
Better yet, track down and read the study.
The study says that some 6,000+ students tested positive for Covid. They followed up with 1,338 of them. Of that 1,338 subset, 36% (482) had symptoms of Long Covid. *At most*, 2,160 had Long Covid.