@mcnado @freemo
Just wanted to point out a potential skew you both might be missing here: Long COVID isn't very thuroughly defined, because it's not yet even understood as anything beyond "symptoms after infection has cleared due to damage."
This could include the type of permanently crippling nervous system damage that I have, but it could, in some studies, include ANY symptom which lingers for more than a couple weeks after infection.
Could it be possible that 80% of patients who test positive and end up in the study haven't fully recovered by a month later? Could it be that the study only includes more severe cases?
Edit: oh wait y'all said that.
Agreed, and no i didnt miss it, that is kinda part of my point. i am arguing there is nothing remotely approaching consensus or high quality studies on this topic as of yet. As you point out it isnt even well defined in a useful way. So any assertion about long covid being real or its prevelance is negligent. The only honest answer any doctor or scientist can give right now is "we just dont know"
@Raccoon @mcnado @freemo@qoto.org It’s frankly impossible to have a narrow definition for Long Covid. Why? Because it uses ACE2 to enter cells, and almost all cells in the body express ACE2.
Hence, it can nerf nearly any system, and hence a very wide range of symptoms, and hence differntial diagnosis will not be useful except in the most common patterns.