March 15, 2024 - 5:00pm
The idea that long Covid presents a unique and significant threat to the enduring health of millions of people has become established as an article of faith among many in the public health establishment. So the suggestion this week by Queensland’s Chief Health Officer that we should abandon the term “long Covid” has set the cat among the pigeons.
Dr John Gerrard’s comments come on the back of research he and colleagues published in BMJ Public Health which found that 12 weeks after a diagnosis, patients with a Covid-19 infection were no more likely to have ongoing symptoms than those with other viral infections such as influenza. His point was not that no one experiences persistent post-Covid symptoms, but instead that “long Covid” is not a unique or new phenomenon and that “rates of ongoing symptoms and functional impairment are indistinguishable from other post-viral illnesses.”
In truth, Dr Gerrard’s findings should come as little surprise. Although ONS data tells us that significant numbers of people in the UK report symptoms long after a Covid infection, the most rigorous research comparing patients infected with Covid with a control group of uninfected patients tends to suggest a less worrying picture. For example, a meta-analysis of such studies focusing on children reported that the “frequency of the majority of reported persistent symptoms was similar in SARS-CoV-2 positive cases and controls”. In other words, it was hard to attribute most reported long-term symptoms as being caused by Covid at all.
Another study in the BMJ concluded that patients who originally experienced mild Covid symptoms were at longer-term risk for only “for a small number of health outcomes, most of which are resolved within a year”. This is not to play down the real experience of those who suffer symptoms long after Covid infection has gone and who rightly don’t want to be ignored, but overstating the problem can create unnecessary anxiety among the vast majority of the population who face very low risks from contracting Covid.
And here we come to a crucial point: the politicisation of “long Covid”. Far too often, fears over “long Covid” have been used to lobby in favour of controversial public health measures such as mask mandates, lockdowns, delays to opening schools or vaccine passports. Perhaps most scandalous has been the deployment of “long Covid” to try to increase coronavirus vaccination rates, even among groups for whom there has clearly been little or no benefit from being jabbed.
In spring of 2021 the fatal side effects of the AstraZeneca vaccine for some young people were sufficiently well-established that countries were banning its use. That didn’t prevent then Health Secretary Matt Hancock from warning young people of the serious consequences of “long Covid” that could “ruin your life” if they refused to get vaccinated and that all vaccines (including AstraZeneca) were “safe for all ages”.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeOk, glad that’s settled. Now can we investigate the impact of the Pfizer jab on heart disease in young men – or is that still a taboo subject?
Tut tut you’ll upset Freddy. And based on his interview today with the ex Harvard professor he cannot understand why (since he’s had so many Cov jabs) he’s had Covid so many times.
The real question is why he (or anyone) keeps testing for Covid? Like if testing were going to make you feel any better.
To protect immunocompromised people whom he might infect. That’s why I test for it.
Do you test for flu when you think you might have it too? Or do you just do what I do and stay away from vulnerable people and crowded places or social gatherings until I feel better? I.e. what most sensible people have always done?
First, the new paper he’s using is from an extremely vaccinated population with enrollment Jan 2022, so no Alpha, no Delta, and no ability to tell if “Long COVID” patients from 2020-2021 were significantly worse than flu. The paper at least stated “Emerging Australian research shows a low prevalence of long COVID in vaccinated adults following Omicron infection…” What was the % vaccinated? The study population was 93% vaccinated for COVID and 40% for influenza. So do you think after-effects of infection might be different between those two vaccinations as opposed to being similar (like they say is a result)?
Compared to studies using VA populations, there is literally no breakdown of how they are being affected other than a self-assessed broad impact measure. This was a voluntary survey with like 10 checkboxes in which 35% COVID+ / 33% Influenza+ dropped out due to invalid mobile number, then only 26% consented with another 8-9% tossed afterwards. So if you are feeling like crap and can barely get out bed, do you think you’d be among the low % that responded to their survey via cell with their Whispir platform? Even when I’m healthy, I’m not much in mood for text messages and requests for my time.
There’s more issues. There was no testing of the Influenza+ arm to see if they had COVID prior to or after they were entered into study. Look at the cases in Australia over the first 2.5 years and you’ll see the study ran when they were completely overrun by SARS-CoV-2 for the first time. Massive spikes and continued infection from just before study initiated to when it finished. You’d think the authors would know you could get both influenza and COVID that year. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
And finally, stop using the probably worst Cochrane review ever done to pretend it proves masks didn’t work to prevent a respiratory illness like SARS-CoV-2. Even the Cochrane’s editor-in-chief said it had not concluded “masks don’t work” but that “results were inconclusive”. It was an update of a Nov 2020 review and guess what, they didn’t change a conclusion they reached for the flu and did a crap job seeking out studies during a period of great experimentation and large-scale mandates. Out of 78 studies in the Cochrane review, they added six studies (with only two regarding COVID & masks) conducted during pandemic because their bar is randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
In the real world, scientists realize that waiting for RCTs isn’t possible to get some clue what’s going on in complex social systems. But there are plenty of studies that provide strong evidence masks do work. For example in July 2020, Kansas required masks in public areas but allowed counties to opt-out. The 81 counties that opted out had increases in cases while the 24 counties that required masks had decreases.
It’s this kind of nonsense on Unherd that really make me cringe.
The author is an established sceptic and refers to comments from another established sceptic, uses misleading propaganda and dogma throughout.
It’s just garbage.
Pity, because there was a valid discussion to be had here.
And because they are sceptical they must be wrong?
Maybe, maybe not, What they are however is clearly biassed.
Scepticism was entirely appropriate when it came to the Covid hysteria.
Are there ANY objective medical markers for long COVID? If self diagnosed symptoms are the basis for “being sick” then most of humanity is eligible for disability. Sorry, whining about your aches and pains just doesn’t mean much.
It’s well worthy of a discussion, just a shame about the dubious article. What I would say, whilst anecdotal, I know lots of people who still have after effects such as partial loss of taste and smell.
If you know these people I understand why you might disagree with Dr Paton. However, I’ve had Covid twice and know a fair number people who’ve had it a few times. I haven’t met one person who’s ever mentioned any long term effects. Mine went within a five days. I’m having more trouble shaking off this bog standard cold.
I’ve had lots of colds since lockdown. Before 2020 I didn’t get a cold from one year’s end to the next.
This is anecdotal too, admittedly, just as much as your experience.
I’ve just reread the article and it seems to be pretty firmly based on research and facts. He’s sceptical about restrictions and mandates but he backs up his reasoning well, I think.
Can you point out, Robbie, where he’s using unevidenced dogma to push his opinion? What differing conclusions would you yourself draw from the research and meta-analysis cited in the article? Do you think the BMJ is unreliable?
For the record, in my view his daily stats were invaluable during the long months of 2020-2021. I disagree with him somewhat over vaccines but he makes fair points.
You use very strong language but failed to say precisely what you object to it in the article. To me there’s a very clear covid narrative that has been endlessly propagated how many Western governments and elated institutions with alternative voices demonised. That’s where the bias lies Robbie!
As we know Sweden had no legal lockdown of any kind. But people did wrong amend their behaviour as they would have done in the UK. Elderly people would have travelled and mixed less but would not have been forbidden by law to see their grandchildren (perhaps for the last time!). We would have had no worse health outcomes – and crucially it would have cost a great deal less we wouldn’t have a cancer late diagnosis crisis and many other healthcare outrages on the back of it.
What are the chances that any of the real lessons from Covid are going to be established by the Covid enquiry?
Politics and health interventions do not mix. The Swedes had the right idea – leave the public health issues to the epidemiologists.
Perhaps the Swedes were more fortunate in their epidemiologists. Too many of ours seem to been swept up in the lockdown hysteria.
That could be one of the major tragedies of COVID — that the Powers that Be make no attempt to learn from the experiences of this pandemic, and the next pandemic will be met with the same ad hoc approach (bad) or by blindly following this pandemic’s ad hoc approach to the letter (even worse.)
It’s quite disturbing to see this article listed as a ‘factcheck’.
Whether one agrees with it or not, it’s clearly an opinion piece.
I sincerely hope Unherd are not promoting themselves to the arbiters of truth on a contentious and highly debated subject.
Amazing. So much disagreement with that comment yet on every other discussion we hear about Orwellian principles and the Ministry of Truth. Just shows how people’s biasses are totally engrained.
One million people died from Covid in the U.S. within two years. As of now, well over a million are dead from the virus. Nothing to see here! When an even more deadly virus attacks, we’re doomed. Everyone will refuse to take precautions.
All the quicker to get to herd immunity.
Was there herd immunity for polio? The plague? It’s kind of hard to get herd immunity when everyone is dropping dead.
Just to be clear, Covid was nothing like polio or the plague. Right?
The sad thing is that vaccination rates for measles, rubella, etc. have dropped, thanks to the distrust created by the rollout of covid vaccines, and all the associated policies.
The irony. Covid vaccines were a huge success, it was the misinformation and propaganda that obviously led to later hesitation. Mindboggling.
Fauci himself co-authored a paper in Cell last year in which he described both flu and COVID vaccinations as “largely unsuccessful”.
When the public health experts who pushed these products have stopped claiming success and have instead shifted to talking about “next generation vaccines”, ask yourself whether you’ve been played.
Oooh the irony.
Yes they were effective and sucessful – for elderly people with pre-existing health conditions. Coercing young, healthy people to get vaccinated is the most unethical govt policy of my lifetime – and I’m damn near 60.
People die all the time (who knew?!) many from respiratory diseases. The average age of death from covid was greater than the life expectancy of the UK or the US. Post lockdown, excess deaths were at the same or higher levels than at he height of the pandemic. However the establishment and much of the mainstream media were just as desperate that this fact should be a non-story as they had been earlier to exaggerate the pandemic one. And on the basis of that, to impose extreme (but ineffective) measures on the back of it, including on the vast majority of people with near zero chances of severe disease and death. Sweden has no legal lockdown at all, and has a far better outcome than either the UK or the US.
“Safetyism” (to put it no more strongly than that) – the idea that we can fully protect people from the vicissitudes of life, disease etc and that this is cost-free – is an illusion. And when I say “costs” I don’t just mean the enormous economic costs – though these are not a minor matter anybody who dismisses these is an idiot – but other healthcare costs, education costs, mental health costs. The consequences of the lockdown continue to have a baleful effect on Britain’s economy to this day.
It has become very clear that there are
many people in elite institutions who would clearly like any excuse to control us more, and not too bothered about any evidence one way or the other. For example the egregious Stalinist “scientist” (yes, she actually was!) Susan Michie considered it just hunky dory that we should be forced to wear masks forever! What possible adverse consequences could there be? Here is one – children not being able to see human faces!
My slightly hopeful feeling is that, despite this undoubted tendency from much of our elite, is that they simply won’t be able to afford to repeat the lockdown exercise, for example paying large swathes the population to do nothing for months on end. Even in China the costs were enormous to its economy – and the whole shebang was eventually dropped almost overnight – of course after vast amounts of unbelievable cruelty had been demonstrated by the state.
Hear, hear!
We shouldn’t need to deny the existence of long covid to oppose its politicisation.
Like many people, I got covid in an early wave, before vaccines were available and before weaker strains came along. I didn’t need hospitalisation. But the post viral fatigue and brain fog (along with weirdly strong dreams) were debilitating and lasted over a year. Maybe it’s the same as conditions from other viral infections (which were long stigmatised.) Call it long post-viral-disease instead of long covid if you like, but don’t downplay its reality.
None of that justifies the state’s response. I was and remain strongly opposed to mask mandates/ vax pressure on young people who didn’t need it/lockdowns and all the other often ineffective measures that came at a disproportionate price. They undermined our basic freedoms, broke the economy and national debt, damaged the education and social development od children and young adults, and resulted in increased death from other diseases not diagnosed early enough as well as mental health harms from stress and isolation.
Well, it’s not about the post-viral condition itself. The crux of the matter is that, for propaganda purposes, post-viral fatigue, as well as chronic fatigue syndrome were rebranded as “long COVID”.
In this way, something that is a real – and serious – health problem has become more of a propaganda tool, thus causing quite wide-spread, if unjustified, scepticism stemming from broader scepticism related to all things COVID.
In this way, people who suffered (and might still be suffering) from the consequences of COVID, often have not received the sympathy they deserved.
Even as more evidence emerges over the devastation, financially and socially, of ineffective lockdowns and non-pharmaceutical interventions during C-19, I fear the response by government would be more of the same. Politicians seems immune to learning from mistakes of the past.
For me, it was clear early on that the “long COVID” was de-facto a relatively frequent condition known as “post-viral fatigue” which lasts up to six months or a more rare “ME/chronic fatigue syndrome/fibromyalgia” often caused by a viral infection and lasting more than six months, sometimes decades.
Both conditions were rebranded for COVID propaganda purposes, which did an ill favour to people who were/still are sufferers of either of the two above conditions.
In addition, there is some anecdotal evidence that the vaccines that supposedly should have prevented COVID, caused CFS in some vaccinated people. Unfortunately, I am afraid we’ll never see a study looking into this.
Incidentally, I suspect that the decision coming from Queensland has not been governed by any lofty motives, like love of the truth. It’s quite likely that the decision was made under the pressure of health insurance companies/public health care system, to avoid paying for sick-leave or disability pensions to people who have been previously diagnosed with “long COVID” and who in fact are suffering from post-viral fatigue or ME/CFS.
I am curious just how many people are paying any heed at all to any of this official blather.
Here in NYC the State governer ordered masking to resume in medical facilities. Everyone ignored her.
The NYTimes strongly recommends new boosters every few months in order to combat some dangerous new variety of Covid. Yet no one I know, even those who were close to hysteria a couple of years ago, has gotten any of them.
There’s often a big difference between what we’re told to do and what we actually do.
I get the impression that people are just bored of the whole thing.
Hurrah! Common sense at last!
Look, mate, I nearly died from long covid three years ago. Keep your studies to yourself.