Long COVID 'May Be Four Syndromes'

[Docb]

Absolutely @Robin. My guess is that they have recruited from people who have reported lasting symptoms after being clearly infected with COVID and have demonstrated that in the majority of cases their symptoms are related to identifiable physiological damage. That is an important observation in its own right.

 

[Eddy Edson]

Also, if they asked for volunteers, more people who have lasting problems would normally volunteer, than people who had it, got over it and went on their merry way, wouldn’t you think?

FWIW I've asked one of the authors about this on Twitter.

In this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1317574120499040256

he says "This was a study recruiting individuals who were symptomatic after recovery from COVID." I don't know what "symptomatic after recovery" actually means.

The clinical trial registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04369807 says this: Participants will be recovered or recovering from COVID-19 disease, at least age 18 years and invited to partake in this study. Participants will previously have experienced symptomatic and confirmed COVID-19 disease and will be outpatients able to breath independently without oxygen. Participants will have been discharged back into the community with no respiratory symptoms for at least 7 days.

.. which, like the pre-print, doesn't say anything much about whether they had symptoms of anything at time of recruitment.

See if he responds ...

 

[Eddy Edson]

My guess is that they have recruited from people who have reported lasting symptoms after being clearly infected with COVID and have demonstrated that in the majority of cases their symptoms are related to identifiable physiological damage. That is an important observation in its own right.

I guess that must be what it is - the general recovered population surely wouldn't have such a high proportion still symptomatic.

And the Interpretation says: In a young, low-risk population with ongoing symptoms, almost 70% of individuals have impairment in one or more organs four months after initial symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

I do think it's weird not to report the full selection criteria and stats, particularly as they are trying to make a health policy point. If they found say just 1% of recovered patients stil symptomatic at 4 months it's obviously much less of a policy deal than if it were say 50%.

 

[Amity Island]

I'll also just drop this stuff here as food for though for any anti-lockdowners.

Hi Eddy,
It's not making any sense to me what you are saying. The information you are referencing to to validate the lockdowns wasn't known to anybody in March when the worldwide lockdown strategy was used. Or are you saying they did know about all the possible long term effects then, and that is why they decided to use lockdowns from the outset?

I'm still trying to figure out why every country on the planet, at the same time decided to use lockdowns? when it's never ever been done before for anything?

As far as I am aware, the only basis for the lockdwon was Fergusson's model? How reliable was it?

 

[Bruce Stephens]

I'm still trying to figure out why every country on the planet, at the same time decided to use lockdowns?

Every country didn't do that (and not all have), and we didn't do it at the same time.

And why? Because it's kind of an obvious intervention. It's obviously horribly expensive (in lots of ways) so there's a really high bar for using it, but what Lombardy saw in March was surely high enough to justify it? What else could they have tried, once people were dying because there weren't enough ventilators?

 

[Amity Island]

Every country didn't do that (and not all have), and we didn't do it at the same time.

OK, figure of speech, *except for Sweeden and South Korea? Who have kept it under control without lockdowns.
OK. figure of speech, *within a couple of weeks of each other.

 

[Docb]

I do wish people would stop talking about lockdowns as if the term had some meaning. Just about every country (including Sweden and South Korea) have introduced restrictions of some form or other although with widely varying extents and effectiveness. None of them, except maybe Spain has come anywhere near to anything that could be called a lockdown.

 

[Amity Island]

I do wish people would stop talking about lockdowns as if the term had some meaning. Just about every country (including Sweden and South Korea) have introduced restrictions of some form or other although with widely varying extents and effectiveness. None of them, except maybe Spain has come anywhere near to anything that could be called a lockdown.

DocB, that's two gud 'uns you've mentioned this week! with the "useless" yesterday and the "lockdowns" today🙂. The "restrictions" have been devastating for business, peoples health plus the estimated 70,000 excess deaths caused by the lockdown. Like Brexit, there are 2 "camps" with the for and against "lockdowns".

I did find this article, which gives quite a balanced view in discussing it. I think it summarises with the "moral" question about whether it is ("restrictions") all worth it or even appropriate?

And, should we be be using this strategy everytime in the future for any other coronaviruses?

Why are we really in lockdown?

Is it just about the number of dead? Or is it something deeper: making sure we live in a society we don’t feel ashamed of?

ftalphaville.ft.com

 

[Amity Island]

For me, there is a much more compelling reason -- more compelling than the Fergusson Model -- for why the "lockdown/restictions" strategy was used in Britain (and across the world).

A week or so before the first known case of covid19 in Wuhan, the UN made this statement:

Geneva, 26 November 2019 – On the eve of a year in which nations are due to strengthen their Paris climate pledges, a new UN Environment Programme (UNEP) report warns that unless global greenhouse gas emissions fall by 7.6 per cent each year between 2020 and 2030, the world will miss the opportunity to get on track towards the 1.5°C temperature goal of the Paris Agreement. 2020 is a critical year for climate action.

A 7% reduction in CO2 emissions is indeed the quoted level of CO2 reductions made in 2020 since all the travel and social restrictions were put into place.

This means we need to maintain the same decrease every year as if we were living in lockdown.

This is just my opinion of course, others may prefer to stick to the "long covid19" repsonse, but let's see how this all plays out over the next 10 years.....

Cut global emissions by 7.6 percent every year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target - UN report

On current unconditional pledges, the world is heading for a 3.2°C temperature rise Technologies and policy knowledge exist to cut emissions, but transformations must begin now G20 nations account for 78 per cent of all emissions, but 15 G20 members have not committed to a timeline for net-zero...

www.unenvironment.org

 

[Minky]

Long Covid symptoms sound very like Post Sepsis Syndrome which I have. Two years come December, still have memory blanks, lose words for things, fatigue overcomes some days. When husband talked about taking the small awning for caravan, I had to look at photos to find what it looked like. I’d quite forgotten we had one. Remembered our big awning. Small? Complete blank.

 

[Eddy Edson]

For me, there is a much more compelling reason -- more compelling than the Fergusson Model -- for why the "lockdown/restictions" strategy was used in Britatin (and across the world).

A week or so before the first known case of covid19 in Wuhan, the UN made this statement:

Geneva, 26 November 2019 – On the eve of a year in which nations are due to strengthen their Paris climate pledges, a new UN Environment Programme (UNEP) report warns that unless global greenhouse gas emissions fall by 7.6 per cent each year between 2020 and 2030, the world will miss the opportunity to get on track towards the 1.5°C temperature goal of the Paris Agreement. 2020 is a critical year for climate action.

A 7% reduction in CO2 emissions is indeed the quoted level of CO2 reductions made in 2020 since all the travel and social restrictions were put into place.

This means we need to maintain the same decrease every year as if we were living in lockdown.

This is just my opinion of course, others may prefer to stick to the "long covid19" repsonse, but let's see how this all plays out over the next 10 years.....

Cut global emissions by 7.6 percent every year for next decade to meet 1.5°C Paris target - UN report

On current unconditional pledges, the world is heading for a 3.2°C temperature rise Technologies and policy knowledge exist to cut emissions, but transformations must begin now G20 nations account for 78 per cent of all emissions, but 15 G20 members have not committed to a timeline for net-zero...

www.unenvironment.org

Why has it taken the Internet so long to merge climate and COVID-19 conspiracy theories???

 

[Amity Island]

Why has it taken the Internet so long to merge climate and COVID-19 conspiracy theories???

Hi Eddy,

Can you explain a bit more about these conspiracy theories you mention?

I don't follow consipracy theories so you would be "elightening" us all if you could share them with us, are you saying about covid19 being fake or global warming being fake are these the theories?

 

[Eddy Edson]

Hi Eddy,

Can you explain a bit more about these conspiracy theories you mention?

I don't follow consipracy theories so you would be "elightening" us all if you could share them with us, are you saying about covid19 being fake or global warming being fake are these the theories?

Well, the COVID-19 conspiracy theories which ignore or misrepresent the science and say that it's not a big problem and lockdowns etc are a stealth social engineering by a powerful cabal intent on destroying freedom blah blah blah, and the climate conspiracies which do pretty much the same kind of thing. And apparently promoted by some of the same groups.

The UN/WHO/IPCC tend to figure largely - international groups seeking to impose World Government, blah blah etc etc.

BTW, having worked for the UN in NY for quite a few years, I'm pretty confident that any stealth coup involving it or any of its agencies would probably be directed mainly towards forcing people to take very long coffee breaks, while making sure that bars and restaurants continue to be quite well managed.

 

[Docb]

BTW, having worked for the UN in NY for quite a few years, I'm pretty confident that any stealth coup involving it or any of its agencies would probably be directed mainly towards forcing people to take very long coffee breaks, while making sure that bars and restaurants continue to be quite well managed.

There's an observation from somebody who has operated in the real world!

 

[Amity Island]

Well, the COVID-19 conspiracy theories which ignore or misrepresent the science and say that it's not a big problem and lockdowns etc are a stealth social engineering by a powerful cabal intent on destroying freedom blah blah blah, and the climate conspiracies which do pretty much the same kind of thing. And apparently promoted by some of the same groups.

The UN/WHO/IPCC tend to figure largely - international groups seeking to impose World Government, blah blah etc etc.

BTW, having worked for the UN in NY for quite a few years, I'm pretty confident that any stealth coup involving it or any of its agencies would probably be directed mainly towards forcing people to take very long coffee breaks, while making sure that bars and restaurants continue to be quite well managed.

Hi Eddy,

You see; (and yes I do operate in the real world) I don't see it that way at all. I don't see it as conspiracy at all, nor that covid19 is fake or that global warming is fake either and I don't see it as a "stealth" coup either, to impose world government. I don't see anything being done by "stealth" either. I see the current restrictions/strategies heavily influenced by the climate change agenda, which as the UN say publicly (not by stealth) that "2020 is a critical year for climate action".

More accurately, I see this as very matter of fact. It's abundantly clear what the current 2020 aims are, it's more of a concerted target, an aim so to speak. No "stealth" conspiracy or "world government" conspiracy about it.

Below is one example from thousands, which mirror the same message, which to me paints it very clear about what is happening at the moment. This is a quote from of António Guterres, the ninth Secretary-General of the United Nations.

"Everything we do during and after this crisis must be with a strong focus on building more equal, inclusive and sustainable economies and societies that are more resilient in the face of pandemics, climate change, and the many other global challenges we face." nb He is talking to someone when he says this, not just fantasy.

If this quote alone (among thousands of similar official quotes) doesn't make it clear about what their aim is, then nothing will.

Regarding whether or not large world wide organisations have any influence on government policies and on leaders of big business, they do, there would be no point to them if they didn't and governments and business leaders wouldn't be going to DAVOS every year.