Interesting new preprint on #LongCovid. Some take-homes:
- ~14% of people
- can last months
- associated with +symptoms, previous respiratory disease, gender, age
- not associated with metabolic disease (mostly) medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
To me, this is the most interesting table. You can look through and see what is and isn't associated with PCR-positive Long COVID
Not unsurprising that people who experience worse symptoms in their initial COVID-19 infection are more likely to suffer from #LongCovid
However, some MAJOR limitations to the analysis. The patient group is very selected (people who use and KEEP using an app long term), and this only captures those who had PCR-positive cases of COVID-19
So, interesting, but I'd be very cautious about drawing inferences from this (i.e. you can't say that 2% of people who get COVID-19 will still have symptoms months later, we don't know if that's true from this study)
A good way of thinking about it is, I reckon, to say that #LongCovid does appear to impact a reasonable fraction of people, but exactly who they are is still up in the air and requires much more research
It's also worth noting that we still don't know how much COVID-19 differs from other respiratory diseases in this context, although this study does seem to indicate that those who tested positive for COVID-19 were more likely to experience long-lasting symptoms
Also, I should note that the fact that this data was gathered through an app is definitely an issue. I've actually published research on attrition in app-based interventions, it's a tricky subject jmir.org/2020/9/e20283/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
But, because positive people are almost always retested here we can actually examine this question more robustly. Of the 226 positive results, one was later retested and found to be a false positive!
To calculate test specificity, we take TN/(TN+FP) = 607333/(607333+1) = 99.99984%
To put it another way, very roughly 1 false positive test per million tests done
Now, I think it's reasonable to assume that the proportion of people who die after being infected by COVID-19 will fall over time. It's probably true that being infected today is less deadly than earlier this year
That being said, I'm quite skeptical of the evidence presented. This story seems to claim that death rates have dropped ENORMOUSLY, while I would expect something more in the range of a relative 10-20% drop (say from 25% to 20%)
Depressingly, there is little evidence that the pre-existing immunity from the first wave has substantially dampened viral spread, despite earlier hopes
Worth noting that Tegnell himself predicted that Sweden would reach "herd immunity" by mid-May originally, until serology studies proved that this was wrong
People have been asking me to debunk this thread "proving" that COVID-19 deaths are false positives by correlating things, but instead I thought I'd simply list a few things that are more well correlated than this