Can someone tell me if I am getting this right? If I haven't been proved positive of SARS-Cov-2 by either PCR or Antibodies authors can still count me as #LongCOVID anyways and Journal editors disagree with that? Mhhh, that sounds like Journal doing some science for change.
https://twitter.com/PutrinoLab/status/1379588813262045186
Apparently I was getting it right. So 39% of the sample was actually positive for SARS-Cov-2, while probably the whole sample was positive for "Probable Acute Viral Infection". NOW, the last phrase in statistics have a known name: "Crapping on your sample". 
But let's follow on the 'false-negatives' if 61% of your sample are false-negative, can anyone explain to me: Why are we testing?
I cannot attest for the quality because just read through the methods until the point I cared to understand. BUT, if instead of #LongCOVID we would be talking about #LongAcuteViralInfection this probably would be an interesting study.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
