Thread by @patpatspat

Some thoughts on what I believe to be the fundamental problem w/ the Slate article and discussion surrounding #LongCovid minimizing. /1

The statement itself "Long covid [is not what we thought]" is problematic because LC is inherently poorly defined. Simply having "Long Covid" gives no information on the severity, as it can range from something minor to fully debilitating for life (#MECFS). /2

Thus, the claim by the author is ambiguous, and is a pointless, unintelligent statement. More honest journalism would simply state "Debilitating rate of LC estimated to be between X-Y%" or something similar to this, rather than oversimplified clickbait from minimizer angles. /3

The article also claims "Long COVID is neither as common nor as severe as initially feared." This statement is problematic for the same above reason - poor LC definition. This statement is true for one subset of LC, and false for the debilitating subset of LC. /4

Therefore, due to poor LC definition, these claims are pointless at best, harmful to severe LC patients at worst. IMO, it's a sign of ignorance and lack of in-depth research.

In fact, the author is not even familiar with what PEM is, the hallmark of severe, CFS type LC. /5

I believe poor definitions and unnuanced thinking about LC be the root problem, and why I consider this article to be ignorant and trash. Minimizing long covid might fine for mild LC population (this is debatable, considering reinfection risk with severe LC outcome) ... /6

... but it is absolutely not OK for severe sufferers. Minimizing the severe subset of LC (even inadvertently) only serves to harms efforts to find treatments for a historically neglected condition for which treatment is long overdue. /7

TLDR; I believe LongCOVID is inherently poorly defined, which 1) leads to ambiguous claims in journalism 2) harms severe LC/MECFS patients, and 3) creates useless noise that distracts from what's important

@threadreaderapp unroll