Hopeful claims w/o evidence: "thanks to gained immunity reinfections pose minimal risk of #longCOVID"
Scientific evidence: studies that reported on reinfections & LC show that #longCOVID incidence follows (almost too well) the theoretical cumulative risk growth pattern. 1/
For hopeful claims that "SARS2 reinfections pose minimal risk of LC" to be true, observed data points should form a horizontal line (parallel to X axis).
They don't.
Even for those infected only with Omicron subvariants. 2/
Risk increases w/ the # of infections.
Long-term COVID-19 symptoms prevalence per number of infections, reported by StatsCanada, fits perfectly the theoretical cumulative risk growth curve.
Also for infections w/ Omicrons only.
Yes, those results are unpleasant. For some they might look "too scary to be true". But pathogens are not our friends - they just do what they do.
Given all we know about SARS2, the wise course of action would be to prevent further (re)infections.
We have all the tools to do it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Since 4 years (at least - that’s when I started paying attention to what they say) some 🇨🇦 health officials are feigning ignorance and innumeracy.
It is unserious. It needs to stop.
It misleads ppl & decision makers, leading to misinformed personal decisions & errenous policies
Basic basic basic math:
3% is 1 in 33
5% is 1 in 20
In medical lingo when talking about drugs’ side effects 3% or 5% means ‘common’.
Calling 3%-5% ‘rare’ (especially when dealing with exponential phenomenon) is a serious misinformation.
Misleadingly “reassuring” narrative circulating in 🇨🇦:
“Reassuring: measles outbreaks will fizzle out”
Yes. They will. That’s how measles behaved before it was eliminated.
That’s its intrinsic feature — outbreaks that die out (and come back later)
Grounds for reassurance = 0 1/
Measles was eliminated in Canada.
Now it isn’t.
That’s a fundamental and *categorical* difference.
Anyone understanding epi-math knows it.
It should be honestly communicated.
We crossed the qualitative border btw two “states”: From ‘zero/elimination’ to ‘circulating’
2/
The immediate effort should be to quickly go back to ‘zero/elimination’ state.
‘Elimination’ is a lower energy state. The costs of sustaining it are lower than costs of “controlling” a highly transmissible harmful disease which circulates.
3/
That's how bad some research on paediatric #LongCOVID is.
In our letter to @JAMAPediatrics we point to obvious & fundamental errors in paper which claims that Post Covid Condition in kids is "strikingly low"
Those errors are so egregious, they should warrant a retraction
🧵 1/
In brief,
What authors said they were going to measure in the intro (the formal WHO definition) was not what they measured in results.
They neither addressed the discrepancy in the paper nor in public.
The work has been platformed extensively. 2/ jamanetwork.com/journals/jamap…
Here are links to the paper and our letter.
The flawed paper is open access.
The critique is pay walled.
(That's problematic for the transparency, open scientific discourse, and scientific "self-correction" process) 3/
It seems that we have another coordinated misleading narrative going.
It’s extremely concerning how easily health institutions & MD community are used as an amplifier of scientifically incorrect and harmful narratives (eg. ‘Omicron is a natural vaccine’, ‘not airborne’ etc.) 1/
I wish @CIHR_IRSC would investigate who distributes such messaging/narrative-talking-points in Canadian health decision making circles, and not fall for such manipulation in the future.
2/
@CIHR_IRSC The timing of those posts coincides with Jan 18th US Senate hearing on Long Covid.
The effort of understanding this disease and of raising awareness about it is hugely carried by patients.
Cumulative risk of Long Covid increases w/ the number of infections.
Long Covid risk in🇨🇦adults self-reporting 1, 2 or 3 infections ‼️*fits perfectly*‼️ the theoretical cumulative risk curve.
Also for infections only w/ Omicrons.
I've included the equation on the pic👆. Try drawing your own curve. With 5%, 10%, 15% or random risk per infection. With 0.5, 1, 2, or 3 reinfections per year.
See how many years you have before you reach 80% risk of LongCovid
It was my great honour to participate in the panel at AFL Convention @ABFedLabour last week!
Together w/ @gilmcgowan, Karen Kuprys & @jvipondmd
On C-19,LongCØVID, airborne transmission, impacts on workers, kids, HC system
My slides: "Reality check"
✅Constantly high level of (mostly for!) Cøvid hospitalizations in 🇨🇦
✅C-19 is harmful for kids (kills more than flu)
✅C-19 causes LongCØVID (not rare!)
✅We can prevent LongCØVID by preventing (re)infections 2/
My slides: "CØVID is Airborne - by knowing this we can be safe"
Most workplaces (incl. schools, universities, hospitals & daycares) can be made safe: CØVID, flu, tuberculosis & other airborne pathogens infection-proof.
Bc we know that C19 is airborne & we know how to clean air 3/