Thoughts on new study indicating the vaccination only reduces long COVID chances by 15%?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
We don't know that we've never seen a coronavirus or other respiratory virus like this. Assuming you mean one with a similar virulence, transmissibility, and bad outcomes. We just happen to live in a time with readily available global transportation, a much older average age, the ability to support ones physiology to a much greater degree in a hospital setting, and higher prevalence of comornidities such as obesity and diabetes. We've certainly seen pandemics caused by respiratory viruses and likely endured countless mutations of the more common ones. Long covid is being pitched as affecting all ages at this point. Certainly the immune response varies in the very young vs the very old but mostly quite similar in between. Are you suggesting that age-dependent immune response predisposes to autoantibody formation or specific sensitized T cells? If long covid were immune-mediated, it shouldn't be very good at hiding from screening tests that readily pick up on the kind of damage that results from that (ie inflammatory markers, end organ damage, etc.). When looking to immune-mediated pathology, it's usually apparent if there is an auto-immune, auto-inflammatory, or immuno deficiency at play. It's not always easy to diagnose exactly what it is but it's usually apparent that something objective is going on.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am under the impression that we are not limiting long covid to those who were severely ill and admitted to the hospital or suffered end organ damage. I completely agree that these folks are likely to have a prolonged recovery and possible chronic sequelae. Not sure if its long covid or post-hospital deconditioning/myopathy/neuropathy or just end organ damage or whatever. Either way, that cohort fully deserves a more extensive workup. No argument from me there. I thought we were talking about long covid as some sort of post viral syndrome that affects a wide age range and those that even had mild illnesses -- that's where I have strong doubts that anything significant exists that is not essentially supratentorial.

Once again, if mild COVID is just another respiratory virus that is quick on and quick off, why are multiple papers showing persistent physiologic changes in even mild cases?

Why is there a persistent significantly increased risk of DVT/PE (less then hospitalized or critical COVID patients, but still significantly elevated)?
To me this is indicative of endothelial dysfunction that could affect cardiovascular health, exercise tolerance, etc.

Why are there significant changes in CNS architecture that persists after mild COVID?
Could CNS changes lead to fatigue that long-covid sufferers complain of? Seems reasonable to me, though I guess you are right that it is "supratentorial," just not in the way that you mean.

The point is again, just because we don't understand the how or why of long COVID doesn't mean there isn't some meat on that bone, and the lack of a clearly defined scientific mechanism at this point is more or less meaningless.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Once again, if mild COVID is just another respiratory virus that is quick on and quick off, why are multiple papers

I don't believe the data presented or the conclusions drawn from them. That's my problem.

When basic scientists look at medical research, most are aghast at what we call 'data' and the conclusions we draw from them. 90% of our literature is BS.

Look:
1654126205335.png


plotting 'percent' changes instead of absolute values, because a minimal difference can be amplified with respect to the former.
(and that's just a cursory look at this paper, never mind making sure confounding factors were accounted for.)

For all of you who do outpatient medicine, this is your funeral. Enjoy the next 20 years of chasing ghosts and filling out disability paperwork.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I don't believe the data presented or the conclusions drawn from them. That's my problem.

When basic scientists look at medical research, most are aghast at what we call 'data' and the conclusions we draw from them. 90% of our literature is BS.

Look:
View attachment 355729

plotting 'percent' changes instead of absolute values, because a minimal difference can be amplified with respect to the former.
(and that's just a cursory look at this paper, never mind making sure confounding factors were accounted for.)

For all of you who do outpatient medicine, this is your funeral. Enjoy the next 20 years of chasing ghosts and filling out disability paperwork.
Nah. Most of us don't do long term disability forms at all. And until there's established treatment we'll just treat the various symptoms like we do for vague stuff (like we already do).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
It's an interesting discussion. Interesting also in how the medical world has shifted -- there was widespread denial that there was a post-lyme syndrome, yet now we see medical centers rapidly opening post-COVID clinics.

The truth is that you're likely both correct. Some people do seem to have a clear post COVID syndrome. As was mentioned above, someone has a patient who was otherwise active and healthy, got a moderate case of COVID, and now has severe dysautonomia and is extremely limited. One of my partners got COVID very early in the pandemic, was moderately ill at home (not admitted) and recovered -- but his recovery was very slow and to this day he says he is not the same. He still comes to work, does his job, and is otherwise pushing through -- but his lung capacity does appear to be somewhat diminished. When you have friends, family members, colleagues, or patients whom you know well who end up with these types of problems, you tend to be a believer.

But some of this is certainly nocebo effect. People know that you can get a post covid syndrome, and so any new vague symptoms they develop after covid get blamed on covid. We have no gold standard test, the symptoms are all over the place, and no way to tell. Almost certainly a small number of people are outright frauds, demanding disability.

How much is "real" and how much is the power of suggestion? It's impossible to tell. More physicians now believe in a post-lyme syndrome -- not a chronic infection, but a chronic immune problem similar to post-covid.

Or, is this all Sick Building Syndrome? I'm old enough to have practiced through that. The theory was that people were getting sick because of poor ventilation in office buildings and fumes from carpets and plastics. Ultimately it was discovered it was highly infectious -- through social connections. Talking to someone on the phone about it made them more likely to have it. Ultimately the whole thing was relegated to hysteria.

I think the comparison to chronic pain above is apt. When a patient complains of chronic pain, there's nothing except their word about it. We have no pain-o-meter. There's no blood test, imaging study, or other physiologic test to determine if they "really" have pain. Current practice is to accept that the patient is in distress, and try to help them as much as possible. Medications to control symptoms, behavioral therapy, psychological counseling, etc. There is no cure, but we stand by our patients as best we can. The same can be said for long COVID.

Or, maybe we're only making these problems worse by doing so. Tell patients to move on with their lives, deal with their symptoms, etc. Are we enabling them to continue to be in the sick role? Are the studies showing changes in patients with post-covid showing real damage? Or have we just created tests that are so sensitive, we see signal where there really is only noise?

Since I can't tell the difference between those with true post-covid syndrome and nocebo effect, I treat them all the same. I tell them that their experience is personal and unmeasurable. I can't prove they have long covid, or don't. There's no test. Whether they have it or not, best option is to try to help them get better. Time alone may help. as may some adjunctive treatments such as PT, OT, CBT, and others. Medications may help with symptoms somewhat but will not cure them. Opioids are a huge negative.

Disability paperwork is a challenge. In these types of cases I describe patient symptoms, fill out forms honestly. I never say "yes, disabled" or "no, not disabled". If paperwork needs something like this or more details, then they get referred to Occ Med. Which I realize is a cop-out on my part, but it's where I draw the line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Apparently, Sick Building Syndrome is making a comeback. That's one of the key issues here -- none of these syndromes are disprovable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Could you remind me what that photo is supposed to mean?
Middle-aged man/dad tired of the bull**** around him. Probably saying that a Z-pack (which is already over prescribed) isn't going to solve things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Yes. Exactly that. What are you going to do? Start them on Azithro for god knows how long without any conclusive evidence it works meanwhile risking cardiac events and resistance?
I'm going to need conclusive evidence this works. Not the bull that people did initially with covid in 2020.
 
Middle-aged man/dad tired of the bull**** around him. Probably saying that a Z-pack (which is already over prescribed) isn't going to solve things.
More like an ID doctor dealing with long covid with NO confirmation or facts that long covid has therapeutic applications called azithromycin. This is bad because there's no proof.
Long covid is still being looked at and experienced people know that you have to know the cause before treating.
Where the eff did Azithromycin come in without proof? No research.
We don't even know if long covid is legitimate because we haven't even accurately stratified or screened patients appropriately. We haven't even done a proper trial or research to see which patients actually have long covid and what actual symptoms they have.
There's no criteria.
And we're just going to throw a zpack? For how long?
Yeah, sorry but not sorry. This is bullsh.t
 
  • Love
Reactions: 1 user
I didn't make any assertions, I asked a question. Did you do a literature search yourself? You seem quite upset?

I did. Literally NO peer reviewed journals or articles from anyone including the IDSA. I'm not upset. I'm annoyed. Reminds me of the nonsense of Ivermectin.
We're still trying to classify who meets criteria for Long Covid and now we have a treatment for it? Azithromycin didn't work for acute covid and I'm not seeing any valid data saying it works for Long Covid.
 
  • Love
Reactions: 1 user
And let's not even bring up the fact that there were papers showing that a significant amount of people saying they "had long COVID" have no proof they even had COVID or were were COVID negative.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: 1 user
Why are you annoyed?

"the antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties of azithromycin are suited to patients with early stage COVID-19"



HERE YA GO

Also, now I'm confused. You were talking about Long COVID and now you're talking about early stage COVID-19.
Also, we have clinically proven trial data showing that Paxlovid works for COVID-19.

Not annoyed, it's just that I refuse to let misinformation continue to be discussed. :thumbup:
 
  • Love
Reactions: 1 user
Why are you annoyed?

"the antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties of azithromycin are suited to patients with early stage COVID-19"

The study this letter to the editor refers to was negative. I'm not sure what your point is, unless you're a returned COVID troll which I'm beginning to suspect is the case.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 5 users

This is getting a lot of press, but I have some doubts about the generalizability given that the sample is mostly old and sick Veterans (VA data), pre-booster, and pre-Omicron, and other studies generally show a much more significant long COVID risk reduction with vaccination.

Thoughts?
Most long COVID studies suffer from very high risk of bias. That's why you see risk of long COVID ranging from 2% to 30% in papers published in top journals.

People did not know the risk of post-Lyme syndrome until a well designed European study with a good control cohort, which ultimately shows that 27% of those with Lyme end up with long term symptoms, while the rate is 22% in the control, meaning true risk of post-lyme syndrome is probably around 5%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Reasonably confident the azithro touting poster was a returned troll, and thus they’ve been sacked. Carry on.

So...
Can we close this thread?
Pretty please?
 
So...
Can we close this thread?
Pretty please?
Or we can just let this thread die of natural causes. I think there was some interesting discussion earlier in the thread. Conversation has probably been wrapped up, but we don’t normally nuke whole threads just because a troll showed up if we can remove the offending posts (which we did here)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Top