In the midst of widespread attention to a report from the Department of Energy finding that it was likely CV-19 was made in and released from a lab in Wuhan, China, this is an interesting paper, which suggests that another virus in the same area also showed signs of having its genome artificially altered. It should frighten everyone that a highly scientifically advanced country like China, which is a dictatorship and not subject to normal checks and balances, apparently persists in research to modify viruses, likely to make them more transmissible and lethal. (Medrxiv Paper)
Readers know I am dubious about the concept of “long” CV-19. With any significant disease, people may suffer longer-lasting symptoms and there may be an impact on other health conditions. Not sure CV-19 is any different or causes any greater number or severity of lasting symptoms. I also strongly suspect that those who are inclined to malinger or engage in hypocondria are most likely to report “long” CV-19. It is a great way to garner sympathy and to get disability. In our current social environment, everyone is a victim of some type needing government help. Nonetheless, there likely are some people who have more lasting damage from a CV-19 infection. So in this set of summaries we have several papers on “long” CV-19.
First up is one with a somewhat complicated design that has led to some misunderstandings of the findings. The authors used the claims database from a very large commercial health plan company for the research. They were trying to ascertain if those who allegedly had long CV-19 symptoms had worse outcomes for certain conditions than did those who never had a CV-19 infection. A group was constructed who had at least 3 “long” CV-19 symptoms in a period starting at least 5 weeks after the acute infection. The control group consisted of people with the same health status and conditions and demographic variables as the study group. Outcomes for certain cardiac, vascular and pulmonary conditions were then examined. The study group had far higher rates in these outcomes. A subset of the study group who had been hospitalized for CV-19 had even higher rates. Again, it isn’t surprising that anyone with any significant disease has a potential effect on their overall health. But one important aspect of the studies is that they are constantly ignored by the vax safety nuts. The majority of the population has been both vaxed and infected. If you don’t sort the groups carefully, and the VSNs don’t, then you have no way of knowing if a subsequent issue is CV-19 or vax related. And we know for sure that CV-19 can cause lingering cardiac, pulmonary and other issues. (JAMA Article)
This pretty small and really pathetic study from Johns Hopkins looking at people infected in 2020 with mild or moderate disease, claims that up to 33% had at least one symptom 90 days or more after the acute infection. That is a very sketchy definition of long CV. 8% claimed to still have symptoms at 24 months post-infection. And supposedly all these people had some impairment of their quality of life and functioning. I would note that most of the data is from surveys and those indicate far more and more severe issues than do actual lab tests, which basically showed nothing. Can you say malingering? (SSRN Study)
Now here is a larger study, but also relying on survey data, from a regularly conducted survey of the population. While 18% of those surveys reported having had or having long CV-19, it is highly correlated with pre-existing “negative” affect, i.e., depression, anxiety, worry, lack of interest in life. While the authors attempt to ignore the obvious implication, it is clear that it isn’t CV-19 causing the issues, but the pre-existing issues causing people to report that they have “long” CV. (NBER Study)
Next up is a study from the Netherlands which looked specifically at pulmonary function following a CV-19 infection. Within one year after infection, a fourth of those infected had reduced pulmonary function, but the rate among those with severe illness was four times greater than among those with mild disease. Pulmonary function generally improved over time and had a small impact on quality of life. (SSRN Study)
Apparently long CV-19 also causes more gastro-intestinal symptoms. This study using VA data found that in the period from 30 days to one year following infection, various GI issues were more prevalent among the infected than in either a pre-epidemic control group or a contemporary control group, including indigestion, ulcers and pancreatic issues. The symptoms were more likely as disease severity increased. (Nature Study)
Research from Scotland using electronic medical records found that between .2% to 1.8% of the population had long CV-19, depending on the measure used. Apparently people don’t malinger as much in Scotland as in the US, or their pre-epidemic health status was better. (SSRN Study)
This study from China compared pre-epidemic flu patients with Omicron infectees to see what was different in symptoms. In general, it appears that the flu actually cause a higher burden of symptoms. (Medrxiv Paper)
Finland weighs in on bivalent booster effectiveness, finding that while there was some effectiveness against very serious illness initially, within two months it was waning. And there was no benefit in those ages 18 to 64 with serious health conditions, who are most at risk. (Medrxiv Study)
A study from South Korea examines the effectiveness of the 4th vax dose, which likely was the bivalent booster, finding, as has all research so far, that it has sub-par effectiveness from the start and lessens quickly, even against serious disease. Within 90 days effectiveness against infection was only 17% and even against potentially fatal disease had dipped to 62%. The more you poke, the quicker the effect wears off. (JID Study)
Join the discussion One Comment
Next up is a study from the Netherlands which looked specifically at pulmonary function following a CV-19 infection. Within one year after infection, a fourth of those infected had reduced pulmonary function, but the rate among those with severe illness was four times greater than among those with mild disease. Pulmonary function generally improved over time and had a small impact on quality of life.
My first impression is that it is very difficult to quantify the pre covid pulmonary function, primarily since so few individuals would have been tested for pulmonary function.
I dont know anyone that would have had pulmonary testing of any sort other that endurance athletes or people with existing heart and/or lung issues.