We have received criticism for our article on “long covid”:
Sindre Rudshaug, Fredrikstad, writes in a comment, among other things:
I refer to article 21.03, Study: “stop talking about “long covid””
It is sad that steigan.no, which normally problematizes everything that can benefit the state and everything that smells of fraud, corruption, bad ideas and bad studies, does not problematize the only study that establishes that Long Covid is not unique.
And by that I don’t mean unique on a scale, but unique/specific in that the symptoms afterwards are unique to the corona virus in particular and that research must be done into exactly what it is that triggers symptoms or triggers a worsening of symptoms, after you have recovered again.
Is it unknown to steigan.no that different viruses, bacteria and parasites lead to different syndromes that are named? Why is it “misleading and harmful” to name the symptoms after the vaccine and covid virus? Often they coincide.
We with the syndrome have formed many groups that research it via anecdotes. We present our symptoms, recovery and reactivation of symptoms. In this way, we ourselves can come closer to solutions for how to live with the syndrome or get well.
I have just recovered relatively well from LC after two years, started jogging again, and then I had a severe worsening of symptoms, very similar to many others who have Long Covid. Now I know more and it is not thanks to the health care system which mostly sees Long Covid as a mental challenge.
There is so much we do not know about the virus and its aftermath. What we who have Long Covid experience is that the after-effects can be similar to after-effects after malaria and herpes, because the virus is reactivated in a way with worsening symptoms after too hard exercise, which can be a walk, when consuming sugar and alcohol and other everyday things most do.
Those of us who have Long Covid know very well what unique symptoms we have had after the virus or the vaccine, but not all of us know how to get well. We need more knowledge about Long Covid, not ridicule by having it determined that Long Covid is “misleading and harmful”.
Clarification
We thank you for the criticism and take note of it.
Now, it has never been our intention to either ridicule people who have the after-effects of covid or to deny these ailments.
We referred to a large study from Australia showing that there is no such thing as “long covid” in the sense that the after-effects are no different from other viral diseases and the researchers say that it is time to scrap the term.
We quoted The daily newspaper who writes:
Researchers in Australia have carried out a study where they wanted to find out the difference between late effects after corona and “regular” flu respectively.
The result has the medical world gaping: probably none.
The main researcher behind the study, John Gerrard, has a theory that the reason why “long covid” has seemed so bad in several cases is that a lot of people were sick within a short time.
– We believe that it is time to stop using the term “long covid”. It then suggests, wrongly, that there are unique and long-lasting symptoms associated with this virus. The terminology can create unnecessary fear, says Gerrard in the report.
– But I want to make it clear that the symptoms that some patients have described after covid are real. What we mean is that the occurrence of these symptoms is no greater for corona than it is for other respiratory viruses. Therefore, the term is misleading and harmful, he continues.
Newspaper The Guardian has discussed the study and writes:
Time to stop using the term ‘long Covid’ as symptoms no worse than those after flu, Queensland’s chief health officer says.
Therefore: the symptoms are real, the sufferings are real, but the researchers have not been able to document that they are greater for corona than for other respiratory viruses.
Of course, we do not rule out that later research will be able to come to a different result, but this is in any case the status today.
Ed.
