Critiquing the Long-Term Conditions of COVID-19: Questioning the Continuing ‘Terror Narrative’ of ‘Long-Covid’

The recent drafting of the Great Barrington Declaration has reinvigorated the idea that the response to COVID has not been the most effective. I have blogged numerous times on this topic dating all the way back to March as I attempted to consolidate some of the pragmatic and idealistic concepts of COVID-19 with Finding a Rational Middle: Objective and Systematic Literature Review of SARS CoV-2 Research Articles. I reviewed my findings and produced later work on T-Cells and have come to the conclusions:

1. Mass lockdowns are harmful.
2. Closing schools are ineffective.
3. Masks will stop droplets, but not necessarily stop the spread.
4. T-Cell immunity and seroprevalence is widespread.

The new declaration, who as I write this, has the support of close to 100,000 people, with close to 10,000 medical professionals on board suggesting a risk stratified model of sheltering the elderly and letting the young get herd immunity, similar to the course of pandemics in the past. Opponents immediately came out including one Yale doctor calling the method grotesque, obviously with no coherent context. However, one of the interesting critiques happens to be from individuals worrying about the lingering effects and long-term implications after COVID commonly referred to as Long-COVID. This has been a topic of discussion for some time now, especially as a warning from MSM regarding ‘knowing your role’ with this virus and usually brought up as a topic against statistics presenting a clear picture on the lack of severity with COVID-19, especially with asymptomatic and younger population.

I wanted to look at this a little deeper and see what the science says on Long-COVID and the conclusions that come from it. To this date, there is not much evidence regarding Long-COVID, perhaps considering it is still too early to suggest any sufficient long-term effects are present. However, the British Medical Journal provided a news release discussing three articles relating to Long-COVID with one article that is at the center of this narrative coming from JAMA Cardiology. The following is a conclusion summary of the articles followed by an analysis and critique.

Puntmann et al.: Outcomes of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients Recently Recovered From Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

            The results of this study showed out of 100 patients, 53 male, median age of 49; CMR revealed cardiac involvement in 78 patients and ongoing inflammation in 60 patients independent of initial pre-existing conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness. 57 of the patients although independent from cardiac issues had pre-existing conditions that were not expanded upon which could be but not excluding smoking, obesity etc. Researchers suggest the need for on-going investigation.

Wise: Study reveals six clusters of symptoms that could be used as a clinical prediction tool.

            Out of the six clusters, groups 4-5-6 were the most severe cases of COVID-19, in addition being the oldest samples and individuals who suffer from a pre-existing condition. Aside from the long issues with elderly, there was no significant conclusion for detrimental long-term issues with COVID-19 noted.

Greenhalgh et al.: Management of post-acute covid-19 in primary care.

            The authors provide a clear definition of post-acute COVID-19 symptoms lasting three weeks later, and chronic symptoms lasting 12 weeks. The study suggests that 10% of COVID-19 infections developed post-acute symptoms three weeks later. There is also correspondence of chronic fatigue similar to previous SARS and MERS infections which the authors note is not-supported by peer-review and is based on indirect evidence. Issues stemmed from patients with comorbidities, but no significant influence of long-haul symptoms, also suggesting a majority of individuals who were hospitalized (65%) returned to their normal selves 14-21 days later.

Analysis and Critique

            The key theme related to all three articles was that Long-COVID was either mildly present or not significantly produced through the research. The JAMA article suggested that 60% of older males had some prolonged inflammation but no severe damage such as myocarditis (scarring of the heart) given there was no intervention with collagen or other drugs addressing this issue. The two BMJ articles offered no real significant findings on Long-COVID, only sparse findings of fatigue lasting after 3 weeks, and a small percentage of symptoms up to 3 weeks. Findings did show (which is now common) that older co-morbid patients had a longer and tougher time getting over COVID-19, but a large majority were back to their old selves one month later, at the very latest.

            What this shows is that although long-haul COVID symptoms exist, they are rare and insignificant according to the research. The narrative however is shifted away from elderly populations where Long-COVID may be more present, and used as a rhetorical response to young people in the form of ‘You may think you escaped COVID with no symptoms, but you could develop long-term effects’ which, according to the evidence, has no basis in truth. Moving forward there needs to be more work done on potential long-term effects from COVID, but at this point, the terror narrative of Long-COVID being used as a device for compliance is an insignificant point of concern.

References

Greenhalgh et al. (2020). Management of post-acute covid-19 in primary care. British Medical Journal, 307, 1-8. https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/370/bmj.m3026.full.pdf

Puntmann et al. (2020). Outcomes of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients Recently Recovered From Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Journal of the American Medical Association: Cardiology, 1-9. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3557?utm_campaign=articlePDF%26utm_medium=articlePDFlink%26utm_source=articlePDF%26utm_content=jamacardio.2020.3557

Wise, J. (2020). Study reveals six clusters of symptoms that could be used as a clinical prediction tool. British Medical Journal, 370, 1-2. https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/370/bmj.m2911.full.pdf