Article Telegraph: Is long Covid being overblown?

"Some experts say it's a major issue for sufferers while others say that it has been confused with other conditions – so what’s the truth?"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/long-covid-overblown/

 

Didn't find any evidence that anxiety or depression predict post infectious fatigue, such as ME either.
It all seemed quite reasonable but she just couldn't help get that little barb in.

 

I don't really see how this is a barb. She's just stating what the evidence is

 

It's a barb because once a patient of any age has been declared to be anxious or depressed they tend not to get any real tests to uncover health problems. And those warning flags about anxiety and depression will stay on the child's records for the rest of their lives. They just get sent to therapy or get given anti-depressants. At least adults, under most circumstances, can choose which treatments they undergo and can refuse if they don't like what's on offer. But children don't have that choice because doctors can override the child's and the parents' wishes.

 

She conflated ME with fatigue rather than describe it as a severe adverse reaction to exercise or exertion.

 

The context of the article is whether Long Covid is psychosomatic or anxiety or depression. The quote about anxiety and depression is preceded by the article saying that she doesn't believe it's psychosomatic. In that context I don't think there's anything wrong with what she said, in fact, it seems good to me. She didn't need to say that there's no evidence that anxiety and depression predict post viral syndromes.

This article is about Long Covid, which doesn't necessarily have PEM. In the context I don't see anything wrong with referring to ME in the category of "other types of postviral fatigue", rather than interjecting that sentence with a long-ish and mildly convoluted explanation of what PEM is, which the journalist probably wouldn't include anyway.

I understand there's a bit of a mixed history with Professor Crawley, but I think what she said here was actually pretty good. Most of the time I'm not a fan of nitpicking things that people say

 

Prof Crawley has avoided saying much in research papers about aetiology, but in the press she has repeatedly referred to ME/CFS as having biomedical components, but she is wedded to the idea that those biomedical components can be magically treated by behavioural and psychological interventions.

She has even talked about her preferred behavioural and psychological intervention acting as a ‘pill’ to address brain/neurological issues.

I don’t know how this will relate to her approach to Long Covid, but it seems fairly likely that for anything with a fatigue component she will revert to her belief in behavioural and psychological intervention being a magic cure all.

 

That so called "evidence" is not credible, its the worst kind of handwaving based on self reporting questionnaires etc. Not a shred of empirical evidence involved and subject to the biased campaigns of the BPS collaborators with insurance companies and their PR hirelings.

What she is doing is trying to drive a wedge between ME and long covid because she does not want the overwhelming public recognition of long covid to be applied to ME and expose what she and others like her have been doing to ME patients based on no credible evidence whatsoever.

Its a barb and then some. I would call it a further manifestation of "the big lie".

Previously discussed here.
https://www.s4me.info/threads/bps-attempts-at-psychologizing-long-covid.16013/page-48#post-373960