Association of Initial SARS-CoV-2 Test Positivity With Patient-Reported Well-being 3 Months After a Symptomatic Illness, 2022, Spatz et al

Full title: Association of Initial SARS-CoV-2 Test Positivity With Patient-Reported Well-being 3 Months After a Symptomatic Illness
Open access: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2799116

Question How do patient-reported physical, mental, and social well-being compare at 3 months after symptomatic illness among those who tested positive vs negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection?

Findings In this cohort study of 1000 US adults with symptomatic illness, poor well-being scores at follow-up were common in both those who tested positive and negative for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Despite some improvements over time, 39.6% of COVID-19–positive and 53.5% of COVID-19–negative patients reported residual symptoms.

Results Among 1000 participants, 722 (72.2%) received a positive COVID-19 result and 278 (27.8%) received a negative result; 406 of 998 participants (40.7%) were aged 18 to 34 years, 644 of 972 (66.3%) were female, 833 of 984 (84.7%) were non-Hispanic, and 685 of 974 (70.3%) were White. A total of 282 of 712 participants (39.6%) in the COVID-19–positive group and 147 of 275 participants (53.5%) in the COVID-19–negative group reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up. After adjustment, improvements in well-being were statistically and clinically greater for participants in the COVID-19–positive group vs the COVID-19–negative group only for social participation (β = 3.32; 95% CI, 1.84-4.80; P < .001); changes in other well-being domains were not clinically different between groups. Improvements in well-being in the COVID-19–positive group were concentrated among participants aged 18 to 34 years (eg, social participation: β = 3.90; 95% CI, 1.75-6.05; P < .001) and those who presented for COVID-19 testing in an ambulatory setting (eg, social participation: β = 4.16; 95% CI, 2.12-6.20; P < .001).

 

This study is making the rounds in denying circles, including the hardcore conspiracists.

As far as I can tell, they sampled people with acute illness of any kind as long as it looked enough like COVID to be suspected, separated between COVID+ and COVID-, then did a superficial assessment. It doesn't like they bothered doing other tests, so it's all either confirmed COVID, or unknown, since we know the tests are not 100% reliable.

It found that people ill with other pathogens, any of them, have more long-term illness. But we don't know which viruses/pathogens they have, or whether the growing evidence for reduced immune protection after a COVID infection could explain some of it.

It's basically so superficial it tells us nothing. Which is why it seems to be held as a talisman of truth by the deniers. It seems we will be soon having an argument that LC should be ignored since it's a common problem with many pathogens, all of which actually confirms the pattern, but is instead used to reject reality and substitute their own once again.

I don't understand spending this much money, doing so much work, only to get so little useful information out of it. If it's not deliberate, I don't see how different it would look if it were.