Long Covid in the media and social media 2023

Status
Not open for further replies.
When you say that patient’s medical records are flagged, what exactly do you mean? Is there a free text box where judgements such as “opiate seeker” or “potentially violent” are written plainly, or are they coded? And if the latter, is that code published, or a secret? Is its very existence secret?

Also, are you saying that this happens on the hospital/trust record, or on the primary/GP record?
 
There is a recent NHS digital scheme for flagging reasonable adjustments on the summary care record, which is the one most people can access digitally via their GP, and which in theory acute trusts can also access, although in practice hospitals tend to have their own systems and only communicate with primary care by letter.

If that’s the best they can do for a clinically important flagging requirement, I would be surprised if there was a more mature and robust system for identifying us heartsink malingerers.
 
Arnie Pye said:
I could come up with a few suggestions as to why this is.

1) In England (I'm not familiar with events in other parts of the UK) I think an alarming number of surgeries have sprung up as for-profit private businesses.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...hour-to-see-private-gps-amid-nhs-frustrations

People who can't afford to pay for private treatment will just stay sick.

2) The relentless growth of diagnosing patients with FND diagnoses rather than actually investigating and treating the patient properly means fewer and fewer people are getting effective treatment for their physical ailments.

3) Gynaecological problems (a female only problem), such as endometriosis, adenomyosis, and PCOS are more and more being polluted by the rise of FND. And they weren't taken seriously even before the rise of FND and MUS.

4) Earlier this month patients with hypothyroidism ( a problem with approximately eight or nine times more female patients than male patients) got accused of somatization (based on a questionnaire) in this new paper :

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37134204/

5) FM and ME (majority female) are not taken seriously by many doctors.

6) Long Covid patients (again, majority female) are being steered towards the mental health dustbin.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/feb/03/long-covid-fight-recognition-gaslighting-pandemic

7) MUS - also suffered by more females than men. And when men suffer health problems normally associated with women they have a hard time getting taken seriously as well.

The medical profession has given itself permission to ignore more and more medical conditions, so they can dump more and more patients into dustbins labelled FND, MUS, Mental Health, and they want to treat more and more patients with anti-depressants.

I read a large thyroid forum. Whenever the subject of flagging patients' medical records comes up there are many anecdotes of members being ignored and gaslighted rather than them being taken seriously. When a patient's records get flagged it is a life sentence because no health discoveries (about the patient's health) in the future are ever taken as evidence that the flagging was wrong.

There are loads of reasons why patients are left to rot, and the list of reasons seems to be getting longer with every passing month.
Click to expand...
It really is a combination of several factors, but the shocking thing is that almost all of those factors are a choice, made deliberately and confidently. They all stem from the same root, though: the biopsychosocial ideology. Which IMO is more of political ideology than anything else, is basically neoliberal medicine: yes, lots of suffering, how can we monetize it?

It sounds radical but I really mean it, medicine focusing on mental health as they did, especially the BPS ideology, is probably the single worst thing to have happened to how we deal with not only mental health, but health in general. It wasn't ready to begin with, and still isn't because the foundations are completely hollow. It even set medical science back decades by obsessing over shadows on the wall, because it was done in the worst way possible: blindly charging ahead and refusing even the premise that outcomes aren't perfect.

It may rival Lysenkoism in pure harm, except it's happening to the entire world at the same time, in a slow burn that erodes both quality (clearly getting worse) and quantity (delivering less and less despite always getting more money).

As a result, fully liberalizing medicine would probably end up doing more good than harm. It's so far back that even all the harm this would do would add up to a positive absolute. It would do new harms, but the current system does so much harm already that I think it would still be less harm overall. There's already such a large alternative medicine industry anyway, and the veil of secrecy probably hides at least as much harm behind closed doors, and privacy & gagging laws. The benefits would be worth it, things are that bad.
 
Shadrach Loom said:
When you say that patient’s medical records are flagged, what exactly do you mean? Is there a free text box where judgements such as “opiate seeker” or “potentially violent” are written plainly, or are they coded? And if the latter, is that code published, or a secret? Is its very existence secret?
Click to expand...

I have never seen the flags or how they are recorded. I'm just saying that it takes no more than a second from looking me up on a computer, to then being scowled at. So there must be a warning that pops up as soon as my record is accessed in a surgery or hospital and I've had the same experience in GP surgeries and hospitals. I'm sure there is a lot of record sharing in the NHS.
 
Shadrach Loom said:
When you say that patient’s medical records are flagged, what exactly do you mean? Is there a free text box where judgements such as “opiate seeker” or “potentially violent” are written plainly, or are they coded? And if the latter, is that code published, or a secret? Is its very existence secret?

Also, are you saying that this happens on the hospital/trust record, or on the primary/GP record?
Click to expand...
In Sweden, one common version of this used to be a four letter code literally written in the patient's medical records, as well as passed on by word of mouth between colleagues.

SVBK (sveda-, värk- och brännkärring), which literally translated means something like "sting, pain and burn hag".

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVBK

Nowadays they have to be more careful what they write, because it's so easy for patients to read their own records.
 
mango said:
In Sweden, one common version of this used to be a four letter code literally written in the patient's medical records, as well as passed on by word of mouth between colleagues.

SVBK (sveda-, värk- och brännkärring), which literally translated means something like "sting, pain and burn hag".

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVBK

Nowadays they have to be more careful what they write, because it's so easy for patients to read their own records.
Click to expand...

Exactly the same here. The days are gone when doctors could get away with PFO*, TEETH** or NFN*** on their notes to each other, because patients are now routinely cc’d and can often access their summary records.

* Pissed, fell over
** Tried everything else, try homeopathy
*** Normal for Norfolk
 
In the latest episode of the podcast Osterholm Update: Covid-19, Dr. Michael Osterholm says he has developed Long Covid after his recent, and first, round with Covid-19. He had been vaccinated six times I think, and also took Paxlovid when he realised he had been infected.

It's hasn't been three months yet since his infection, so I believe it's too early for him to self diagnose with Long Covid. But I noticed he told an anecdote he had shared in a previous and quite recent episode, which may suggest some cognitive issues, and he said he's struggling among other with his memory. Hope he will be among the lucky ones who will have their symptoms resolved with time.

But I am glad he is speaking up as an MD about experiencing post viral issues.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/episode-131-covid-fog
 
CRG said:
Contradictory data: New-onset, self-reported long COVID after coronavirus (COVID-19) reinfection in the UK discussion here: https://www.s4me.info/threads/new-o...ovid-19-reinfection-in-the-uk-2023-ons.33431/
Click to expand...
I've heard some experts claim long term sequela post covid is cumulative, others, including Dr. Eric Topol, saying the risk reduces with more infections. Could both be true? Are there any studies on this broken down into possible sub groups with higher or lower chances for developing chronic disease post plural infections?
 
Kalliope said:
I've heard some experts claim long term sequela post covid is cumulative, others, including Dr. Eric Topol, saying the risk reduces with more infections. Could both be true? Are there any studies on this broken down into possible sub groups with higher or lower chances for developing chronic disease post plural infections?
Click to expand...
This seems to be the only substantial study to suggest reinfection increases risk of PASC, Acute and postacute sequelae associated with SARS-CoV-2 reinfection (S4ME) - the authors wrote: "Our results show that beyond the acute phase, reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 contributes substantial additional risks of all-cause mortality, hospitalization and postacute sequelae in the pulmonary and broad array of extra pulmonary organ systems."

That study, although using a very large database, had significant limitations including: "Although the Veterans Affairs population which consists of those who are mostly older and male may not be representative of the general population, our cohorts included 10.3% women, which amounted to 589,573 participants, and 12% were under 38.8 years of age (the median age of the US population in 2021), which amounted to 680,358 participants. Subgroup analyses were not conducted by age, sex and race." It does seem that this sole study is what the HHS as reported approvingly by the John Snow project, is basing its claim that: “Repeat COVID infections increase your risk for both hospitalization and Long COVID.”

The interchange of 'PASC' with 'Long Covid' is a source of ongoing confusion and while researchers continue with conflation of the two, I doubt much clarity will be arrived at. However there are some basics that seem clear across a range of studies: 1. On average Covid 19 hits older people harder than younger people. 2. PASC has been characterised as 100 types occurring in single and multiple combinations. 3. On average more acute disease produces more and longer lasting PASC. 4. Any disease burden additional to PASC is cumulative for incapacity. 5. Covid vaccines are (to relative degrees) protective against severe illness, and in consequence are reductive of numbers and severity of PASC.
 
Kalliope said:
I've heard some experts claim long term sequela post covid is cumulative, others, including Dr. Eric Topol, saying the risk reduces with more infections. Could both be true? Are there any studies on this broken down into possible sub groups with higher or lower chances for developing chronic disease post plural infections?
Click to expand...
I think people are confusing cumulative and incremental risk. Imagine this:
  • Infections: 1, risk: 10%
  • Infections: 2, risk: 15%
  • Infections: 3, risk: 18%
  • Infections: 4, risk: 19%
  • Infections: 5, risk: 20%
The cumulative risk continues to increase indefinitely, getting closer and closer to 20%, but the risk from each individual infection decreases. Nobody is using the necessary language to describe this, leaving us in the dark as to whether it's cumulative or incremental risk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom