News about Long Covid including its relationship to ME/CFS 2020 to 2021

This suggests a relapse-remitting course is not uncommon.

Pure speculation, but there are two conclusions of the relapse-remitting course - periodic activation of the virus resulting in further stimulation of the immune system, or suggestions that the dysregulation occurs during the healing processes, rather than simply as a result of viral induced damage during the initial infection.

I think we need to stop looking at infectiousness as a binary, and look it as a risk function relative to behaviour and viral load in upper respiratory tract.

 

My question still stands, though - do Long Covid patients need to continue to isolate? Patients need to know how to behave to protect others.

 

I'd suggest no, they don't. There isn't much evidence suggesting long covid patients have prolonged high viral loads.

 

Maybe Snow Leopard's point is that there is no simple answer. If they have tested negative on a good test and repeatedly probably not, otherwise it is a matter of probabilities, with the chance of being infective being small but not zero.

 

But are any Long Covid patients being offered repeated PCR tests? I haven't heard of that happening, and there seems to be a huge number of such patients. And they seem to be being told by their GPs that they're no longer infectious. They're not being given the opportunity to make a judgement about the risk to their families and whether to continue to self-isolate (and for those who live alone, that's a genuine option).

I'm surprised not to have heard more about this.

 

This is an interesting point. Especially those early on (Feb/March/April), were struggling to get one PCR test, let alone followups.

In Australia, things have been a little different - patients have been tested multiple times as our governments have focused on making sure people are not infectious before they can exit quarantine. But I haven't heard much from LongCovid patients in Australia. A 2.5% incidence would lead to a not insignificant 700 patients, but that is Australia-wide...

 

In the UK, all I've heard about is that if someone gets a positive PCR test they have to isolate for 14 days and then that's it - they can go back to normal.

But should Long Covid patients be seeking PCR testing as their symptoms continue? Particularly if those symptoms are viral and are flaring up?

 

The latter part ('if those symptoms are viral') is a circular argument. But you are right, without ongoing testing we don't know whether there are people who have a sustained infection, or have proof that they aren't infectious.

One key point I'd like to make is that while such ongoing infections are probably unusual (due to underling immune system issues), if you have 1+ million cases, then those 'rare' cases all start to add up...

 

There was a radio doctor commenting on the vaccine who said that if someone already had the virus in their nasal area or picked up the virus in the area after the first jab then they could still pass it on.

(I missed who it was being interviewed but likely to be radio 4. There is so much information coming out that I can't keep up with it)

 

All I think one can say in the UK is
1. We know that the great majority of people stop being infectious after about 10 days
2. The UK testing systems a shambles, being organised by incompetent commercial services rather than the NHS. Nobody is likely to be tested when they need it. Quite often when they don't.

 

Given all the interest in Covid-19, I presume there has been quite a bit of repeat testing of Covid-19 patients somewhere. If a significant percentage were showing up as positive on the normal tests and it suggested they were infectious, I think we’d hear more of it given all the efforts to control the spread and given some countries like New Zealand and Australia are aiming for zero cases.

 

Editorial from Nature Medicine


Meeting the challenge of long COVID

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-01177-6

Then why it is still completely surprised? This is true but in direct conflict with how medicine generally reacted. The surprise has not lifted, it is not a thing of the past. And yet it was predictable. That needs to be reconciled. Fast.

And those with the other diseases that aren't a surprise? Nothing? OK. Smart.

Right idea but those clinics have not been especially impressive so far.

Not the other things that should have made Long Covid not a surprise, though? I mean if this is hardly a surprise and similar? No? Oh well.

Really circling the hoop but never quite falling into it. At least the ideas are right, it would just be swell if they could be... informed. Yes, that would be really great with all the science and the smart people doing hard work and all of that. It would be great to be informed about ruinous diseases, certainly better than misrepresenting and discriminating until the problem grows so big it's impossible to keep shoving it a corner.

 

Long Covid and the role of physical activity: a qualitative study

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.03.20243345v1

Haven't read it but have seen some positive comments. Pre-print.

 

Very influential senator with close ties to Biden:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1336056920483000325

 

That letter was great. And it's an actionable plan with clear intent. The numbers, about $170M in total, are a good start to build a foundation for future research.

 

Long Covid: Your questions answered by an expert studying the condition

https://inews.co.uk/news/health/long-covid-what-coronavirus-symptoms-women-bmi-age-signs-783948

given that we are all being told 'long-covid' is a 'new' condition, I'm not sure how anyone can call themselves an 'expert' yet .......unless of course they are at KCL.

 

"The exact cause of ME is unknown, but, a viral trigger is strongly suspected" They can't call themselves 'experts' on ME either. It's quite well known now that a viral or bacterial triggers ME, at least over 70% pwME have reported this.

 

But they aren't medically qualified to make such an assertion, and those that are, in light of their suffering from ME, biased, and can safely be ignored by 'experts'.