Prevalence and predictors of long COVID among non-hospitalised adolescents and young adults: a prospective controlled cohort study, 2022, Wyller et al

Absolute cringe. Dude talks about himself like he's some sort of authority. He's accomplished nothing and is as much on the wrong side of this as HIV deniers are with AIDS. This "study" is just another useless trash that will be completely forgotten.

For all the talk about a participation trophy generation, this is an actual failure trophy profession. Failure is actually rewarded, coddled and encouraged. What a complete mess.

 

Cringe indeed. 20 years of work in the field? What has he got to show for it? Has he ever helped a single person with his “research”?

 

The Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet has an article about the study today. It's paywalled but title and the two first sentences are:

New study: Long Covid may be caused by lockdown

Long-term covid symptoms affected as many young people who had not had covid-19 as those who had been infected, according to a new Norwegian study.
- It is unlikely that the lockdown didn't affect young people, says the expert on the subject.

(I don't know who the expert who comments the study is. But it's a strange comment if the expert is Swedish, as they never had a lockdown, but do have long Covid)

 

What are these people smoking? April 2020 was fun and relaxing, like a vacation.

 

Filled with some inventive and truly excellent TikToks.

 

Letter to the Editor of Journal of Medical Virology in response to this paper in JAMA: Post-COVID syndrome, the real matter of debate (2023, Journal of Medical Virology). Pay-walled, so some clips.

Commentary —

They recalculate relative risk of LC in Covid-negative patients. Here they parenthesise a 95% confidence interval but I can't see a range given. I assume the error is the range, but may be misunderstanding the statistical reporting in this section.

Concluding —

 

It's a pity one of the authors has an interest in ozone therapy.

 

Published paper thread.