Thank you for sharing that article. It is nice to see a data set with a breakthrough infections Long Covid rate. Hopefully, those Long Covid rates for this study drop at a similar ratio to what researchers saw between 4 weeks and 12 weeks in a previous longer UK study that had unvaccinated people.
Here is a recent article from The Atlantic on Long Covid. It talks about the possible worst case scenarios with Long Covid and shares current data around disability claims and talks through data around some diseases (heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, high blood pressure and asthma) that Long Covid reportedly increases the risks.
This seems very similar to concerns over ME/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which we also worried about (particularly in the 1990s), but had only limited impact on broad disability statistics:
āLong COVIDā should really be better defined, probably with sub-definitions. For example:
Duration:
Weeks
Months
Years or (apparently) permanent
Severity:
Mild: no to minimal limitations on life and activity, no ongoing medical attention
Moderate: some limitations on life and activity, and ongoing medical attention
Severe: considerable limitations on life and activity, and ongoing medical attention
Most people would not be too concerned about a mild effect that lasts weeks, but would be much more concerned about a severe effect that is apparently permanent (e.g. difficulty breathing and/or extreme fatigue that does not seem to be lessening in severity over time). But lack of information on how common each scenario is leaves people guessing to fill in the blanks, often based on personal anecdotes that may or may not be representative. How people fill in the blanks likely affects how they view the risk of ālong COVIDā.
Another factor that can result in different views of the risk of ālong COVIDā is how one views the risk of things like new type 2 diabetes or worsening of existing type 2 diabetes, which has been observed in population studies to be more common after COVID, but typically cannot be determined in an individual case to be a result of COVID or not.
Agreed! Loss of smell and/or fatigue for 4-5 weeks sux, but is not life altering. (My BIL still has a limited smell 6 months after covid, and while frustrating, he doesnāt think its that big of deal since its slowly returning and he does not have a job which requires a sharp nose.)
Yes, thanks for posting this UK study. The 4.5% rate of symptoms after 4 weeks with breakthrough Omicron cases syncs up with what Iām seeing in real life. Note that since lingering symptoms are more common in elderly and people with certain vulnerabilities (diabetes, certain immune disorders, etc), people who donāt fall into those categories will see a much lower rate than the 4.5% (and those who do fit those categories will experience higher than 4.5% of course). Since the 4.5% includes people with symptoms that last only 4 or 5 weeks, and also includes people with symptoms that would be viewed as quite mild, the rate of what I call Significant Looong Covid (which is what would upset me and scare me, that it lasts much longer than 4 weeks and has significant severity) is also very far below 4.5%. So for a non-elderly quite healthy person, the rate of Significant Looong Covid is getting to be quite small as weāve moved to Omicron. I now know literally hundredS of people who have had breakthrough Omicron infections, and I know of only 1 person who had something to complain about after 6 weeks. I think that seems to mirror the UK study. (Clearly it seems that long covid was worse with the earlier versions of covid, but I donāt find those studies to be so relevant to what we should be concerned about NOW, as the old versions of covid arenāt here anymore).
It looks like antibodies from either vaccination or previous infection (even with prior Omicron variants) are less effective against BA.4/5 infection. Previous infection alone seem to give almost no antibody protection. Vaccination and prior BA.2 infection appears to give the best antibody response against BA.4/5, but still weaker than against other variants.
However, severe disease appears to be going down, probably because immune responses (not just antibodies) from vaccination and/or previous infection are still protective against severe disease.
Some group needs to initiate an annual international covid meeting, like the AIDS meeting. First up: consensus on case definitions for acute and long covid.
This is unfortunately true. Thereās already some evidence that the newest variants on the horizon, BA.4 and BA.5, may be more pathogenic and have a greater propensity to infiltrate the lungs than the original Omicron. These new variants are so distinct from BA.1 that they really merit their own Greek letter. But that isnāt going to happen.
Though there was some belief (hope?) that the virus would attenuate its virulence as it went along, this is not necessarily the case. Itās a roll of the dice each time.
Best thing is for Congress to immediately step up and help fund research into new, more effective vaccines and treatments. We should all be writing our representatives to demand this. Thereās even some question (?) of whether the US will be able to pay for everyone to get their boosters in the fall.
Unlike for vaccines for new flu variants, vaccines for new COVID-19 variants need to go through trials before approval. So vaccines for new COVID-19 variants will always be behind the variant of the day by the amount of time that the trials take. So if you want a vaccine for the new variant of the day, you need to sign up for a trial.
For Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, recency matters for protection against symptomatic infection. Immune response from previous infection appears less affected by recency.
Not quite correct. Yes, the fedsā payment program may run out of budget if not extended by Congress, but covid vax+boosters are required by the ACA, so insurers will pick them up. (Of course, the uninsured will have an issue.)
I am in a Johnās Hopkins study of semi-quantitative antibody levels to COVID, for those with chronic illness. Originally they reported specific scores up to 2500 and a score >2500. The study now reports specific scores up to 25,000 and > 25,000.
Six months after my second shot (Pfizer) my level was 1078.
Six months after my third shot (Pfizer booster) level was appro. 6,074
Seven months after my third shot (Pfizer booster) level was 5,368
I then had my 4th shot (Moderna, 2nd booster) a few days later
Two weeks after this booster my level was >25,000!
I test at one month, three months, six months and will report. This says nothing about T or B cells but still might be of interest.
Yes. The uninsured will indeed have an issue. Thatās almost 9 percent of the population, or nearly 30 million people who may not receive them. And thatās only counting vaccines ā testing + treatment will still be grossly underfunded. Congress is unlikely to reverse course without pressure.
But, even with the funding sacrifices, the administration noted Thursday that it will still not be able to buy booster doses for all Americans this fall. Although thereās much uncertainty about the planned booster campaign for the fall, vaccine makers are already making deals with other countries for orders, Jha said. The $5 billion is enough to start negotiating āso that we donāt fall further behind in line,ā he said.
Incredibly foolish and short-sighted. They (and we) will pay dearly in the end, if that is the case.
So, 91% of the folks will continue to be covered for covid vax+boosters with zero copay, regardless of what Congress does.
āBut, even with the funding sacrifices, the administration noted Thursday that it will still not be able to buy booster doses for all Americans this fallā¦ā
Thatās an accurate statement, but disingenuous as it only potentially affects 9% of the population, and is political spin for other 91%.
Well of course we donāt. We wonāt know until (if) it happens. Fortunately, weāve seen a great trend, from long covid being more prevalent and severe with the initial virus, to less common and less severe with intermediate variants to date (such as Delta), to even less common and less severe with the various Omicron variants. It is certainly a possibility that the next variant would go in the opposite direction, but it seems silly for the average citizen to spend too much angst worrying about it; at this point we are dealing with a range of Omicron variants, and they are causing Significant Loooong Covid in healthy non-elderly people in ~ less than 1% of people. We can worry about the possibility of a meteor hitting the earth, too, but why would we put our energy on that. If it happens, if we get a new variant that seems more dangerous in terms of its likelihood of causing significant long covid, then we should all get anxious again. In the meantime, I think itās ok to let our public health officials do the research, etc, and the populace can use this more recent data about Omicronās impact on Long Covid to make decisions about how they should currently behave & worry.
Does not being āanxiousā mean that we donāt need to wear masks in crowded places with lots of strangers? For me, I choose to wear my mask in such places, because I think wearing masks, at negligible cost, help reduce the spread of the virus and thus at least delay the emergence of new mutations which may or may not increase the chance of long Covid.
