A fifth of asymptomatic COVID patients develop long COVID: study

 If anything you could use the 'asymptomatic' people as the control group because they're obviously not sick with it and they probably just got a positive result on a PCR test.

Did you even read the article? how are they going to use asymptomatic people as a control group if they are specifically one of the groups being studied? "not being sick with it" is the definition of asymptomatic.

It is not pointless to describe a quite high incidence of problems included in the "long COVID" syndrome even in patients that were asymptomatic. Doing it provides a reference to include these patients in subsequent studies and specially not to include them in the control group because it is very likely they are not the same as uninfected people.

Not having a non-infected cohort of the same demographics only makes it impossible to say exactly how many of the studied people would be likely to present the problems without the infection.

Not having anything else to use? And do you understand that poses a credibility issue right there?

Yes, for you, not for the FDA, which can only use properly vetted scientific information and not conspiracy theories and incomplete, limited, small studies to decide what to do. Specially when those studies are in the future of the decisions.

What you trust is irrelevant, what the scientific community consider true is, no medical professional has been able to prove that the infection is less dangerous than the vaccines, so if they want to promote that they can be said to be mistaken.

And no, desperately pretending not to understand that there are vulnerable people of all ages, for which the risk of death is much higher than 1%, and for which the vaccines represent a huge reduction of damage, and since they could not be vaccinated without the EUA you trying to deny them their choice to be better protected is not justified, no matter how much you want to consider their lives worth being sacrificed.

Also, do you know what has a hugely higher surival rate than just 99%? the vaccines, because they are safer than the infection.

If you do not compare with the general population, how can anyone say it is "unusual high incidence"?!!!!

Because this has not been described as happening in the normal population anywhere, and one fifth of the people complaining of pain, difficult of breath or high blood pressure without any other visible cause in just 30 days of following is definitely something that would have been noticed by even a badly prepared epidemiologist.

And the exact same thing can said with regards to the vaccine. It’s an EUA approval only.

That makes no sense, it has been proved to be hugely safer than the infection by any parameter possible, it is then something well know.

An Emergency that DOES NOT apply to the majority of the population. Clearly indicated by the data.

Emergency approval do not need to apply to the majority of the population, this is a a tool to let anybody that is exposed to more risk from the disease than from the vaccine to be immunized to reduce their risk, and this applies specially to vulnerable people of all ages that benefit much more from the vaccine than regular people and that could not be vaccinated without an EUA.

No adequate, approved, and approved alternatives? Well, it’s coming to light that’s not exactly true for most.

How does that prove that they are not safer than the infection? do you understand the difference between not having anything else to use and not being better than not using anything?

Reducing it for you, unless you can prove the vaccine causes more complications and deaths than the infection you are not refuting what you quote.

Exactly!

It is completely pointless if they don't compare it with the general population. 

Again, no it is not, this is a perfectly valid preliminary study that evidence an unusual high incidence, this do not require a comparison with the general population, because its purpose is not to define exactly how different is this, only its presence. Having a bias against science is a much more likely explanation about why people insist on mischaracterizing a study and expect it to conclude something it is not designed to do.

It is completely pointless if they don't compare it with the general population.

I think we'd be surprised if 19% of non-infected people were to develop the symptoms described 30 days after being tested. So not pointless. It indicates a potential problem, and should be investigated further.

Long covid suggest research Dr Pierre Kory who has data re positive benefits his drug protocols for long haulers...even for vaccinated folks suffering long haul negatitive effects.

No drug has ever been proved to prevent long COVID, imagining they do is a very poor argument. Especially in the case of drugs already demonstrated by science to be worthless against the infection like the case of HCQ.

Thanks again, China!

...evidence an unusual high incidence, this do not require a comparison with the general population,

If you do not compare with the general population, how can anyone say it is "unusual high incidence"?!!!!

Having a bias against science is a much more likely explanation about why people insist on mischaracterizing a study and expect it to conclude something it is not designed to do.

Exactly!

The biggest drawback of the new study is it lacks a control group of people who never got COVID, which would help determine the extent to which COVID caused the conditions as opposed to being coincidental.

Completely pointless then

Exactly!

It is completely pointless if they don't compare it with the general population. You don't need a virus to feel pain, breathing difficulties, high cholesterol, general discomfort and fatigue, or high blood pressure.

Seems like one more article to try to convince people to take the risky investigational vaccine.

The causes of long COVID, which is also known as long haul COVID, post-COVID syndrome or post-acute sequelae of COVID, remain unknown.

And the exact same thing can said with regards to the vaccine. It’s an EUA approval only.

An Emergency that DOES NOT apply to the majority of the population. Clearly indicated by the data.

That makes no sense, it has been proved to be hugely safer than the infection by any parameter possible, it is then something well know.

You must know something the FDA doesn’t.

Right off their own website.

“Under an EUA, FDA may allow the use of unapproved medical products, or unapproved uses of approved medical products in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. Taking into consideration input from the FDA, manufacturers decide whether and when to submit an EUA request to FDA.”

No adequate, approved, and approved alternatives? Well, it’s coming to light that’s not exactly true for most.

Not having anything else to use? And do you understand that poses a credibility issue right there?

Why would I accept that from agencies I do not trust?

https://goodwordnews.com/confidence-in-cdc-and-fda-battered-during-pandemic/amp/

And it seems a lot of medical professionals are encountering the same issue.

When I am faced with an illness that has over. 99% survival rate, I don’t feel it’s necessary to subject the planet to an experimental medicine pushed via untrusted organizations.

...there are vulnerable people of all ages, for which the risk of death is much higher than 1%, and for which the vaccines represent a huge reduction of damage...

Yes, I agree that vaccination might be beneficial for certain vulnerable people if they are prohibited to get certain very safe and effective medicines.

These meds would practically wipe out the long covids, if only they were not vilified in order to get the vaccines authorized for emergency use.