Reflection on the pandemic: questions about the authorities' response.

That seems to be the case. I know of two people that died within a year of getting covid and 'recovering' from it.

Scurrilous nonsense completely without merit or foundation.

Evidence has been presented on thread linking long covid with increased risk of death.

Here is another study showing link to cognitive issues - you will note it includes older people so sick leave doesnt come into it.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(22)00260-7/fulltext

By contrast you present zero evidence cos you know you have none. The strength / bluster of your post is trying to make up for that.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. In this case more than that - the overwhelming evidence shows your opinion to be utterly false and based on nothing but prejudice.

Yes hold the front page. Or rather read beyond it.

If you read the article you will see the cohorts were matched by age.

"Analyses were stratified by age group (age <18 years [children], 18–64 years [adults], and ≥65 years [older adults]) and date of diagnosis."

Here is a study showing greater long covid in unvaxxed versus vaxxed children. Another age group not on sick pay.

https://www.contemporarypediatrics.com/view/long-covid-prevalence-and-severity-in-vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated-children

What will your next excuse be?

Should we assume by this post you agree with the earlier comment linking long covid only with sick pay?

Given you did not challenge that post which was presented without evidence. Yet did challenge the rebuttal evidence on a mistaken basis?

You don't get sarcasm do you.

Never said or thought it was a statement of fact , as per my post .

You are entitled to your opinion however prejudiced and biased it is .

A simple search on Google would clarify things a bit if you were interested in more than just stating biased opinion .

Maybe because they were mostly working public facing , while others were furloughed or wfh?

Maybe the answers are within the text ? Did you read them before posting ?

Need to consider that infection and long Covid does seem to be more severe as you get older and hospitality has greater numbers of younger people employed.

'The prevalence of long Covid continues to vary among age groups, with an estimated 4.5% of 50-69 year-olds likely to have symptoms, compared with 4.2% of 35 to 49-year-olds, 2.6% of both 25-34 year-olds and people aged 70 and over, and 1.5% of 17-24 year-olds.'

Edit . I can't read the first article as behind a paywall but not surprised at its slant/ leaning , because it is from the Telegraph .

Where in your linked articles does it show that long covid "seems to get better after the age of 70"?

Studies have been cited on the thread showing increased mortality and cognitive issues from long covid, which manifests more in older people.

Therefore, one reason why this demographic could be under-represented is they are dead, or not engaged with filling out a self survey.

So there is no basis to state that it "seems to get better after the age of 70".

Also, are the occupation studies age controlled? Because otherwise the difference could simply be due to the different demographic in the employment. As well as the fact that hospitality was closed during peak outbreaks.

Additionally, study after study shows that the long covid has a real impact. In discussions about the pandemic response, it was valid and correct to point out that infections would have an impact in long covid cases, and this has public health, employment, welfare and disability implications. It is a real condition, there is abundant evidence of post infection impacts from other diseases, therefore it was reasonable to expect something like long covid given the infectiousness and severity of covid.

Nowhere does the article state anything about it getting better after the age of 70 or offer any interpretation to that effect. So the article \ study cannot and does not show that, and presenting that as a finding of the article \ study is misrepresentation.

To be clear - that is your own interpretation you have attached to the results. The data as gathered cannot be used to declare that as a statement of fact.

Thats not the same as what was originally claimed and you know it. You said 'get better' not prevalence. Goalpost shift on an unfounded claim where you misrepresented the article content.

Its the prevalence of long covid in a voluntary study. Mortality is not recorded or cognitive impairment that would preclude involvement. Both of which the other studies cited on the thread show more severe in over 70s.

All the study shows is the recorded self declared prevalence. It doesnt consider severity by age group.

Going beyond that with talk of better or worse from the study is your interpretation. It is nowhere in the study findings or data.

For my part I thought it was obvious I was questioning claims to severity given the context of the post you replied to.

Let us say misunderstanding on both sides, so no call for apologies and move on now that clarity has been reached on that point.

But again you didnt say anything about it being after getting ill or post recovery ie from covid.

As written it suggested the cognitive issues were merely age based or due to aging alone rather than long covid impact magnified by aging.

"Older people at increased risk of cognitive issues."

Especially as there have been posts on the thread expressing the view of post infection issues as being all down to some sort of myth or all in the mind or sick leave scam - which is why the studies were cited, to refute this pov. Post infection impacts aka long covid are real and have dìsabling impacts, impacts on quality of life, impacts on mortality. All demographics including children affected albeit with different impacts. Not just those 'dodging work'.

With long covid it is not the initial illness impact of typical covid symptoms but lingering symptons which persist beyond 12 weeks or subsequently trigger other health conditions such as seizures in those timelines. Or impact mortality beyond 28 days from infection to use the UK definition.

People without such benefits may 'soldier on'. Doesnt mean others arent suffering. Look at back pain say. A real and debilitating complaint. But also one some people might try to take advantage of. So it may be a factor but not the driving factor.

So it may not be 'a reason' as in single reason behind it but multiple reasons feeding into each other.

I would also question the validity to compare it to the general population ay large.

The civil service percentage was 4.2 percent.

Now look at the age breakdowns percentage:

4.5% of 50-69 year-olds likely to have symptoms, compared with 4.2% of 35 to 49-year-olds, 2.6% of both 25-34 year-olds and people aged 70 and over, and 1.5% of 17-24 year-olds.

If most of the staff are over 35 or there is a lot of over 50s this could push the average well over that of the general population.

You should also consider that government agencies / unionised employers may be more likely to have a higher number of people with pre-existing medical issues or physical disabilities. As they are scrupulous in adhering to legislation to accomodate such staff. And possibly long covid may hit harder in such cases.