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.

It was in the Yahoo News article you linked yesterday and posted this exact paragraph from it:

"People working in social care reported the highest prevalence of long Covid among employment groups (5.3%), followed by health care employees (4.4%) and civil servants and local government staff (4.2%)."

It lumped together all civil servants and local gov staff but my general points apply to that grouping also.

The composition of the groups need to be looked at for factors likely to be significant such as working through lockdowns, interaction with the public, age breakdown, disabilities.

No you are the one who is not comparing like with like because you are repeating the same miscomparison as the Daily Telegraph article.

The figure you have quoted for civil servants alone appears to be from an internal civil service survey. Not an ONS one. It cites two different figures for civil service of 10.8% long covid versus 7.4% long covid affecting their day to day lives.

The figure of 3.3% for the general population is from the ONS survey and that is the one the Yahoo News article covers.

Two entirely different surveys.

Given that the ONS survey actually provides a figure of 4.2% for "civil servants and local government employees" it is clear that is the relevant figure that should be compared to the general population figure of 3.3%. Which is why I used it.

And the most plausible reason why there was such a difference of 10.8% versus 3.3% is... it is not valid to compare the figures across surveys.

So the basis for your entire line of argument about civil servants having "double the risk" is very dubious.

I would add it appears that the Daily Telegraph, aware of the ONS survey, made a deliberate decision to not reference its figure for civil servants / local government employees but still used its figure for the general population. In my view that was deliberately done to create deceptive figures for comparison. They have an agenda.

Having had the misrepresentation of data from 2 different surveys in the article by the Telegraph, clearly shown by a poster who has access to both of those links (remember I said I could not comment on its detail because it was behind a paywall?) are you still trying to argue your case with this same data, without at the very least accepting that what I and Odyssey have said about that paper's agenda being true?

I don't think you can call others out on anything until you yourself show a bit of integrity in the discussion now, can you?

The misrepresentation is in the Daily Telegraph article which presents figures from two entirely different surveys as directly comparable. You repeat their misleading comparison here.

The civil service figure is NOT from the same source as the figure for the general population (ONS).

This misleading comparison is all the more glaring given the ONS survey includes a breakdown by occupation groups.

It seems plausible this was done by the Telegraph for agenda reasons as they seek to downplay covid and/or take a dig at the (cliched Guardian reading) civil service and speaks to their lack of journalistic integrity.

Point of order: Nowhere did I write anything directly or indirectly questioning their competence. So I have no idea why these questions appear to be directed at me.

Nowhere did I question their competence merely the alignment / compatibility of the separate surveys they conducted. 

I would certainly question the competence and integrity of the Daily Telegraph journalist to make comparisons from data collected in different surveys conducted by different bodies and to draw conclusions from thst.

Finally if thats how you want to describe them, then the surveys by these 'competent' bodies show long covid having a real impact on quality of life and health in people of all ages. Different surveys conducted under a different basis may come to different figures but that impact is manifest.

Which is the main point I have been making in terms of long covid and how the pandemic was responded to. The impact of covid infections is not just in the short term of the active infection.

These surveys reinforce that so they are good additions to the discussion when taken on their own merits.

Together with the other studies cited they give the lie to the sneers and sarcastic jibes in media and social media directed at long covid and by extension those suffering its debilitating and ddisabling effects.

You should probably ask the ONS to explain the data to you as it is obvious you won't accept any answer from me. The figure for any survey is only as accurate as the constraints of the survey itself, and how it is conducted and based on what data set.

You could start by asking the ONS if they think it is reasonable to compare across two different surveys - an internal one for an organisation, and one of the general population. Again, the ONS survey was not run on the same basis as the civil servant one (an internal one run for their own employees) so your comparison with teaches is misleading.

You could also ask ONS to explain: 

If the Long Covid % for civil servants alone is approx 10%;

And in their study the occupation group of "civil servants and local government employees" was at 4.2%;

What is the Long Covid % for local government employees? 

And if this figure is mathematically possible?

They are the Office of National Statistics. I'm sure they get queries like this all the time on their statistics.

Or you could come back to us when you've done the maths yourself and realised how misleading it was for the Daily Telegraph to side by side compare figures from two surveys run on a different basis.

What's the Cabinet Office figure for the general population?

Without that, you are fundamentally not in a position to say that it is significantly higher in the civil service than in the general population. So yes, it is refuted.

The two surveys cannot be directly compared - unless you got that answer from the ONS?

The surveys were run on different basis, on different dates and may have involved different phrasings in questions and other differences which could confound direct comparison of results.

The ONS survey which has a figure both for the general population and for an occupation group including civil servants does not show a significantly higher figure.

All that I have been arguing is that it is not valid to directly compare two different surveys, all the more so when the ONS survey includes a figure for civil servants in an occupation group.

You are the one citing exact percentages for long covid not me -> so I have no idea why you are addressing these questions to me given you seem to want an answer to this civil service question, but won't accept any input to it from anyone else on the thread. Myself and goldengirl suggested several plausible (to us) reasons such as demographics, and composition of the civil service to explain why they might have a higher incidence than the general population as per the ONS survey. I suggest the ONS if you want to dig deeper into the figures.

I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the figures, within the margin of error \ inherent constraints of the surveys and the context of the exact questions asked and population surveyed.

As for who else - this is the World Health Organisation:

 The WHO estimates that 10% to 20% of survivors have been left with mid- and long-term symptoms such as fatigue, breathlessness and cognitive dysfunction. Women are more likely to suffer from the condition.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/oct/12/long-covid-who-tedros-adhanom-ghebreyesus