News Forum - Study reminds that Long Covid, not just death, a hazard of infection

[Thaiger]

Much of the debate over the continued importance of the Covid-19 pandemic focuses on the milder variants lowering the death rate even when infections are on the rise. But Long Covid – the long-term effects of an infection that can last for weeks or months or longer – is an often overlooked, but potentially major, problem now and in the future. A study released in the Nature Medicine Journal on Monday laid out a list of up to 62 underlying conditions brought on by an initial Covid infection that could negatively affect the infected person for months after the original […]

The story Study reminds that Long Covid, not just death, a hazard of infection as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[Chatogaster]

2 hours ago, Thaiger said:

“Covid-19 patients face a 1.26 times higher risk of developing erectile dysfunction than those not infected.”

 

Numbers (1.26) are great, but without context they have no meaning. For example, if the number would be 1.001 when restricted to people aged less than 30 years it would hardly make an impression.

Let's assume it's 1.26 for anyone who is reproductive. Next context-question: how long does an erectile dysfunction as an effect of long covid last on average? If it's less than a year, it'd mostly and temporarily just be be annoying for those afflicted (and - let's not ignore partners - those affected).

If it lasts longer, it could easily be interpreted as good news: it would mean that those who are genetically predisposed to develop long covid have a much-reduced contribution to the gene pool, thus contributing to an increased level of resistance in future generations (but don't expect a "Thank you"; by then the non-ancestors that boosted their natural resistance will have been forgotten).

TLDR (but too late for that): what does 1.26 mean? A link to the study is missing from the article.

PS: I'm assuming that erectile dysfunction isn't some extremely rare affliction, but if it is, a 26% increase doesn't matter whichever way.

 

Edited July 28, 2022 by Chatogaster
added ps

[Cg66]

Yawn. I can’t take any of these BS studies seriously. I’ve done my research on vaccine efficacy figures, seen the small numbers of people used to come to conclusions. I’ve seen studies altered partway through or shut down when the conclusions the pharmaceutical companies wanted were not going to be achieved. The FDA in America chose to approve The Pfizer vaccine for children six months to 5 years old based on A differential of seven children in the study! Pfizer want to roll out flu jabs without having to test them on anyone! Move on and treat what comes out of the media with the contempt it deserves before they start forcing monkeypox vaccines on you.