Long COVID cost Australian economy $9.6b in 2022, study finds

Seano, please point out where in the article “Covid zero” or “eliminate Covid” are discussed, mentioned or even vaguely suggested?

You are flogging your own fantasy, achieving personal irrelevance.

My comment addresses the agenda of the people behind this laughably absurd “study” and the promotion of the unproven nonsense that “air quality” can be improved to the point of having a significant impact on COVID spread If these loons get their way billions of taxpayer dollars will go down the gurgler to achieve nothing.

Really? Where does it state the agenda you suppose?

Do you have a copy you can provide of the program budget for millions of taxpayer dollars to go down the gurgler you had in mind?

Regardless of possible efficacy against any particular airborne disease, are you firmly against clean air, or do you think IAQ is only a matter for other countries like America, Canada, Europe, Japan; funny foreign places like that?

I’m not interested in addressing obtuse and strawman arguments.

The agenda of those behind the study is to push a “clean air” strategy for preventing the spread of COVID without ever identifying what they mean by “clean air”, to what standard and how that is measured, how that could be achieved, what it would cost and what impact IF ANY it would have. The reason they don’t address these issues is the whole notion is fantastical nonsense and hence this ridiculous claim of $9+bn in lost productivity.

What strawman argument would that be; one you are unable to cite?

You are also unable to provide a reference for an “agenda”, nor any evidence of any particular expenditure plan or standard to meet, because there are none in this country.

Straw man, did you mention? Your path is paved with straw lovingly laid by yourself and no other.

Of course, if you had any actual interest in the subject you could look at existing standards and measures in comparable countries, and what steps they take to achieve them and why they bother, then comment for or against.

Here, have a pointless rant. It is something you appear to enjoy.

They’re talking about the economics of the effect of Long Covid. What are you talking about?

Seano’s various absurdities, as elucidated. Are you noticing that, or are you here to change the subject?

They’re talking nonsense. Long COVID whilst real typically affects a small percentage of those who suffer acute illness, and the vast majority of those experience minor symptoms. The claims of $9bn in lost productivity just through long COVID.

These nonsense claims are merely a stalking horse to push for massive public investment in “air quality” based on no evidence whatsoever.

“What strawman argument would that be; one you are unable to cite?”

Just one example.

“Regardless of possible efficacy against any particular airborne disease, are you firmly against clean air”

I will ignore the ad homs and the rest of the comments which don’t address anything I have said.

You now think that pointing out your unsupported imputations against others, obvious straw man attacks, is ad hominem against you?

Given you declare (without citation) that ventilation can have no effect on airborne pathogens, my query about your view on clean air is apt. You want to claim that is some form of straw man yet declare investment in air quality is based on “no evidence”, despite my offer of resources you could research. Can you follow your own comments from sentence to the next?

You have no point. I am done with your fatuities.

I don’t have to “declare” anything. You need to prove that improving “air quality” will reduce the spread of COVID. You can’t because it’s a vague and nebulous bit of OzSage nonsense backed by no evidence.

You’re done with the argument presumably because you brought nothing to it.

LOL. You did declare it. Back it up.

I merely brought out that you could not support in any respect your initial ranting and denigration of supposed “others”. You continue to fail to deal with that honestly yet expect others to pay attention to further rants.

I never claimed I would not post again, but that you have shown nothing worthy of interest.

You have no point.

Seano, when you have scientific and medical qualifications to support your arguments, rather than conspiracy theories, people may find it worthwhile to pay attention to you.

What conspiracy. Long COVID only affects approximately 10% of those with acute cases. And of that number, the vast majority only have minor lingering symptoms. That doesn’t mean that there are not some people with debilitating illnesses but that small number of people does not equate to $9.2bn of GDP either. Apply some critical thinking.

Once again you offer nothing but snide and vacuous commentary.

The numbers for debilitating Long COVID are tiny. If they equated $9.2bn of our GDP our emergency rooms and hospitals would be full of cases, this is patently not the case. If your understanding of this issue was wider than just cheerleading a side you might realise this.

The egos and OzSage keep claiming that improving “air quality” would reduce the spread of COVID but they never explain what standard of “air quality”, how this would be achieved and measured, who would maintain these systems, how much it would cost to implement and maintain and what impact it would have on reducing the spread of COVID…because they have no evidence for any of it. So they rely on mindless partisans who don’t ask questions to push this nonsense.

@Ken M
Expert analysis from a Professor of Global Biosecurity within the Kirby Institute (UNSW) and a National Health and Medical Research Council Principal Research Fellow, who leads a research program on the prevention and control of infectious diseases
Vs
the ill-informed and unqualified dissension of an anonymous social media poster.

I’m going with Professor MacIntyre

Wrong

Lets be honest, JS, you’ve never had an opinion that wasn’t fed to you by somebody you consider to be an authority. 🤣

Also weird how cases of long covid seem to be directly correlated with wishing harm on the unvaccinated and how angry you got when anybody dared question the government.

@Ken M
And therein

@Ken M
“… an opinion that wasn’t fed to you by somebody you consider to be an authority“
And there we have the reason that you are incapable of presenting a rational, factual and verifiable argument in here – you simply refuse to research a subject. An opinion that has no basis in supporting facts is merely nonsensical rambling – something which you have proven, time and time again, you are very capable of delivering.

-Accuses other people of being unable to research a subject.
-Has never researched a subject himself. Just believes whatever alleged ‘expert’ the news presents.

LOL
LMAO even.

Quite the amusing take from somebody who apparently never researches any subject, and just believes whatever the “expert” the TV or website presents him with says. 🤣

@Ken M
LMAO … you don’t even understand the meaning of research yet you ridicule others who investigate and use factual evidence provided by credentialled experts. Your definition of factual evidence is “because I say so” – which, as you are an anonymous uncredentialled nobody, means absolutely nothing.

Perhaps you should try researching actual experts before presenting your nonsensical opinions. You never know, you may even be able to get your credibility rating above zero.

LOL
Again, you don’t research a damn thing. You defer to research from people who you agree with. You can’t get enough of being told what to do and think.

@Ken M
Oh dear – yet again your ignorance is on show.

Research often references other sources, especially when those sources have greater expertise. The fact that I am able to find expert sources whose research supports my opinion is not surprising. If you had any capacity for presenting a valid argument, you would reference alternate sources.

Case in point: your opening comment, “No such thing” (referring to long covid), with absolutely no supporting evidence, and as this thread has continued, you still have provided no such evidence.

Sadly, for you, you have no capacity whatsoever for presenting anything remotely resembling an evidenced based argument. QED

LOL
Somebody is getting awfully flustered that their constant regurgitation of other people they agree withs ideas has been noticed.

@Ken M
Sorry, mate – I hope you understand what your last comment means because I have no idea what you are on about now. Can you actually translate it into sensible English please.

It’s in English.
The problem is you.

@Ke4n M
Oh I recognise each of the words – it’s just the fact that the way you have combined them makes absolutely no sense at all

When you see children who have lost all their energy and can no longer actively play with their friends more than a year later, then you’ll realise that long covid is real, just like many other post-viral syndromes. In the meantime, you can keep sharing your ignorance of the facts.

Where are these children?

Long COVID is really and for a very small number of people quite serious. I don’t think it helps them by drowning out their serious issues with noise from made-up nonsense. COVID is largely not an illness of children.

Well considering all of the recent studies saying long covid is just mental illness and the symptoms are psychosomatic, I reckon kids with long covid are like vegan cats.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2796097

@Ken M
OMG – when you finally do some research and look for a supportive argument, you well and truly shoot yourself in the foot. Did you actually read the report of the study to which you have provided the link?

A snippet from the report …
“Our results should not be misinterpreted as supporting a hypothesis that post–COVID-19 conditions are psychosomatic.”
and …
“… symptoms of post–COVID-19 conditions differ substantially from symptoms of mental illness. Although fatigue and brain fog may occur with depression, smell and taste problems, shortness of breath and difficulty breathing, and cough are not common symptoms of mental illness.”
it goes on …
“… more than 50% of patients with post–COVID-19 conditions report relapses triggered by physical activity. In contrast, physical activity is protective against relapse of mental illness.”

Apologies if my ‘regurgitation of other people’ sends the bats in your belfry into a maniacal frenzy. But hey, thank you for providing the link to this interesting report on the study into (very real) long covid.

Oh dear, you know even less than I thought. It is very much an illness of children. You clearly haven’t read the medical reports or statistics.

Covid thrived in schools and is spread by kids to other kids and to their parents and other relatives. You really have no idea, do you?

For most children it hasn’t been serious, but for some it has and even where not dangerous in terms of their lives, it has led to long covid in some of those kids.

These children were mostly at home recovering, attending school when they could but rarely for a full day or a full week and completely unable to participate in their usually enjoyed sporting activities.

You clearly lack the ability to accurately interpret medical research, as there was no finding that covid was psychosomatic. You also fail to understand that psychological distress damages the immune system so that people who are stressed are more prone to getting physical illnesses, because their immune system is less able to fight them off.

Aside from your incorrect conclusions based on a lack of understanding of medicine, this is old research that has been superseded by a large amount of evidence of long-lasting damage to physical health including multiple organs from covid. I suggest you learn a bit more before shooting off your mouth about things that you don’t understand.

LOL
Well, somebody read the abstract and not the actual study, didn’t they JS. 🤣

Because if you bother to read the actual study, it pretty clearly says that long covid is psychosomatic and very strongly tied to mental illness. The abstract, as elsewhere explained by one of the authors, is an attempt to say psychosomatic symptoms are real, as is seen with things like hysterical blindness, but are not a result of the covid infection.

But hey, you’d know that if you got past the summary and read the PDF attached.

Ken’s trolling hitting new levels, this thread is a masterpiece.

KenM I suggest you improve your reading of the full study especially p1087 where it says, ‘Our results should not be misinterpreted as supporting a hypothesis that post-covid 19 conditions are psychosomatic’.

It then goes on to give all of the reasons that post-covid conditions cannot be considered psychosomatic.

It seems that you did not read the full study, or did not understand what it said.

“Research findings could explain why young kids rarely get very sick from COVID-19”

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2023/10/children-covid.html

COVID is largely not an illness of children. You do not know what you’re talking about and your arguments and claims can be dismissed.

@Ken M
Errr no, Ken M, I didn’t just read the abstract of the study. There’s actually a hint in the link you provided(it says “fullarticle). Oh and to the right of the article is a table with hyperlinks to the various sections – including “Abstract”

Nevertheless, I did open the attached PDF and guess what? It contains exactly the same information – only the page, which the link opens, has been rendered for a web browser. Not surprisingly, the snippets I cited above (to shoot down your ridiculous claim) are there on p7 under “Discussion”.

“… psychosomatic symptoms are real, as is seen with things like hysterical blindness”
So how is that relevant to the discussion on long COVID? Nowhere isn the report does it in anyway support your assertion “long covid is just mental illness and the symptoms are psychosomatic”. In fact as per the snippets, the report completely debunks your overt misinformation.

You can’t seem to stop yourself from digging a deeper hole into which you disappear. You epitomise the saying: “Better to remain silent and have people think you are a fool, than speak and remove all doubt.”