Talk:Long COVID

Creating the page

While this topic is very much a 'work in progress' - as the science and medicine is moving at such speed and there are so many blanks to be filled in about the long-term consequences of COVID-19, I thought there was probably enough to start having a specific page on the topic, given the publishing of a rapid review by the National Institute of Health Research and the subsequent media coverage. It finally feels that there are enough reasonably sources to start a Wikipedia article - particularly as there's a lot of public interest and discussion on this topic.

I'm UK-based, so I have very much that view of the world, so contributions from elsewhere around the globe would be much appreciated.

Jpmaytum (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jpmaytum, and thanks for creating the article. I have added some content which I had previously added to the Coronavirus disease article but which was removed on the grounds that the sources did not meet WP:MEDRS, so I don't know what will become of this article. Given the amount of coverage in both popular and medical press, I thought that it should be better covered somewhere in Wikipedia, but the medical editors there did not agree. Let's see what happens to it in coming days and weeks. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

And thanks for your work Laterthanyouthink. I've tweaked the intro to get straight to the scale of the issue (we can leave the general articles to say that that COVID-19 is caused by the virus, and there's a pandemic) and to push the academic references up. I've also added references further down. Little by little we get there!

Jpmaytum (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead

The lead will need more work, as per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, after the article has more content added and undergone more copyediting to smooth the flow and reduce repetition. Boghog, many articles that I have edited have a Background section, and I added it here as a building block in a very young article. The lead as it stands is not a summary of the article, but will get there with more work. IMO opinion it's more useful to keep that "background" info in the body until such time as the article has taken shape - section headings can always be changed to something more appropriate, but the lead should cover just the most important points in a more general way, until the content has been built further. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully I've picked up some of this in my most recent edits - see the Keeping it Simple section below. Hope this fits in with your thinking.

Jpmaytum (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Convergent terminology?

First off, I want to thank the editors that got this article started for a problem that's been around for a while.

In the lede, there are currently two mentions of "long-haulers":

• In the first paragraph: In the US, sufferers are often referred to as "long-haulers" (emphasis removed)
• In the third paragraph: There have been many reports of findings of these longer-term effects from all over the world, in patients often referred to as "long-haulers".

both of which use different references.

My question is: can we combine the two sentences together? I assume the separation is either because information is being inserted as it is found or the distinction is important. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the former. GPinkerton (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tenryuu. This has happened because Boghog removed a section heading (see my comments above), so the first section, which was entitled "Background" got absorbed by the lead. It is usual to have repetition of lead content in the body, so if the header is reinstated, this would help to structure the article correctly. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Laterthanyouthink, thanks for the clarification. Until another section is created, I've consolidated the two together as one sentence and merged references together. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure if long term consequences of COVID-19 and Long COVID are necessarily the same thing. There seem to be a number of research articles talking about the long term effects (heart disease, lung issues, diabetes), but to me that is not the same thing as someone who suffers from COVID effects for a long time. Should I start a new section for this? Azb24 (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Coiner

Should we say who Elisa Perego is? We could say "of the UCL Institute of Archaeology"? Should we also move it further down? GPinkerton (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The sentence: "Long Covid" is a patient-made term which was first used in May 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, as a hashtag on Twitter by Elisa Perego.

Am I misreading something? I went into the source, and I'm guessing this is the passage where the information is being taken from:

On 7 July, a BBC interviewer asked Suett about ‘this Long Covid, as they call it’ (BBC News 24, 2020a), and the Royal College of General Practitioners noted general practice was ‘preparing for an “influx” of patients with ‘long Covid’ (Royal College of General Practitioners, 2020). 8 July, New Statesman published a piece by a doctor with ‘#LongCovid’ in the standfirst: the hashtag indicated the term’s emergence through social media (Whitaker, 2020).

Perego is the author of the source, but it never says that she made the hashtag for it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Yes the source wasn't the right one. It's supposed to be that BMJ one. I've added it. GPinkerton (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Though in fact, looking again, the information is two paragraphs above the one cited from the Social Science & Medicine paper. It says:

Long Covid as a term gained consistency in just a few weeks. #LongCovid was first used by Elisa Perego, from Lombardy (a very hard-hit, early hotspot) on 20 May (Perego, 2020), to summarize her experience of disease as cyclical, progressive, and multiphasic. She used #LongCovid to intervene ontologically in formulations of COVID-19 in peer-reviewed papers – by integrating the ‘biphasic’ disease pathway from (Lescure et al., 2020), and pointing to multiple sequelae. In June, #LongCovid became increasingly prominent – complementing other hashtags used by emergent patient collectivities (e.g. #apresJ20 in French, #covidpersistente in Spanish; #MitCoronaLeben in German; #koronaoire in Finnish; #長期微熱組 in Korean; see also patient websites https://www.apresj20.fr and https://apuakoronaan.fi). ‘Long Covid’ moved from social to print media in late June when a newspaper described how doctor Jake Suett had joined a ‘Long Covid’ support group (Keay, 2020). This group (https://www.longcovid.org) changed its name to ‘Long Covid Support Group’ in response to growing use of #LongCovid – having previously added #Covid1in20 to its name on 23 May in response to the COVID-19 Symptom Study prevalence data (personal communication, Claire Hastie, 19 August 2020).

GPinkerton (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Thanks for pointing that out; I had Ctrl+F set to look for "Long Covid" and not "LongCovid". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Keeping it simple

I think the real challenge for this article will be to keep it simple for the casual reader - particuarly given the level of research interest in this area. I've tried to do this by simplifying the initial sections (and there was a great table in the appendix to the Yellin paper which was really helpful) - we can save the more analytical stuff about the research studies (and things like where the name Long Covid came from) for later in the article.

I hope this makes sense - I'm sure there's plenty more to come

Jpmaytum (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Links

I want to add links to this article from some of the main Covid pages, the Covid-19 templates (under health issues?), maybe complications(?) in the Covid-19 infobox, but I am holding off because I'm not a medical expert and don't know to what extent this article is current suitable for wider entry points/under what sections it would belong. Could anyone here with more experience on how to properly integrate this topic maybe add in links in the appropriate templates? BlackholeWA (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Spelling of COVID on this page

Some people have changed the spelling of COVID to Covid - in line with style guides used by some press agencies.

Please ensure the capitalized spelling is used, in line with the World Health Organization spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EpicChefUK (talk • contribs) 20:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@EpicChefUK: Not done: there is no reason for Wikipedia to follow WHO spelling, and indeed, there is a note at the top of the page saying the article is to be written in British English. The WHO uses the British Oxford English Dictionary's spelling on most points, and in this instance the OED uses "Covid-19, n.", with that sort of capitalization. Generally, words which are not initialisms and which are pronounced as actual words are not capitalized throughout, so there is no reason why Covid-19 should be any different. Furthermore, "Long Covid" is how "long covid" is usually written, including by the person who named the disease, the NHS, the British Government, and the BBC. GPinkerton (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Please note that the long-standing consensus in WikiProject COVID-19 has been to capitalize all references to COVID, both in the title and the body of the articles. As such, for consistency across the project, the name of the page should also be changed. Demoxica (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Demoxica, does a Wikiproject have that kind of overriding authority? GPinkerton (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: I'm not sure what you mean by overriding authority -- I simply meant to refer you to the standard established at the WikiProject which has been in use across all articles regarding COVID-19, in an attempt to reach a consensus on the name of the page. Demoxica (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

WikiProjects (which are just groups of editors) have no authority. (This is actually in the official policies and guidelines.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Demoxica, actually, item 1 of the subsection "Page Title" in {{Current COVID-19 Project Consensus}} states:

Coronavirus disease 2019 is the full name of the disease and should be used for the main article. COVID-19 (full caps) is preferable in the body of all articles, and in the title of all other articles/category pages/etc.

As written, this would only be applicable to any mention of COVID-19. "Long Covid" could be considered to be a separate term that describes longstanding symptoms of COVID-19, and can be argued to not fall under item 1. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 01:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Well, long COVID refers to a set of sequelae observed as a result of COVID. We are still talking about the same disease: COVID (shorthand for COVID-19). As we still are talking about COVID, I don't see a reason not to follow the WikiProject standard for this article. The only articles not to follow this guideline are proper nouns referring to products or entities, where affiliated parties have decided to use a different letter case (e.g. Covid fan tutte, Covid-Organics or Covid Watch) Demoxica (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Demoxica, the issue is that none of our sources use that form, so it's verging on OR to conjure it up as a typographic neologism. I note that the linked discussions are now quite old and predate both the emergence of Long Covid science and the advent of the various names for the long-term version/effects. It may be worth having a discussion on this point. GPinkerton (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, this is CAW (Consensus As Written). If it should be expanded on that's a discussion for the WikiProject to be having. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 07:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The acronym LASER has long stopped being written as LASER. DVDs are "written with lasers"; it would look archaic (or seem like we're shouting) to say that they're "written with LASERs". Language evolves. But I agree that discussing it at WikiProject COVID-19 makes sense. COVID-19 is a big topic in en.Wikipedia and in The World. The discussion location is not secret and the discussions are transparent and participatory. Lower-case-isation might be accepted if the usage really is switching in that direction for Long COVID. Boud (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It's usually an WP:ENGVAR question. In British English, pronounceable acronyms are usually not capitalized: They have HIV (not pronounceable, so all caps), which causes Aids (pronounceable, so not all caps). Covid is pronounceable, so it loses its caps. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The article has a {{Use British English}} template, so British spelling should be considered. It honestly doesn't make much of a difference for me. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 02:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, unfortunately I spoke too soon in this thread; since my first comment NICE has issued its clinical guidance and it uses "long COVID", which I still think is shouty and weird. "Long Covid" was coined using exactly that capitalization (actually "#LongCovid") so it's decapitalized ab initio. "COVID-19" always being capitalized (which I think is dubious in itself) is to my mind a separate issue to wholly capitalizing all and every instance of those letters absent the "-19" and even when in combination with other words (viz. "long" or "Long"); I don't think it was within the remit of the discussions that happened at the beginning of the year to decide on the long-term aspects of the disease(s) nomenclature in the hereafter, especially as at that time it wasn't even known that there was a "long" condition. GPinkerton (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Tooth loss is really unclear, and if true, rare

from the given link

A report in The New York Times details anecdotal evidence that the coronavirus can cause unexpected dental problems. People have even had their teeth falling out without experiencing any kind of pain or bleeding.

A 43-year-old woman from New York lost a tooth after sensing it was loose. The tooth just flew out of her mouth one day without warning. There was no pain or blood. The woman had been experiencing Long COVID after surviving an infection in the spring. Her other symptoms included brain fog, muscle ache, and nerve pain.

The report also details the case of a 12-year-old boy who lost one of his adult teeth months after he had a mild case of COVID-19. Unlike the woman, who had a history of dental issues, the child had normal, healthy teeth. Others lost teeth similarly after being infected, describing their experiences in support groups.

That's not enough IMO. Remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.143.248 (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I have doubts about that too. GPinkerton (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

OK I'll remove. 79.76.129.65 (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Done. The hair loss claim needs checking but for later 79.76.129.65 (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Weak sourcing

This article remains full of weak sourcing. It has improved some since its initial creation, but it still has many primary sources and poor assertions. I would make edits but I'd chop out half the article and imagine I'd risk an edit war. Can you guys review WP:MEDRS and make edits to your sections of interest? MartinezMD (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

On that, I removed tooth loss (see right above) and hair loss has no references at all, so I'll remove that now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.156.22 (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@MartinezMD, I'd love to see you have a go at this page. Do you have a good source in hand? One solid round of replacing old and weak sources with a recent good source could do wonders for this article. If not, maybe the first step is just to tag the primary sources. Template:Primary source inline can be useful for that. There just aren't very many review articles that focus on long Covid. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

That would be my point. There may not be secondary studies or much in the way of reviews making much of the article unreliable. The condition is not even a single condition. It's a concept mixing up various complications, prolonged illness, and likely many unrelated problems attributed to the infection. I'll start tagging. MartinezMD (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I found a decent review article from the BMJ and have started updating based on that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I removed the entire "Studies" section. It is a collection of primary studies. I also tagged several areas for starters so maybe some can start making changes. MartinezMD (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

We *might* be able to salvage some of its opening lines – which were:

A number of studies on the long-term effects of the virus on some people were in progress by late 2020. A wide range of longer-term damage to other organs has been found, including the nervous system, and possibly kidneys, liver, and gastrointestinal tract. Symptoms such as decreased lung and cardiac function and decreased exercise capacity have frequently been recorded. In addition, a range of symptoms of as yet unknown aetiology, such as fatigue, joint pain, "brain fog", and fever, have led to comparisons with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), although distinct from such a diagnosis, which is dependent on other criteria. Doctors are hoping to find specific causes for the symptoms experienced by COVID-19 long-haulers, who include young, previously fit and healthy people, as their treatment will differ depending on the aetiology, which could be lingering infection, autoimmune abnormalities, lung or heart damage, inflammation or other reasons.

– but it amounts to "Researchers are researching", and the rest was a laundry list of individual studies, without any clear rationale for why those were included and others weren't. There probably should be some sentence somewhere that says it's an active area of research, but I'm not sure what else really needs to be said beyond that fact, and I agree with you that the list needed to go. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm okay with adding what you propose, but my thinking is like yours. A laundry list wasn't needed. I'm not sure a section is needed, but I don't feel strongly about it. MartinezMD (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It all feels a bit like Further research is needed, doesn't it? I'm not going to add anything about this right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• For my part, I think as many studies as possible should be mentioned, but from the perspective of a "history of research" rather than relying on raw material for factual statements. The fact that studies are/have been underway at all is notable and relevant by itself, so I think it's good to make mention of the sequence of events as the condition(s) appeared, grew more numerous and complex, and then began to be formally described. This isn't my area at all and a lot of changes have been made since I looked through the article's contents, so I'm glad someone has reviewed the sources cited. I would prefer if, rather than being removed altogether, sources not used in the text should be relegated to the "Further reading" section I put together (unless they're really useless, unhelpful, or misleading), which I think is useful as a working bibliography of the subject beyond its strictly medical aspects, like when and how it came to be reported and identified, treated, etc. GPinkerton (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

There can be hundreds or even thousands of studies eventually. If there are particularly notable studies we can certainly add them in context, but articles about disease fall under WP:MEDRS. They have to be put in perspective because of weight issues - a single study or a few small studies shouldn't be used to generalize to the millions who are at risk. This is the reason for the secondary requirements. MartinezMD (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

MartinezMD, I agree that they shouldn't be used to generalize, and probably even the results should be left out, but notable studies by leading institutions have place in the article for historical reasons. WP:MEDRS does say: History sections often cite older work. which I guess in this very new instance means that a History section here would be mentioning (if not citing) reports and studies that are newer than would usually appear in older diseases' articles. GPinkerton (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we're disagreeing ;) MartinezMD (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

NICE appears to have created a systematic review of their guidance: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng188/evidence/evidence-reviews-8957590381?tab=evidence Unfortunately they are declining to come to conclusions themselves ("these three studies said this etc"). The are including the medrx preprint kcl study in their analysis (somewhat prominently). The prevalence review in particular looks interesting. Talpedia (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a lot of potential in these sources, but many aren't there yet. MartinezMD (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

References

talk-reflist template added by boud Boud (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Is Long COVID an autoimmune disease? Separate disease from COVID-19?

There have been a few recent study that Long Covid is may have been cause by Autoantibodies as immune goes overdrive after getting Coronavirus, but it is unclear if cause by virus itself. But Long Covid could be a separate diseases as it could be an Autoimmune disease, while Covid 19 is mainly a respiratory disease. It is probably a secondary diseases which usually happened around few week after getting Coronavirus. Autoimmune disease is a condition in which your immune system mistakenly attacks your body. I think Long COVID could be an autoimmune disease due to Immune goes overdrive and it affect other part of body. I left the sources below to help to explain more details about it from www.theguardian.com/science below:

80.233.63.170 (talk) 09:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

"Writing in the study, which has yet to be peer reviewed and published in a journal" - nothing to see here until peer-reviewed, published, then reviewed in groupings with other similar studies in a secondary publication. MartinezMD (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

References

BMJ source for 10% figure is not reliable

If you follow the link from the BMJ source you'll find that that 10% figure comes from a website (not a paper), and that the website is KCL data which is the basis of the subsequent - unreliable source for the 2% figure. I don't see how one can argue that the 10% figure is reliable and the 2% figure is not given that they likely come from the same dataset (and the 10% figure does not even come from a paper). I'm open to arguments though ... Talpedia (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Talpedia:...This NIHR has reviewed some studies but dated October. Whispyhistory (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, within policy, having Wikipedia editors decide that the BMJ didn't have sufficient evidence to make that claim isn't okay. If we want to have different numbers in the article, then we need to find a better source, because the alternative is letting editors do their own peer review of secondary sources.

I hope that we will, in the coming months, be able to make statements about what percentage of symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID cases linger; what percentage are due to ongoing infection; and what percentage are significant symptoms (rather than the sort where you are back to work and feeling normal except for one or two little things). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I can see the argument. I guess the question then becomes whether the BMJ sources as a whole is reliable, as it's not a systematic review but more of an editorial by the BMJ. I suppose if I cared to labour the point, I could try and get "using prepublication data from the preprint non-peer reviewed KCL trial" into the sentence (ensuring that this is true first). I definitely detect a spin for people to exaggerte long covid prevalence - but that way madness and meta arguments lie! I suppose the interesting reader could confirm this for themselves... the best source for the interested reader is probably the NICE review on the topic actually. Talpedia (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Instead of trying to qualify this number, I'd rather that we just had a better source. Even just having a different estimate from a similar-ish source would be helpful, as it would help illustrate the "nobody really knows" aspect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that. There aren't any secondary sources though :( Talpedia (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The BMJ piece is technically a secondary source. It's just not an ideal one. Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean good. I think the BMJ piece is okay, or I wouldn't have cited it. But I see it as a sort of temporary patch. More papers come out every day. Maybe we'll be lucky and find a good one soon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

But I want a systematic review! (joke) Talpedia (talk) 12:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure! Oh, wait – did you mean a systematic review on this subject? That'll be harder. Can I get back to you in a couple of years with that? ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox for Long Covid?

Long Covid
Other names	Chronic COVID syndrome (CCS) Post acute coronavirus syndrome Long Haulers
Specialty	Sequelae * immunology
Symptoms	Fatigue, chronic cough, brain fog, breathless
Complications	Out of work, lifestyle restrictions, heart and lungs failure, post-exertional malaise, neurological problems
Usual onset	2 to 4 weeks after or during infection from coronavirus
Duration	Long term or lifelong
Causes	Unknown, possible autoantibodies after getting coronavirus
Treatment	None, supportive care
Frequency	10% to 33% after getting Coronavirus

Created an example of the Summary Infobox for Long Covid on talkpages as agenda before adding on Long Covid Wikipedia page. I found some sources on symptoms, comlications and causes. While Coronavirus (Covid-19) is a respiratory and infectious disease, it can lead 10% to 30% of some parents to Long Covid, mostly with moderate to severe coronavirus symptoms. Even a few with mild symptoms can go on to Long Covid. There is a bit of different between coronavirus and Long Covid. Coronavirus (Covid-19) is mainly an respiratory disease which affect the lungs and Long Covid is a secondary disease or sequelae or possible immunity disorder which is maybe cause by immune systems goes into overdrive or cause by autoantibodies. Should we Infobox for Long Covid as an summary?80.233.59.188 (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure about frequency figures - newspapers probably aren't the best source. You might like to have a look at the NICE long covid systematic review for this. Talpedia (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether the article should have an infobox, but the "Specialty" item here is wrong. Sequelae is not a medical specialty. This condition likely does not have a single specialty associated with it yet, but if we had to pick one, then for the longest group, thinking about some common symptoms, it might be rheumatology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't know about an infobox either, but if added, the sources cannot be news articles WP:MEDRS. Also, complication cannot be "out of work" and duration should not be "lifelong" as 1 - the illness has only existed for 1 year and by precedent we don't do that for other illnesses - see stroke for comparison. MartinezMD (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Merge with COVID-19 long haulers

I'm requesting a merge of this page and COVID-19 long haulers as I feel both pages cover similar enough ground.Americanfreedom (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Clearly the same subject. A merge will help keep all the information and references in one place for this emerging topic.Lineslarge (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support per lineslarge Talpedia (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The other can remain as a redirect. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support and WP:SNOW -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support other article is 5 sentences long and has no new information. Speedy merge imo. MartinezMD (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. There are already more than enough articles about COVID-19, might as well get rid of unnecessary ones. Wretchskull (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done by the powers vested ... etc. GPinkerton (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Meta analysis preprint

• [1] Not yet formally accepted but looks interesting and potentially MEDRS once published. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

WHO report on LONG COVID

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/339629/Policy-brief-39-1997-8073-eng.pdf

A lot of MEDRS information in there that can be added to the article. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Intermittent or relapsing fever

Quite a few sources on long Covid mention that the fevers are intermittent or relapsing. Is this sufficiently well developed to include in the article? Abductive (reasoning) 20:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why not, Abductive - it's mentioned in a lot of articles, and listed on the CDC list of symptoms. (The whole article is an odd one because of the lack of MEDRS, but imo that's because of the nature of the beast; the topic still needs to be covered in Wikipedia because of the sheer volume of information published about it.) I just don't have time to do more about it now. I'm sure that some of the Further reading citations could be uses as sources too. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome

Nalbandian, A., Sehgal, K., Gupta, A. et al. Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome. Nat Med (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01283-z

2600:1000:B02A:338:B979:35BF:6026:3F3D (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

added to reading --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Self Diagnosis

Long COVID is a self diagnosed condition. There is no such thing in any clinical 'handbook'. "Long" viral respiratory illness is not unique to SARS-CoV-2. Post viral fatigue syndrome is not unique to this pathogen. So, why the new name for something that is old news?

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-017-4968-2 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2553945/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximum70 (talk • contribs)

Are you proposing an edit to the article or are you just commenting? This is WP:NOTAFORUM. Also, please sign your comments. MartinezMD (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Article falls under discretionary sanctions enforcement?

This article falls under WP:COVIDDS Arbcom discretionary sanctions. It would be unfortunate if this article was edited with misleading information, as this is an important topic. Would an edit notice be appropriate to inform users of the importance of adhering to WP:RS and/or informing them of the sanctions on this page? Thanks. –Gladamas (talk · contribs) 21:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gladamas, thanks for asking. I have extended-confirmed protected the page for now. The template at {{Ds/editnotice}} is only applicable if there are specific page sanctions that go beyond this level of protection, and I currently see no need to apply such a sanction. You may, however, always request sanctions at WP:AE if this measure turns out to be insufficient. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Incidence in related virus

I propose we add to the Incidence section some information from the sequalae found in a similar disease, SARS, as a point of comparison. Here is one such study. Forich (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Relationship to chronic fatigue syndrome/ME

Scientists have pointed out the relationship between long covid and ME. Some even say that some of those with long covid will develop ME (myalgic encephalomyelitis). Frenchfries124 (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)