What I find amazing is that this so-called 'study' passed the peer review process, at least the way the study is presented. Some EXTREMELY sloppy statements in that article - supposedly from 'medical experts'.
One very glaring example: “While the prevalence rates for ME/CFS-like illness after having had COVID might be considered low, given how many millions of individuals have had COVID-19, this suggests that an extremely large number of individuals might have ME/CFS-like illness,” Dr. Joann Elmore ... told the article authors ....
Granted the above is VERBAL DELIVERY (vs written which can be 'proofed' prior to delivery) ... but the idea that a SCIENTIST would that a RATE would depend on the number of cases ... is kinda disturbing (excluding of course that a rate could be way off due to too small a sampling ...).
I found several other similar errors in that article - as in the very title 'than other infections' (general case), repeated error in the article where the rate is compared to both the 'general case' BUT ALSO qualified as being limited to 'certain other infections', ie. restricted case.
Sloppy article ... or sloppy research ? Don't know which.
The fact that chronic fatigue IS one of the fallouts from Covid is significant, imo, irrespective of the fallout from other infections.
| 