Regarding John Daysh's comment against the Lancet.

I don't have a great deal of respect for the integrity of contemporary academic authorities but surely "The Lancet" and "The New England Journal of Medicine" have to be considered more respected "medical journals" in a sense than generalist journals such as Nature or Science. At least they are actually in the field of medicine.

The Lancet has a fairly good reputation of conservative research, compared to other journals, even though I'd agree that it was compromised on some occasions during the contentious crisis of Covid.

I'm much more concerned about John Daysh's reputation than the Lancet

And I trust mhaze more than both. Especially on this issue.

As for my last two URLs yesterday, allow me to link you to the precise data to which I was referring:

http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2021/10/12/world-economic-outlook-october-2021#Chapter1

See Chapter 1, "Global Prospects and Policies," which discusses the global economic recovery, inflation trends, and policy actions needed to strengthen the recovery.

This report contains a detailed analysis on pages 19-23 which discusses the varied economic recoveries across countries, and how the countries that put in place the most stringent measures to slow infection rates, and/or provided financial support, experienced less severe economic downturns and faster recoveries.

http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2021/10/12/world-economic-outlook-october-2021#Chapter2

The IMF’s October 2021 World Economic Outlook report (Chapter 2, in particular) discusses in-depth the economic effects of Covid and the role of government interventions. Despite the the short-term costs of the lockdowns, coordinated health and economic policies mitigated the pandemic’s adverse effects on economies.

I look forward to your next attempts to discredit the links I've provided after having only scanned the content for something to pick on so you can pretend what you find is funny.

Here's some information on Long Covid from the Lancet...

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01136-X/abstract

Long COVID: a clinical update

Prof Trisha Greenhalgh, MD
Prof Manoj Sivan, MD
Alice Perlowski, MD
Prof Janko Ž Nikolich, MD

Published:July 31, 2024DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01136-X
Long COVID: a clinical update
Previous ArticleChronic lymphocytic leukaemia

Summary
References
Article info
Linked Articles

Advertisement
Summary
Post-COVID-19 condition (also known as long COVID) is generally defined as symptoms persisting for 3 months or more after acute COVID-19. Long COVID can affect multiple organ systems and lead to severe and protracted impairment of function as a result of organ damage. The burden of this disease, both on the individual and on health systems and national economies, is high. In this interdisciplinary Review, with a coauthor with lived experience of severe long COVID, we sought to bring together multiple streams of literature on the epidemiology, pathophysiology (including the hypothesised mechanisms of organ damage), lived experience and clinical manifestations, and clinical investigation and management of long COVID. Although current approaches to long COVID care are largely symptomatic and supportive, recent advances in clinical phenotyping, deep molecular profiling, and biomarker identification might herald a more mechanism-informed and personally tailored approach to clinical care. We also cover the organisation of services for long COVID, approaches to preventing long COVID, and suggestions for future research.

Canem Malum,

I didn’t say anything “against” The Lancet! I simply linked mhaze to some articles that said the same thing as the Lancet articles I linked to because he couldn’t access them.

You do realise, too, that the article you just cited supports and reinforces everything I’ve said about long Covid, don’t you?

Incidentally, do you realise many of the articles that appear in The Lancet are cited and referenced in the articles and reports from the institutions and bodies that I linked to? These organisations don’t go off and do all of the research all over again. Nor are they non-medical organisations trying to do medical stuff. So, telling us that you trust The Lancet (because they’re a medical journal) contradicts your conspiratorial position.

You believe only who you want to believe - even if it’s xXx_PussyDestroyer69 on YouTube shouting some bizarre alt-right conspiracy theory. So long as you want to believe it. Your beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with reality.

Perhaps I slightly misread John Daysh's comments about the Lancet before.

The above was the only Lancet article I could see in reference to long Covid when I did a search (perhaps the original article that John Daysh referred to was "vapourware")

"current approaches to long COVID care are largely symptomatic and supportive" ie potentially aren't managed by vaccination but by treating symptoms.

Doesn't say much about long Covid being 10% of Covid cases.

Some of the information in the report was qualitative rather than quantitative (it refers to long term rather than percentage of cases remaining after a year, etc).

Also mentions
"recent advances" ie. potentially unreliable.

"future research" suggests there is much still unknown.

I didn't read John Daysh's comments closely, but on a superficial read, I can't agree with his comment "You do realise, too, that the article you just cited supports and reinforces everything I’ve said about long Covid, don’t you?".