Long covid rare in children

[Bobholll]

Contrary to mumsnet, where long covid is RIFE in children & everyone knows at least 5 who can’t get out of bed, a new study is showing that it’s thankfully rare & most children recover in a week.

The professor also mentions that most those with on-going symptoms recovered over time.

Nice to see they are keeping an eye statistically on this stuff & that it’s very reassuring.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58071898

most those with on-going symptoms recovered over time*

And in the meantime? Whilst working towards exams? It’s OK for children to routinely feel unwell over a matter of weeks, may be months?

@Getawaywithit

most those with on-going symptoms recovered over time*

And in the meantime? Whilst working towards exams? It’s OK for children to routinely feel unwell over a matter of weeks, may be months?

What about children with chronic conditions? I don’t see everyone kicking up a fuss about children with say, asthma, about struggling through exams.

Long covid is clearly very rare in children. Which is a positive to be taken from this.

It wasn’t a very big study group. Is that a normal size for a study like this?

@Getawaywithit

most those with on-going symptoms recovered over time*

And in the meantime? Whilst working towards exams? It’s OK for children to routinely feel unwell over a matter of weeks, may be months?

It has always occurred and always will occur. Covid will increase the numbers compared to the usual baseline, but post-viral fatigue is not a new phenomenon.

I've no idea what the virus was that DS (9) had in December 2019, it certainly shared many characteristics with Covid, and he had a post viral fatigue for about 3 months. Was it Covid and Long Covid? Was it a random virus and a regular fatigue? In the absence of knowledge at that point, it actually makes no difference at all.

The article says 2% with long covid (over 8 weeks) with more found in older DC. And 'most get better over time'

I feel a lot of people exaggerate long covid tbh a lot of it is on a self reported basis

Nice to see some balance occasionally 🙂

I think a lot of people with long covid would probably be diagnosed with something else intangible at some point in their lives. It's well-documented that psychological distress results in physical symptoms, and there is absolutely no shame in that.

I hate that a physical medical diagnosis is seen as fine, but a psychological issue with resulting physical symptoms is seen as insulting. Shows people's attitude to MH I suppose.

Interesting that in another report they are saying that they are going to offer 16-17 year olds the vaccine

Has a study report been done on the possible increase of T1 diabetes in young people due to COVID?

I thought the numbers were quite high for something that is supposed to hardly ever happen. Those numbers would mean that every child would know someone with it. I had hoped it was rarer.

Acton I very much doubt your friend's patients would go to the bother of getting in front of a consultant (personal expense or GP referral) if there was nothing wrong with them. Your friend is probably wrong, rather than lots of patients.

@FflosFfantastig

Nice to see some balance occasionally 🙂

Yes!

Depends on how you see the results, isn't it?

Fewer than one in 20 of those with Covid experienced symptoms for four weeks or more, with one in 50 having symptoms for more than eight weeks.

So, fewer than one in 20 experience symptom for 4+ weeks, but 1 in 50 get it for more than 8 weeks. That's not actually such a great odds, is it?
I'd rather my dc don't get it if he can avoid it.

Though English isn't my first language, did I read that wrong?

I think that 2% is a lot.
If delta is so contagious that most people who are not vaccinated will eventually get Covid that means 2% of children having long Covid.

I thought T1 diabetes was genetic?

Agree that a bad virus can have all sorts of knock on complications... a lot of long COVID sounds like ME for example, or like the effects of glandular fever. Not to minimise it though; both the latter are nasty.

I know many viruses can cause long term issues, but I suppose the issue is that if COVID is being let to run amok in schools then more children are exposed to the risk of being impacted by Long Covid, so the percentage impacted maybe small but the actual number will be large.

My understanding is that T1 diabetes can be triggered by a virus, so the same may happen if it is thought that most children will get COVID.

I had glandular fever as a teenager. Missed a term off school, but don’t know anyone else at the time who was ill and don’t know many people who have ever had glandular fever

T1 is also caused by hand foot and mouth.

I agree with pp 2% is hardly rare!
That would be 8 kids at our primary.
More than one per year group.
The 4w wouldnt concern me as a cough can often last that long.
Personally i would perfer we vaxxed 12+ before giving third dose to the 1-9 groups.
Because it would reduce spread.
May reduce long covid. These kids have long lives ahead. And minimum of 10d off school for any with symptoms- with no home learning.
If they get it every 6m then thats 20days.

My sister had glandular fever and had to resit her A levels because she was too poorly to take them. Sadly that has been the case for a few children every year but hopefully this means covid won't add too much to the tally. A shame for those children though I agree.

1.8% isn't rare.

www.raredisease.org.uk/what-is-a-rare-disease/

The European Union defines a disease or condition as rare if it affects fewer than 1 in 2,000 (1) people within the general population.

or about 1 in 1,500 people in the US

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_disease

I would also say one in 50 children is a lot. Especially if most children end up getting Covid after schools go back. Who knows what happens after those 8 weeks. Let’s just hope it’s not life long. Cos that would be thousands and thousands of children.

I think someone has decided 2% should be classed as rare and the headline put out as propoganda to try and reassure parents.

It's very funny really, OP, your seizing on the word "rare" like that. There is a range of scientific/medical use for the word rare, from 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 1000 - I did look it up.

I in 50 (the sort of ballpark you are discussing) would be seen as fairly common - or in some situations "high" risk

e.g.
"Screen positive (high risk) – A patient with a result of 1 in 50 would have a "high" risk. The "1" in 50 means that, among 50 patients with this same risk, one of them would have a developing baby with Down syndrome"

@Turquoisesol

I think someone has decided 2% should be classed as rare and the headline put out as propoganda to try and reassure parents.

nooooooooo it's not rare

It’s unclear how many of those 2% are long term debilitated for months post infection vs a fully functioning child with a cough at 6 weeks. It needs to be more clearly defined.