'40% of affected healthcare workers had long covid'

Started by AribertDeckers, August 21, 2026, 03:52:43 PM

AribertDeckers

21.8.2026
'40% of affected healthcare workers had long covid'


[*quote*]
--------------------------------
Covid-19: 40% of affected healthcare workers had long covid, and a quarter still had symptoms after a year

BMJ 2026; 394 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2026-100628 (Published 20 August 2026) Cite this as: BMJ 2026;394:e100628


    Adrian O'Dowd

    Author affiliations

    Kent

Four in ten healthcare workers worldwide who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the pandemic developed long covid, and a quarter still had symptoms after a year, a report has found.

The report by the NHS Race and Health Observatory examined numerous global studies to assess the medium term and long term effects of the disease on healthcare workers. It looked at the demographic, clinical, occupational, and sociocultural factors associated with long covid risk, particularly focusing on ethnicity, migration status, and vaccination history.

The longitudinal, mixed methods analysis included a systematic review of global research studies, survey data from 11 513 UK healthcare workers, and qualitative interviews with 42 healthcare workers, their managers, and support networks.

The analysis, produced by the observatory in collaboration with University College London (UCL) and the universities of Leicester and Nottingham,1 examined data from 6481 healthcare workers across 28 ...
--------------------------------
[*/quote*]


I consider this to be totally wrong. For 2 reasons:

1.
If "40% of affected healthcare workers had long covid", then the same figure must have happened in the rest of the world, too. But it did not.

2.
"during the pandemic" - This is dead wrong! The pandemic still rages. It is NOT over.

So this looks like a regional survey during an early phase of the pandemic, meaning certain strains of the virus. So this can not be generalized.


The full text of the "study" is not available for me. So I reject it. There is something dead wrong with it. The BMJ should not hide it.