Identifying and mitigating the public health consequences of meta-ignorance about "Long COVID" risks, 2025, Motta et al.

Identifying and mitigating the public health consequences of meta-ignorance about "Long COVID" risks
Motta; Callaghan; Padmanabhan; Ross; Gargano; Bowman; Yokum

OBJECTIVES
While past work studies public concern about "Long COVID," fewer have asked what the public knows and/or purports to know about Long COVID. This is an important oversight, as low knowledge and/or "meta-ignorance" (Dunning Kruger Effect; DKE) concerning Long COVID might undermine public willingness to take action to protect themselves and others from endemic COVID-19.

STUDY DESIGN
In a nationally representative survey of US adults, we measure the correspondence between Americans’ objective and perceived Long COVID knowledge.

METHODS
We estimate a series of multivariate regression models that assess (a) the socio-demographic correlates and (b) public health consequences of Long COVID meta-ignorance.

RESULTS
We detect prevalent meta-ignorance about Long COVID. Greater than one fifth of Americans express high confidence in their perceived Long COVID knowledge, despite exhibiting lower than average objective knowledge. The expression of DKE is associated with a series of deleterious public health and health policy outcomes, including: opposition to workplace COVID-19 vaccine mandates, annual COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, and an increased likelihood of being sick with Long COVID.

CONCLUSION
Our work provides novel insights into the promises and potential limitations of health communication efforts to provide the public with basic facts about the causes and consequences of Long COVID.

Link (Public Health) [Paywall]

 

First question being: "People who have had severe infection with COVID-19 tend to be more likely to develop Long COVID than those with less-severe infections. (Correct = Yes)"

More people may develop LC from mild (or even asymptomatic) infections because that is so much more common than severe acute infections. But for an individual a severe acute infection would be more likely to result in LC than a mild acute infection. This is bearing in mind that the "LC" may be organ damage such as lung fibrosis rather than the ME/CFS phenotype.

 

Somebody should send the authors a link to that appalling Reddit Medicine thread that was posted a couple of days back.

I mean, if they are looking for the primary source of ignorance and the Dunning-Kruger effect among the general population on LC (and ME/CFS), and also for the first place to start countering the problem, then they should turn their gaze on the medical profession.

 

I don't get the impression from the abstract that the authors mean the public ignorance is about the biology of LC.

I thought it meant there is public ignorance and willful denial about the existence of LC as a seriously disabling illness. The consequence being that individuals see no need to take measures to avoid infection, and governments see no need to fund research or provide social security for sufferers.

I find it notable that the UK government never mentions LC when talking about the increase in working age people unable to work and kids missing school. The increased numbers are much more likely to be attributed to psychobehavioural factors and punitive measures put in place. They keep rolling out the old 'work is good for everybody's health'.