Socioeconomic inequalities of Long COVID: a retrospective population-based cohort study in the United Kingdom 2023 Shabnam et al

Objectives
To estimate the risk of Long COVID by socioeconomic deprivation and to further examine the inequality by sex and occupation.

Design
We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study using data from the ONS COVID-19 Infection Survey between 26 April 2020 and 31 January 2022. This is the largest nationally representative survey of COVID-19 in the UK with longitudinal data on occupation, COVID-19 exposure and Long COVID.

Setting
Community-based survey in the UK.

Participants
A total of 201,799 participants aged 16 to 64 years and with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

Main outcome measures
The risk of Long COVID at least 4 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 infection by index of multiple deprivation (IMD) and the modifying effects of socioeconomic deprivation by sex and occupation.

Results
Nearly 10% (n = 19,315) of participants reported having Long COVID. Multivariable logistic regression models, adjusted for a range of variables (demographic, co-morbidity and time), showed that participants in the most deprived decile had a higher risk of Long COVID (11.4% vs. 8.2%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.46; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.34, 1.59) compared to the least deprived decile. Significantly higher inequalities (most vs. least deprived decile) in Long COVID existed in healthcare and patient-facing roles (aOR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.27, 2.44), in the education sector (aOR: 1.68; 95% CI: 1.31, 2.16) and in women (aOR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.40, 1.73) than men (aOR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.15, 1.51).

Conclusions
This study provides insights into the heterogeneous degree of inequality in Long COVID by deprivation, sex and occupation. These findings will help inform public health policies and interventions in incorporating a social justice and health inequality lens.

Open access, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01410768231168377

 

Those damn yuppies!

 

Measure is at 4 weeks plus which may poorly differentiate between slow recovery and something of greater chronicity. Co-morbidity is a clear correlation (already ill people stay sicker longer ?). Interesting that the most wealthy decile appears in the data at three times the rate of the most deprived, indicating a far higher rate of contact with the data collection operation which was earlier iterations of this: Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, UK: 24 March 2023 Male/female split is 44/56 which looks to be within a fairly consistent range (45/55) in studies where numbers are weighted or there is strict cohort selection. For the study period PASC was recorded at 10%.

 

Worth joking about, but wow is that a massive embarrassment. Not only did they invent a caricature to fit their bigotry, they literally got it completely wrong because they get easily distracted by shiny objects. Just the same as what someone said recently about how the people on TikTok doing personal videos are not representative of the whole patient population, whatever they may be about, but that's exactly what is being used and claimed by our BPS overlords.

Basically, they invented a version of reality in their minds, then got mad at it. And somehow we're the ones with delusional beliefs. Pffft.

 

I think this was a joke (Re: "participants in the most deprived decile had a higher risk of Long COVID") but I don't get it.

I believe the study is trying to say that being poor increases your risk of getting Long Covid. This might be true, or this might be a flawed study, but either way I'm not sure what it has to do with yuppies.

Sorry that I'm so easily confused! Do you mind explaining?

 

It's a sarcastic joke, based on the prevalent stereotype (at least in the late 80s/90s) of ME being an illness that afflicted only (or primarily) young professionals (yuppies), who were middle-class, socially mobile, with a well-paying job. So yes, I'm juxtaposing that stereotype with the result you quote from this paper.

 

Thanks!

I do get it now that you've explained it. But for some reason there were too many steps between the old phrase "yuppie flu" and your comment for me to make the connection.