AI’s Response To: ‘Why Is 4.5% Of All COVID19 Infections Leading To M.E/C.F.S. A Problem For Governments?

Two things happened yesterday:

  • Prime Minister Starmer gave a speech on the future of AI and the limitless possibilities it will bring.
  • The Bateman Horne Centre’s research paper ‘COVID-19 Triggers ME/CFS‘ popped up on our news feed.

This blog will combine these two things. We have asked AI why the research finding that 4.5% of all COVID19 infections lead to M.E./C.F.S will be a problem for Governments.

The study states –

Of the 4,515 participants who enrolled within 30 days of contracting COVID-19, 73 developed ME/CFS at least six months post-infection. In total, 531 participants met ME/CFS criteria, translating to a prevalence of 4.5% among those infected—nearly eight times higher than uninfected participants. This prevalence is five times higher than pre-pandemic estimates and underscores the severe and lasting impact of COVID-19 on public health.

and

Strikingly, 90% of these post-COVID-19 ME/CFS cases clustered with the most symptomatic and severe cases of Long COVID, highlighting the overlap between these two conditions. This finding reinforces what we at BHC have long known: ME/CFS is not only a real and diagnosable condition, but it is also a disabling disease that demands attention, especially in the wake of a global pandemic.

For healthcare providers, this research underscores an urgent call to action. The dramatic increase in ME/CFS cases post-COVID-19 means that providers will encounter this condition far more frequently. Early recognition and proper management of ME/CFS are not only possible but can be life-changing for patients.’

We asked Chat GPT ”Why Is 4.5% Of All COVID19 Infections Leading To M.E/C.F.S. A Problem For Government?’

The fact that 4.5% of COVID-19 infections trigger Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (M.E./CFS) presents a significant problem for governments for several reasons:

  1. Public Health Burden: M.E./CFS is a long-term, debilitating condition that can affect people’s ability to work, care for themselves, and participate in daily activities. The emergence of new cases after COVID-19 increases the long-term public health burden. Governments may face increased demands on healthcare systems, including a need for specialized care, rehabilitation, and long-term support services.
  2. Economic Impact: Individuals who develop M.E./CFS after COVID-19 may be unable to work or may experience a reduced capacity to contribute to the economy. This can lead to higher disability claims, increased unemployment, and a loss of productivity, all of which put financial strain on the economy.
  3. Healthcare System Strain: Treating M.E./CFS requires specialized care, and healthcare systems may already be stretched due to the direct impact of COVID-19. Governments will need to allocate resources to address both acute COVID cases and the ongoing management of long-term conditions like M.E./CFS.
  4. Social and Psychological Impact: M.E./CFS can be isolating and distressing, as it often leaves people with a reduced quality of life. The social and psychological effects on individuals and their families could increase the demand for mental health services, adding further strain to social support systems.
  5. Uncertainty and Research Gaps: M.E./CFS remains poorly understood, and there are limited treatments. Governments may face pressure to invest in research to understand why COVID-19 triggers M.E./CFS in some individuals and to develop effective treatments, which can be both challenging and expensive.
  6. Public Confidence in Government Response: If large numbers of people develop chronic conditions like M.E./CFS post-COVID, it could lead to public dissatisfaction with how the government has handled the pandemic, especially if the long-term impacts are not sufficiently addressed. This can undermine trust in public health authorities and policy decisions.

Overall, the 4.5% of COVID-19 infections leading to M.E./CFS could exacerbate pre-existing challenges for governments, including public health, economic stability, and social well-being. Addressing these issues requires a multifaceted approach, including improved healthcare resources, research into the long-term impacts of COVID-19, and enhanced social support systems.

AI ‘gets it’, but will the UK Government start listening to warnings from the M.E. community and other interested parties? As a UK social enterprise, we have been warning the Government about the potential increase in cases of M.E./C.F.S. and the impact it will have on the economy since 2020. We were ignored and given platitudes within generic emails from all MPs who have been in the Secretary of State position.

We knew what we were talking about.

In 2025, the UK Government is ignoring that COVID19 is an ongoing pandemic (as confirmed by WHO in December 2024) and is doggedly pushing the narrative that everyone should get back to work. Unfortunately, a person living with M.E./C.F.S has a body that doesn’t create or use energy effectively. Only 25% of all people living with M.E/C.F.S are physically able to work. This pandemic is causing irreversible harm to the populations’ health AND the economy.

Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Wes Streeting MP, has claimed he wants to NHS to focus on prevention. Yet he hasn’t mentioned what he wants to do to reduce the number of COVID19 (and Flu) infections in the general population and particularly those acquired within hospital settings. Too many people attending hospitals for outpatient appointments are are coming away with COVID19 infections. Most NHS staff are not masking and are questioning and stigmatising the minority of the public who are taking responsibility for their own health and are choosing to mask (FFp2s). Why is there no mention of air filtration in hospital settings during press conferences and TV appearances? Surely mitigations will benefit staff and patients alike? It will also help to clear the backlog; we have personal knowledge of at least 10 appointments that have been cancelled due to an ‘outbreak in the clinical area’ in the past year. Not mitigating against COVID19 (and other airborne viruses) is a significant act of self-harm.

We asked AI – ‘Why should hospitals mitigate against airborne viruses?

Hospitals should mitigate against airborne viruses for several critical reasons:

  1. Protecting Vulnerable Patients: Hospitals often care for individuals with compromised immune systems, such as those undergoing cancer treatments, organ transplant recipients, elderly patients, and those with chronic conditions. Airborne viruses can spread easily in a healthcare setting, putting these vulnerable individuals at heightened risk of serious illness or complications. By reducing airborne transmission, hospitals protect their most at-risk populations.
  2. Preventing Outbreaks: Airborne viruses, like COVID-19, tuberculosis, and other respiratory infections, can spread rapidly within healthcare settings. When these viruses circulate in the air, they can infect multiple patients, healthcare workers, and visitors, leading to widespread outbreaks. Mitigating airborne transmission reduces the risk of such outbreaks, which can overwhelm hospital resources and harm both patients and staff.
  3. Protecting Healthcare Workers: Healthcare workers are at a higher risk of exposure to airborne pathogens due to their proximity to patients and their involvement in medical procedures. If airborne viruses are not adequately mitigated, healthcare workers could contract infections, which not only impacts their health but also leads to staff shortages. Protecting healthcare workers ensures hospitals can continue to function and provide care.
  4. Reducing Cross-Contamination: Hospitals are environments where many people with different illnesses and infections are present. Airborne viruses can easily cross-contaminate different areas, infecting patients who may be undergoing unrelated treatments. By mitigating airborne transmission, hospitals can maintain a cleaner, safer environment that reduces the spread of infections between patients and different hospital areas.
  5. Improving Infection Control: Effective airborne virus mitigation (through methods like enhanced ventilation, air filtration, and isolation protocols) is a core part of infection control in hospitals. These measures complement other infection prevention efforts, such as hand hygiene and surface cleaning, ensuring a more comprehensive approach to patient and staff safety.
  6. Public Confidence: Ensuring a hospital is properly equipped to handle airborne viruses builds public confidence in the healthcare system. When patients and visitors know that hospitals are taking the necessary precautions to mitigate airborne infections, they are more likely to seek care when needed without fear of contracting an additional illness while in the hospital.
  7. Reducing Healthcare Costs: Preventing airborne virus transmission reduces the need for treating infections that spread in the hospital, which can lead to longer patient stays, additional medical treatments, and extended quarantine or isolation periods. This not only improves patient outcomes but also helps contain healthcare costs.

Overall, mitigating airborne viruses in hospitals is essential for safeguarding patient health, protecting staff, preventing outbreaks, and ensuring efficient healthcare delivery. Hospitals must prioritize ventilation systems, isolation rooms, and appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) to reduce the transmission of airborne pathogens.

Again, AI ‘gets it’, so why don’t Governments? (This isn’t solely a UK issue).
If COVID19 infections continue at the 2024 rate, M.E./C.F.S. cases will continue to rise exponentially. These are people who do not have access to appropriate care (see our Charter). Effective treatments are not available, and there is no cure. We estimate that the UK prevalence is now at least 1.25 million people. When will the UK Government and NHS start taking M.E./C.F.S. seriously? Offering us ‘cheap’ treatments such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, mindfulness and exercise -based therapies that do not work shows a deep lack of understanding about this complex neuro-immune disease.
Mitigations, equitable research funding, and an end to the stigmatising rhetoric, please.
Time for change.
**Image created by AI using the prompt ‘ UK Politicians discussing the effectiveness and potential of AI.’. Interesting to see AI has not included women in this image.

Leave a comment