Advocates working to prevent airborne infection ask us to imagine a future in which fewer children become sick. That future is worth fighting for. To make it feel urgent, they often point to children with Long COVID as the damage others should avoid.
Prevention campaigns introduce a sick child, then move on without her
A child appears. She used to run track and earn good grades. Now she has brain fog and can barely get through the day. Her life is reduced to a before and after story, with disability presented as the tragedy that ended the life she was supposed to have.
Then the message turns to prevention, and she disappears.
Sometimes there is no child's story, only a number. Six million children in the United States have Long COVID. The number carries scale and urgency. Then prevention takes over, and the children behind that number disappear too.
One child or six million, the structure is the same. Children with Long COVID establish the danger. Once they have made the case for prevention, the conversation leaves them behind.
A damaged childhood does what scientific evidence cannot
Evidence that a virus is harmful often does not create an emotional response. A damaged childhood does.
The reader is meant to replace the child on the page with a child they know. The appeal works by asking people to imagine catastrophe reaching someone they love, and a sick child is an efficient way to get them there.
The child in the story becomes invisible even while her suffering remains on display.
Disability scholars have named this pattern. Alison Kafer writes about disability being used to represent an unwanted future, one the audience is asked to prevent or reject. David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder describe "narrative prosthesis," in which disability gives a story its emotional force while the disabled person remains secondary.
The appeal works better the less the reader knows about her. A real child, with her own account of her life and her own opinions about what she needs, would complicate the warning she was brought in to deliver.
These posts keep the fear and leave out everything a child needs
These posts rarely explain how pediatric Long COVID appears in children or why it is so often missed. They rarely mention educational access, legal rights, medical care, research funding, or how a family navigates a healthcare system that still doubts the diagnosis.
What these posts leave out is everything a child needs in order to live with this condition. What they keep is the fear.
Every fear appeal adds stigma to the lives these children are already living
Public health advocacy has done this before. The disability historian Aparna Nair traced more than ninety years of campaigns. Among them is a French polio poster showing a boy on a scooter under an umbrella, the shadow of a child on crutches behind him: better to prevent than to cure. A Mexican poster from 1983 tells parents not to paralyze his dreams. A Kenyan poster from 2000 says these children were not protected against polio.
Nair finds that these campaigns make disability tragic and disabled people objects of pity. She writes that disabled people deserve better than to be held up as lessons for people who are not disabled.
Children with Long COVID are already stigmatized. They report feeling that they are valued and respected less because of the condition.
Prevention messaging lands on top of that.
The audience for a prevention campaign is the same public these children live among. Their classmates’ parents. The staff at the front desk of the clinic. A campaign that presents this condition as the outcome to fear teaches those people that a life with Long COVID is a ruined life. They carry that away with them, and then they meet a child who has it.
Health communication researchers Nurit Guttman and Charles Salmon describe this as the stigmatization effect. A message built to frighten people about a condition also teaches them what to think about the people who have it. The child becomes someone to fear and avoid.
That fear and avoidance follow the child into every system she depends on. Across stigmatized health conditions, researchers have documented what that costs: stigma shapes the medical care children receive and narrows their access to education.
A campaign meant to prevent Long COVID can narrow the life of a child already living with it.
When we raise this, the answer is another argument for prevention
We have brought this to prevention advocates. The response is that prevention protects children who already have Long COVID, since reinfection can worsen the condition.
That is accurate. It also answers a question nobody asked. What was raised is that children who are already chronically ill are being harmed by how they are portrayed. The reply once again moves the conversation away from the child and back to preventing new cases.
The children this messaging borrowed are living with Long Covid now. Many of them are missing school, sports, friendships, and the ordinary places where childhood happens. Some are no longer in the public spaces that the prevention efforts are meant to make safer, because they are too sick to be there.
We have raised these concerns for three years. We have not been heard.So hear us now. Stop using children with Long COVID as a rhetorical device.
Make the case for prevention without invoking a ‘damaged’ child
Prevention has its own evidence. Infection carries risk. Cleaner indoor air lowers transmission. Masks help too. Those arguments hold without a ruined childhood attached to them.
Nair's point applies here. Children with Long COVID are not lessons for people who are not sick.
The girl who used to run track is still here. She needs a school still invested in her education, a clinician who understands what is happening to her, research that offers more than symptom management, and adults who recognize her dignity as a person. None of that arrives because someone was frightened by her story.
Make her case with the urgency you bring to prevention.
If you would like to learn more about supporting children with Long COVID, follow our work by signing up for our newsletter. Click here.
REFERENCES:
Gross RS, Carmilani M, Stockwell MS. Long COVID in Young Children, School-Aged Children, and Teens. JAMA Pediatr. 2025;179(7):809.doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2025.1415.
Kafer A. Feminist, Queer, Crip. Indiana University Press; 2013.
Mitchell DT, Snyder SL. Narrative Prosthesis: Disability and the Dependencies of Discourse. University of Michigan Press; 2000.
Nair A. Public health campaigns and the “threat” of disability. Wellcome Collection. Published February 27, 2020.
Buonsenso D, et al. Social Stigma in Children with Long COVID. Children (Basel). 2023;10(9):1518. doi:10.3390/children10091518.
Holingue C, Villatoro C, Jacobson LA, et al. Experiences of stigma in children with long COVID. Pediatr Res. Published online May 29, 2026. doi:10.1038/s41390-026-05110-4.
Guttman N, Salmon CT. Guilt, fear, stigma and knowledge gaps: Ethical issues in public health communication interventions. Bioethics. 2004;18(6):531-552. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2004.00415.x.
Stangl, A. L., Earnshaw, V. A., Logie, C. H., van Brakel, W., Simbayi, L. C., Barré, I., & Dovidio, J. F. (2019). The Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework: A global, crosscutting framework to inform research, intervention development, and policy on health-related stigmas. BMC Medicine, 17, Article 31.
Wild, C., MacLean, A., Nettleton, S., Hunt, K., & Ziebland, S. (2024). The double invisibility of Long Covid in children. Social Science & Medicine, 347, Article 116770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116770
Pantelic M, et al. Long Covid stigma: Estimating burden and validating scale in a UK-based sample. PLoS One. 2022;17(11):e0277317.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0277317.
Rivera LA, Tilcsik A. Not in My Schoolyard: Disability Discrimination in Educational Access. Am Sociol Rev. 2023;88(2):284-321. doi:10.1177/00031224221150433.
Thurlow ML, Quenemoen RF. Revisiting Expectations for Students with Disabilities. NCEO Brief No. 17. National Center on Educational Outcomes; 2019.
Ames SG, Delaney RK, Delgado-Corcoran C, et al. Impact of disability-based discrimination in healthcare on parents of children with medical complexity. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2024;66(9):1226-1233. doi:10.1111/dmcn.15870.
VanPuymbrouck L, Friedman C, Feldner H. Explicit and implicit disability attitudes of healthcare providers. Rehabil Psychol. 2020;65(2):101-112. doi:10.1037/rep0000317.
