Again, the authors are overselling their results.
The authors said in the statistic section that “statistical significance was set at p<0.05.” (page 5, line 212). However, later they wrote “The descriptively higher proportion of females with long COVID bordered statistical significance (p=0.05)” page 5, line 230) and “However, the different proportions of men and women with long COVID (22% and 33%, respectively) bordered towards statistical significance […]” (page 10, line 318). As a statistician, I felt very mad about this, because the results speak a different language, this is non-significant result.