5 ms·
Wait, first and foremost age is tied to severe Covid-19 Then overall health, how many other pre-existing conditions and ongoing health issues patients already
by glofish 6y ago
Wait, first and foremost age is tied to severe Covid-19
Then overall health, how many other pre-existing conditions and ongoing health issues patients already have.
Then there is the dose and the exposure the patient has.
These are by far the largest contributors.
I find it hard to believe that they have successfully disentangled all these confounding factors.
Then and only conditionally perhaps the factors that the director lists. In all, I find the blog a staggering piece of how NOT to communicate, how not to send the wrong message. Most people will read this as: "blood type A is really bad"
GWAS in general is weak stuff, even in the cited paper the odds ratios are 1.5 and 1.77 which does not indicate a particularly strong effect. Statistically may be significant, but in a practical sense not actionable. As far as GWAS studies go most turn out to be nonsense anyway.
- bobcostas55 6y ago>As far as GWAS studies go most turn out to be nonsense anyway. [citation needed]
- glofish 6y agoA continuously updated list of bad genetics studies https://massivesci.com/notes/gwas-complex-behavior-bad-biorxiv-genome-wide-association-study/ https://massivesci.com/notes/gwas-complex-behavior-bad-biorx... the only reason why not most GWASare listed there is because it does not pay to prove that a GWAS is a nonsense, it is way too much work to disprove, and you don't get paid/supported for doing so
- drocer88 6y agoWere any of those particular papers disproven, retracted or were not able to be reproduced? This paper , "Genome-wide association studies: the good, the bad and the ugly" : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4952840/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4952840/ claims "the vast majority of associations identified by GWASs are extremely robust statistically and are reproducible in additional studies.".