3 ms·

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768351 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768351 N = 143 https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/6

by dvt 6y ago

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768351 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768351 N = 143 https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm N = 270 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2768915 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/... N = 100 The rest of the studies cited by Mayo are all in the same range, feel free to check. Mayo Clinic or not, you're seriously going to draw conclusions over this?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
faitswulff 6y ago
What, pray tell, does it take for something to be considered "scientific" in your mind? Those sample sizes are nothing to sneeze at for a brand new pandemic. And what conclusions do you think anyone is drawing other than "some percent of people are affected by covid for the long term?" Especially on the comments for a post detailing a significant percent of covid positive athletes being affected by myocarditis?