2 ms·

BTW I’m on mobile so didn’t re read that study but when I read the myocarditis study a month ago it turned out that the base rate of myocarditis was really no d

BTW I’m on mobile so didn’t re read that study but when I read the myocarditis study a month ago it turned out that the base rate of myocarditis was really no different than the COVID-19 rate and thus the whole scare was more or leas unfounded. For studyi these supposed long-term effects I like to look at SARS-1 studies since we’ve had almost two decades. What we find is a few months of raidological ling abnormalities that heal, and mild cognitive deficits that linger for up to a year before disappearing completely. SARS-1 is miles worse than SARS-2 so the idea that young asymptomatic COVID-19 cases will end up with long term health problems is just completely farcical. Unfortunately reading these studies requires a very critical lens. You showed that in your above comments but, for example, the person alleging these unproven and speculative long term impacts appears not to take that critical approach.

timr 6y ago
"I’m on mobile so didn’t re read that study but when I read the myocarditis study a month ago it turned out that the base rate of myocarditis was really no different than the COVID-19 rate and thus the whole scare was more or leas unfounded." Generally agreed. There have been a few papers on this, and most of them were...flawed. To say the least. This paper is the latest to suggest lurking heart problems in young healthy people, and while the sample is quite small and the observed metrics are questionable, I haven't seen anyone seriously attack the methodology. But in general, I'm skeptical of the claim as well, and I wouldn't suggest that this paper is definitive evidence of anything. "Unfortunately reading these studies requires a very critical lens. You showed that in your above comments but, for example, the person alleging these unproven and speculative long term impacts appears not to take that critical approach." 100% agreed. It's been a general problem with all of these Covid-related pre-prints. Terrible, flawed studies get picked up by the media and credulously reported. By the time the flaws are found by serious researchers, the media is on to the next headline, never taking time to correct the record.

timr 6y ago

"I’m on mobile so didn’t re read that study but when I read the myocarditis study a month ago it turned out that the base rate of myocarditis was really no different than the COVID-19 rate and thus the whole scare was more or leas unfounded." Generally agreed. There have been a few papers on this, and most of them were...flawed. To say the least. This paper is the latest to suggest lurking heart problems in young healthy people, and while the sample is quite small and the observed metrics are questionable, I haven't seen anyone seriously attack the methodology. But in general, I'm skeptical of the claim as well, and I wouldn't suggest that this paper is definitive evidence of anything. "Unfortunately reading these studies requires a very critical lens. You showed that in your above comments but, for example, the person alleging these unproven and speculative long term impacts appears not to take that critical approach." 100% agreed. It's been a general problem with all of these Covid-related pre-prints. Terrible, flawed studies get picked up by the media and credulously reported. By the time the flaws are found by serious researchers, the media is on to the next headline, never taking time to correct the record.