4 ms·

Not everyone in the pre-vaccine world would have ended up on a ventilator due to covid. If the was a subset of the population who are at risk due to covid. (ot

by rob_c 5y ago

Not everyone in the pre-vaccine world would have ended up on a ventilator due to covid. If the was a subset of the population who are at risk due to covid. (other than the over 80s the sake of argument). Its difficult to know how much an impact on this subset the virus will be having. Its easiest to assess this by looking at those of the population on who did end up in hospital and trying to determine common effects by looking at those who contacted them and comparing the probabilities. Ultimately the end goal is to infer how much of a risk impact this would/could have on the total population. Failing to correct for the statistical population differences before making an inference is akin to saying A&E centers in the US or the EU are great for preventing tiger attacks. They don't treat it due to there not being so many tigers. Again reporting on the worst case scenario for the virus impact on over 80s as being something that would/could impact 8yo people is obviously incorrect and potentially dishonest.

viraptor 5y ago
I think you expect more from the study than it explicitly says. From the abstract: "Interpretation. These results accord with reports of ‘Long Covid’ cognitive symptoms that persist into the early-chronic phase. They should act as a clarion call for further research with longitudinal and neuroimaging cohorts..." Yes, the impact and recovery will be different between those people. They didn't intend the paper to be a complete answer and with the method they used, it would be impossible to achieve. What you ask for is interesting and I hope other papers will be published digging deeper, but why not accept this result for what it is?
- rob_c 5y ago
  Again, hence my warning about the quality of the lancet and how the published result will be interpreted. It's no different from a theorist publishing on arxiv "an analysis on the chances of the lhc destorying the solar system" vs "micro singularity formation cross sectional calculations for 7TeV". The ultimate "further study needed" has become a comical tag line for poor stats and might as well be "chances of covid leading to me winning the lottery". Both are valid questions, but they have clear implications beyond enhancing scientific rigour.
  - viraptor 5y ago
    > and how the published result will be interpreted. I think we lost that long time ago when news started hyping up any study containing "cancer" and reporting their ideas as "researchers say". The best we can do is discuss details as we do here, but without the hyperbole. There are claims made by the study and there are things not done in it. (whether missed or not possible to do from the data) Let's acknowledge them. But I think the "winning the lottery" is just going ad absurdum. If you'd like to see the split of impact for smaller groups, it will have to come from another paper. But it doesn't make this paper wrong or show "poor stats".
    - rob_c 5y ago
      I'm sorry, but I strongly, firmly, believe with evidence based research to back my concerns that this is a large amount of alarmist research which at best is to cash in on readily available covid money. I unfortunately believe this to be shortsighted and ultimately unethical. This is a virus from the covid family. What reasonable assumption should lead us to suspect it behaves so strongly asymptomatically as to cause severe hitherto unheard of side effects compared to say "bird-flu"? I am very much up for caution and as I say I very much welcome a renewed effort to say compare long term flu effects and things like cronif fatigue. But I think writing about evidence being inconclusive vs "there is no evidence to suggest" are strongly different lines for a journal which knows has the attention of a major global news source. This is the difference between publishing this in nature and saying "more research needed" rather than "cautiously there is no strong evidence for". In not invoking ad-abusurdism I'm highlighting mixing 2 statistically unlikely events can reveal unfortunate data points which incorrectly leads to the wrong result. If I caught the lottery after being diagnosed I could say I've strong evidence for when I don't. This is no different to getting cancer after being diagnosed and blaming cancer on covid from 1 case. We are in vaccine autism territory again with long term covid studies and I just hope that the research community (not an individual researcher) and the media tred carefully. So far they have both been rather like a bull in a china shop with their subtleties.

by rob_c 5y ago

viraptor 5y ago

I think you expect more from the study than it explicitly says. From the abstract: "Interpretation. These results accord with reports of ‘Long Covid’ cognitive symptoms that persist into the early-chronic phase. They should act as a clarion call for further research with longitudinal and neuroimaging cohorts..." Yes, the impact and recovery will be different between those people. They didn't intend the paper to be a complete answer and with the method they used, it would be impossible to achieve. What you ask for is interesting and I hope other papers will be published digging deeper, but why not accept this result for what it is?

rob_c 5y ago
Again, hence my warning about the quality of the lancet and how the published result will be interpreted. It's no different from a theorist publishing on arxiv "an analysis on the chances of the lhc destorying the solar system" vs "micro singularity formation cross sectional calculations for 7TeV". The ultimate "further study needed" has become a comical tag line for poor stats and might as well be "chances of covid leading to me winning the lottery". Both are valid questions, but they have clear implications beyond enhancing scientific rigour.
- viraptor 5y ago
  > and how the published result will be interpreted. I think we lost that long time ago when news started hyping up any study containing "cancer" and reporting their ideas as "researchers say". The best we can do is discuss details as we do here, but without the hyperbole. There are claims made by the study and there are things not done in it. (whether missed or not possible to do from the data) Let's acknowledge them. But I think the "winning the lottery" is just going ad absurdum. If you'd like to see the split of impact for smaller groups, it will have to come from another paper. But it doesn't make this paper wrong or show "poor stats".
  - rob_c 5y ago
    I'm sorry, but I strongly, firmly, believe with evidence based research to back my concerns that this is a large amount of alarmist research which at best is to cash in on readily available covid money. I unfortunately believe this to be shortsighted and ultimately unethical. This is a virus from the covid family. What reasonable assumption should lead us to suspect it behaves so strongly asymptomatically as to cause severe hitherto unheard of side effects compared to say "bird-flu"? I am very much up for caution and as I say I very much welcome a renewed effort to say compare long term flu effects and things like cronif fatigue. But I think writing about evidence being inconclusive vs "there is no evidence to suggest" are strongly different lines for a journal which knows has the attention of a major global news source. This is the difference between publishing this in nature and saying "more research needed" rather than "cautiously there is no strong evidence for". In not invoking ad-abusurdism I'm highlighting mixing 2 statistically unlikely events can reveal unfortunate data points which incorrectly leads to the wrong result. If I caught the lottery after being diagnosed I could say I've strong evidence for when I don't. This is no different to getting cancer after being diagnosed and blaming cancer on covid from 1 case. We are in vaccine autism territory again with long term covid studies and I just hope that the research community (not an individual researcher) and the media tred carefully. So far they have both been rather like a bull in a china shop with their subtleties.