4 ms·

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

by 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

> 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.