4 ms·

>>You've said "study" but you're quoting an article from The Guardian. An article which describes the results of a study.. >>Also, I feel you are either misqu

>>You've said "study" but you're quoting an article from The Guardian. An article which describes the results of a study.. >>Also, I feel you are either misquoting or being disingenuous. The article you quoted quite clearly states that "The most common symptoms were breathing problems, abdominal symptoms, fatigue, pain and anxiety or depression." I'm referring to the graph in that article, which shows that anxiety/depression is the most commonly cited symptom, at 15% of survey respondents: https://i.ibb.co/27yyhGG/long-covid-symptoms.png https://i.ibb.co/27yyhGG/long-covid-symptoms.png >>Your article does not refer to the incidence of long COVID-19. Yes it does. Long-COVID typically refers to any expression of any of the symptoms listed, following a COVID infection.

nuerow 5y ago
> An article which describes the results of a study.. Presenting your own editorialized conclusions is not the same as providing a primary source. The proof is that you've tried to pass off a study on the quantification of the real world correlation of symptoms tentatively linked to long covid as, somehow, proof of a causal relationship, even though nothing of the sort was suggested. You're inadvertently demonstrated the need to check primary sources, and the role that tabloids play in disseminating misinformation
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>Presenting your own editorialized conclusions is not the same as providing a primary source. This is a discussion forum. You seem to have an axe to grind with me that's motivated by more than just what I wrote. Are you this non-charitable and critical of those who are sounding the alarm about COVID? This double standard, motivated by political preconceptions, is how dissenting viewpoints are suppressed, and only one viewpoint - that of COVID hysteria - is allowed to express itself. >>The proof is that you've tried to pass off a study on the quantification of the real world correlation of symptoms tentatively linked to long covid as, somehow, proof of a causal relationship, even though nothing of the sort was suggested. To clarify, my criticism is of the many who are in fact taking these preliminary results, and drawing the conclusion that long-COVID is afflicting one third of all COVID patients.

nuerow 5y ago

> An article which describes the results of a study.. Presenting your own editorialized conclusions is not the same as providing a primary source. The proof is that you've tried to pass off a study on the quantification of the real world correlation of symptoms tentatively linked to long covid as, somehow, proof of a causal relationship, even though nothing of the sort was suggested. You're inadvertently demonstrated the need to check primary sources, and the role that tabloids play in disseminating misinformation

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>Presenting your own editorialized conclusions is not the same as providing a primary source. This is a discussion forum. You seem to have an axe to grind with me that's motivated by more than just what I wrote. Are you this non-charitable and critical of those who are sounding the alarm about COVID? This double standard, motivated by political preconceptions, is how dissenting viewpoints are suppressed, and only one viewpoint - that of COVID hysteria - is allowed to express itself. >>The proof is that you've tried to pass off a study on the quantification of the real world correlation of symptoms tentatively linked to long covid as, somehow, proof of a causal relationship, even though nothing of the sort was suggested. To clarify, my criticism is of the many who are in fact taking these preliminary results, and drawing the conclusion that long-COVID is afflicting one third of all COVID patients.