4 ms·
>We didn't have positive or negative evidence that children weren't an at-risk group Why aren't the low death rates for the 0-17 cohort enough?
by aantix 5y ago
>We didn't have positive or negative evidence that children weren't an at-risk group
Why aren't the low death rates for the 0-17 cohort enough?
- woodruffw 5y agoBecause, again, children's health is not accurately reflected in adult models. "Kills adults" can be correspond to almost anything in children, and telling people to bet their children's health on an unknown respiratory disease isn't good politics or good public health policy.
- r00fus 5y agoIt's a blood/brain pathogen that is infectious via respiratory means. A lot of the "varied issues" that long-COVID sufferers deal with are more easily explained by the disruption of the circulatory system (esp. as it affects the brain - when the body's defenses kill COVID-infected brain cells en-masse that results in the "brain fog").
- DennisP 5y agoBecause people are experiencing long-term effects besides death.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoHow good is this data? How does it compare to long term effects of other common viral infections?
- throwawayboise 5y agoBut how many, and is it more than other respiratory illness?
- nsainsbury 5y agoActually, a recent meta-analysis found that when you actually add a control group, most of the "long COVID" symptoms disappear. Higher quality studies were was associated with lower prevalence of almost all symptoms. "Long COVID" appears to be almost entirely an artifact of bad science (and bad science reporting) See https://twitter.com/ShamezLadhani/status/1472622893154639876 https://twitter.com/ShamezLadhani/status/1472622893154639876 and https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(21)00555-7/fulltext https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(21)005...
- DennisP 5y agoGlad to see that. Appears to be just for children, do you know of similar studies on adults?