3 ms·

The data doesn't imply that ~everyone has long term effects because we don't know the distribution in the non-hospitalized cases. > if you have symptomatic cov

by throwaway22032 5y ago

The data doesn't imply that ~everyone has long term effects because we don't know the distribution in the non-hospitalized cases. > if you have symptomatic covid, it takes you a long time to feel "normal" again. The non-hospitalized group in this study includes both symptomatic and asymptomatic. This comment thread is a bit weird, you seem to be attacking me on an emotional basis. I'm interested because I think this data shows a good correlation between severity of disease and severity of long term prognosis, that's all. I have an interest in knowing this, as we all do, because like basically everyone else, I've had coronavirus, and if the data shows that this now means I have an elevated risk of heart issues I should be careful with things like heavy exercise. I don't think it does based on the correlation shown (I didn't have severe coronavirus), so it's actionable information. If you disagree with my assessment that a 2x multiplier on a rare event is not worrisome, that's fine - that's just like, my opinion, man. :)

davorak 5y ago
> This comment thread is a bit weird, you seem to be attacking me on an emotional basis. I'm interested because I think this data shows a good correlation between severity of disease and severity of long term prognosis, that's all. Your original comment reads as a much stronger statement: > The meat of this seems to be in confirming that if you're not hospitalized the long-term effects are minimal. Not _zero_, but very small. I think also 'the long-term effects are minimal' reads too broad since this study only covers a narrow set of long-term effects while your original comment can read as applying to all long-term effects. > If you disagree with my assessment that a 2x multiplier on a rare event is not worrisome, that's fine - that's just like, my opinion, man. :) I would want to look at the number of people effected a year before and after the change in order decide if it was worrisome or not.

davorak 5y ago

> This comment thread is a bit weird, you seem to be attacking me on an emotional basis. I'm interested because I think this data shows a good correlation between severity of disease and severity of long term prognosis, that's all. Your original comment reads as a much stronger statement: > The meat of this seems to be in confirming that if you're not hospitalized the long-term effects are minimal. Not _zero_, but very small. I think also 'the long-term effects are minimal' reads too broad since this study only covers a narrow set of long-term effects while your original comment can read as applying to all long-term effects. > If you disagree with my assessment that a 2x multiplier on a rare event is not worrisome, that's fine - that's just like, my opinion, man. :) I would want to look at the number of people effected a year before and after the change in order decide if it was worrisome or not.