4 ms·

Interesting counterpoint to consider is that there was a study that showed that 50% of people who said they had covid never actually had covid. Can’t find the s

Interesting counterpoint to consider is that there was a study that showed that 50% of people who said they had covid never actually had covid. Can’t find the specific reference but it was a study around covid symptoms. I think ultimately what’s annoying is that even though there may be some real post-viral complications there’s probably a lot of people who are saying they have long covid that don’t. Long covid also doesn’t mean anything, could mean lung damage or it could mean brain fog.

sdenton4 4y ago
Cancer doesn't mean anything... It could be liver cancer or it could be brain cancer.
- kaczordon 4y ago
  Correct, different types of cancer have varying levels of seriousness and probability of survival. I’d rather have skin cancer than brain cancer.
groby_b 4y ago
With all due respect: If you claim something as outlandish as "50% of people who claim they had covid never had covid" with the words "can't find the study", it really isn't a counterpoint to consider.
- buza 4y ago
  I believe this is the study being referenced. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2787741 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2787741
  - kaczordon 4y ago
    Yep that’s the one, google search was pretty much useless for finding this.
  - groby_b 4y ago
    Thank you for sharing - and note that this is not the full study. If you follow the ling for the full study, you end up at https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2785832 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar.... I recommend reading the comments, there are serious concerns about the validity of the study. There are also fundamental math errors - which the authors acknowledge, search for "we acknowledge" in the comments. Funny part - even while acknowledging it, they still fail to do the math correctly - PPV is 39.7% not 59%. Still not enough, read Esther Rodriguez' comment on the paper. Still not enough, read this post on numerical inconsistencies: https://pubpeer.com/publications/0a3dd058f6fb53312c5ddd858ad7e7#8 https://pubpeer.com/publications/0a3dd058f6fb53312c5ddd858ad... (Although I think this is possibly addressed by https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2790329 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... - but I currently don't have the time to follow up in detail) The paper is, as the kids say, "somewhat sus". Might be innocent mistakes. Might even still be a correct conclusion - but this paper alone can't stand by itself, and there's nothing else backing it up (as far as I can tell with a quick search)

sdenton4 4y ago

Cancer doesn't mean anything... It could be liver cancer or it could be brain cancer.

kaczordon 4y ago
Correct, different types of cancer have varying levels of seriousness and probability of survival. I’d rather have skin cancer than brain cancer.

groby_b 4y ago

With all due respect: If you claim something as outlandish as "50% of people who claim they had covid never had covid" with the words "can't find the study", it really isn't a counterpoint to consider.

buza 4y ago
I believe this is the study being referenced. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2787741 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2787741
- kaczordon 4y ago
  Yep that’s the one, google search was pretty much useless for finding this.
- groby_b 4y ago
  Thank you for sharing - and note that this is not the full study. If you follow the ling for the full study, you end up at https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2785832 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar.... I recommend reading the comments, there are serious concerns about the validity of the study. There are also fundamental math errors - which the authors acknowledge, search for "we acknowledge" in the comments. Funny part - even while acknowledging it, they still fail to do the math correctly - PPV is 39.7% not 59%. Still not enough, read Esther Rodriguez' comment on the paper. Still not enough, read this post on numerical inconsistencies: https://pubpeer.com/publications/0a3dd058f6fb53312c5ddd858ad7e7#8 https://pubpeer.com/publications/0a3dd058f6fb53312c5ddd858ad... (Although I think this is possibly addressed by https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2790329 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... - but I currently don't have the time to follow up in detail) The paper is, as the kids say, "somewhat sus". Might be innocent mistakes. Might even still be a correct conclusion - but this paper alone can't stand by itself, and there's nothing else backing it up (as far as I can tell with a quick search)