5 ms·

Coincidence that both those symptoms also happen as consquences of chronic stress.

WaxProlix 4y ago
And increased age, too, but they claim to control for these things: > matched with a control group of 1.9 million people with no recorded evidence of coronavirus infection Still could be lurking variables of course.
Jedd 4y ago
This feels like another of those cases where some random guy on the internet intimates that with just a few moments' consideration they've uncovered a fatal flaw in a huge study (500k actual, 2m control) conducted and reviewed by experts. Specifically to your implication - if you're suggesting the chronic stress came from having COVID, then it's a valid side-effect of the disease. OTOH if it's a background effect of the pandemic, then (naively) I'd suggest that with those cohort numbers it's naturally controlled for, as both the 500k and the 2m demographics both lived / are living through the same pandemic. EDIT: if you're concerned with the tone of my first paragraph, please click on parent's profile to understand my phrasing choice.
- wtetzner 4y ago
  Except that it's self-reported symptoms, from people who know whether or not they had COVID. Doesn't seem like especially reliable data.
  - Jedd 4y ago
    > Doesn't seem like especially reliable data. Please, do go and read the actual published article that this summary is referring to - it's available here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01909-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01909-w If you find some flaws in their data or methods, you should definitely let the authors know what they've missed. EDIT: Btw, what does 'self-reported symptoms' mean to you?
- johnfn 4y ago
  Really? You don't think that living in a pandemic and also getting the disease associated with that pandemic wouldn't be an inherently more stressful situation than not getting the disease? It seems like a potential confounder to me. > EDIT: if you're concerned with the tone of my first paragraph, please click on parent's profile to understand my phrasing choice. Fair - but remember that your negative tone is read by everyone, not just GP.
  - Jedd 4y ago
    > Really? You don't think that living in a pandemic and also getting the disease associated with that pandemic wouldn't be an inherently more stressful situation than not getting the disease? Well, two things. First, I think I addressed that in the first point of my second paragraph. Second, I don't believe it matters what I think, as I'm not an expert, or even terribly well informed, on this subject. Refer to the list of authors at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01909-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01909-w It's possible that those 37 qualified & experienced professionals have missed some basic aspects of epidemiology, statistics, etc that are obvious to an untrained amateur who hasn't looked at the source data -- but that supposition shouldn't be the starting position of a casual reader, and it's that exhausting phenomenon I rail against. HN readership includes some breathtakingly smart people - but the rest of us don't acquire that via forum-osmosis.
    - buscoquadnary 4y ago
      > 37 qualified & experienced professionals On am aside based on my understanding of academia I could believe that many of them are qualified. I find it less likely that all 37 reviewed the paper, data and methodologies with throughness.
      - spookthesunset 4y ago
        > I find it less likely that all 37 reviewed the paper, data and methodologies with throughness. Don't forget we live in a highly politicized environment where going against the narrative gets you banned, censored, mocked, and dethroned. There is very strong incentives to publish things that support the narrative. Doesn't even matter if the methods used to arrive at the conclusions make any sense. As long as it supports the narrative, it's good stuff. To do otherwise can cost your career.
- Genghis_9000 4y ago

And increased age, too, but they claim to control for these things: > matched with a control group of 1.9 million people with no recorded evidence of coronavirus infection Still could be lurking variables of course.

Jedd 4y ago

This feels like another of those cases where some random guy on the internet intimates that with just a few moments' consideration they've uncovered a fatal flaw in a huge study (500k actual, 2m control) conducted and reviewed by experts. Specifically to your implication - if you're suggesting the chronic stress came from having COVID, then it's a valid side-effect of the disease. OTOH if it's a background effect of the pandemic, then (naively) I'd suggest that with those cohort numbers it's naturally controlled for, as both the 500k and the 2m demographics both lived / are living through the same pandemic. EDIT: if you're concerned with the tone of my first paragraph, please click on parent's profile to understand my phrasing choice.

wtetzner 4y ago
Except that it's self-reported symptoms, from people who know whether or not they had COVID. Doesn't seem like especially reliable data.
- Jedd 4y ago
  > Doesn't seem like especially reliable data. Please, do go and read the actual published article that this summary is referring to - it's available here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01909-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01909-w If you find some flaws in their data or methods, you should definitely let the authors know what they've missed. EDIT: Btw, what does 'self-reported symptoms' mean to you?
johnfn 4y ago
Really? You don't think that living in a pandemic and also getting the disease associated with that pandemic wouldn't be an inherently more stressful situation than not getting the disease? It seems like a potential confounder to me. > EDIT: if you're concerned with the tone of my first paragraph, please click on parent's profile to understand my phrasing choice. Fair - but remember that your negative tone is read by everyone, not just GP.
- Jedd 4y ago
  > Really? You don't think that living in a pandemic and also getting the disease associated with that pandemic wouldn't be an inherently more stressful situation than not getting the disease? Well, two things. First, I think I addressed that in the first point of my second paragraph. Second, I don't believe it matters what I think, as I'm not an expert, or even terribly well informed, on this subject. Refer to the list of authors at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01909-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01909-w It's possible that those 37 qualified & experienced professionals have missed some basic aspects of epidemiology, statistics, etc that are obvious to an untrained amateur who hasn't looked at the source data -- but that supposition shouldn't be the starting position of a casual reader, and it's that exhausting phenomenon I rail against. HN readership includes some breathtakingly smart people - but the rest of us don't acquire that via forum-osmosis.
  - buscoquadnary 4y ago
    > 37 qualified & experienced professionals On am aside based on my understanding of academia I could believe that many of them are qualified. I find it less likely that all 37 reviewed the paper, data and methodologies with throughness.
    - spookthesunset 4y ago
      > I find it less likely that all 37 reviewed the paper, data and methodologies with throughness. Don't forget we live in a highly politicized environment where going against the narrative gets you banned, censored, mocked, and dethroned. There is very strong incentives to publish things that support the narrative. Doesn't even matter if the methods used to arrive at the conclusions make any sense. As long as it supports the narrative, it's good stuff. To do otherwise can cost your career.
Genghis_9000 4y ago