2 ms·
> The relatively paltry numbers .. Wait, what? "A total of 486,149 non-hospitalized individuals had a coded record of SARS-CoV-2 infection [...]. From the poo
by Jedd 4y ago
> The relatively paltry numbers ..
Wait, what?
"A total of 486,149 non-hospitalized individuals had a coded record of SARS-CoV-2 infection [...]. From the pool of patients with no recorded evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 1,944,580 individuals were propensity score-matched to patients infected with SARS-CoV-2."
- Stamp01 4y agoPut another way, according to Johns Hopkins, there have been a total of 24,079,325 reported cases of infection in the UK. That means a smidge more than 8% of infected people are suffering from prolonged symptoms as they are defined in this study. That is statistically significant, but not exactly overwhelming by my personal yardstick of whether or not I'd gamble money on it. Not exactly scientific, I know.
- Jedd 4y agoI may have misunderstood one or both of your numerical dismissals, then. As I read it, your first post suggested this was a blip, similar to some subset of the 8000 people in a village that thought they had increased cancer risk from a fission power plant accident. I wasn't sure what you meant by 'paltry numbers', given the study was across 2.5m patients. This post is now saying that (extrapolating) the 2 million people in the UK with long COVID are not compelling to you, either because you believe there's no connection to COVID, or because that's not many people -- I'm not sure which?
- giraffe_lady 4y agoWhat percent of your total net worth would you gamble on a 92% chance in your favor btw? Genuinely kinda curious because to me 8% is an incredibly high chance for something that would negatively affect you for the rest of your life.