3 ms·

It's annoying to come into a discussion where people are trying to figure out object-level stuff and appeal to authority. You're also overstating the case for d

It's annoying to come into a discussion where people are trying to figure out object-level stuff and appeal to authority. You're also overstating the case for doing so. The actual results in this paper are easy to understand and don't involve any complicated epidemiology or statistics, so being an "untrained amateur" isn't much of a barrier to thinking about them. I agree that the thing you were originally replying to was not a very well-thought-out criticism, and your original comment was useful and didn't require a followup sermon about humility.

Jedd 4y ago
Thanks for the corrections. Some examples of the processes followed by the authors - there's some terms in there I don't understand, but perhaps they aren't complicated to everyone else. "Structured data on diagnoses, symptoms and referrals are recorded using SNOMED CT coding terminology. Selection of SNOMED CT codes for data extraction was conducted by a team of clinical researchers using an inhouse developed software platform called Code Builder, with systematic searching of existing code lists, reference to the SNOMED CT terminology browser and through clinical knowledge and discussion. Data extraction was performed using the data extraction for epidemiological research (DExTER) tool for automated clinical epidemiological studies. "To control for confounding, each patient infected with SARS-CoV-2 was propensity score-matched with up to four patients with no recorded evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection using a logistic regression model including the covariates listed in the covariates section below and a caliper width of 0.2. The SMD between patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and patients with no recorded evidence of infection was reported for each variable before and after matching, and a variable with SMD > 0.1 after matching was considered to indicate imbalance in baseline characteristics. Kernel density plots were drawn for the two groups before and after matching to check the distribution of propensity scores." Compare against dismissive comments proposing this is all coincidental, or the data set / study is is useless because the 2-page summary article mentions 'self-reporting' (it feels this phrase has been grossly misunderstood in this thread), and some casual claims that all long COVID is psychosomatic, etc. EDIT: I don't think it's an 'appeal to authority' when you defer to expertise of the authors who've detailed their data & processes -- that's more a logical fallacy when you claim an opinion is valid because of who the author(s) is/are.
- junofan 4y ago
  I know what SNOMED is, and I don’t have to click the link to know that this report is based off some garbage NHS data or something. There’s a lot of politics involved here.
  - youainti 4y ago
    Why do you believe NHS data garbage in this case?
    - junofan 4y ago
      Experience.
spookthesunset 4y ago
> appeal to authority The entire 2.5 years has been nothing but appeals to authority. You drill anybody who supports the mitigations and the argument almost always distills down to an appeal to authority. It isn't science or data, it's blind trust in some authority.

Jedd 4y ago

Thanks for the corrections. Some examples of the processes followed by the authors - there's some terms in there I don't understand, but perhaps they aren't complicated to everyone else. "Structured data on diagnoses, symptoms and referrals are recorded using SNOMED CT coding terminology. Selection of SNOMED CT codes for data extraction was conducted by a team of clinical researchers using an inhouse developed software platform called Code Builder, with systematic searching of existing code lists, reference to the SNOMED CT terminology browser and through clinical knowledge and discussion. Data extraction was performed using the data extraction for epidemiological research (DExTER) tool for automated clinical epidemiological studies. "To control for confounding, each patient infected with SARS-CoV-2 was propensity score-matched with up to four patients with no recorded evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection using a logistic regression model including the covariates listed in the covariates section below and a caliper width of 0.2. The SMD between patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and patients with no recorded evidence of infection was reported for each variable before and after matching, and a variable with SMD > 0.1 after matching was considered to indicate imbalance in baseline characteristics. Kernel density plots were drawn for the two groups before and after matching to check the distribution of propensity scores." Compare against dismissive comments proposing this is all coincidental, or the data set / study is is useless because the 2-page summary article mentions 'self-reporting' (it feels this phrase has been grossly misunderstood in this thread), and some casual claims that all long COVID is psychosomatic, etc. EDIT: I don't think it's an 'appeal to authority' when you defer to expertise of the authors who've detailed their data & processes -- that's more a logical fallacy when you claim an opinion is valid because of who the author(s) is/are.

junofan 4y ago
I know what SNOMED is, and I don’t have to click the link to know that this report is based off some garbage NHS data or something. There’s a lot of politics involved here.
- youainti 4y ago
  Why do you believe NHS data garbage in this case?
  - junofan 4y ago
    Experience.

spookthesunset 4y ago

> appeal to authority The entire 2.5 years has been nothing but appeals to authority. You drill anybody who supports the mitigations and the argument almost always distills down to an appeal to authority. It isn't science or data, it's blind trust in some authority.