4 ms·

>You appear to be using a definition of long COVID that implies something far more debilitating than what it sounds like the research in question uses. All sym

>You appear to be using a definition of long COVID that implies something far more debilitating than what it sounds like the research in question uses. All symptoms are self-reported, so who knows how severe they actually are (another massive weakness of the study). Regardless, when most people hear "long COVID," they generally think of debilitating illness. For example, the Wikipedia page for long COVID opens with: "Long COVID is the diagnosis given to a series of conditions characterized by long-term, multi-system, often severe health problems persisting or appearing after the typical recovery period of COVID-19." [0] >the 10% after 6 months number holds for enrolled participants who had not yet had COVID when first enrolled in the study That appears to be completely made up in the El País article. If you read the actual study [1], it explicitly says that "uninfected participants with a reported on-study infection and participants who had no symptom survey data were excluded." Furthermore, the El País article claims that "about 2,230 patients had their first coronavirus infection after the study started," but the JAMA article only reports 1118 uninfected controls. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_COVID https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_COVID [1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2805540 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2805540

vidarh 3y ago
What "most people" think it refers to is irrelevant to the question of whether your view of what "objective reality" is can be compared to the numbers reported by the article or not. Especially when the article states as an objective to develop a more objective definition, and the numbers they report is relative to the scoring they developed as a consequence of analysing the data. > That appears to be completely made up in the El País article. If you read the actual study [1], it explicitly says that "uninfected participants with a reported on-study infection and participants who had no symptom survey data were excluded." From the paper: > Among 2231 participants first infected on or after December 1, 2021, and enrolled within 30 days of infection, 224 (10% [95% CI, 8.8%-11%]) were PASC positive at 6 months. It seems likely these are the ones El Pais referred to, so it seems they were not all enrolled before infection, you're right. It does seem rather poor not to be clearer about the timing there.

vidarh 3y ago

What "most people" think it refers to is irrelevant to the question of whether your view of what "objective reality" is can be compared to the numbers reported by the article or not. Especially when the article states as an objective to develop a more objective definition, and the numbers they report is relative to the scoring they developed as a consequence of analysing the data. > That appears to be completely made up in the El País article. If you read the actual study [1], it explicitly says that "uninfected participants with a reported on-study infection and participants who had no symptom survey data were excluded." From the paper: > Among 2231 participants first infected on or after December 1, 2021, and enrolled within 30 days of infection, 224 (10% [95% CI, 8.8%-11%]) were PASC positive at 6 months. It seems likely these are the ones El Pais referred to, so it seems they were not all enrolled before infection, you're right. It does seem rather poor not to be clearer about the timing there.