4 ms·

There's a lot of discussion here about getting tested for the gene, but the gene isn't as important as you might think from the title. The article states that t

• MichaelZuo 3y ago
  That sounds like a pretty decent reason to get tested for it? Plus modern tests can sample hundreds of gene in one batch. So they will only become better as time goes on, as more linked genes are discovered.
  • kbelder 3y ago
    If it changes your odds from "1 in 100" to "1.6 in 100", you might have better things to spend your time worrying about. Absolute risk is important to keep in mind, not just relative risk. Depends on things like other risk factors, though. And like you say, if you can isolate ten genes that each have a similar effect, then you're getting somewhere.
  • talldatethrow 3y ago
    Getting in a car today probably increases your odds of brunt force trauma by 1000x that day, but in the end the odds of dying that day in a car are still very low.
• BaseballPhysics 3y ago
  The language there is weird ("fold" is always an ambiguous way to express relative increases, but it's especially weird here). I assume that means a 60% higher chance?
  • omnicognate 3y ago
    I can't think of any other way to interpret it. A x-fold increase of y is x times y.
    • colanderman 3y ago
      "Increase" is ambiguous here. If I said a 160% increase, that is typically taken to mean that the new value is 260% of the original. So "1.6-fold" could mean the same, or it could mean 160% of the original.
      • omnicognate 3y ago
        No, the "-fold increase" form specifically means multiplying by that value, not adding that multiple of the value. A "3-fold increase" always means increasing to 3 times the original value, not adding 3 times the original value (which would be a 4-fold increase). See [1], the wiki link in the sibling comment to yours and many other results from googling "fold increase". The percentage variant, in contrast, is indeed ambiguous, the "60% increase" mentioned in the comment I responded to ironically only being unambiguous because the purely multiplicative interpretation (going to 60% of the value) would be a decrease. Such ambiguous use of percentage changes is common and annoying, and it would be good to see more use of the unambiguous "x-fold increase" wording. [1] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fold-increase https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fold-in...
    • BaseballPhysics 3y ago
      Seems Wikipedia agrees, so that's something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fold_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fold_change In which case a 60% increased probability is a very significant increase. Seems like a valid thing to test for when assessing someone for long COVID, given it still remains somewhat of a diagnosis of exclusion.
      • dekhn 3y ago
        it's a relative risk, and the underlying absolute risk was very small, so even if 60% sounds big, testing everybody isn't the right solution.
        • renaudg 3y ago
          IIRC the absolute risk of long Covid is 7-15% per infection, which is anything but very small.
  • jncfhnb 3y ago
    It’s the standard term for such things. I think it makes sense. Consider a 140% increase. Or a 1400% increase. It’s a bit hard to internalize what those mean. 2.4x and 15x is easier