4 ms·

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

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.
      - dekhn 3y ago
        if that's true, and people get reinfected periodically, then basically everybody will have long covid :) but not really. what you're seeing is that some fraction of the populace is susceptible to long covid (risk factor or genetic).
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

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.
    - dekhn 3y ago
      if that's true, and people get reinfected periodically, then basically everybody will have long covid :) but not really. what you're seeing is that some fraction of the populace is susceptible to long covid (risk factor or genetic).

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