🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@mcnado

Im not accusing you of not reading the papers. I am accusing you of not showing competence in your interpretation.

I am well aware of the source for the metaanlaysis. Your point?

@Raccoon

@mcnado

The paper did not show a 80% rate across a representative population of those infected with COVID.... THAT is the point. I am not saying the number didnt appear in the paper, im saying you are grossly and negligently misrepresenting what it means.

@Raccoon

@mcnado

I already quoted you the part of the study that explicitly disagreed with you, you dont need to wait. Here is is again:

> The incidence is estimated at 10–30% of non-hospitalized cases, 50–70% of hospitalized cases

@Raccoon

@levisan I have two row homes and one single home. The sound is noticable usually.

@mcnado

I quote fromt he study you linked:

"The incidence is estimated at 10–30% of non-hospitalized cases, 50–70% of hospitalized cases"

It specifically states in no uncertain terms that the higher ranges above 50% were only in the case of hospialized patients, and for non-hospitalized diagnosed people it is 10-30%.

This also implies that the non-diagnosed asymptomatic crowd, which is not in this study would be even lower, implying the overall number once those people are factored in is likely to be lower still.

But as is very cleraly stated in the metareview what you said is straight up false, no study suggests an 80% figure for all people who catch covid.

@Raccoon

@mcnado

And did you read the part where they said that among studies that included all covid patients the range was up 10% to 35%.. they explicitly state the 80% was only limited to the hospitalized group.

So again, saying people with covid show up to 80% prevelance is disinformation.

I quoted this earlier do I need to go find it again?

@Raccoon

@mcnado

> Explain to me what it is you are getting from this that is different than what the authors repeatedly conclude.

Absolutely nothing. What I conclude is exactly the same as what the authors conclude and is exactly the same as what you have posted here.

It is you who are disagreeing with the authors and dont know it. I have explained to you three times now exactly what your misunderstanding and you just ignore it and keep repeating yourself. Again this is not appropriate for a medical doctor.

I will explain to you again, in this study "the patients with COVID" are specifically explained to NOT be a random sampling of the population of people with COVID. It is **not** meant to be representative of the COVID population. It is specifically only people who have unusually bad cases and wind up hospitalized. Therefore it is only representative of hospitalized COVID infected people, it is NOT representative of COVID infected people in general.

@Raccoon

@mcnado

Didnt miss it, not concluding anything different than the authors. You however did misrepresent the paper and the authors, they did not say what you keep asserting they said. They are not saying 80% of people who get COVID will likely have long-COVID. You are trying to claim they are saying something they very much are not saying.

@Raccoon

@mcnado

> is it? Here’s the study (linked below). It’s a meta-analysis from earlier in the pandemic, which looked at studies that included hospitalized and ambulatory patients.

Yes that is what the study is on. In other words.

> The study concludes jn multiple places that 80% of people with COVID will experience one or more long-term symptoms.

No that is NOT what the study concluded. The Study concluded that Of people who have severe COVID, to the point of hospitalization, those people have an 80% chance of showing long term symptoms.

What it is NOT saying is that 80% of people who get COVID will have long term symptoms. These are two entierly different assertions.

You are trying to generealize a statement specifically made about hospitalized patients to apply to everyone who has ever had the disease. That is disinformation or negligence, im not sure which. You should have been taught better in school than to make that leap.

> Do I think that’s representative? No. Is it what the study says, yes.

Then you are wrong and it is negligence, that is very much **not** what the study says.

@Raccoon

@Raccoon

Also the 80% figure was a straight up misrepresentation of the studies... in the source he linked literally NO studies stated an 80% figure for incidence of long covid as a result of COVID. The 80% figure was talking about something else and he totally misrepresented it.

@mcnado

@Raccoon

Agreed, and no i didnt miss it, that is kinda part of my point. i am arguing there is nothing remotely approaching consensus or high quality studies on this topic as of yet. As you point out it isnt even well defined in a useful way. So any assertion about long covid being real or its prevelance is negligent. The only honest answer any doctor or scientist can give right now is "we just dont know"

@mcnado

@mcnado

And that is a lie... This is **NOT** the high end estimate.. There is **no** study that estimates 80% of people with COVID will have longCOVID symptoms, not one. You read the study you quoted wrong, or you intentionally misrepresented it. I dont know which.

The 80% number cited int eh study you linked was not the upper estimate from studies and the fact you have asserted it as such now twice is very concerning to say the least.

@mcnado

Why would someone who is 1) a COVID Researcher 2) a published COVID Scientist 3) An inventor of the fastest way int he world to detect COVID 4) someone who explicitly stated covid is serious.... why would someone fitting that description give yout he impression that I think COVID isnt serious.

I will be clear and state again. COVID is a serious disease.

YEs I do agree that post-covid symptoms are a legitimate concern. But there is no solid consensus on how common it is, in fact the complete lack of consensus, combined with lack of being even able to do a double-blind controlled study, and with the very high fear factor, we have absolutely no idea how common it is. So any assertion of any number, even 10% is highly irresponsible IMO. We cant even be certain long-covid exists yet, let alone how common it is. There needs to be a lot more research before any doctor should be asserting numbers around how common long covid is. The only thing we should be saying is "there isnt scientific consensus yet and it remains an area of concern"

@AmpBenzScientist Depends what algo you want to use and what key size... any v5 is your best bet though.

@KimPerales deporting people who came here illegally is the norm in virtually every country. Even the EU deports illegal immigrants more aggressively than the USA.

@mcnado That said I do think you are unintentionally sharing disinformation, which is why I am engaging you to encourage you to be a bit more conscious of it.

@mcnado

I just double checked your study... its worse than I thought, you are even misrepresenting the study in what your saying here now.

You are citing upwards of an 80% figure, that is NOT what the study says. It says that in patients who were hospitalized with covid (so people who had extremely unusually bad casis) have upwards of the 80% figure. That is NOT saying 80% of all people with covid.

So turns out this was a much worse and damning misrepresentation on your part than I first thought. Given your credentials I'd go so far as to say its a lie and deceptive the way you stated it based onn the very source you used.

@Hyolobrika

Yea thats trivial:

gpg --output doc.sig --sign doc.txt

@skyblond