OK, I went back and read it as everything unfolded. I more or less read it the way you and JT did.
Interestingly it was a comment that I made that kicked it all off.
I made a comment, churchill made a response to that, jman then responded to churchill explaining why his comment was dumb (correctly, imo), and then wookie came in trying to explain why churchill would make that comment.
So up until that point (and I went a bit over 50 posts back) there was nothing in the context to make it clear that wookie was saying then what he is now saying that he was trying to say.
Two posts after that one he does post a clarification. That clarification only really makes sense to me now because I have read a lot of subsequent posts on the matter. It also only makes sense if he interprets churchillâs post in just about the least charitable way that I could possibly imagine.
So I guess wookieâs claim that the context explains it only works if he interprets churchillâs comments in a really, really bizarre way. It is certainly possible that he did this (likely, in fact, given my understanding of how he views churchillâs posting on this topic), which is why in his mind it makes sense.
However in the stretch of posts I read, I saw nothing that would lead me to have interpreted churchillâs post in that specific way (To be clear, churchillâs comment was wrong, but you would have to assume a lot more to get where wookie would have to be). Maybe it was based on other comments made even earlier by churchill, but I only went back so far.
Well, glad thatâs cleared up.
Yeah finding out more about this is a big factor in my returning to some sort of normal for more than a few months at a time.
Even if the 40% reduction study is accurate, youâre still looking at a 3-4% chance, and if weâre looking at catching it 2-3 times every 5 years, thatâs a significant risk over a mid-term outlook.
Are your lasting impacts only related to athletic activity or does it impact your day-to-day in other ways too?
Athletic only. My athletic performance went from running about ~5 min mile, 12 min 2 mile and 50s 1/4-mile to 10+ min mile. Never come close to any of those again. Although tbf, I havenât seriously worked out for a long period since about 4 years after that episode. I did get essentially 1.5 years of personalized high quality training 6 times per week and never came close to that cardiovascular output. I was a GK though so it didnât matter that much. My best was a 15 minute 2 mile, never ran a somewhat serious 1/4 or mile again.
Because self reported studies are to double blinds as the Olympic swimmer that almost drowned is to Michael Phelps.
Jfc. There is effing objectivity in science and objectivity>>>subjectivity any day of the week that ends in Y.
Those that do objective, observation based work are on one side. Itâs no wonder Rogan is so popular.
Wut?
A lot of folks donât understand that studies that rely on feelings are bullshit.
ANY qualitative research? Not trying to wade into this thread, just curious.
Positive tests are in part dependent on people not feeling well.
That was so funny I forgot to laugh
-Rosanne Rosannadanna
I assume you know what I meant by feelings.
You were talking about objectivity and subjectivity.
The test numbers posted and discussed in this thread are at least partly dependent on how people are physically feeling, ie subjectivity.
No, dan is overstating things a bit here too. Thereâs also ways to do qualitative measurement and polls that are more worthwhile. Self-reported symptoms of polls with 6% positives are utter complete trash though.
Yes there are pain scales, very specific questions about function that are asked in different way to make sure the information is self consistent. And I donât know what else in medicine. Certainly in microbiology there is subjective judgements but those are done by trained staff and if they work for me they are expected to calibrate against one another.
Something more than â I canât function normally or Iâm tired all the timeâ. That is not discounting how people feel about their own health, but it needs some rigor to be more than just an opinion. Then a collection of opinions, often with the end results already predetermined by bias of the opinion collector (looking at you Emily).
If are those that donât understand these distinctions donât worry. I probably donât understand the subtleties of their expert field either. But everyone is a virologist/epidemiologist these days.
Simple question - Yes or No - do self reported studies have zero value?
That sucks, sorry to hear it⌠Scary that it can be that significant and that lasting.
No. They are leads. But far far far from definitive.
You can try to dumb down scientific discourse all you want. Iâm not willing to say that every self-reported study is dumb. In fact, Iâm pretty sure that self-reported studies on things like having you been a victim of some sort of crime can be useful.
However, the specific structure of the studies cited are pure fucking trash to try to answer the question of the prevalence of long covid. Itâs a study that you use to try to do a more serious study at best.