[Deleted]
Metformin shown to prevent long Covid
141–150 of 195 posts
Re: Metformin shown to prevent long Covid
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a small risk of developing myocarditis after being vaccinated, but the risk of dying of COVID in the US, for instance, was of 1.1% after being diagnosed. I’m really sorry you are going through this. People didn’t have time to better test the vaccines to ensure their safety before having to use them to prevent massive loss of life due to the disease. Perhaps we’ll find ways to alleviate the issues the vaccine…
You are spreading misinformation. The fatality rate in the US was never as high as 1.1%. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
I don’t think “misinformation” is appropriate. Given the novel nature and chaos with COVID, the limitations with best effort, rushed information, etc there were a lot of different numbers thrown around for various cohorts, etc.
Figures like 1.1% were definitely cited, especially in the early days where the initial iteration of the virus devastated congregate living and other settings. It also took about 6 months for best practices for acute management of hospitalized patients were developed. Many people died as a result who would not have after 2021.
We’re all laymen here.
Re: Metformin shown to prevent long Covid
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
The disease and the virus are two different things in standard medical parlance.
I'm not sure I follow, honestly. If you are trying to hold colloquial use to a technical measure, good luck. Even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_naming has "While COVID-19 refers to the disease and SARS-CoV-2 refers to the virus which causes it, referring to the "COVID-19 virus" has been accepted." Meaning, that ship sailed. More, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19 , clearly talks about people having the…
At least in infectious disease epidemiology as a field, "Asymptomatic COVID-19" is a perfectly accepted term.
SARS-CoV-2 "referring to the virus" is for things like "SARS-CoV-2 has a number of receptor binding sites..."
If you're talking about what a person has, even if it's mild or largely symptom free, we use COVID-19.
Re: Metformin shown to prevent long Covid
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you've been continually tested every 2 weeks for the past 3 years you might very well have had it asymptomatically
There may be a misunderstanding about terminology here. COVID-19 is the clinical disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. If you are infected by the virus but asymptomatic then you don't "have Covid".
Every infectious disease epidemiologist & physician I know uses "Asymptomatic COVID-19".
Re: Metformin shown to prevent long Covid
#145In my extended network of 1000+ people, I've heard of 2 that may have "long covid". Are people's experiences different?
You know a 1000 people who will personally tell you if they have a disorder that’s to begin with hard to diagnose and to make worse also hotly debated as even existing at all? Given everything going against it, if two people actually have told you they have long Covid, what do you reckon the real number is?
No one has told me or seemed to have experienced any of the symptoms. The two I mentioned are friends of friends.
Re: Metformin shown to prevent long Covid
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a small risk of developing myocarditis after being vaccinated, but the risk of dying of COVID in the US, for instance, was of 1.1% after being diagnosed. I’m really sorry you are going through this. People didn’t have time to better test the vaccines to ensure their safety before having to use them to prevent massive loss of life due to the disease. Perhaps we’ll find ways to alleviate the issues the vaccine…
Not to mention the fact that the risk of developing a serious heart condition after getting Covid is massively higher than for getting the vaccine—including myocarditis. Though I would like to know what that comparison looks like if were only considering young, healthy people. That data still seems difficult to come across. But, I don't think there's any reason at this point to think that the relative risk of vaccine…
Having done that comparison, really the only group where the vaccine wasn't protective against myocarditis (let alone everything else) was young men. And even then, it was more "Ehhh...?"
The myocarditis caused was also, generally speaking, milder than that caused by infection.
Re: Metformin shown to prevent long Covid
#147[Deleted]
Still, ridiculously interesting.
Re: Metformin shown to prevent long Covid
#148[Deleted]
Both points are not true.
Participants section of the paper
> We excluded people who were already taking one of the study medications or who had already received a COVID-19 treatment with Emergency Use Authorization by the US Food and Drug Administration.
Baseline characteristics table, Medical history section
> Only 17 (1.5%) of the participants had diabetes.
Re: Metformin shown to prevent long Covid
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mostly false. Overlapping confidence intervals does not mean > x% chance that the two variables' expected values are the same. If the intervals overlap, the difference is not statistically significant. Your example about random variables is largely misinformed. You're talking about things as if they are individual values. But we're talking about sample means. The probability that a sample mean for a large sample is a…
> If the intervals overlap, the difference is not statistically significant. Demonstrably false. Obvious counterexample: the study in the OP, which has overlapping confidence intervals and a statistically significant difference. Proof: just calculate the 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two means. You can figure out what the stddev was from half the confidence interval divided by the z-score for…
> You can figure out what the stddev was from half the confidence interval divided by the z-score for a 95% confidence interval, 1.96, and you get 1.02 and 1.30 for the two groups.
I'm not really interested in double checking your math, but you cannot derive the standard deviation of a sample mean confidence interval without considering the sample size. You seem to be making the same mistake again, confusing the Z score of a single value vs. the Z score of a sample mean. The standard deviation is of course going to be much larger. Why? Because you're actually looking at a difference of proportions where the values are either 1 or 0. The standard deviation is of course going to be much larger than 1%.
Ignoring that and assuming you meant to say standard error, where your math appears to work at a glance; in general, sure, overlapping confidence intervals don't mean that statistical tests of mean difference won't be significant. But... if you don't have that your effect size is probably pretty small. I would not put a lot of faith on these particular results as strong evidence of anything.
I would advocate for people to just look for overlapping curves.
> Yes obviously the distribution of an estimate of X given lots of samples is not the same as the distribution of a single sample, I never claimed it was.
Not number of samples. The sample size.
Re: Metformin shown to prevent long Covid
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
The disease and the virus are two different things in standard medical parlance.
I'm not sure I follow, honestly. If you are trying to hold colloquial use to a technical measure, good luck. Even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_naming has "While COVID-19 refers to the disease and SARS-CoV-2 refers to the virus which causes it, referring to the "COVID-19 virus" has been accepted." Meaning, that ship sailed. More, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19 , clearly talks about people having the…
> referring to the "COVID-19 virus" has been accepted." Meaning, that ship sailed.
Not exactly, "COVID-19 virus" is more like [descriptor][noun], it's saying "the virus that causes COVID-19".
On the other hand I also agree that the general usage of "covid" unfortunately means the virus for most people, but I still try to push back on it (and always try to jump in with confusion like at the start of this thread) because it has real effects, for example this "revelation" that was treated as a scandal 8 months ago? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnxlxzxoZx0
Those of us paying attention knew it the entire time because Pfizer didn't conflate the two terms. Their press release back in 2020 very specifically only talked about stopping the disease, not stopping the virus.