41–50 of 147 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sensitivity of such a test would be 0. This test had a sensitivity of 91% versus 61% for the glass slide count method, which is a large improvement. The sample size is pretty small here and the control group even smaller. The paper concludes that a larger study is necessary to confirm the result.
That is exactly why I gave that example. Why does the headline focus on accuracy then?
94% accuracy sounds extremely bad, no? https://www.ssph-journal.org/journals/public-health-reviews/... > Prevalence estimated (...) 2%–3.5% in primarily non-hospitalized children. So a fake test always saying "No" would be more accurate at 96.5% accuracy.
Accuracy is a nonsense word in this context Tests have a sensitivity (1 - percentage of false negatives) and specificity (1 - percentage of false positives) "Accuracy" usually refers to sensitivity. If specificity is near 100% and the test is cheap/fast even low sensitivity can be good On the other hand you could have sensitivity of 100% but the test could be useless if specificity is low and the condition is rare
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4614595/#:~:text=Ac...
That is exactly why I gave the trivial example of an "always No" test. It has perfect specificity (zero false positives) and has accuracy corresponding to prevalence. The sensitivity is zero, however, which is the point.
Edit - this comment is incorrect --- The title should be edited. It sounds as if the test is 94% accurate at detecting long covid, but in fact it's 94% accurate at counting microclots > We estimated a 94% accuracy for the microclot count using the devices, significantly higher than the traditional counting of microclots on slides (66% accuracy)
> We evaluated the diagnostic power (...). We estimated a 94% accuracy for (our method), significantly higher than the (traditional method) (66% accuracy).
Both methods have counting in their name, but they are comparing the diagnostic power.
The paper claims that 1/5 of people experience Long COVID after an infection. Given that approximately everyone has caught COVID by now, this does not track with how rarely I've heard of people with it. Wikipedia lists much lower numbers on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_COVID (6–7% in adults, ~1% in children, less after vaccination.) and seems to use a more liberal definition than this paper, as it mentions "Mos…
For a variety of reasons, hyping the threat of infection has been a pretty widespread practice among the medical and scientific community since COVID began. There's no way on earth 1 out of 5 kids are still experiencing symptoms 3 months out.
The paper claims that 1/5 of people experience Long COVID after an infection. Given that approximately everyone has caught COVID by now, this does not track with how rarely I've heard of people with it. Wikipedia lists much lower numbers on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_COVID (6–7% in adults, ~1% in children, less after vaccination.) and seems to use a more liberal definition than this paper, as it mentions "Mos…
Never enough to warrant going to a doctor unless I was being super paranoid (and spend a long time convincing them I wasn't paranoid) but just enough to always wonder if there was something more to the story.
The paper claims that 1/5 of people experience Long COVID after an infection. Given that approximately everyone has caught COVID by now, this does not track with how rarely I've heard of people with it. Wikipedia lists much lower numbers on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_COVID (6–7% in adults, ~1% in children, less after vaccination.) and seems to use a more liberal definition than this paper, as it mentions "Mos…
It takes very severe disability for it not to be brushed off as depression, anxiety, burnout, or blamed on lifestyle. Additionally, a lot of those numbers are based on earlier strains of COVID, which were much more severe. I suspect the 1/5 figure is largely true for "has some degree of cardiovascular damage and worsened general health after COVID", but the number of people actually disabled by the condition is much…
Edit - this comment is incorrect --- The title should be edited. It sounds as if the test is 94% accurate at detecting long covid, but in fact it's 94% accurate at counting microclots > We estimated a 94% accuracy for the microclot count using the devices, significantly higher than the traditional counting of microclots on slides (66% accuracy)
No, you are parsing this wrong. > We evaluated the diagnostic power (...). We estimated a 94% accuracy for (our method), significantly higher than the (traditional method) (66% accuracy). Both methods have counting in their name, but they are comparing the diagnostic power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It takes very severe disability for it not to be brushed off as depression, anxiety, burnout, or blamed on lifestyle. Additionally, a lot of those numbers are based on earlier strains of COVID, which were much more severe. I suspect the 1/5 figure is largely true for "has some degree of cardiovascular damage and worsened general health after COVID", but the number of people actually disabled by the condition is much…
And the lipid nanoparticle based Covid prevention shots caused myocarditis in some younger males, so earlier incidence of cardiovascular complications vs. the present (when most people especially younger healthy males are choosing not to take updated boosters) would correlate with that as well.
The paper claims that 1/5 of people experience Long COVID after an infection. Given that approximately everyone has caught COVID by now, this does not track with how rarely I've heard of people with it. Wikipedia lists much lower numbers on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_COVID (6–7% in adults, ~1% in children, less after vaccination.) and seems to use a more liberal definition than this paper, as it mentions "Mos…
It takes very severe disability for it not to be brushed off as depression, anxiety, burnout, or blamed on lifestyle. Additionally, a lot of those numbers are based on earlier strains of COVID, which were much more severe. I suspect the 1/5 figure is largely true for "has some degree of cardiovascular damage and worsened general health after COVID", but the number of people actually disabled by the condition is much…
This is (probably) not a Long Covid story but I found that bloodletting (for which I even received money!) gave me back the energy that I was missing for the last few years (e.g. it was impossible to build stamina). I also read about a study about the positive effects of bloodletting[1] that somehow is not all the rage in mainstream news, which I find perplexing. If it might be so easy to improve your health (for som…
If this works, how is anyone going to make money off of it?