Re:50 percent of people who survive Covid-19 face lingering ...
by bigodbiel on Monday November 15, 2021 @05:18PM
(#29233612)
>The mean (SD) age of survivors was 54.4 (8.9) years, 140 196 (56%) were male, and 197 777 (79%) were hospitalized during acute COVID-19
And you extrapolate that cohort to assume “50% of those who survive”?
I have no words how disingenuous, fearmongering, misleading and overall disgusting this type of study, and follow up “journalism” is. Reminds me of the CDC latest jewels being parroted by the same media.
Re:50 percent of people who survive Covid-19 face lingering ...
by phillc73 on Monday November 15, 2021 @03:01PM
(#29231937)
“ From a total of 2100 studies identified, 57 studies with 250 351 survivors of COVID-19 met inclusion criteria. The mean (SD) age of survivors was 54.4 (8.9) years, 140 196 (56%) were male, and 197 777 (79%) were hospitalized during acute COVID-19.”
If I am understanding that correctly, 79% of the 250,000 people included in the various studies were hospitalised. Of those 250k, around 50% developed longer lasting problems. However, it seems to me that the subjects in the study have a strong bias towards those who were hospitalised. The hospitalisation rate of 79% is much higher than the rate of hospitalisation for all people contracting COVID-19.
In reality, we don’t know the percentage of all “survivors of COVID-19” with long lasting complications, from the data presented in this study.
Re:50 percent of people who survive Covid-19 face lingering ...
by charbonneau2 on Monday November 15, 2021 @03:35PM
(#29232351)
> We were not able to stratify the risk of PASC [Postacute Sequelae of COVID-19] by severity of initial illness (for example, community-based vs hospitalized vs required care in an intensive care unit vs required invasive life-sustaining measures) or by preexisting comorbidities, patient age, or other factors that may affect an individual patient’s risk of PASC
And you extrapolate that cohort to assume “50% of those who survive”?
I have no words how disingenuous, fearmongering, misleading and overall disgusting this type of study, and follow up “journalism” is. Reminds me of the CDC latest jewels being parroted by the same media.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
If I am understanding that correctly, 79% of the 250,000 people included in the various studies were hospitalised. Of those 250k, around 50% developed longer lasting problems. However, it seems to me that the subjects in the study have a strong bias towards those who were hospitalised. The hospitalisation rate of 79% is much higher than the rate of hospitalisation for all people contracting COVID-19.
In reality, we don’t know the percentage of all “survivors of COVID-19” with long lasting complications, from the data presented in this study.
Sounds good!