cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/1892119

Archived version: https://archive.ph/qgUwg
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230825150703/https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/08/23/risk-of-long-covid-persists-two-years-post-infection-study-shows

  • Barsukis@lemmy.ml
    ·
    10 months ago

    I wonder how is this measured, because I think by now we all have been exposed to COVID, one way or another. Sometimes without knowing. What they could be looking is simply people with a weaker immune system vs stronger immune system/ less preconditions vs more preconditions. I didn't have time to analyse the article/paper right now but with a quick read I don't think I noticed explanation how they control against that.

    • BrikoX@lemmy.zip
      hexagon
      ·
      10 months ago

      I think just a sample size negates "weaker immune system vs stronger immune system/ less preconditions vs more preconditions".

      We built a cohort of 138,818 individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection and 5,985,227 noninfected control group from the US Department of Veterans Affairs and followed them for 2 years to estimate the risks of death and 80 prespecified postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) according to care setting during the acute phase of infection.

      Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-023-02521-2

      • Barsukis@lemmy.ml
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Why would the sample size negate it?

        If you assume that people with stronger immune system and less preconditions are less likely to catch COVID, or notice having caught it, surely the sample size does nothing to prevent this bias?

        • BrikoX@lemmy.zip
          hexagon
          ·
          10 months ago

          That is outside of the paper scope. They researched people that did tested positive and compared long term effects between mild cases, those with hospitalizations and those that weren't infected.