Long Term Effects of COVID-19

[Lurker]

Long COVID, or the government using it as an excuse to burn money?

Long Covid, chronic Covid, recurring Covid, Covid Pro, Covid MAX, Covid XL... this is going to be the new corporate and government cash cow. They're going to milk this for at least a decade.

[PlatinumGuy]

הסיבולת הגופנית של מחלימי הקורונה בגיל ממוצע של 45 שווה לסיבולת הגופנית של בני 80!!

https://hospitals.clalit.co.il/rabin/he/Pages/default.aspx

[aygart]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/media2.fairhealth.org/whitepaper/asset/The%20Impact%20of%20COVID-19%20on%20Pediatric%20Mental%20Health%20-%20A%20Study%20of%20Private%20Healthcare%20Claims%20-%20A%20FAIR%20Health%20White%20Paper.pdf

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/danielgriffinmd/status/1364636521123487744

https://twitter.com/dianaberrent/status/1367901092785315843

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/erictopol/status/1377285605340573698

[AsherO]

https://twitter.com/erictopol/status/1377285605340573698

Basically confirms what was already suspected, that long-COVID is a cytokine storm that won’t calm down.

[Lurker]

Study after 3 months: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(20)30462-4/fulltext

After 6 months: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(21)00084-5/fulltext#%20

Findings of neurological or psychiatric diagnosis in one of three people post-Covid.

[AsherO]

Study after 3 months: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(20)30462-4/fulltext

After 6 months: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(21)00084-5/fulltext#%20

Findings of neurological or psychiatric diagnosis in one of three people post-Covid.

1/3 sounds crazy high. This is overall positive “mild” cases a subset (e.g. hospitalized, ventilated, severe, etc.)?

[Lurker]

1/3 sounds crazy high. This is overall positive “mild” cases a subset (e.g. hospitalized, ventilated, severe, etc.)?

I have a bunch of questions about it. There are a lot of other variables which would add a lot of color to this picture. Looks like a third of those with diagnoses were first-timers. How many people normally get diagnosed with something like this for the first time without Covid? The whole study could be worthless.

[AsherO]

I have a bunch of questions about it. There are a lot of other variables which would add a lot of color to this picture. Looks like a third of those with diagnoses were first-timers. How many people normally get diagnosed with something like this for the first time without Covid? The whole study could be worthless.

Considering there's a control group, how do the numbers compare? I had a hard time reading the summary of their findings, no idea what x.y numbers meant or how to interpret.

[Lurker]

Considering there's a control group, how do the numbers compare? I had a hard time reading the summary of their findings, no idea what x.y numbers meant or how to interpret.

That's why I post things here 

Most diagnostic categories were more common in patients who had COVID-19 than in those who had influenza (hazard ratio 1·44, 95% CI 1·40–1·47, for any diagnosis; 1·78, 1·68–1·89, for any first diagnosis) and those who had other respiratory tract infections (1·16, 1·14–1·17, for any diagnosis; 1·32, 1·27–1·36, for any first diagnosis). As with incidences, HRs were higher in patients who had more severe COVID-19 (eg, those admitted to ITU compared with those who were not: 1·58, 1·50–1·67, for any diagnosis; 2·87, 2·45–3·35, for any first diagnosis).

If someone can do the math on the hazard ratios and translate it into plain English, it would be appreciated.

[AsherO]

If someone can do the math on the hazard ratios and translate it into plain English, it would be appreciated.

This · means ratio? Never understood how to interpret the two numbers and then the CI numbers in parenthesis. IIRC I read up on it and for a moment thought I understood what CI meant.

[Lurker]

This · means ratio?

Yes

Never understood how to interpret the two numbers and then the CI numbers in parenthesis. IIRC I read up on it and for a moment thought I understood what CI meant.

@biobook @aygart or any docs?

[aygart]

Yes
Never understood how to interpret the two numbers and then the CI numbers in parenthesis. IIRC I read up on it and for a moment thought I understood what CI meant.


@biobook @aygart or any docs?

not sure why I am tagged here.

[biobook]

Never understood how to interpret the two numbers and then the CI numbers in parenthesis. IIRC I read up on it and for a moment thought I understood what CI meant.


@biobook @aygart or any docs?

Confidence Intervals?  Someone here knows statistics, maybe they can explain.  Maybe  @Chaimel6  or @skyguy918

[skyguy918]

Confidence Intervals?  Someone here knows statistics, maybe they can explain.  Maybe  @Chaimel6  or @skyguy918

Don't know why I'm tagged here either, but '1·44, 95% CI 1·40–1·47' means that the best guess for the true hazard ratio is 1:44. But there may be only a 50% chance that that exact value is the correct one. Confidence intervals give you a range in which the true value is likely to fall. So here there's a 95% chance that the true value falls between 1:40 and 1:47.

[aygart]

Don't know why I'm tagged here either,

and then goes on to explain the statistics.

[Lurker]

not sure why I am tagged here.

Experience reading studies?

[aygart]

Experience reading studies?

That does not mean that I will know anything and everything in these studies, but I now understand why you would tag me.

[Lurker]

Don't know why I'm tagged here either, but '1·44, 95% CI 1·40–1·47' means that the best guess for the true hazard ratio is 1:44. But there may be only a 50% chance that that exact value is the correct one. Confidence intervals give you a range in which the true value is likely to fall. So here there's a 95% chance that the true value falls between 1:40 and 1:47.

Could you explain what those ratios represent here, practically speaking?