WHY in the latest @zalaly study the figures for long COVID (7.8% for the unvaccinated and 3.5% for vaccinated) SEEM SO LOW?
In all the research conducted on long COVID, it is important to consider three key factors:
▶️ 1. The definition of long COVID being used.
2) ▶️ 2. The duration of the study period.
▶️ 3. The characteristics of the reference sample.
If we have correctly understood the key points of this study (Ziyad will correct us if necessary), they are as follows.
3) DEFINITION of long COVID :
"An incident health outcome that first occurred between 30 days and 1 year after TO and had not been present before TO."
In most definitions, they use the value of 3 months after infection. Why here the value is from 1 month and stops at one year?🤔
4) DURATION of the STUDY PERIOD
The period is between March 1, 2020, and January 31, 2022.
So mainly until the first Omicron BA.1/2, the other Omicrons from BA.5 to XBB* and JN.1* were not taken into account in the study.
5) CHARACTERISTICS of the REFERENCE SAMPLE
This part is particularly interesting.
In this study, the % of people infected is 9%, which is considered a low but normal figure because the study concludes in March 2022. The % of long COVID seems to be calculated differently ...
6) ...compared to most studies. Instead of considering only the infected and symptomatic population or the hospitalized population, this study takes into account the uninfected population as well. This difference in calculation method explains why we may sometimes see ..
7) ..figures ranging from 3% to 60% for long COVID in other studies with different baselines. Therefore, the figures announced in this study are not low and are consistent with its methodology.
It's just important to examine the details to fully understand what we're discussing.
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.