And only looked at Table 1 when after 12 hours people didn't seem to pick up the query in the abstract.
I have NEVER seen anyone move so quickly to fix errors.
*THAT* is the mark of a true scientist.
It will be a permanent mystery.
But I think it is only me that is interested in that, so don't worry.
This was much easier to get agreement on.
Q. Why don't you explain on Twitter?
A. Because on Twitter, if you say something, and reply, and you don't reply back quickly, people think you are being shady or hiding something, when I am just doing my actual job
A. I have no comment on that. We DEFINITELY didn't say to do that in the paper. I don't know why they would use our paper to say that.
(agreed!)
A. After a bad infection, I would encourage them to only gradually ease themselves back into heavy activity.
(Fair enough)
A. I don't think ordinary people should worry about this at all.
(Excellent!)
A. Yes but people haven't studied it comprehensively for other viruses. Ours is the first for Covid.
A. After coronavirus, there are subtle but definitely visible abnormalities in the scans (but not the blood tests) that are beyond what are found in the risk factor matched controls... (cont)
In other conditions these features can be the precursor of heart problems many years later.
...
We will be studying these patients in the long term to see what impact these actually have.
We did try to make this clear in the paper: the need for more research.
He did give me permission to convey a summary like this of his view, and I hope it is useful.
However I hope in a few days Eike will OK me to show the video.