Oh fantastic! @hziaudden has now covered the problematic paper I mentioned that the long covid minimizers like Balloux and Munro etc are loving.
Thanks Hisham! Some additional comments below, but be sure to read both of Hisham's threads.
>
Thanks Hisham! Some additional comments below, but be sure to read both of Hisham's threads.
>
https://twitter.com/HZiauddeen/status/1487247705638584322
The recruitment methods for the two groups were different. The Covid-positive group got messaged via an app typically used for official communications and was sent to *all* parents in the country with a child with a positive test history.
>
>
The control group was sourced via a message sent through a standard school app, and sent to parents in just 5 Danish municipalities (there's 98!)
The response rate was *very* different - 44.9% vs 21.3%.
The introductory text to the surveys was not provided.
>
The response rate was *very* different - 44.9% vs 21.3%.
The introductory text to the surveys was not provided.
>
No matching appears to have been done, but the median ages were provided and on the face of it, the 6-17 yr age group seems to be significantly older in the covid group than the control group (12yrs cf 10.5yrs)
>
>
2.2% of the control group report having had fever, compared to just 0.6% of the covid group. The authors admit they expected lower prevelance.
Whether undiagnosed covid or some other diseases, this group who clearly have had some other illness should have been excluded from (at least) the control.
Note that several of these weaknesses are acknowledged by the authors.
Note that several of these weaknesses are acknowledged by the authors.
So - apart from Hisham's comments, which I agree with 100%, I don't think the control group is a very good one. Significantly different recruitment methods and response rates, unmatched, from different populations (one a subset) and clearly with a significant % who had been ill.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
