5 ms·
I wish I had a dogecoin for every HN comment where a study is rejected because of a possible confounding variable that the researchers did control for and repor
by ProblemFactory 5y ago
I wish I had a dogecoin for every HN comment where a study is rejected because of a possible confounding variable that the researchers did control for and reported.
From the news article:
> The disorders were significantly more common in COVID-19 patients than in comparison groups of people who recovered from flu or other respiratory infections over the same time period
They controlled for the world situation, lockdown and even being sick with another illness. Of course the knowledge that you have covid could be stressful in itself, but that's also a result of covid.
- elif 5y agoI have also noticed the trend in HN comments toward kneejerk reactionary pessimism typically rooted in preestablished ideological positions.
- refurb 5y agoIt’s a combination of people not reading the articles AND the absolute crap ton of bad research that gets published. 9 times out of 10, if the finding goes against conventional wisdom, it’s because the research was poor. I’m saying this as a scientist who has published before.
- slibhb 5y ago> Of course the knowledge that you have covid could be stressful in itself, but that's also a result of covid. It's not just the result of covid. It's also the result of studies like this.
- peytn 5y ago> All cohorts included patients older than 10 years who had an index event on or after Jan 20, 2020 There were lockdowns on Jan 20, 2020? I thought lockdown measures basically eliminated influenza diagnoses—-were the majority of control cases diagnosed before lockdown measures were implemented?