To the authors of this paper: excellent work. Your careful critique of the study is very enlightening. I lack formal training so I appreciate your contribution, it's much better than anything I could do.
To look at the Long COVID phenomenon objectively I think that maybe the Bradford Hill criteria should be applied. A lot of the hard thin…
To the authors of this paper: excellent work. Your careful critique of the study is very enlightening. I lack formal training so I appreciate your contribution, it's much better than anything I could do.
To look at the Long COVID phenomenon objectively I think that maybe the Bradford Hill criteria should be applied. A lot of the hard thinking has been done already in general, it just needs to be applied in this case. When the letter asked for stratification by severity, this corresponds to the dose dependent response criterium.
Unfortunately it seems that the PASC is so amorphous as to be untestable by others. I think it would be helpful if the progenitor of the PASC concept would define a core set of symptoms/sequelae so that others could do independent analyses without being accused of selective inclusion of symptoms.
To the authors of this paper: excellent work. Your careful critique of the study is very enlightening. I lack formal training so I appreciate your contribution, it's much better than anything I could do.
To look at the Long COVID phenomenon objectively I think that maybe the Bradford Hill criteria should be applied. A lot of the hard thinking has been done already in general, it just needs to be applied in this case. When the letter asked for stratification by severity, this corresponds to the dose dependent response criterium.
Unfortunately it seems that the PASC is so amorphous as to be untestable by others. I think it would be helpful if the progenitor of the PASC concept would define a core set of symptoms/sequelae so that others could do independent analyses without being accused of selective inclusion of symptoms.