And now Trump starts a new run on hydroxychloroquine by announcing he's been taking it daily for weeks (multiple news sources).
That man needs to have a cardiac side effect or come down with COVID 19 to save us all.
On another front, beware of multiple claims smokers are getting fewer cases of COVID 19. People are even coming up with rationalizations why it could prevent the infection but somehow people do worse once infected. And like the hydroxychloroquine, social media 'science' is directing research dollars to disprove what has never been established in the first place. Nicotine studies have begun.
So here's the problem, I've hunted down the claims to their sources and found basic faults in the claims.
Most of the studies look at smokers in China. But their control, the percentage of smokers in China, is using outdated numbers. And the data on smokers who have COVID 19 is as doubtful as other data coming out of China. That's all well and good but the data needs to be replicated in other countries.
Then there is another person flooding the comment sections of other papers on COVID 19 claiming the big V.A. study of more than two million vets showed smokers were 55% less likely to get infected. He links to his own Tweet as a source. In that he has a screen grab from the V.A. study. He did his own math from the chart.
The original paper where the claim in the Tweet came from, page 23:
So is Marcus right? No, he isn't. He jumped to a conclusion without considering the tested population. At first I couldn't figure out why the authors of the study weren't talking about the underrepresented smokers in the COVID positive group. Until I looked more closely.
The numbers in the graph:
It looks like smokers are 42% of the population and only 27% of them have COVID 19. Great big study, lots of people.
It's easy. Except Mr Twitter flooder doesn't understand the numbers he's looking at.
First these are vets that came into clinics because they were ill with respiratory infections. There's no control of vets who came in for something else. OK, so why are there fewer smokers testing positive?
Because they came in for respiratory infections and it was flu season! Smokers are underrepresented among COVID positive patients because they are overrepresented by other respiratory infections. Non-smokers and ex-smokers are getting more COVID and less other things.
This is what happens when people (including some science reporters repeating the claims) don't understand epidemiology and don't know how to interpret the numbers they are seeing.
And it only takes one person to flood social media with false assertions.
That man needs to have a cardiac side effect or come down with COVID 19 to save us all.
On another front, beware of multiple claims smokers are getting fewer cases of COVID 19. People are even coming up with rationalizations why it could prevent the infection but somehow people do worse once infected. And like the hydroxychloroquine, social media 'science' is directing research dollars to disprove what has never been established in the first place. Nicotine studies have begun.
So here's the problem, I've hunted down the claims to their sources and found basic faults in the claims.
Most of the studies look at smokers in China. But their control, the percentage of smokers in China, is using outdated numbers. And the data on smokers who have COVID 19 is as doubtful as other data coming out of China. That's all well and good but the data needs to be replicated in other countries.
Then there is another person flooding the comment sections of other papers on COVID 19 claiming the big V.A. study of more than two million vets showed smokers were 55% less likely to get infected. He links to his own Tweet as a source. In that he has a screen grab from the V.A. study. He did his own math from the chart.
2 FOLLOWERS
[HILITE]Marcus Constantinus[/HILITE]
@meritoest
@plantmann_1 @clairlemon Covid-19 Testing, Hospital Admission, and Intensive Care Among 2,026,227 United States Veterans Aged 54-75 Years. USA: Smokers 55% less likely to test positive for COVID-19. https://t.co/YzkKp0Hibq https://t.co/9460r0zVRD
The original paper where the claim in the Tweet came from, page 23:
So is Marcus right? No, he isn't. He jumped to a conclusion without considering the tested population. At first I couldn't figure out why the authors of the study weren't talking about the underrepresented smokers in the COVID positive group. Until I looked more closely.
So how is that affecting the data and why didn't the authors make the claim the guy who is flooding social media made? You'd think that was important to mention, even if you were looking for something else.Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study including all patients tested for Covid-19 between February 8 and March 30, 2020, inclusive. We extracted electronic health record data from the national Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States, on 2,026,227 patients born between 1945 and 1965 and active in care
The numbers in the graph:
Smoking (bolded) followed by number tested positive, then the number that tested negative
Never 1042 (27.5) 216(36.9) 826(25.8)
Former 883 (23.3) 179 (30.6) 704 (22.0)
Current 1603 (42.3) 159 (27.2) 1444 (45.1)
It looks like smokers are 42% of the population and only 27% of them have COVID 19. Great big study, lots of people.
It's easy. Except Mr Twitter flooder doesn't understand the numbers he's looking at.
First these are vets that came into clinics because they were ill with respiratory infections. There's no control of vets who came in for something else. OK, so why are there fewer smokers testing positive?
Because they came in for respiratory infections and it was flu season! Smokers are underrepresented among COVID positive patients because they are overrepresented by other respiratory infections. Non-smokers and ex-smokers are getting more COVID and less other things.
This is what happens when people (including some science reporters repeating the claims) don't understand epidemiology and don't know how to interpret the numbers they are seeing.
And it only takes one person to flood social media with false assertions.