New COVID hysterics?

Via Pat the Berner on Twitter, sounding like he's trying to score points on Warmonger Joe's coronavirus coverage.

He cites a medical news site which, first, gets the ratios of the original study (abstract) wrong. IF that study has real facts, then the COVID rate in the middle of last summer was underreported by 24-fold, not 44-fold.

But, does the original study have real facts? The full study (PDF, pre-proof) says maybe not.

First, the persons in the survey were asked about "COVID-like symptoms" as well as contacts, etc.

Second, that's from last August, and as noted, it's a pre-proof. But, the story date of the site citing it? Feb. 27 of this year. It doesn't tell us if there is a final version that was printed in that journal, and if so, did it have significant differences from the pre-proof and other things. (Nor does the abstract page, which itself was just written / content-uploaded on Feb. 20.)

Third, there's the issue of what counts as actual COVID symptoms:

COVID-19 symptoms included any of the following: fever of >100OF, cough, runny nose and/or nasal congestion, shortness of breath, sore throat, fatigue, muscle/body aches, headaches, loss of smell/taste, nausea, vomiting and/or diarrhea

Really? Even in summer, you have no idea if that's from a summer cold, a less likely but still possible summer flu, or plain old allergies. Note that it says ANY of these symptoms, not ALL. In other words, it's an "OR," not an "AND," per your old Venn diagrams and elementary-school logical terminology.

Surely, it was. more than that. Yes, they did ask about positive test results, but in an iffy way:

The survey questionnaire (Appendix 2) ascertained SARS-CoV-2 testing results of viral PCR, rapid antigen and/or at-home rapid diagnostic tests taken in the 14 days prior to the survey.

Let's look at that.

First, 14 days is a big window. And, with NO asking about test results in the 14 days AFTER, well, you've left the door wide open for the symptoms above and COVID to have a purely correlational and not causal connection.

Second? At home tests are about 80 percent accurate. Better than nothing, but not fantastic. And, the study doesn't say how many respondents used what tests. As for research about the at-home tests' accuracy rate? This appears to cover only false negatives, which would bolster the survey. But, how do we know there aren't false positives?

Third? The definition of Long COVID in the piece is vague and also, even more than COVID (like) symptoms, dependent on self-reporting. And, the self-reporting also involved a leading question:

Respondents in our survey who reported a history of prior COVID were asked “Would you describe yourself as having ‘long COVID’, that is you experienced symptoms such as fatigue, difficulty concentrating, shortness of breath more than 4 weeks after you first had COVID-19 that are not explained by something else?”

Hard to believe that an A-grade journal would have published this as written, with things like this. So, we're presumably looking at a pre-proof that wasn't published, or if it were published, it was at some other site.

Fourth? Even if this survey IS airtight, it was still more than six months ago. Contra Pat's claim that COVID is not endemic NOW, this has nothing to do with that. Unless he really believes the survey is airtight then AND reflective of 25x misreporting today.

Contra that, per Worldometers, even if you reject its claims about declining case numbers, there's no really easy way to explain yourself around the declining death rates. The flip side would be, if you think COVID is THAT prevalent, then it truly and fully is "just the flu" on strength.

And, if THAT's the case? I've got beachfront 5-year protection mRNA vaxxes to sell him. Pat would be better off nailing Warmonger Joe on why we don't have non-mRNA boosters, as I was doing months ago.

Let me reiterate and restate the last two paragraphs, for Pat, who I suspect may not be just trying to "own the neolibs" here but may be a People's CDC fellow traveler. You CANNOT both have your cake and eat it on this issue. COVID can't be both much more prevalent AND more deadly (or even semi-deadly) than official statistics.