2/n Paper is here, it's really your bog-standard epidemiological study. The authors took a large database of people who had tested positive to COVID-19 and compared them to people who hadn't in Israelhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221321982031240X …
-
Show this thread
-
3/n The two groups were different in loads of ways. However, after putting all the variables into a statistical model, they found that asthma appeared to still be significantly connected to risk of COVID-19!pic.twitter.com/gci3cfcuF5
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
4/n They then went on to suggest that this statistically significant result may mean that asthma is protective against COVID-19, although the mechanism is unknownpic.twitter.com/NXSyAXXyYU
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
5/n Now, most epidemiologists are probably already groaning, because this is a very beautiful example of the Table 2 fallacy, which is a pretty common problempic.twitter.com/Gtus24RHP2
1 reply 0 retweets 21 likesShow this thread -
6/n The basic issue here is that you have to be VERY CAREFUL with your statistical models. If you just lump everything in together it can make the results a bit meaningless
1 reply 0 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
7/n There's also a problem in this study that boils down to selection bias You see, the study wasn't looking at every person infected with COVID-19 It was looking at everyone who TESTED POSITIVE TO COVID-19
2 replies 0 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
8/n This creates an issue known as selection bias. The group of people that is selected to be studied (due to who got a test for COVID-19 in Israel earlier this year) may not be representative of the population in crucial ways that could have biased the results
1 reply 0 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
9/n For example, we know that asthma diagnoses are very variable by many characteristics, which may also make people more or less likely to go get tested for COVID-19 (young men, for example - lots of asthma, might avoid testing)pic.twitter.com/VvkzTdo93f
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
10/n It also makes correcting for confounding challenging, because we do not know which biases are influencing the SELECTION of participants
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
11/n Ultimately, it's a bit hard to say more than that people with asthma were less likely to have a positive COVID-19 test in the group of people presenting for testing in Israel earlier this year
1 reply 0 retweets 14 likesShow this thread
12/n While that's a bit less sensational than the headline, it's also a bit more truepic.twitter.com/LLhY2Dw0EK
-
-
13/n I should also note - the study itself is fine, generally, but the limitations section doesn't really discuss some of the biggest drawbacks of their methodology which I don't lovepic.twitter.com/iHFE2FPRyA
2 replies 0 retweets 15 likesShow this thread -
14/n Anyway, the most likely explanation to me for fewer people with asthma getting COVID-19 is that we told them to be careful not to catch the respiratory infection because they could easily die and so they were more careful Inhalers? Ehhhhh
9 replies 2 retweets 55 likesShow this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.