https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8...
That paper shows nearly 3x the hazard ratio for ICU admission and death for the most obese people which is terrifying!
The mechanism also involves a way for SARS-CoV-2 to infect lymphocytes in fat tissue that doesn't involve ACE2, which the authors leave completely unexplained, which is whole lot of highly surprising results.
There's also simpler explanations for why the obese are at higher risk, because systemically they're in poorer shape to begin with (metabolic syndrome, etc), and mechanically they have more trouble breathing when they get sick.
The title explanation is so simplistically attractive while the biological mechanism is unexpected and unexplained, which I'd say adds up to requiring a large amount of skepticism, until it gets validated by real experts in the field (not just someone with an MD or PhD on twitter, but someone who is active in exactly this kind of research). It might be an emotionally satisfying result, but it smells like bad science to me.
Being totally open minded is actually not a virtue, you can be so open minded that you'll start to believe any sort of drivel you pour into your head because it sounds persuasive rather than being correct.
I will happily flip my impression of this paper on a dime if someone who is actually qualified to review the actual lab methods and procedures (and if adequate controls were used, etc) pops up to defend it and to explain how cells that don't express ACE2 could possibly be important in COVID-19 pathogenesis, but until then my default setting is to be critical since the paper "smells" bad. It is not a particularly "great" theory, its a very fishy smelling theory.
You seem to think that you're free to think very highly of this paper on zero experience because the headline is appealing, while someone critical of the paper needs to be an expert.
I am by no means a Covid denier, but the bottom line is: Covid is more of a symptom (of broader health and healthcare issues) than it is a Black Plague-esque disease. Since the majoriry rules, and illness has been normalized there will be few in power willing to speak truth.
It's not logical that we (in the USA) continue to side step a serious discussion about the value of prevention (and how that relates to the level of unhealthines we are on average.)
Were you alive during the Black Death I imagine you'd be talking about how, though you're no denier, it's the fault of people using ships to trade.
> The Black Death was also carried by rats on merchant ships through the trade routes of Europe. It struck Europe in 1347, when 12 ships docked at the Sicilian port of Messina. Subsequently called “death ships”, those on board were either dead or sick
Parent is using an example of a case where we know trade by ships helped cause the plague to spread, so is similar to how obese people have worse covid outcomes. No one is really going to go on a platform and attack trade by ships, though, just like in modern times no one is allowed to discriminate against the obese.
Not even close to obesity. Maybe you are looking for "allowing home ovens to bake bread attracts rats."
Again, all that's being suggested is more transparency and honesty, and less hyperbole and statistical fueled manipulation. That is all.
Then, of course, there's how well Covid does against (often) preventable conditions.
We're on the same page. Context matters. Now let's human-up and table the details about Covid. Let's stop hiding behind fearmongering aggregated data, and abuse of the use of percentages and other intentionally manipulative tactics. Finally, let's not forget to ask why? Why the thumb on the scale approach?
Please don't be snarky. It's rude and it also makes it more difficult for others to follow your train of thought. I'm not part of the original thread and I don't understand what argument you're making here.
What is GGP's actual argument for why GGGP is wrong?
Pre-print might lead to it being rejected or outcomes changed or tweaked, and it clearly needs replication in a larger study to see if the findings hold up. But equally I think being healthy and reducing your weight is likely to increase your odds of not becoming severely ill.
These things, which are usually things like diabetes, blood sugar problems, high blood pressure, elevated cortisol and so on, do correlate with poorer COVID outcomes.
My understanding is that, even when you control for these factors, outcomes for obese patients are still below what we would expect to see. This means that there is still a contributing factor that we haven't considered yet, and the parent study hypothesizes one possible reason.
There's a good chance that whatever that is, isn't actually a thing, and that people unfairly find fat people repulsive for no reason except that they are fat,
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/is-being-fat-bad-for-y...
EDIT: Another post today titled "Causal Information Affects Decisions" seems relevant here:
Like, my confusion is that I didn't think we needed to go look for a new mechanism unique to Covid here.
Some people might argue that convincing people to not get fat is much lower hanging fruit than transforming every democracy into an authoritarian apartheid state for effects that are well below any statistical significance threshold.
Listing important limitations of a study is not being negative. It is contributing to understanding the paper. The comment you are replying to is the most substantive comment in the thread.
One does not need to encourage authors with compliments, nor does one need to balance criticism with praise.
Having spent a lot of time in academia before moving into biotech, I think this is a pilot study and they're fishing for more research funding. The way those funding mechanisms work, I tend to view manuscripts like this with a critical eye.