The 1.8% number comes from your own calculations, though, right? Shouldn’t we be comparing the lizardman constant with the reported percentages, rather than this calculated number?
In this case, that might be 2.8%. But I don’t know what the methodology of the survey was. If they just asked a bunch of random people and got them to self-report whether they had covid; maybe we should actually use the percentage of people who claimed to have long covid among everyone asked, which could be lower than 1.8%.
Of course, all of these numbers are smaller than the lizardman constant anyway.
The 1.8% number comes from your own calculations, though, right? Shouldn’t we be comparing the lizardman constant with the reported percentages, rather than this calculated number?
In this case, that might be 2.8%. But I don’t know what the methodology of the survey was. If they just asked a bunch of random people and got them to self-report whether they had covid; maybe we should actually use the percentage of people who claimed to have long covid among everyone asked, which could be lower than 1.8%.
Of course, all of these numbers are smaller than the lizardman constant anyway.
You’re right, will make this correction in the main article and then get LW to pull it over.