Why does the post imply that a majority of long covid symptoms are psychosomatic?
Let’s say covid is entirely non-psychosomatic, and that we have the following groups:
(0) People who never had covid, never thought they had covid.
(1) People with asymptomatic covid, who don’t believe they had covid.
(2) People with noticeable covid, no long covid.
(3) People with noticeable covid, including long covid.
(4) People who mistake something short-term (like a cold) for covid.
(5) People who have some serious long-term issues, that they mistake for long covid.
Now we have three variables:
(a) Antibody group = (1) + (2) + (3)
(b) Belief-in-covid = (2) + (3) + (4) + (5)
(c) Claimed long covid = (3) + (5)
If group (4) is relatively small and/or group (1) is relatively large and/or group (5) is relatively large, then it makes sense that (b) is a way better predictor for (c) than (a) is.
The french study found that (a) isn’t a good predictor for (c) if you control for (b). I don’t have a good enough intuition for regression with multiple variables to know whether this is unsurprising given the previous paragraph; but my guess is that this is unsurprising given the previous paragraph.
I still don’t see how you can know that the majority of long covid is misattribution and the like. If (1) is large, and (4) + (5) are both negligibly small, then belief-in-covid will be a better predictor of long covid just because symptomatic covid is a better predictor of long covid than asymptomatic+symptomatic covid is.
Why does the post imply that a majority of long covid symptoms are psychosomatic?
Let’s say covid is entirely non-psychosomatic, and that we have the following groups:
(0) People who never had covid, never thought they had covid.
(1) People with asymptomatic covid, who don’t believe they had covid.
(2) People with noticeable covid, no long covid.
(3) People with noticeable covid, including long covid.
(4) People who mistake something short-term (like a cold) for covid.
(5) People who have some serious long-term issues, that they mistake for long covid.
Now we have three variables:
(a) Antibody group = (1) + (2) + (3)
(b) Belief-in-covid = (2) + (3) + (4) + (5)
(c) Claimed long covid = (3) + (5)
If group (4) is relatively small and/or group (1) is relatively large and/or group (5) is relatively large, then it makes sense that (b) is a way better predictor for (c) than (a) is.
The french study found that (a) isn’t a good predictor for (c) if you control for (b). I don’t have a good enough intuition for regression with multiple variables to know whether this is unsurprising given the previous paragraph; but my guess is that this is unsurprising given the previous paragraph.
Sorry, I was lumping together misattribution and the like under “psychosomaticity”, and I probably shouldn’t have done that.
I still don’t see how you can know that the majority of long covid is misattribution and the like. If (1) is large, and (4) + (5) are both negligibly small, then belief-in-covid will be a better predictor of long covid just because symptomatic covid is a better predictor of long covid than asymptomatic+symptomatic covid is.