Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

youth-in-asia18 t1_isugky3 wrote

Reply to comment by NotYourSnowBunny in Severe COVID-19 may increase the risk for schizophrenia by chrisdh79

this is just spit balling, but if you do enough studies you’ll find some spurious correlations

−6

roostertree t1_isyq2jd wrote

>if you do enough studies you’ll find some spurious correlations

That's not sound reasoning. Poorly designed studies make poor results, not the frequency of study. I'm amazed a moderator has let it stand.

"I braked so much OF COURSE I hit something."

1

youth-in-asia18 t1_isytcqx wrote

not sure how that isn’t sound. there’s a whole field of statistics dedicated to controlling for this type of statistical error within studies, why would it not be true of studies on a meta-level?

i agree that most studies i see here are poorly designed. so you’re right, you do enough poorly designed studies you’ll find some spurious correlations.

2

roostertree t1_isz784h wrote

Good point. I likely underestimate the amount of COVID study going on. Maybe too many craptastic "freedom convoy" tweets have passed my eyeballs.

Though I am disappointed that "could"s and "may"s make such big headlines, which helps drive speculation..

2

youth-in-asia18 t1_iszj4fx wrote

yeah it’s honestly upsetting, i would like r science to be about science but instead it seems to have mostly a large bias towards sensationalism and a small bias towards neoliberal politics

2