PennName47 t1_j8tctn1 wrote

Isn’t protecting your human jobs against robotic replacements kind of a known reason for unionization by now though? As much as I like the growth of robotics and AI, I can acknowledge the issue it presents in a world that still requires a job to live. Unless these people are given UBI or helped into new positions by the company, it doesn’t seem abusive at all that they would try to unionize to save their livelihoods.


PennName47 t1_j32d839 wrote

No no, I think the distinction is very important. If your hunch is correct, and men are underreporting their symptoms, that means studies like this could be giving the wrong impression and a false sense of security to men. They may take more risks and not seek early treatment that could change the outcome of their long-term health. Just saying “women report more” can obfuscate the more salient point that men might be reporting less but are actually at more risk of long-COVID than they think.


PennName47 t1_j32bpjp wrote

….all this means is that it’s likely underreported among the male cohort. Not sure why you’re singling it out as women report more. It’s more that men report less. And that’s also just one aspect of the findings. The startling number of people with long COVID in the study is more salient.


PennName47 t1_j3284p3 wrote

That doesn’t sound accurate. I’ve seen a lot of studies that have shown persistence several months later, and of course this is ongoing because the disease is still “new”.


PennName47 t1_ixm69wc wrote

I mean, society likely DID fail him. “Society” being a very broad term for his immediate family plus the authority figures (or lack thereof) in his life. But that also doesn’t change that he’s breaking the law and needs to be duly detained for it. These things aren’t mutually exclusive.