> To be sort of nitpicky: the underlying study [0] does not argue ...
To be sort of nitpicky at the time I made that comment there were only four (IIRC) other comments here all of which were making direct causal connections.
It was less the article I was addressing and more those commenters that felt the need to jump straight into "COVID ate my homework" stories.
I can see that both yourself and I appear to agree that covid-19 is a complex disease with a great many correlations and it certainly factors into to at least some kind of indirect connection.
Of interest, perhaps, is this quote from the link I provided above:
After adjusting for differences in the age structure of the population, the proportion of people living with type 2 diabetes almost doubled between 2000 and 2013, and has remained relatively stable in the last decade.
There was no covid in the post 2000 decade, something in that time period caused type-2 diabetes to double (rise by 100%) all the same.
I hope you and I both share a similar degree of wariness towards the conclusions of meta-analysis reviews.
To be sort of nitpicky at the time I made that comment there were only four (IIRC) other comments here all of which were making direct causal connections.
It was less the article I was addressing and more those commenters that felt the need to jump straight into "COVID ate my homework" stories.
I can see that both yourself and I appear to agree that covid-19 is a complex disease with a great many correlations and it certainly factors into to at least some kind of indirect connection.
Of interest, perhaps, is this quote from the link I provided above:
There was no covid in the post 2000 decade, something in that time period caused type-2 diabetes to double (rise by 100%) all the same.I hope you and I both share a similar degree of wariness towards the conclusions of meta-analysis reviews.