When epidemiology is actually useful

(Bob M) #1

Another study of Type 1 diabetes being associated with Covid:

It’s still only a correlation, but T1 diabetes is some type of autoimmune disease, where the body attacks the pancreas cells. They postulate in the discussion as to what might be happening.

While I think the vast majority – maybe all – of nutritional epidemiological studies are worthless, this is a case where (1) there is no other way to get this information and (2) the results, even though small, might be meaningful.


I think it will be a long time before we learn all the ways Covid affected general health. There are a lot of long Covid cases still ongoing, a lot of new infections that are not being properly counted or observed, and there seem to be a lot of autoimmune issues connected to it. But - we don’t know anything specific, and nothing is being tracked or studied properly. One wonders if we will live to regret that.

(Robin) #3

I do believe it is being tracked. But in a patchwork way…
But doubtful they know what to do about those of us already impacted.
Unfortunately for us, senior women seem to be the most affected.


There is no more testing, and hence no data. I don’t see how tracking without data is possible - we don’t even have the slightest notion of how many cases there are, never mind who they are and what happens to them. I think that goose is pretty much cooked. Many states don’t even release how many dead there are. The population is fed up with the topic of Covid and it can’t be studied anymore. And that’s a shame, diseases that are not kown well need to be studied even more.

We do this over and over - cannabis could not be studied, nor other drugs of the day. We missed out on a lot of valuable therapeutics. Now it appears Psylocybin can cure addictions like alcoholism and nicotine. How many unnecessary deaths are due to the lack of study? We need to study all things, thoroughly.

(Joey) #5

Thanks for posting this interesting study. I noted the following cautionary caveat early in the paper…

“It is important to establish whether the reported increased incidence rates of new-onset diabetes in children are overall higher and sustained or a result of a catch-up effect from a lower incidence rate early in the pandemic likely due to delays in diagnoses.7,14

… but if there was a clear way of addressing this potentially confounding factor, I must have missed it.

Did anyone happen to spot how this concern was resolved in the study?

Instead, I see this statement:

“Therefore, hesitancy to seek care may be an important factor in the observed increased risk of DKA during the pandemic.”