There are several studies on this, published from the beginning, that seem to still hold.
https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-upd...e-and-covid-19
Originally Posted by FireKitten
To the point that was previously made.
They observed that individuals with Type A blood appeared to be at significantly higher risk of contracting the virus — constituting nearly 38 percent of the ill patients, compared with the 31 percent of healthy individuals with this blood type. The risk for individuals for Type O blood appeared to be significantly lower, just 26 percent of the cases versus 34 percent of the healthy control group. Individuals with Type A blood type also represented a higher percentage of patients who succumbed to the illness — 41 percent versus 25 percent for Type O.
Now then let us rewrite this.
Type A blood ---- 38 percent of the ill patients,
Type O blood --- 26 percent of the cases
Type A blood --- --41 percent versus
I am not going to take the time to look this up because I already know that Type O blood is present in fewer people.
Aside note-
for example: 1)there is more crime in the inner city
Expected: 2) more arrests needed in the inner city
Needs: 3) more police needed in the inner city
Results: 4) Defund police due to arrests in the inner city
Too often, Statistics are used for propaganda and self interests.
Back to the virus:
Throwing our percentage figures without correlation of how percentage in the general population times a correction factor or the expected result is an error.
If you read the study you will find that no conclusion is made. A hypothesis has not even been formed.
But, they are looking and now know some things that they did not know. Not even knowing what you do not know is called ignorance.
It is a start: it is not a conclusion. There is nothing wrong with looking at this, but it is not yet a full research study. It is a gathering of information about what has been observed, great. But, we have no conclusions - yet.
Research methods must adhere to some very strong controls that are full of statistical cross controls. Those controls don't make for a news story. News people want some answers they can publish now. Sorry, that is not the way science is suppose to be presented.
So you have a news story, where an idiot gets to talk about something he knows nothing about. Nice news, I wish we knew more; it is a good start.