For COVID-19 survivors, the illness is a large economic drain, from lost working hours alone, not counting hospitalization costs.
Mostly true True in substance, wrong in a detail.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
What would count as true or false
True if economic or health studies available around mid-2020 or later show that COVID-19 illness among survivors causes substantial economic losses from lost working hours alone (i.e. lost productivity or absence is a material cost even before counting hospitalization). Mostly true if lost-work costs are shown to be significant in total but smaller per case than 'large' suggests for mild cases, so the claim holds mainly in aggregate or for moderate and severe cases. Mixed if the evidence is split, or holds only for a subset such as long-COVID sufferers. Mostly false if lost-working-hour costs are shown to be minor for most survivors and become large only once other costs are included. False if studies show that lost working time from COVID illness among survivors is economically negligible.
Set before the research began.
Evidence (4)
-
E1 Productivity loss due to acute COVID-19 and post COVID-19 condition in the Northern Netherlands PubMed Central (National Library of Medicine) · 28 October 2024
“The mean total combined productivity loss per person of those with PCC was 7,118€, compared to 3,410€ for those with acute COVID-19, and 3,076€ for those with neither.”
-
E2 Productivity loss due to acute COVID-19 and post COVID-19 condition in the Northern Netherlands PubMed Central (National Library of Medicine) · 28 October 2024
“When comparing groups, significant differences in costs were found for all aspects of productivity, except for unpaid work loss between acute COVID-19 and those with neither disease.”
-
E3 Return to work after COVID-19 infection- A Danish nationwide registry study Public Health (Elsevier), via University of Copenhagen research profiles · 1 December 2021
“Among the 7466 patients included in the study, 81.9% (6119/7466) and 98.4% (7344/7466) returned to work within 4 weeks and 6 months, respectively, with 1.5% (109/7466) not returning.”
-
E4 Return to work after COVID-19 infection- A Danish nationwide registry study Public Health (Elsevier), via University of Copenhagen research profiles · 1 December 2021
“Of the patients admitted, 72.1% (627/870) and 92.6% (805/870) returned 1 month and 6 months after admission to the hospital, with 6.6% (58/870) not returning within 6 months.”
Reasoning
A Dutch study found mean total combined productivity losses of €3,410 per person with acute COVID-19, against €3,076 for people with neither condition, and reported statistically significant differences for all aspects of productivity except unpaid work (E1, E2). Losses were far higher for post-COVID condition, at €7,118. A Danish registry study found 81.9% of patients back at work within 4 weeks and 98.4% within 6 months, with hospitalised patients returning more slowly (E3, E4). Lost work time is therefore a real, measurable cost, but per-case losses for typical acute cases are modest, so the claim holds mainly in aggregate and for more severe or prolonged cases.
Cite this claim
Nassim Taleb, “For COVID-19 survivors, the illness is a large economic drain, from lost working hours alone, not counting hospitalization costs.” (said July 2020). Verdict: mostly true. Reliability API, claim c_8d16a0956292, method 0.1.0+28da144b, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_8d16a0956292
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Nassim Taleb
-
Mostly false
“The Levant was the most stable area in the world between early 1800s and 1948, with squirmishes in 1860.”
-
Mixed
“My point was that bike lanes contribute to IMPROVEMENT in well-being and happiness WITHOUT generating economic growth.”
-
Mixed
“entities grow in a convex way, then slow as they saturate — growth may be unbounded, but remains sub-logarithmic.”
-
Mixed
“the unavoidable conclusion is that cardio problems are at least half genetic.”
-
Resolved true
“The entire article misses the point that Spitz has been bullish past 3 years.”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.