tly that there are more frequent storms. You have to put in all the other variables or else it's obviously fake news.

So I'm going to call it fake news because they leave out the obvious things. You put in it and then that same story that they linked to as their source for their claim, they show an animation of what Charleston, the city of Charleston, would look like under a number of scenarios of rising sea level. And the rising sea level that they estimate for Charleston — and these are not predictions, these are just what-ifs — so they show you a graphic of what if the sea level around Charleston went up one foot and then it shows that areas would be flooded. And it says what if it goes up two feet. Two feet of sea level rise, Charleston's got much more problems. But what if it's four feet? Four feet of rise and Charleston's largely underwater.

Now what's missing from that analysis? What are the odds that the sea level is going to go up a foot? Is anybody predicting the sea level will go up a foot? I thought that predictions were more like inches. Like two inches is going to be a problem and you know if it's four inches it's a big problem. But who's talking about four feet of sea level rise? I mean that just seems like complete propaganda to me. I don't even know if anybody's talking about that. I hope not.

Is long COVID real or not? Believe it or not, that's a question now. I think everybody agrees it's real. We don't know if it's smallish or biggish. That's the bigger problem. So Professor Francois Balloux tweeted this, that there's a preprint study. Do you know what to think about preprint studies, everybody? If I say there's a preprint study, how much credibility do you give a preprint study? Low, right? So the correct answer is low. So this is a low credibility. Doesn't mean it's wrong. Low credibility just means you can't necessarily know if it's true. And this says that when they measure — they studied a bunch of people in the UK and found out that almost nobody, like a tiny, tiny percentage, might have something that you could call long COVID.

Now remember the estimates have been as high as 25 percent. Now if long COVID is affecting 25 percent, that's a big part of your decision-making process. But if it's way less than one percent, maybe not so much. So it's a big deal whether long COVID is 25 percent of the public or way less than one percent. But there's also a sketchiness in the coding and the data collection. So apparently doctors code different things differently. So they don't necessarily code it as long COVID because they might not know it's long COVID. They might just think it's a second problem. A lot of people probably don't bother going to the doctor. They just feel shitty for months. They don't know why. They just figure it's something else. So we doubt that the data on long COVID is even close to accurate.

But to be fair, I've told you that the numbers show it could be as high as 25 percent and now I've told you that it could be as low as less than one percent. So I'm just trying to give you the range of what it might be. And if that changes your calculation about decision-making, maybe you should. Maybe you should. I would say that it's starting to affect mine. Because the longer we go without really solid evidence of long COVID being a big problem, the longer we go without that, the less I think it might be. It's sort of the same strategy that on day one you say, well maybe, maybe not. But the longer you