Another study showing the seriousness of Covid-19: brain fog

According to the study, from 5% to 16% of outpatients had cognitive impairment in various domains.

 

Yes these conditions are quite common in asymptomatics and the vaccinated. Vaccination cuts your chances of these effects by about half in breakthrough infections.

As with Covid in general, BMI is correlated with higher rates of these sequelae as is age. Also females tend to have higher rates.

From post #13 in this thread.

 

The article definitely left it out

 

This, on the other hand, is true. If you want to get to this information, you might want to email the study's corresponding author.

Corresponding Author: Jacqueline H. Becker, PhD, Division of General Internal Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY 10029 (jacqueline.becker@mountsinai.org).

 

No, but the maximum age in the age range is 59. Unless you consider that older I thought it answered your assertion. My initials thoughts were many of these may be older people maybe in their retirement years. I was surprised they choose a range of mainly middle aged people.

 

What "article" are you talking about? Are you looking at the full PDF?
It didn't leave out your issue with hospitalized patients. It's there. It compares their odds with outpatients and ED patients.
It didn't leave out the mean age and age range. 49, 38-59. Do you really think that that's old? I'd have to question some ageism... LOL.

It is true that they didn't break down the findings by age bracket. I don't think there is any "convenient" idea behind this; what kind of bias are you seeing? It's a simple study. They simply didn't go that far. The study is what it is. People who want to publish fast don't always go through excruciating statistical detail and it also depends on the grant and how they can compensate a biostatistician. But the information may be available if you contact the corresponding author.

 

If they want a study based on COVID they should do it in a manner that showed effects of all age ranges. We know that COVID effects different ages differently. So I’m sure this does as well. The study doesn’t show an accurate picture if you don’t test all those who are possible of being effected.

 

Just trying to give you an explanation based on the study of why you observed no change in behavior. The thing is I am not sure how much observational evidence there will be to the casual observer. Maybe the patient may notice but I am curious as to what percentage even realize they have been impacted.

 

This is correct. I posted above the study that talks about odds being cut in half.

 

To be fair we truly don’t know the number of people who have had COVID either.

 

Why don't you apply for a grant and run a study, then? I'm sure you'll do much better than these people from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine (one of the finest in the United States).

They recruited; that's the population they got. The age ranges fell into what they reported. Do you think they go on the streets with a lasso trying to get older patients so that "Joe knows" gets satisfied?

By the way, it's affected, not effected.

 

Well if I can point out holes (being how insignificant I am) then they obviously are not that prestigious are they

 

I am not a medical researcher but my guess would be that this is an initial study. What you are implying is because the test was not comprehensive enough it is not accurate. I would assume in the real world where time, resources are limited studies like this are standard. If the results prove promising they will do other studies. If you were a researcher and looked at this study and thought there was something to this you could expand on it. Or if you disagreed you could do research to debunk it.

 

I never implied it was not accurate. I implied how are we suppose to take this into consideration as an actual significant threat if they did not show how it effects all ages? Should we use info in this study to mandate vaccines on kids? Should it then be argued that the risks are higher for everyone when they left out large portions of ages? This study has shortcomings for sure.

 

I agree. The point of doing research is to make it public and put it up for scrutiny. I think the criticisms need to be restricted to the contents of the study though. I am sure the researchers would agree a much bigger sample and range of ages would get better results but time and limited resources is a given.

What I would like to see done in with this research is to change the baseline group from the standard population. I know the idea of the study was to observe impact of covid but I saw no mention of vaccinated vs unvaccinated patients. If the majority of the people in this study were unvaccinated then the baseline should be pulled from the population of the unvaccinated.

 

I think if people were to try to use this study as a reason to vaccinate kids you would have a valid point. We should be careful making any critical decision based on a single study. As the research progresses and more studies take place and if these results are confirmed the argument becomes more powerful.

 

I failed to read the whole thread before responding to @Pants. I should look for some more recent data on Delta. I think the UK study we are going off of was pre to mid Delta for the UK.

 

Except that those are things that you think are holes, but are not. Studies don't need to be all-encompassing. What they set up to do, they did well, and other studies can add to that (or, people interested in more details can consult the corresponding author, like I said; that's exactly the point of publishing the full contact information of the corresponding author). All studies have limitations because no part of the scientific effort can look at everything. Science advances by small step, one researcher building up on the steps left by a previous researcher. There is nothing wrong with this published, peer-reviewed study. If you think that there is, it betrays a lack of familiarity with how these things are done.

 

Absolutely. Damn right. This is a fine study, published, and peer reviewer, and there will always be malcontents (cough cough @Joe knows cough cough) who will say that they should have done this or that in addition to what they did. Well, these people then should apply for a grant and run their own studies; they would grow a HUGE appreciation for how difficult the process is.

 

could this be what happened to the people on Jan 6th, their brains are broken from covid?

Probably why Q taking hold with some too

 

Delta was first spotted in the UK in March of 2021. By May of 2021, Delta was recognized as the predominant (that is, more than 50%) variant in the UK. By mid to late June it already accounted for 99% of the Covid-19 cases in the UK.

The study I linked to was published on September 1, 2021. They looked at data entered from December 8, 2020 through July 4, 2021.

So the tail end of data collection fell on a time when Delta had fully taken over, but the earlier pieces of the data precede that.

December, January and February, pre-Delta. March, April, May, mid-delta. June, July, post Delta's full takeover.
So this study was pre to mid to post Delta for the UK.

Yes, it would be good to see a second one with data collected entirely post-Delta. But then people will say "it was before Delta+", or the next big one.

The variants will keep coming, and we keep looking at the data, but considering data collection, analysis, writing up the papers, submission, peer review, and publication, when the papers reach us, they will always be already a bit outdated. This comes with the territory of an evolving situation. This particular study, with data collection going to July 4, and less than 2 months later it is already peer-reviewed and published, actually went fast.

 

I try (but I don't always succeed) to refrain (some of the time) from making of this, a political issue. This virus is an equal opportunity offender. Democrats catch it too. Actually some significant chunks of the population (Latino and blacks minorities, inner cities, for example) that traditionally vote Democrat, have had some regrettable rates of contagion. Also, the US Republican Party and the US Democratic Party only exist in one country among the 210 countries and territorial possessions on Earth, and this virus is everywhere, hitting people of all ideologies, all ethnic backgrounds, all races, all genders, etc. - so it pays off more to think of it as a biological entity than a political one.

If we hadn't politicized this virus and the measures to control it so much, we'd have fared way better and would have had fewer deaths and fewer damaged organs. So maybe it is high time to put politics aside and think of the biological / public health side of this pandemic.

 

totally agree, Trump making it political was his biggest mistake, he should have let Pence handle it

 

The trouble with what you outline is that the political leadership isn't really worried about who and how many get hurt. This is a political weapon without equal and the fight is always going to be political. This is a very effective bioweapon, it has crippled the Western economy and China is running pedal to the metal. The United States of America is never going to be the same again.

 

Ok. I didn’t know exactly when delta took over in the UK.

I’m pretty happy with timeliness of publication on most common vid studies.