Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank(medrxiv.org)
medrxiv.org
Brain imaging before and after Covid-19 in UK Biobank
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.11.21258690v2
98 comments
This sort of thing is one of the more disturbing things to me about COVID-19, and why I wish there was a less exclusive focus on death in talking about the pandemic. Clearly that's important but there's these hugely significant problems not captured by focusing solely on death.
Is there some reason to expect that covid-19 is different in long term effects than a flu? This study is saying it causes substantial brain damage, right? What possible mechanism is there for this?
Lots of diseases result in nerve damage. Polio was famous for this, after all. Different viruses infect different tissues. This is why we don't like getting sick, and push vaccines where we can.
Infectious diseases that don't have long term effects are actually comparatively few in numbers -- those are the ones we tend to "get sick" with, for the simple reason that they aren't worth the effort of trying to control.
This "flu" thing just won't die. No one expert EVER likened covid to "the flu", beyond pointing out that, like Influenza, it presents as an upper respiratory infection. Everyone knew from that first cluster in Wuhan that this was much, much more dangerous. Everyone told you that. Everyone trustworthy, anyway.
So why do you continue to insist, after nineteen months, that this is just "the flu"?
Infectious diseases that don't have long term effects are actually comparatively few in numbers -- those are the ones we tend to "get sick" with, for the simple reason that they aren't worth the effort of trying to control.
This "flu" thing just won't die. No one expert EVER likened covid to "the flu", beyond pointing out that, like Influenza, it presents as an upper respiratory infection. Everyone knew from that first cluster in Wuhan that this was much, much more dangerous. Everyone told you that. Everyone trustworthy, anyway.
So why do you continue to insist, after nineteen months, that this is just "the flu"?
Adding onto this comment.
A lot of viruses do really shitty things to you. HIV, HPV, etc etc
And we've seen covid pass the BBB in mice. So expect more info like this.
A lot of viruses do really shitty things to you. HIV, HPV, etc etc
And we've seen covid pass the BBB in mice. So expect more info like this.
[deleted]
> Everyone knew from that first cluster in Wuhan that this was much, much more dangerous. Everyone told you that. Everyone trustworthy, anyway.
I hope you find the CDC to be trustworthy because the CDC says on their website that the flu is more dangerous than covid for young people.
"For young children, especially children younger than 5 years old, the risk of serious complications is higher for flu compared with COVID-19."
"However, for adolescents, the risk of serious COVID-19 illness is less than in children younger than 5."
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm
I agree with you that there are people who cavalierly dismiss the dangers of covid. But there are also people who oversell and exaggerate the dangers as well. Both are doing a disservice to people and society in general in my opinion.
Perhaps you meant covid is much more dangerous to some portions of the population while the flu was more dangerous to other portions of the population? Though I guess things could change in the future with more data and information.
I hope you find the CDC to be trustworthy because the CDC says on their website that the flu is more dangerous than covid for young people.
"For young children, especially children younger than 5 years old, the risk of serious complications is higher for flu compared with COVID-19."
"However, for adolescents, the risk of serious COVID-19 illness is less than in children younger than 5."
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm
I agree with you that there are people who cavalierly dismiss the dangers of covid. But there are also people who oversell and exaggerate the dangers as well. Both are doing a disservice to people and society in general in my opinion.
Perhaps you meant covid is much more dangerous to some portions of the population while the flu was more dangerous to other portions of the population? Though I guess things could change in the future with more data and information.
> I agree with you that there are people who cavalierly dismiss the dangers of covid.
Don't call it the flu. It's not the flu. It's killed 20x more people than the flu even in the fact of pervasive society-changing mitigation strategies (all while the flu itself has all but gone extinct, remember! All that masking and distance learning actually worked!). It's not the flu.
Beyond that, nitpick with my phrasing all you like. This is HN, after all.
It's not the flu.
Don't call it the flu. It's not the flu. It's killed 20x more people than the flu even in the fact of pervasive society-changing mitigation strategies (all while the flu itself has all but gone extinct, remember! All that masking and distance learning actually worked!). It's not the flu.
Beyond that, nitpick with my phrasing all you like. This is HN, after all.
It's not the flu.
> All that masking and distance learning actually worked!
Across US states, there is no correlation, let alone causation, between stringency of masks/social distancing/lockdown and outcome.
Across US states, there is no correlation, let alone causation, between stringency of masks/social distancing/lockdown and outcome.
I'm curious what you're citing here. I've actually seen lots and lots of charts that show the opposite. Are you maybe thinking of some of the non-scientific arguments that included the initial (extremely large) March 2020 outbreak in NYC in the "mask wearing" bucket, despite the fact that almost all those infections occurred before the lockdown?
Here is the quiz the sibling comment is probably referring to:
https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
I don't have anything offhand anymore, it's more from a variety of sources over the whole past year. But from what I've seen most people cite, and the way you mentioned NYC, I'm guessing the charts you've seen are single location over time, rather than results across comparable locations (which is what I'm remembering - one example, months ago there was a test someone made for fun that showed you case/death outcome curves for various comparable locations and you had to pick out which one(s) did or did not have measures taken. I didn't save the link and have been looking for it on and off since then, but haven't been able to find it).
The problem with those one-location-over-time ones is that quite often people don't take into account the incubation period and testing delay - for example, in Illinois cases started dropping the day stricter lockdowns went into effect Nov last year, which means it wasn't the stricter lockdown that did it because the effects of the lockdowns would've taken 2-3 weeks to show up in the numbers.
The problem with those one-location-over-time ones is that quite often people don't take into account the incubation period and testing delay - for example, in Illinois cases started dropping the day stricter lockdowns went into effect Nov last year, which means it wasn't the stricter lockdown that did it because the effects of the lockdowns would've taken 2-3 weeks to show up in the numbers.
Not disagreeing that Covid19 is a much more lethal disease, can you point to some reference that compares covid death to flu related death (prior to covid).
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/past-seasons.html
Worst season in recent memory was 61k deaths among influenza patients. Last year saw 600k americans die of covid.
Meanwhile flu fatalities cratered due to the pandemic response. Full data isn't available yet, but this site has some details (e.g. pediatric flu deaths dropped between 37x and 199x -- there was ONE child who died of the flu last year):
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/season/faq-flu-season-2020-2021.htm
Worst season in recent memory was 61k deaths among influenza patients. Last year saw 600k americans die of covid.
Meanwhile flu fatalities cratered due to the pandemic response. Full data isn't available yet, but this site has some details (e.g. pediatric flu deaths dropped between 37x and 199x -- there was ONE child who died of the flu last year):
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/season/faq-flu-season-2020-2021.htm
Meanwhile flu fatalities cratered due to the pandemic response.
That's not at all clear. Different areas have had vastly different levels of response to Covid, but the flu disappeared everywhere. So either minimal levels of non-pharmaceutical interventions are sufficient to virtually eradicate the flu, or something else is going on. Viral interference seems likely: https://www.statnews.com/2021/01/31/a-viral-mystery-can-one-...
That's not at all clear. Different areas have had vastly different levels of response to Covid, but the flu disappeared everywhere. So either minimal levels of non-pharmaceutical interventions are sufficient to virtually eradicate the flu, or something else is going on. Viral interference seems likely: https://www.statnews.com/2021/01/31/a-viral-mystery-can-one-...
No, it's 100% true. Flu deaths are just data. You can't argue with data. You're engaging in excuse-making to try to rule out the most obvious hypothesis for the enormous drop in deaths. You can't deny that it happened.
And while such excuses do exist, they don't represent consensus opinions anywhere. Those who believe them are essentially 1:1 with those who want to believe that covid "is only as bad as the flu", which is provably false.
And while such excuses do exist, they don't represent consensus opinions anywhere. Those who believe them are essentially 1:1 with those who want to believe that covid "is only as bad as the flu", which is provably false.
> Worst season in recent memory was 61k deaths among influenza patients. Last year saw 600k americans die of covid.
Those aren't directly comparable because the various flus have been circulating for years/decades and people have died all across that time. While people do have cross-immunity with sars-cov-2 and other coronaviruses, sars-cov-2 is new so it's hitting those decades of people all at once.
The currently estimated IFR across all age groups is around 0.15%, putting it on-par with the flu (something like 0.07% IIRC; this one is hard to pin down because there's a lot of different flus). And in the past few months, cases have spiked without a spike in deaths all over the place, so that 0.15% is probably going to drop more, especially with indications that the Delta variant is more infections but less serious. (That said the effect the past few months could be the effect of the vaccines; it's not clear to me if that's supposed to affect the estimated IFR or that estimation is for a vulnerable population (but I'm not sure how you could estimate a vulnerable population for one that's been around for a while, so I think it does still count))
Those aren't directly comparable because the various flus have been circulating for years/decades and people have died all across that time. While people do have cross-immunity with sars-cov-2 and other coronaviruses, sars-cov-2 is new so it's hitting those decades of people all at once.
The currently estimated IFR across all age groups is around 0.15%, putting it on-par with the flu (something like 0.07% IIRC; this one is hard to pin down because there's a lot of different flus). And in the past few months, cases have spiked without a spike in deaths all over the place, so that 0.15% is probably going to drop more, especially with indications that the Delta variant is more infections but less serious. (That said the effect the past few months could be the effect of the vaccines; it's not clear to me if that's supposed to affect the estimated IFR or that estimation is for a vulnerable population (but I'm not sure how you could estimate a vulnerable population for one that's been around for a while, so I think it does still count))
> The currently estimated IFR across all age groups is around 0.15%, putting it on-par with the flu
Yeah, that's gonna need one hell of a cite. This is false.
Yeah, that's gonna need one hell of a cite. This is false.
The OP correct about best estimates for IFR at a global level, and you shouldn't be dismissing the number out-of-hand.
The difficulty with "global average IFR" is that it neglects the massive variation in IFR by age. This Nature paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0
made an attempt to break down the IFR by demographic, and found an almost 100,000-fold difference between the youngest and the oldest groups:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0/figures/2
As such, the "IFR" for a country is going to vary dramatically with the age of the population. It isn't particularly meaningful to talk about IFR as a single number, but it's decidedly true that for anyone under 60, the risk of death is measured in fractions of a percent.
For those under 25, the risk is measured in thousandths of a percent.
The difficulty with "global average IFR" is that it neglects the massive variation in IFR by age. This Nature paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0
made an attempt to break down the IFR by demographic, and found an almost 100,000-fold difference between the youngest and the oldest groups:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0/figures/2
As such, the "IFR" for a country is going to vary dramatically with the age of the population. It isn't particularly meaningful to talk about IFR as a single number, but it's decidedly true that for anyone under 60, the risk of death is measured in fractions of a percent.
For those under 25, the risk is measured in thousandths of a percent.
Here you go: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33768536/
> Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries and locations.
> Acknowledging residual uncertainties, the available evidence suggests average global IFR of ~0.15% and ~1.5-2.0 billion infections by February 2021 with substantial differences in IFR and in infection spread across continents, countries and locations.
Good grief. I don't even have to click on that to know you've misinterpreted or the paper is garbage. We've measured 600k US deaths (with a real count somewhat higher, excess death metrics usually overshoot that by 20-30%)? You'd need 400M+ Americans to even make that work. What's the contention here, magic unmeasured multiple infections? People dying more than once?
So, OP provided a high-quality source, and you're ignoring it without reading it, because you know it's wrong? Without reading it. Is that right?
> Don't call it the flu. It's not the flu.
The original commenter didn't call it the flu as far as I can tell. He wrote: "Is there some reason to expect that covid-19 is different in long term effects than a flu? This study is saying it causes substantial brain damage, right? What possible mechanism is there for this?".
Nowhere did he call it the flu.
> It's killed 20x more people than the flu even in the fact of pervasive society-changing mitigation strategies (all while the flu itself has all but gone extinct, remember! All that masking and distance learning actually worked!).
No. It killed 20x more people than the flu in 2020 to now. But the flu has killed far more people overall. The flu epidemic of 1918 killed 50 million people, far more than covid.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/reconstruction-19...
> Beyond that, nitpick with my phrasing all you like. This is HN, after all.
It's not the phrasing, you know that. You outright contradicted the CDC which makes your comment misinformation.
> It's not the flu.
In your zeal, you falsely attributed a statement/argument to a person and argued against it. In one of my philosophy classes, I learned that it was called building a straw man. It's a logical fallacy.
Your heart may be in the right place, but you aren't helping. Though I'm starting to believe the fanatics on both sides deep down want covid to ravage the world and that neither side has their heart in the right place.
The original commenter didn't call it the flu as far as I can tell. He wrote: "Is there some reason to expect that covid-19 is different in long term effects than a flu? This study is saying it causes substantial brain damage, right? What possible mechanism is there for this?".
Nowhere did he call it the flu.
> It's killed 20x more people than the flu even in the fact of pervasive society-changing mitigation strategies (all while the flu itself has all but gone extinct, remember! All that masking and distance learning actually worked!).
No. It killed 20x more people than the flu in 2020 to now. But the flu has killed far more people overall. The flu epidemic of 1918 killed 50 million people, far more than covid.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/reconstruction-19...
> Beyond that, nitpick with my phrasing all you like. This is HN, after all.
It's not the phrasing, you know that. You outright contradicted the CDC which makes your comment misinformation.
> It's not the flu.
In your zeal, you falsely attributed a statement/argument to a person and argued against it. In one of my philosophy classes, I learned that it was called building a straw man. It's a logical fallacy.
Your heart may be in the right place, but you aren't helping. Though I'm starting to believe the fanatics on both sides deep down want covid to ravage the world and that neither side has their heart in the right place.
Look, nitpick. Claim I'm making a straw man argument, anything you want. All that is fine, and totally on brand for this web site.
Do. Not. Liken. Covid. To. The. Flu.
If you didn't, good! Don't.
Do. Not. Liken. Covid. To. The. Flu.
If you didn't, good! Don't.
Why not? They have many things in common. For example make they both make you sick, often with similar symptoms.
If you're arguing that you shouldn't dismiss the danger of covid because of its flu like nature, then be my guest but asking not to make comparisons between things doesn't strike me as a very smart thing to do.
Covid can be dangerous and similar to the flu at the same time.
If you're arguing that you shouldn't dismiss the danger of covid because of its flu like nature, then be my guest but asking not to make comparisons between things doesn't strike me as a very smart thing to do.
Covid can be dangerous and similar to the flu at the same time.
[deleted]
That's not a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy would be concluding that "all black things are cats" from the sentence "all cats are black".
> because the CDC says on their website that the flu is more dangerous than covid for young people.
Depends what you're defining as young people. Under 5 as in those quotes, maybe virtually no risk. But I know otherwise healthy people in their 20s who got sick over a year ago. Their sense of smell and taste is still completely fried with no sign of recovery.
Maybe that can happen with a bad flu sometimes, but it seems way more common with covid. It seems like there's some nerve damage resulting from the virus that we don't yet fully understand.
The vaccine seemed like a safer gamble than potentially forever losing my ability to taste, or worse.
Depends what you're defining as young people. Under 5 as in those quotes, maybe virtually no risk. But I know otherwise healthy people in their 20s who got sick over a year ago. Their sense of smell and taste is still completely fried with no sign of recovery.
Maybe that can happen with a bad flu sometimes, but it seems way more common with covid. It seems like there's some nerve damage resulting from the virus that we don't yet fully understand.
The vaccine seemed like a safer gamble than potentially forever losing my ability to taste, or worse.
> Their sense of smell and taste is still completely fried with no sign of recovery.
This is exceptionally rare. The vast majority of people who develop anosmia regain their smell and taste. And yes, it does happen with other viruses.
> Maybe that can happen with a bad flu sometimes, but it seems way more common with covid.
The danger here is the distance between what it "seems" like, and what it actually is. If you're basing your judgment on media reports, you have to understand that you're not getting a balanced picture. The news media dwells on the most exceptional examples, and neglects the (many more) examples of people who have no serious side effects at all.
> It seems like there's some nerve damage resulting from the virus that we don't yet fully understand.
The current best evidence is that the loss of smell is not nerve damage, but infection of the epithelial cells surrounding the nerves in the nose.
This is exceptionally rare. The vast majority of people who develop anosmia regain their smell and taste. And yes, it does happen with other viruses.
> Maybe that can happen with a bad flu sometimes, but it seems way more common with covid.
The danger here is the distance between what it "seems" like, and what it actually is. If you're basing your judgment on media reports, you have to understand that you're not getting a balanced picture. The news media dwells on the most exceptional examples, and neglects the (many more) examples of people who have no serious side effects at all.
> It seems like there's some nerve damage resulting from the virus that we don't yet fully understand.
The current best evidence is that the loss of smell is not nerve damage, but infection of the epithelial cells surrounding the nerves in the nose.
I'm basing my experience on people I know who got infected. So are many other people who got vaccinated.
People who are screaming about the vaccine being a bigger risk than the virus are the ones being fed info by outrageous media reporting.
People who are screaming about the vaccine being a bigger risk than the virus are the ones being fed info by outrageous media reporting.
> I'm basing my experience on people I know who got infected. So are many other people who got vaccinated.
At this point, I know -- quite literally -- well over a dozen people who have had it. Varying ages. None had anything more than a mild illness. Nobody had lingering symptoms of any consequence (maybe a cough).
Either your sample is statistically skewed, my sample is statistically skewed, or....there is some creative remembering happening here.
> People who are screaming about the vaccine being a bigger risk than the virus are the ones being fed info by outrageous media reporting.
I am not going to defend every person saying this, but there are certain age groups in which this is absolutely true. The EU is not recommending vaccination of children for exactly this reason.
At this point, I know -- quite literally -- well over a dozen people who have had it. Varying ages. None had anything more than a mild illness. Nobody had lingering symptoms of any consequence (maybe a cough).
Either your sample is statistically skewed, my sample is statistically skewed, or....there is some creative remembering happening here.
> People who are screaming about the vaccine being a bigger risk than the virus are the ones being fed info by outrageous media reporting.
I am not going to defend every person saying this, but there are certain age groups in which this is absolutely true. The EU is not recommending vaccination of children for exactly this reason.
This seems like an overly pedantic approach. How many children younger than 5 are around posting on HN?
Granted, people here may have children of that age. But we're also talking about the expected value of vaccines as well. While I haven't kept on current information, last I heard vaccines also weren't approved for such young kids either.
Could they have been more exactingly accurate with their language? Sure. But the issue was small and basically entirely irrelevant given both the venue and topic at hand. Yet you basically tried to present this as an all-round smashing of their entire point.
Granted, people here may have children of that age. But we're also talking about the expected value of vaccines as well. While I haven't kept on current information, last I heard vaccines also weren't approved for such young kids either.
Could they have been more exactingly accurate with their language? Sure. But the issue was small and basically entirely irrelevant given both the venue and topic at hand. Yet you basically tried to present this as an all-round smashing of their entire point.
Unlike the flu, SARS-CoV-2 causes micro-clots, which damage tissues that are capillary-heavy.
This doesn't matter so much for, say, your liver, which (given time, and luck, and otherwise decent health) can recover, but matters greatly for your slow-growing brain, or your lungs (dat popcorn scan)
This doesn't matter so much for, say, your liver, which (given time, and luck, and otherwise decent health) can recover, but matters greatly for your slow-growing brain, or your lungs (dat popcorn scan)
Is there some reason to expect covid is similar to the flu in long term effects? It's a different disease, why would it be the same?
Of course there is. Sars-Cov-2 has been labelled by one paper as "The Autoimmune Virus" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7598743).
There's way more molecular mimicry between this virus and our tissues than any flu virus. This is a recipe for long term autoimmune diseases.
There's way more molecular mimicry between this virus and our tissues than any flu virus. This is a recipe for long term autoimmune diseases.
> What possible mechanism is there for this?
Free-floating spike protein is capable of crossing the blood/brain barrier. It's one of the reasons some people are wary of the long-term side-effects of the vaccines.
Free-floating spike protein is capable of crossing the blood/brain barrier. It's one of the reasons some people are wary of the long-term side-effects of the vaccines.
I guess it’s a good thing that the vaccine makes spike protein within your deltoid muscle cells, so it can’t float over to your brain. And it all gets quickly degraded anyway.
[deleted]
Inflammation?
Quote from https://apnews.com/article/health-coronavirus-pandemic-79959...
"Citing new information about the variant’s ability to spread among vaccinated people, the CDC also recommended indoor masks for all teachers, staff, students and visitors at schools nationwide, regardless of vaccination status."
If someone is vaccinated AND still spreading the virus, is it any different from having an asymthomatic case of COVID?
According to the article, even an asymptomatic case carries a risk of brain damage.
As a corollary, the vaccine may save you from the disease, but not from the brain damage. Is this a correct assessment?
If someone is vaccinated AND still spreading the virus, is it any different from having an asymthomatic case of COVID?
According to the article, even an asymptomatic case carries a risk of brain damage.
As a corollary, the vaccine may save you from the disease, but not from the brain damage. Is this a correct assessment?
As far as I'm aware, the answers to these questions is currently not known.
> If someone is vaccinated AND still spreading the virus, is it any different from having an asymthomatic case of COVID?
It carries about an order of magnitude lower risk of hospitalization or death, so... yes. Yes, it is very different. We don't know about long term effects, those are, y'know, long term and hard to study in this kind of timeframe. Which is why the linked article is notable.
Also note that risk of transmission is about 10x lower (vs. delta, better vs. the older variants) for the vaccinated. So even if they're just as likely to see long term CNS issues from infection they're vastly less likely to be infected in the first place.
I don't think this article changes the vaccine calculus at all. Get your shot. It's your best protection against everything to do with covid.
It carries about an order of magnitude lower risk of hospitalization or death, so... yes. Yes, it is very different. We don't know about long term effects, those are, y'know, long term and hard to study in this kind of timeframe. Which is why the linked article is notable.
Also note that risk of transmission is about 10x lower (vs. delta, better vs. the older variants) for the vaccinated. So even if they're just as likely to see long term CNS issues from infection they're vastly less likely to be infected in the first place.
I don't think this article changes the vaccine calculus at all. Get your shot. It's your best protection against everything to do with covid.
peakaboo(1)
> We don't know about long term effects, those are, y'know, long term and hard to study in this kind of timeframe. Which is why the linked article is notable.
This is priceless, as, for the same reasons, we do not know the long term effects of any of the vaccines either.
This is priceless, as, for the same reasons, we do not know the long term effects of any of the vaccines either.
They are regarded as very safe compared to other approaches.
Vaccinated people get in contact with the virus as much as the non vaccinated.
The virus invades the bodies and start multiplying in both populations.
The difference is that the vaccinated body is prepared to immediately attack the virus, something that takes weeks for the unvaccinated body to figure out.
So during the short interval when the vaccinated body hasn't yet wiped out the virus, the person is technically infected, will test positive, and can probably transmit some of the few viruses it has.
But that both vaccinated and unvaccinated can transmit the virus does NOT mean the danger levels are anywhere near similar!
This is probably why so many athletes get positive tests. If you get tested every day, you can get a positive test while a minor infection is defeated, even though you don't feel any symptoms.
The virus invades the bodies and start multiplying in both populations.
The difference is that the vaccinated body is prepared to immediately attack the virus, something that takes weeks for the unvaccinated body to figure out.
So during the short interval when the vaccinated body hasn't yet wiped out the virus, the person is technically infected, will test positive, and can probably transmit some of the few viruses it has.
But that both vaccinated and unvaccinated can transmit the virus does NOT mean the danger levels are anywhere near similar!
This is probably why so many athletes get positive tests. If you get tested every day, you can get a positive test while a minor infection is defeated, even though you don't feel any symptoms.
> Vaccinated people get in contact with the virus as much as the non vaccinated.
Is this known to be true, or is it an assumption you're making in your analysis?
Just curious, because I would have expected people who refuse to be vaccinated to also be more likely to socialize in ways that expose them to the virus.
Is this known to be true, or is it an assumption you're making in your analysis?
Just curious, because I would have expected people who refuse to be vaccinated to also be more likely to socialize in ways that expose them to the virus.
I should probably have said "as easily". I doubt anyone knows which group is more exposed, and it's not very important for the argument.
Personally, I expose myself to a lot more virus risks than before I got vaccinated, if you want an opposing argument.
Personally, I expose myself to a lot more virus risks than before I got vaccinated, if you want an opposing argument.
peakaboo(2)
That's a great question.
Another interesting one is whether these vaccines are preventing cases of Long Covid.
I feel World leaders are conveniently being quiet about these questions, and focusing too much on the drop of death counts only. It's an attempt to rush and re-open the economy at any cost.
One might reasonably extrapolate from a 10x (100x?) reduction in deaths to a 10x reduction in brain damage.
Previous version discussed here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27569772
Related discussion on another study in the same area (covid effects on cognition) using alternative methods:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27939481
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27569772
Related discussion on another study in the same area (covid effects on cognition) using alternative methods:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27939481
If you lose smell, then the brain will shift smell-related resources to other functions.
Any large-scale body damage should cause "brain damage," though it's possibly a little misleading to call it that (of course I'm not enough of a neuroscientist to know if that's all that's at play here).
related: https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/a-new-theory-of-dreami...
Any large-scale body damage should cause "brain damage," though it's possibly a little misleading to call it that (of course I'm not enough of a neuroscientist to know if that's all that's at play here).
related: https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/a-new-theory-of-dreami...
...except that it's not nasal equipment that's damaged by SARS-CoV-2, it's the 'smell-related resources' themselves (in the brain) that go missing: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/2...
This is concerning, would be interesting to add post vaccination scans (to see if there are any similar effects triggered) and post vaccination post COVID exposure (to see if vaccination is protective)
This is not anti vac comment
How the vaccine cause a similar lighter effect ?
How the vaccine cause a similar lighter effect ?
> And while our results were not significant
So what does this mean, need more research?
So what does this mean, need more research?
If you weren't aware, you're shadow-banned. You've been commenting into the void for over a year.
His post history looks fine and readable to me.
Here is the exact moment it happened:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17549790
Almost exactly three years ago, on July 17, 2018.
He/she/it was informed about the banning, but didn't understand it (or missed the comment) and has kept posting for three years. (Mostly a string of the same, characteristic one-liner quips.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17549790
Almost exactly three years ago, on July 17, 2018.
He/she/it was informed about the banning, but didn't understand it (or missed the comment) and has kept posting for three years. (Mostly a string of the same, characteristic one-liner quips.)
Wow, that is amazing.
Yeah people often have been shadow banned years ago, but commenting reasonably constructive things since not knowing almost nobody sees it. It’s sad.
[deleted]
he’s not shadow banned. We can all see his comments.
You can see that one because I vouched for it. Can you not see a year or more of dead comments? Do you have show-dead enabled? Most users don’t.
I'm seeing a ton of [dead] comments in his comments page. Maybe you don't have showdead enabled so you're only seeing the non dead comments?
Out of context much?
From the abstract:
> We identified significant effects of COVID-19 in the brain with a loss of grey matter in the left parahippocampal gyrus, the left lateral orbitofrontal cortex and the left insula. When looking over the entire cortical surface, these results extended to the anterior cingulate cortex, supramarginal gyrus and temporal pole. We further compared COVID-19 patients who had been hospitalised (n=15) with those who had not (n=379), and while results were not significant, we found comparatively similar findings to the COVID-19 vs control group comparison [...]
From the abstract:
> We identified significant effects of COVID-19 in the brain with a loss of grey matter in the left parahippocampal gyrus, the left lateral orbitofrontal cortex and the left insula. When looking over the entire cortical surface, these results extended to the anterior cingulate cortex, supramarginal gyrus and temporal pole. We further compared COVID-19 patients who had been hospitalised (n=15) with those who had not (n=379), and while results were not significant, we found comparatively similar findings to the COVID-19 vs control group comparison [...]
The part that needs more research is the level of difference between hospitalized and non-hospitalized COVID patients. They only had 15 who were hospitalized.
Also ...
> Unlike in post hoc disease studies, the availability of pre-infection imaging data helps avoid ...
That depends on why the earlier brain scans were done.
edit - I didn't find discussion on the UK one, but an Australian study found those with some health concerns were more likely to accept the invitation. Not surprising.
> Unlike in post hoc disease studies, the availability of pre-infection imaging data helps avoid ...
That depends on why the earlier brain scans were done.
edit - I didn't find discussion on the UK one, but an Australian study found those with some health concerns were more likely to accept the invitation. Not surprising.