4 ms·

No, they don't. This is a completely false statement.

xanaxagoras 5y ago
I dunno, I heard that people who had recovered from COVID-19, including those no longer reporting symptoms, exhibited significant cognitive deficits versus controls when controlling for age, gender, education level, income, racial-ethnic group, pre-existing medical disorders, tiredness, depression and anxiety.
- fartattack 5y ago
  Well if you heard it, it must be true
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
wolfram74 5y ago
Completely false in that survivors all have 0 or positive impacts on cognitive abilities? or that survivors have a range of cognitive impacts, none or only some of which could be the equivalent of 7 iq points?
random314 5y ago
OP has cited the Lancet.
- mlyle 5y ago
  > OP has cited the Lancet. In an exceptionally misleading way: > > COVID-19 survivors also have reduced cognitive abilities, equivalent to about 7 points on IQ scale, Failing to mention that one key thing: * He uses "COVID-19 survivors" -- which it sounds like that's everyone who's infected-- to refer to patients who were on a ventilator. Further, despite attempts at case control, I really doubt the comparison population is well matched to those who actually ended up on a vent. It's unsurprising there's a decent sized effect for those who are hospitalized in intensive care: this is known in general. And it may be a bit overstated here because of confounds.
  - camgunz 5y ago
    The paper says > but also for non-hospitalised cases who had biological confirmation of COVID-19 infection (N = 326) I think it applies to everyone?
    - mlyle 5y ago
      See figure 2. A standard deviation of IQ is about 15 IQ points. Only the ventilator patients have an effect anywhere near the claimed magnitude. Average across the COVID patients weighted by prevalence of outcomes (to match the overall population's COVID experiences) is more like 0.5-1.0 IQ points. And some or all of this effect may be generated by confounds.
      - camgunz 5y ago
        Figure 2 shows a pretty clear correlation between severity of respiratory illness and cognitive deficits. If it were really confounded or a random effect, you wouldn't see 100% correlation like this. I do agree their N could be higher for all groups, but that's really hard, and again the correlation is 100%.
        mlyle 5y ago
        I'm not saying there's not a real effect here. Hell, if there wasn't, that would be unexpected: just about any sickness is correlated with measuring lower cognitively for a time afterwards, and being hospitalized and being on a vent are more so, independent of COVID-19. I'm just saying that: * The claim that there's a 7 IQ point drop from being a COVID-19 survivor is completely bogus, unless you're only a survivor after being on an ventilator. * The effect size and causative relationship are dubious, because the controls and matching on this study are imperfect. There's plenty of opportunity for significant confound. E.g. if dumb people were more likely to not take precautions against getting COVID, it would look like getting COVID was associated with lower cognitive performance in this study.
        5y ago
- jMyles 5y ago
  Poorly. The paper in question does not even purport to support this conclusion, when stated in such matter-of-fact terms. It's a very interesting study, with laudable measures taken to overcome confounding factors. But I imagine the authors cringe when someone flogs it around as "COVID-19 reduces your IQ by 7!!!!!"
neuro007 5y ago
Yes, they do. The statement is basically verbatim from the article. They study findings are robust (n~=80000, pvals<1e-5).
- jMyles 5y ago
  To be "basically verbatim," there would need to be a sentence making the same assertion with different wording. It's true that the paper appears to show cognitive differences lasting months among some subsets of people with previous COVID-19 infections in the UK. It is not true that the paper asserts that being a "COVID-19 survivor" reduces IQ by 7. This is not only not "basically verbatim", but not among the assertions made by this paper.
- mlyle 5y ago
  I suggest you actually read the paper. * Only the patients on a ventilator showed an effect anywhere near "7 IQ points" --- which was not a metric measured by the paper, but if we're going by about 1/2SD-- (n=44, not 80000). * The P values are impressive, still, but that doesn't mean that the control population chosen to be "like' the ventilator patients is really equivalent. * We already know that being in critical care or on a vent is bad for cognitive performance afterwards. Indeed, we know that being sick in any way is bad for cognitive performance for some time afterwards.
eightysixfour 5y ago
Is it particularly surprising? The UK Bio Bank study showed a loss of grey matter: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.11.21258690v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.11.21258690v... This study was great because they had data from before COVID that was just part of the Bio Bank, so they were able to review participants already in the bio bank based COVID status. 394 COVID patients and 388 controls. Based on a small sample size of only 15 that were hospitalized, it also appears to increase grey matter loss based on severity, although sample size is not large enough to say so conclusively.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  Pre-print, not peer reviewed. Biased sample, not conclusive. No long term studies done, etc. Also says nothing about IQ. Show me the clinical trials that measure IQ prior to Covid over a broad sample and then measure IQ 3 months, 6 months, 12 months after recovery, etc.
  - eightysixfour 5y ago
    You’ll have your perfect data in around 5 years. In the mean time, there is significant evidence that suggests COVID impacts the brain. You can ignore it or argue against it all you want, but it is there.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  That sample size isn't enough to say anything without some other controls in place.
vajrabum 5y ago
Did you read the article referenced? If not, then I don't see how you have no basis for saying this is completely false. If you did read it, then can you explain how you square your bald assertion with the facts presented in the article. Notice that it's published in a Lancet associated journal. They have pretty high standards and I can't see any conflict of interest on the part of the writers.

I dunno, I heard that people who had recovered from COVID-19, including those no longer reporting symptoms, exhibited significant cognitive deficits versus controls when controlling for age, gender, education level, income, racial-ethnic group, pre-existing medical disorders, tiredness, depression and anxiety.

fartattack 5y ago
Well if you heard it, it must be true

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

wolfram74 5y ago

Completely false in that survivors all have 0 or positive impacts on cognitive abilities? or that survivors have a range of cognitive impacts, none or only some of which could be the equivalent of 7 iq points?

random314 5y ago

OP has cited the Lancet.

mlyle 5y ago
> OP has cited the Lancet. In an exceptionally misleading way: > > COVID-19 survivors also have reduced cognitive abilities, equivalent to about 7 points on IQ scale, Failing to mention that one key thing: * He uses "COVID-19 survivors" -- which it sounds like that's everyone who's infected-- to refer to patients who were on a ventilator. Further, despite attempts at case control, I really doubt the comparison population is well matched to those who actually ended up on a vent. It's unsurprising there's a decent sized effect for those who are hospitalized in intensive care: this is known in general. And it may be a bit overstated here because of confounds.
- camgunz 5y ago
  The paper says > but also for non-hospitalised cases who had biological confirmation of COVID-19 infection (N = 326) I think it applies to everyone?
  - mlyle 5y ago
    See figure 2. A standard deviation of IQ is about 15 IQ points. Only the ventilator patients have an effect anywhere near the claimed magnitude. Average across the COVID patients weighted by prevalence of outcomes (to match the overall population's COVID experiences) is more like 0.5-1.0 IQ points. And some or all of this effect may be generated by confounds.
    - camgunz 5y ago
      Figure 2 shows a pretty clear correlation between severity of respiratory illness and cognitive deficits. If it were really confounded or a random effect, you wouldn't see 100% correlation like this. I do agree their N could be higher for all groups, but that's really hard, and again the correlation is 100%.
      - mlyle 5y ago
        I'm not saying there's not a real effect here. Hell, if there wasn't, that would be unexpected: just about any sickness is correlated with measuring lower cognitively for a time afterwards, and being hospitalized and being on a vent are more so, independent of COVID-19. I'm just saying that: * The claim that there's a 7 IQ point drop from being a COVID-19 survivor is completely bogus, unless you're only a survivor after being on an ventilator. * The effect size and causative relationship are dubious, because the controls and matching on this study are imperfect. There's plenty of opportunity for significant confound. E.g. if dumb people were more likely to not take precautions against getting COVID, it would look like getting COVID was associated with lower cognitive performance in this study.
        5y ago
jMyles 5y ago
Poorly. The paper in question does not even purport to support this conclusion, when stated in such matter-of-fact terms. It's a very interesting study, with laudable measures taken to overcome confounding factors. But I imagine the authors cringe when someone flogs it around as "COVID-19 reduces your IQ by 7!!!!!"

neuro007 5y ago

Yes, they do. The statement is basically verbatim from the article. They study findings are robust (n~=80000, pvals<1e-5).

jMyles 5y ago
To be "basically verbatim," there would need to be a sentence making the same assertion with different wording. It's true that the paper appears to show cognitive differences lasting months among some subsets of people with previous COVID-19 infections in the UK. It is not true that the paper asserts that being a "COVID-19 survivor" reduces IQ by 7. This is not only not "basically verbatim", but not among the assertions made by this paper.
mlyle 5y ago
I suggest you actually read the paper. * Only the patients on a ventilator showed an effect anywhere near "7 IQ points" --- which was not a metric measured by the paper, but if we're going by about 1/2SD-- (n=44, not 80000). * The P values are impressive, still, but that doesn't mean that the control population chosen to be "like' the ventilator patients is really equivalent. * We already know that being in critical care or on a vent is bad for cognitive performance afterwards. Indeed, we know that being sick in any way is bad for cognitive performance for some time afterwards.

eightysixfour 5y ago

Is it particularly surprising? The UK Bio Bank study showed a loss of grey matter: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.11.21258690v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.11.21258690v... This study was great because they had data from before COVID that was just part of the Bio Bank, so they were able to review participants already in the bio bank based COVID status. 394 COVID patients and 388 controls. Based on a small sample size of only 15 that were hospitalized, it also appears to increase grey matter loss based on severity, although sample size is not large enough to say so conclusively.

chrisco255 5y ago
Pre-print, not peer reviewed. Biased sample, not conclusive. No long term studies done, etc. Also says nothing about IQ. Show me the clinical trials that measure IQ prior to Covid over a broad sample and then measure IQ 3 months, 6 months, 12 months after recovery, etc.
- eightysixfour 5y ago
  You’ll have your perfect data in around 5 years. In the mean time, there is significant evidence that suggests COVID impacts the brain. You can ignore it or argue against it all you want, but it is there.
ipaddr 5y ago
That sample size isn't enough to say anything without some other controls in place.

vajrabum 5y ago

Did you read the article referenced? If not, then I don't see how you have no basis for saying this is completely false. If you did read it, then can you explain how you square your bald assertion with the facts presented in the article. Notice that it's published in a Lancet associated journal. They have pretty high standards and I can't see any conflict of interest on the part of the writers.