3 ms·

"The average lead-linked loss in cognitive ability was 2.6 IQ points per person as of 2015."

by wrycoder 3y ago

jeffbee 3y ago
About the same cognitive impairment associated with a mild and fully resolved case of COVID-19.
- ruined 3y ago
  for anyone else looking for that citation i presume jeffbee referring to https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2311330 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2311330
  - karashi 3y ago
    It’s worth noting the conclusion includes “Longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and any clinical implications remain uncertain.”
- karashi 3y ago
  I find it hard to understand why cognitive impairment due to COVID-19 is not discussed more. Cognitive impairment is a terrifying idea but I think it’s important to balance the risk of COVID-associated cognitive impairment with the risk of cognitive decline that would result from whatever social isolation would be necessary to avoid COVID. Is cognitive decline due to COVID really comparable to that of lead exposure? If so, I’d really appreciate more concrete information to put the risk into context.
  - philbin 3y ago
    [dead]
defrost 3y ago
Or, given at least half the US population was non urban | non built up areas for the bulk of the leaded gasoline years, it might something like "half the population lost at least 5 IQ points". Distributions are often more interesting than averages or medians alone.
- astrange 3y ago
  IQ points are normally distributed results of IQ tests, so the average is the median and you already know the distribution. I guess they should say how the SD changed though. Reporting a loss of theoretical IQ points is weird terminology since IQ people want you to believe it's measuring something that exists called "g", but then they don't report this result as a loss of "g". Of course they also happily claim every other test that produces a number like the SAT is also a true measurement of your intelligence and you're doomed to never be able to increase it. Basically they just believe any statement as long as it's got numbers in it and it says something they like.
  - defrost 3y ago
    The geographic distribution of the population affected by lead - it seems clear that car dense populations would be more affected that open sparse rural populations, and so the question of distribution of exposure levels across humans becomes of interest.

"The average lead-linked loss in cognitive ability was 2.6 IQ points per person as of 2015."

jeffbee 3y ago

About the same cognitive impairment associated with a mild and fully resolved case of COVID-19.

ruined 3y ago
for anyone else looking for that citation i presume jeffbee referring to https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2311330 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2311330
- karashi 3y ago
  It’s worth noting the conclusion includes “Longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and any clinical implications remain uncertain.”
karashi 3y ago
I find it hard to understand why cognitive impairment due to COVID-19 is not discussed more. Cognitive impairment is a terrifying idea but I think it’s important to balance the risk of COVID-associated cognitive impairment with the risk of cognitive decline that would result from whatever social isolation would be necessary to avoid COVID. Is cognitive decline due to COVID really comparable to that of lead exposure? If so, I’d really appreciate more concrete information to put the risk into context.
- philbin 3y ago
  [dead]

defrost 3y ago

Or, given at least half the US population was non urban | non built up areas for the bulk of the leaded gasoline years, it might something like "half the population lost at least 5 IQ points". Distributions are often more interesting than averages or medians alone.

astrange 3y ago
IQ points are normally distributed results of IQ tests, so the average is the median and you already know the distribution. I guess they should say how the SD changed though. Reporting a loss of theoretical IQ points is weird terminology since IQ people want you to believe it's measuring something that exists called "g", but then they don't report this result as a loss of "g". Of course they also happily claim every other test that produces a number like the SAT is also a true measurement of your intelligence and you're doomed to never be able to increase it. Basically they just believe any statement as long as it's got numbers in it and it says something they like.
- defrost 3y ago
  The geographic distribution of the population affected by lead - it seems clear that car dense populations would be more affected that open sparse rural populations, and so the question of distribution of exposure levels across humans becomes of interest.