SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the long-long-road-to-not-quite-recovered dept.
Study shows a third of COVID survivors suffer neurological or mental disorders :
One in three COVID-19 survivors in a study of more than 230,000 mostly American patients were diagnosed with a brain or psychiatric disorder within six months, suggesting the pandemic could lead to a wave of mental and neurological problems, scientists said.
Researchers who conducted the analysis said it was not clear how the virus was linked to psychiatric conditions such as anxiety and depression, but that these were the most common diagnoses among the 14 disorders they looked at.
[...] The new findings, published in the Lancet Psychiatry journal, analysed health records of 236,379 COVID-19 patients, mostly from the United States, and found 34 per cent had been diagnosed with neurological or psychiatric illnesses within six months.
The Lancet article includes this disclaimer:
Big-data studies of this kind have intrinsic limitations, even when drawing on 81 million people, 236 379 of whom had COVID-19. In this pandemic context, not all individuals who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 (particularly those with mild or asymptomatic illness) will be diagnosed, which could result in some contamination of the comparison groups.
The question: will severe, enduring, and less common conditions such as psychoses behave more like neurological disorders or common mental disorders? Among the COVID-19 cohort in this study, a first diagnosis of a psychotic disorder was substantially more common in patients hospitalised with COVID-19.
Lungs, hearts and brains..
Journal Reference:
Jonathan P Rogers. A longer look at COVID-19 and neuropsychiatric outcomes, The Lancet Psychiatry (DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00120-6)
Previously:
Experts Warn Coronavirus May Cause 'Wave' of Neurological Conditions Including Parkinson's Disease
2020-06-15 Roundup of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV2, Coronavirus) Stories
(Score: 2) by Socrastotle on Thursday April 08 2021, @07:50PM (1 child)
Might I ask of you, your own question? Should the president be doing what want? Do we elect politicians to do what we want, or do we elect politicians because we think they're the best individuals to use their personal talents and skills to direct the country in a positive fashion? This is not a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious what you think. This, like many things in society today, reminds me of one of my ever more favorite passages in The Republic: [mit.edu]
Many of the changes in our society have felt so unprecedented. Yet here is a man writing words, 2400 years ago, that if written in contemporary language and reference would appear to be little more than a perfunctory recital of the changes in society over the past ~80 years. And these cannot be simply coincidences. The path described is so unnatural, so irrational, and so accurate that there indeed must be more to it.
So I suppose there is only one thing to do. Let us raise our glass to our own demise. It would seem we made poor rulers after all. Let us now exchange our crowns for whips and collars.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday April 08 2021, @10:37PM
Having said that, though, my personal opinion... if it's still interesting to you... is that it should be somewhere in-between. The Pres is privvy to stuff we're not, so he or she needs some leeway, but that's also why transparency is important. I'm still very unhappy about Obama's drone strikes, and if he was actually justified in doing so I'd never know it. Classified. But I also think approval rating matters... or should anyway. If we actually did things like recall elections then Obama's move would have been a lot riskier, and we would more likely have gotten some transparency about it.
I suppose a simpler version of what I'm saying is: We need to be more involved.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩