151–160 of 216 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IQ tests are absolute junk as a measurement of general intelligence. IQ is a political tool not a scientific one.
Is there a better method for measuring general intelligence?
[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm certainly not accusing you of this personally, but it's curious how selectively IQ is accepted/denied on this site. It's real enough for the purposes of covid policy, lead abatement, or whatever other fashionable environmental intervention. In just about every other case, flat out denialism.
The general concern with IQ when used for policymaking, or with standardized "intelligence" tests in general, is that they can fail to account for environmental or cultural factors across individuals or populations. In both cases of covid and lead effects, the effect can be measured on the same population, and/or controlled for proxies of those factors (see "when controlling for age, gender, education level, income,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm certainly not accusing you of this personally, but it's curious how selectively IQ is accepted/denied on this site. It's real enough for the purposes of covid policy, lead abatement, or whatever other fashionable environmental intervention. In just about every other case, flat out denialism.
Could you say what you understand IQ is a measure of, citby?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair point. I missed that part. Thanks. Now we should also research if viral infections in general have an association to cognitive deficit. I guess this will be the case.
I haven't heard of it with the flu.
I had a flu once and lost 6kgs in less than 10 days and I was physically and mentally wrecked for some time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "not un" has a long history of debate amongst stylists. I believe it's easily overused because it has certain air of erudition about it. However, sometimes "not un" is straightforward and clearer than the alternatives. In this context... well.. science journals have their own English journalese that lives outside general usage.
The double negative has its use beyond language sophistication. It can serve to more specifically mark a neutral stance in a vocabulary that may seem to only offer a dichotomy. e.g. what I have available is I like her and I don't like her , but what I mean to say is I don't dislike her .
Causation !== correlation. An alternative explanation is those more likely to catch COVID-19 are more likely to be a cohort with lower IQ to begin with (e.g. have lower skilled jobs that put them in harms way etc.). Without a before and after IQ test of biologically confirmed COVID-19 patients this is junk.
IQ tests are absolute junk as a measurement of general intelligence. IQ is a political tool not a scientific one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was specifically referring to the claim the effects were probably due to sedation, etc. , not the observation that the study was of hospitalized cases.
So? The OP observed that the most severe effects were in a very small population of hospitalized patients. You fixated on a (plausible) hypothesis made that this could be due to sedation, and used it to reject the entire argument, even though the OP’s point is right, and your argument is a lowbrow dismissal that “experts would have thought of it”. By the way: as far as I can tell, the paper doesn’t discuss this issue…
A quick Google search reveals that cognitive deficit seems to be a common consequence in any critically ill patient, not just Covid-19 This study[1] of just one example: Cognitive dysfunction is an important long-term complication of critical illness associated with reduced quality of life, increase in healthcare costs, and institutionalization And the numbers are certainly high: Cognitive impairment was identified i…
Sure as you say critical illness with long term medical effects is known to have this impact. The difference is that, as the abstract points out, substantial cognitive impairment in Covid patients was found even in people who displayed mild symptoms and were never critically ill.
None of these studies seem to be taking into account the psychological contagion that's spreading on an international scale. I really think 10 years from now, we'll be looking at 2020 as the first example of global moral panic and mass hysteria.