# Long covid and brain problems



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Research continues into long-lasting symptoms after recovering from covid, including 'brain fog' and *cognitive problems*.

Apparently, young women (age 25 - 55) more commonly have these long term symptoms. But I suspect it affects men as well, but as usual, men probably don't complain or report them.

At my age, I doubt that I would die from covid, but I am very concerned about long lasting symptoms and cognitive impairment. This would be terrible. My income is based on computer & mathematical work, and it requires focus and mental clarity. What would I do if I had this kind of brain fog?









McMaster scientists in Hamilton studying 'long COVID' causes | inTheHammer


Three scientists at McMaster University, including one who has it, have earned a federal grant to study what causes "long COVID."




www.insauga.com













Coronavirus (COVID-19) Overview


COVID-19 is a new type of coronavirus that causes mild to severe cases. Here’s a quick guide on how to spot symptoms, risk factors, prevent spread of the disease, and find out what to do if you think you have it.




www.webmd.com


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

james4beach said:


> What would I do if I had this kind of brain fog?


Retire, move to the country with warm climate and low cost of living, live off your savings ?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Ukrainiandude said:


> Retire, move to the country with warm climate and low cost of living, live off your savings ?


I think I would prefer to not become pseudo-disabled, if I can help it.

Wouldn't you?


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

james4beach said:


> I think I would prefer to not become pseudo-disabled, if I can help it.
> 
> Wouldn't you?


hysteria over covid severe effects is greatly overrated, by big pharma for profits, by governments to have the pretext for freedom control.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Ukrainiandude said:


> hysteria over covid severe effects is greatly overrated, by big pharma for profits, by governments to have the pretext for freedom control.


I think there's enough evidence that this is a serious concern. You've got some weird theories... who is trying to control me? What's their motivation?

Get real, man.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Sounds exactly like stress and anxiety.

Which could be caused by anything such as being infected by a virus that's killing people during a pandemic


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

james4beach said:


> I think there's enough evidence that this is a serious concern. You've got some weird theories... who is trying to control me? What's their motivation?
> 
> Get real, man.


What's the rate of occurrence?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

damian13ster said:


> What's the rate of occurrence?


Not fully known. It's prudent to air on the side of caution when details of a new illness are not known.

Here's a German source. I trust German statistics, and it's a large population in a country that's handled covid similarly to us in broad terms.

They cite an insurance company which said that *at least 6.3%* of people who were initially sick, were subsequently unable to work due to lingering symptoms.

An estimate is also given, of something like 10% of people who have lingering problems. So we can say that somewhere between 6% and 10% of people with covid are experiencing long term, lingering symptoms. That's quite a large percent!

For example, this is FAR larger than the rate of people who experience serious vaccination adverse effects, which is way below 1% rate.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

james4beach said:


> Not fully known. It's prudent to air on the side of caution when details of a new illness are not known.
> 
> Here's a German source. I trust German statistics, and it's a large population in a country that's handled covid similarly to us in broad terms.
> 
> ...


a) I was asking about brain fog, not feeling tired, which is also included in the 6.3%
b) People keep forgetting about one extremely important factor (and I know people hate when I bring out facts and math but deal with it):
- 1,722,570 out of 38,010,000 Canadians got COVID --> 0.0453 of Canadians.








Canada COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer


Canada Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.




www.worldometers.info





Therefore any risk of complications from COVID has to be multiplied by 0.0453.
Risk of getting long - COVID (muscle fatigue, lack of stamina, all included) is 0.0453 x 0.0630 = 0.285%
Now, for brain fog itself:
This study Long COVID syndrome‐associated brain fog
indicates that 7.2% of people who were hospitalized reported 'brain fog'.
Now, let's use total hospitalization rate for all ages (don't think 65+ are concerned by brain fog but whatever, let's include them) of 4.4%


https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm#severe-outcomes



Therefore, your chances of getting a brain fog are:
7.2% x 4.4% x 4.53% = *0.014%*

Don't you just love numbers?! Looking at facts and probabilities of bad event happening is a perfect way to deal with anxiety (Dale Carnegie wrote extensively on it)


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

damian13ster said:


> Don't you just love numbers?!


I do, but you're not applying them correctly.

First of all, covid infections are likely under-reported, because many people get sick without it becoming too severe, or don't bother to get tested. Many people hate any kind of medical intervention and will quietly suffer.

Next is the more important one: during these periods (as cited in the article) the public was being *extremely* cautious about catching covid. Since then, people have relaxed. We're mingling again, we're traveling, we're having giant parties. So the risks have changed and it's incorrect to apply those kinds of multipliers.


----------



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

Hate to say it, but it will be a real thing when insurance companies start writing limiting and exclusionary clauses into general health policies. 

My mom, now 92, caught COVID early on. Already in a care home, she spent the next close to 16 months mostly, as all in the place were, stuck in her room. Cant point a finger at any one factor, but man her cognitive abilities are way way down from 2 years ago, lot faster than other older folks I have been exposed to.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

james4beach said:


> I do, but you're not applying them correctly.
> 
> First of all, covid infections are likely under-reported, because many people get sick without it becoming too severe, or don't bother to get tested. Many people hate any kind of medical intervention and will quietly suffer.
> 
> Next is the more important one: during these periods (as cited in the article) the public was being *extremely* cautious about catching covid. Since then, people have relaxed. We're mingling again, we're traveling, we're having giant parties. So the risks have changed and it's incorrect to apply those kinds of multipliers.


Ok, let's assume the covid infections are underreported and are in fact 4x higher. Then the math becomes:

Therefore, your chances of getting a brain fog are:
7.2% x (4.4%/4) x (4 x 4.53%) = *0.014%*


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I do, but you're not applying them correctly.
> 
> First of all, covid infections are likely under-reported, because many people get sick without it becoming too severe, or don't bother to get tested. Many people hate any kind of medical intervention and will quietly suffer.
> 
> Next is the more important one: during these periods (as cited in the article) the public was being *extremely* cautious about catching covid. Since then, people have relaxed. We're mingling again, we're traveling, we're having giant parties. So the risks have changed and it's incorrect to apply those kinds of multipliers.


 ... i.e. you better know "exactly" who you're mingling with if 1. you don't want to catch it in the first place (never mind about passing it onto someone else who may be close or not close to you), and 2. if you do catch it unknowingly and do survive, be prepared for the long term consequences - brain fogs, toes, ? etc. that the doctors are still trying to figure out. You might be lucky and nothing comes out of it. 50/50 odds here but it's a Russian Roulette game. 

And of course, daminxxxster is the expert odds-calculator on this planet. Since it's getting wintery, he reminds me of the snowman in his little globe.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... i.e. you better know "exactly" who you're mingling with if 1. you don't want to catch it in the first place (never mind about passing it onto someone else who may be close or not close to you), and 2. if you do catch it unknowingly and do survive, be prepared for the long term consequences - brain fogs, toes, ? etc. that the doctors are still trying to figure out. You might be lucky and nothing comes out of it. *50/50 odds here but it's a Russian Roulette game. *
> 
> And of course, daminxxxster is the expert odds-calculator on this planet. Since it's getting wintery, he reminds me of the snowman in his little globe.


You are plain wrong. Every single scientist and every single research says so.
Please quote reviewed research that claims odds are 50/50


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> You are plain wrong. Every single scientist and every single research says so.
> Please quote reviewed research that claims odds are 50/50


 ... if you say say so along with your famous line of every single scientist and researcher says so. 

Do you actually need a research paper to determine the 50/50 odds of catching it or not catching it? When the reality (aka living in the real world), it's a Russian roulette game. since you got so much time on your hands, maybe you can figure out what those odds are in the RR game.

You really don't get it despite I gave you a hint in my next paragraph. What is the use of quoting "exact" odds here and there for plain people living in every day life? On this planet, not just your "scientific" world.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... if you say say so along with your famous line of every single scientist and researcher says so.
> 
> *Do you actually need a research paper to determine the 50/50 odds of catching it or not catching it?* When the reality (aka living in the real world), it's a Russian roulette game. since you got so much time on your hands, maybe you can figure out what those odds are in the RR game.
> 
> You really don't get it despite I gave you a hint in my next paragraph. What is the use of quoting "exact" odds here and there for plain people living in every day life? On this planet, not just your "scientific" world.


Ehhh, yes?
Just because there are two outcomes doesn't mean probability of each is 50% 😂
You sure you didn't get a brain fog already?

The use of quoting exact (with confidence interval of course) odds is so that people make informed decisions based on facts, and don't get anxiety when there is very little reason to do so


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> Ehhh, yes?
> Just because there are two outcomes doesn't mean probability of each is 50% 😂
> You sure you didn't get a brain fog already?


 ... I'm sure as I'm not near you. I'm not sure about you when it comes to the use of common sense. Now, I'm not saying you're not an expert in your field of whatever-E=MC2 studies are.



> The use of quoting exact (with confidence interval of course) odds is so that people make informed decisions based on facts, and don't get anxiety when there is very little reason to do so


 ... duh, let me open my stats book or go on the internet to determine my odds of catching Covid if I don't go near daminxxxster.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... I'm sure as I'm not near you.
> 
> *... duh, let me open my stats book or go on the internet to determine my odds of catching Covid if I don't go near daminxxxster.*


Please do. Vaccinated + tested 4 times a week. So you can for once use facts when coming up with numbers.

Formula is:
Protection from infection provided by vaccine 3 months after 2nd dose x (false negative rate of a test)^4 x (1-protection from infection provided by vaccine after x months (depending on when you took it))


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

james4beach said:


> Research continues into long-lasting symptoms after recovering from covid, including 'brain fog' and *cognitive problems*.
> 
> Apparently, young women (age 25 - 55) more commonly have these long term symptoms. But I suspect it affects men as well, but as usual, men probably don't complain or report them.
> 
> ...


These are the risks of acquiring natural immunity to Covid-19.

Fatality natural immunity 1.7 to 1.8%
Long haulers 5% to 20%
Loss of taste and smell 80%

After more than 18 months of this pandemic, I would have thought you would have already known about those things. Aren't you vaccinated? The risks known to vaccinations are in the micro percentages.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> Ok, let's assume the covid infections are underreported and are in fact 4x higher. Then the math becomes:
> 
> Therefore, your chances of getting a brain fog are:
> 7.2% x (4.4%/4) x (4 x 4.53%) = *0.014%*


The numbers you apply are inaccurate for the situation. The risk of catching covid is much higher, especially for those unvaccinated. The risk isnt just taking the positive tests/divided by population, as you can play with the numbers and they don't mean a thing. I could take world numbers, I can pick a given country with varies from 0.1% to 18% of the population, I could pick a province, or a City. I can even pick my geospatial voting area. All of these number vary due so many differences in what is considered data (testing and reporting practices)

The true probably or risk factor is determined by behaviours and risk factors of an individual as a group. For people that have interaction with people outside of their homes, I think it's MORE than 50% chance they will EVENTUALLY get infected with COVID. There's lots of calculators that look at the risks of one's activities. I have also started to see studies that should a correlation that those who choose to not vaccine (for non medical reasons), tend to engage in higher risk activities such as not masking, attending larger events and breaking other health protocols. So for someone who doesn't vaccinate, their beliefs may be correlated with higher risks there fore a much higher chance of catching (and spreading covid)

I don't know how the vaccines reduce brain fog, I haven't seen any studies (haven't really looked yet) However, I can infer based on how vaccines work which is getting your body to fight the virus more effectively so you don't have severe outcomes and that it reduces general symptoms, I would say vaccines also reduce the chances of brain fog.


So for an unvaccinated person that doesn't take many precautions I am guessing brain fog will be closer to 7%. ~50 X more than your calculation.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Plugging Along said:


> The numbers you apply are inaccurate for the situation. *The risk of catching covid is much higher, especially for those unvaccinated*. The risk isnt just taking the positive tests/divided by population, as you can play with the numbers and they don't mean a thing. I could take world numbers, I can pick a given country with varies from 0.1% to 18% of the population, I could pick a province, or a City. I can even pick my geospatial voting area. All of these number vary due so many differences in what is considered data (testing and reporting practices)
> 
> The true probably or risk factor is determined by behaviours and risk factors of an individual as a group. For people that have interaction with people outside of their homes, I think it's MORE than 50% chance they will EVENTUALLY get infected with COVID. There's lots of calculators that look at the risks of one's activities. I have also started to see studies that should a correlation that those who choose to not vaccine (for non medical reasons), tend to engage in higher risk activities such as not masking, attending larger events and breaking other health protocols. So for someone who doesn't vaccinate, their beliefs may be correlated with higher risks there fore a much higher chance of catching (and spreading covid)
> 
> ...


That doesn't matter though in estimating brain fog risk. Look at the factors. Research looks at % within hospitalizations. So if you apply whatever factor you choose (5x, 10x, whatever you want) to risk of catching COVID, then you need to divide risk of hospitalizations (#of hospitalized/# with COVID) by exactly same factor!!
Or do you assume that hospitalizations are undercounted 5-10x?

Your guess of 7% would require a chance of being infected of 100% and a chance of being hospitalized for unvaccinated person to be 105% 😂


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

Funny how some posters here are quick to pick and choose which research is valid without any supporting evidence except the fact that they believe vaccines are a bigger threat than the virus.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Mortgage u/w said:


> Funny how some posters here are quick to pick and choose which research is valid without any supporting evidence except the fact that they believe vaccines are a bigger threat than the virus.


To be fair, I do provide sources to my numbers.
Neither beaver with his outrageous claim of 50/50 nor PluggingAlong with his 7% chance for brain fog among unvaccinated provide any source for their guesses.
For the record, I don't believe vaccines are bigger threat than the virus. I do operate with data and research though, and made the conclusion based on facts, not guesses.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

damian13ster said:


> Neither beaver with his outrageous claim of 50/50 nor PluggingAlong with his 7% chance for brain fog among unvaccinated provide any source for their guesses.


Did you just assume their gender 💩 I assumed they were more feminine


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Speaking for myself here your assumption is correct. And speaking for PA's account (with her permission) your assumption is correct again.

But then we who is familiar with daminxxster's posts, he likes to spew all kind of assumptions, accusations, and the whole-9 yards that get really tiring to read. At least for me.


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

damian13ster said:


> ..... I do operate with data and research though, and made the conclusion based on facts, not guesses.


So how do you validate your data and research? To be fair, there is enough data and research to contradict each other.......so how do you choose?


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

See whether it is peer reviewed or not and where they have been published.

Is it perfect? Probably not, as some papers are withdrawn, etc, but surely beats numbers pulled out of one's *** such as 50/50 chance


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

but still....you do know that your in a very small minority that is against what the majority are believing, right?


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

What does scientific research has to do with belief?
Is your suggestion that I should ignore science and join 41% of Democrats that believe hospitalization rate is over 50%? or beaver thinking there is 50/50 chance of getting brain fog?

Scientific research is based on data. It doesnt change whether majority of people choose to ignore it.
And I am not going to ignore science to fit in with majority who base their action on belief and not data


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

damian13ster said:


> What does scientific research has to do with belief?
> Is your suggestion that I should ignore science and join 41% of Democrats that believe hospitalization rate is over 50%? or beaver thinking there is 50/50 chance of getting brain fog?
> 
> Scientific research is based on data. It doesnt change whether majority of people choose to ignore it.
> And I am not going to ignore science to fit in with majority who base their action on belief and not data


Well, belief has lots to do with the subject. The majority believe the science they research is accurate. The minority believe _their _science and research is accurate. So why is what you are researching more believable?


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Mortgage u/w said:


> Well, belief has lots to do with the subject. The majority believe the science they research is accurate. The minority believe _their _science and research is accurate. So why is what you are researching more believable?


Because I have provided peer reviewed research papers and sources behind the numbers. Did you see beaver provide research behind 50/50 chance of Brain fog? Or 7% chance from other poster? Or the mentioned 41% of Democrats (I believe in Republicans it is 26% but might be off here) provide any research supporting their thesis that hospitalization rate is above 50%? None of those are based on science. if any of those claims can be supported by peer reviewed research then I will read the studies and reconsider


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

damian13ster said:


> Because I have provided peer reviewed research papers and sources behind the numbers. Did you see beaver provide research behind 50/50 chance of Brain fog? Or 7% chance from other poster? Or the mentioned 41% of Democrats (I believe in Republicans it is 26% but might be off here) provide any research supporting their thesis that hospitalization rate is above 50%? None of those are based on science. if any of those claims can be supported by peer reviewed research then I will read the studies and reconsider


Not sure why you reference Democrats and Republicans. We're in Canada here.

In any case, I simply think you are only researching the science that supports your belief. You can say the same thing of the others, but you can't ignore that there are many more people who believe the opposite of what you believe.


----------



## damian13ster (Apr 19, 2021)

Because those are statistics I saw. If there are some for Canada I will use them. Do you believe that percentage of people overestimating risk by over 1000% is smaller here than US?

And I based my opinion and knowledge from peer reviewed research I found.
Would love to confront it but noone is showing peer reviewed research to support their claims so how can I. I googled 'peer reviewed research that shows unvaccinated have 50/50 chance of brain fog' but unfortunately nothing came up. that's why it would be nice if people who make outlandish claims actually posted a link to research they base it on.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

james4beach said:


> Research continues into long-lasting symptoms after recovering from covid, including 'brain fog' and *cognitive problems*.


This is not unique to COVID. These types of ongoing symptoms occur after a variety of viral illnesses. You can get very similar symptoms after concussion type injuries as well. Symptoms often improve overtime as the body attempts to adapt but many are left with ongoing symptoms for the rest of their lives.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

james4beach said:


> At my age, I doubt that I would die from covid, but I am very concerned about long lasting symptoms and cognitive impairment. This would be terrible. My income is based on computer & mathematical work, and it requires focus and mental clarity. What would I do if I had this kind of brain fog?


And that's why you have disability insurance. I thought we've already gone over this ;o)


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Synergy said:


> And that's why you have disability insurance. I thought we've already gone over this ;o)


No, I can't get DI with my volatile self-employment income. Or I haven't been able to yet (despite two attempts).

I have Critical Illness which covers specific conditions but this is not one of those conditions.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Synergy said:


> This is not unique to COVID. These types of ongoing symptoms occur after a variety of viral illnesses. You can get very similar symptoms after concussion type injuries as well. Symptoms often improve overtime as the body attempts to adapt but many are left with ongoing symptoms for the rest of their lives.


And I seriously doubt that Disability Insurance would pay out for many of these, because of the "grey area".

Similar situation with chronic pain. There are many chronic conditions that insurance companies don't really like paying out for.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

damian13ster said:


> See whether it is peer reviewed or not and where they have been published.
> 
> Is it perfect? Probably not, as some papers are withdrawn, etc, but surely beats numbers pulled out of one's *** such as 50/50 chance


 ... just where did I say there was a 50/50 chance of "getting brain fog"? Or is it that you have a comprehension problem in the first place? Like reading from your own *** but then go spewing sh1t from the mouth.

Go and re-read my post# 13, I said 50/50 chance of "getting Covid or not". And go re-read my post #15 for further assistance. And then go and re-read my post#17 for further hints. Do you *still need* further assistance?

I said, the chance of getting "brain fog" is like the odds in a Russian Roulette game that you can go spend time calculating with your brilliant statistical and "critical thinking" skills. LMAO.

I don't disagree with mortgage u/w - you want to see and make up what you want to see and believe in. And spare me it's the "science", the "facts", the "whatever = SPEWS FROM YOU". 

Again, the snowman in his little globe.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

damian13ster said:


> Ok, let's assume the covid infections are underreported and are in fact 4x higher. Then the math becomes:
> 
> Therefore, your chances of getting a brain fog are:
> 7.2% x (4.4%/4) x (4 x 4.53%) = *0.014%*


Lots of people who were not hospitalized also suffer from long covid, so I don't see why you are adding that as a factor.

And the proportion of the population that got infected _thus far_ is only relevant if you are supportive of measures to reduce its spread. If you are indifferent to spread, nearly everyone will become infected eventually.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

andrewf said:


> And the proportion of the population that got infected _thus far_ is only relevant if you are supportive of measures to reduce its spread. If you are indifferent to spread, nearly everyone will become infected eventually.


Right, and this is what many people forget about.

Our population has been extremely careful over the last two years. This is not going to continue; it was a temporary period thanks to how careful we were. And despite that, look at how many people died by the way.

Probably all of us will -- ultimately -- get infected to varying degrees. Hopefully, with the help of vaccines and medicines, we will mostly have MINOR infections, hopefully minor enough that we don't even notice it.

But it still pays to be cautious about these long covid effects, until we have a better grasp on what's going on.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

james4beach said:


> And I seriously doubt that Disability Insurance would pay out for many of these, because of the "grey area".
> 
> Similar situation with chronic pain. There are many chronic conditions that insurance companies don't really like paying out for.


That's why you need a good doctor and lawyer! Long term complications from a viral infection would be covered. So long as there is a causal relationship.


----------

