Wellness Exchange: Health Discussions
COVID Brain Fog: 20 Years of Aging in Months
[MUSIC] >> Welcome to Listen 2, this is Ted. The news was published on Tuesday, September 24. Today we're joined by Eric and Kate to discuss a fascinating new study. Let's dive right in, shall we? Our topic today is the long-term cognitive impacts of COVID-19. A recent study has shown some alarming results. Can you both explain what the key findings were? >> Absolutely, Ted. This study's findings are pretty mind-blowing. They discovered that even 12 to 18 months after being hospitalized for COVID-19, patients were showing significant cognitive decline. And get this, the decline was equivalent to about 20 years of normal aging. It's like these folks age two decades, and just over a year, at least as far as their brains are concerned. >> Well, that sounds dramatic. We need to pump the brakes a bit here. >> I understand your caution, Kate. But let's not downplay the significance, the scale of the deficit. >> I'm not downplaying anything. I'm just saying we need to be careful about generalizing these findings. Not everyone who's had COVID ends up hospitalized. And we can't assume all COVID patients will experience this level of cognitive decline. >> Fair point, Kate. But we can't ignore the severity of what they found. The study didn't just rely on subjective reports. They found reduced brain volume in key areas and high levels of brain injury proteins in the blood. That's concrete evidence of impact. >> I get that, Eric. But let's not forget that the study also showed a trend towards recovery in some patients. This isn't necessarily a permanent situation for everyone affected. >> Interesting points, both of you. Let's dig a little deeper. Can you explain what brain fog means in this context? >> Sure thing, Ted. Brain fog is this catch all term people have been using to describe ongoing cognitive symptoms after COVID. You know, feeling mentally fuzzy, having trouble concentrating, that sort of thing. What's crucial about this study is that it provides objective evidence of cognitive impairment. We're not just talking about people feeling off, these are measurable deficits. >> But brain fog is such a vague term. We need to be careful about causing unnecessary- >> Kate, I hear you, but this isn't about vague feelings. The study specifically measured cognitive- >> I understand that, Eric. But my point is we don't know how this compares to other severe infections. It could be a general effect of serious illness, not something unique to COVID. >> Actually, Kate, the study did address that. The researchers are now comparing these findings to other severe infections like influenza. They're trying to determine if this is a COVID specific issue or a more general response to severe illness. >> That's a good point, Eric. But until we have those results, we shouldn't jump to conclusions about COVID being uniquely damaging to the brain. We need to wait for more comprehensive data. >> You both raise excellent points. Now let's put this in historical context. Can you think of any similar health crises that have had long-term cognitive effects? >> Absolutely, Ted. The Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 is a great comparison. Studies have shown that children born during that pandemic had lower educational attainment and income later in life. It's a stark reminder that pandemics can have ripple effects that last for generations. >> That's not really a fair comparison, Eric. The Spanish flu mainly affects- >> I see your point, Kate, but you're missing the bigger picture here. The key takeaway is that- >> I get that, Eric, but we can't just assume COVID-19 will have the same long-term impacts. Medical science has come a long way since 1918. We have better treatments, better understanding of viruses, and better public health matters. >> You're right that medical science has advanced, Kate. But that doesn't negate the importance of these findings. The encephalitis lethargica outbreak that followed the Spanish flu left many survivors in a catatonic state for decades. It's a reminder that we need to take these neurological effects seriously. >> I'm not saying we shouldn't take it seriously, Eric. I'm just advocating for caution in how we interpret and act on this data. We don't want to cause unnecessary panic. >> Both of you make compelling arguments. How do you think these historic events inform our understanding of COVID-19's potential long-term effects? >> Great question, Ted. I think these historical examples remind us to take the long view. The full impact of COVID-19 might not be apparent for years or even decades. We need to be prepared for that possibility and continue studying these effects over time. >> While I agree we need to study long-term effects, I think these historical examples also show how resilient humans are. Even after devastating pandemics, societies recover and adapt. We shouldn't underestimate our ability to bounce back. >> That's true, Kate, but it doesn't negate the importance of studying and addressing these long-term effects now. The more we understand, the better we can help people recover and mitigate any lasting impacts. >> I agree we need more research, Eric. But we need to be careful not to overstate the risks based on limited data. One study, no matter how comprehensive, isn't enough to draw definitive conclusions. >> I wouldn't call this data limited, Kate. This study involved 351 COVID-19 patients and nearly 3,000 control subjects. That's a significant sample size. >> It's still just one study, Eric. We need more research, ideally from multiple teams in different countries, before we can draw definitive conclusions about the long-term cognitive effects of COVID-19. You've both raised excellent points about the historical context and the need for more research. Looking ahead, how do you think this research might impact future healthcare policies and practices? >> I believe this will lead to more comprehensive post COVID care, Ted. We might see cognitive testing become standard for recovered patients, especially those who were hospitalized. It's about being proactive rather than reactive. >> That seems premature, Eric. We should focus on preventing COVID-19 through vaccination. >> Kate, it's not about assuming the worst. It's about being prepared. Early detection of cognitive issues. >> I get that, Eric, but widespread cognitive testing could be expensive. And might cause unnecessary anxiety. We need to balance the potential benefits with the costs and psychological impact. >> Interesting perspectives. What about the implications for long COVID research and treatment? >> This study provides a biological basis for some long COVID symptoms, Ted. It could lead to targeted treatments for brain inflammation or injury. Understanding the mechanisms behind these cognitive deficits could open up new avenues for treatment. >> While that's a possibility, Eric. We need to be careful not to neglect other aspects of long COVID, like respiratory or cardiovascular issues. We need a holistic approach to long COVID research and treatment. >> I agree we need a holistic approach, Kate. But understanding the neurological impacts could help explain a wide range of long COVID symptoms. It's all interconnected. >> That's speculation, Eric. We need more research before we start developing treatments based on this one study. It's important to keep an open mind and explore all possibilities. >> Actually, Kate, the study authors are already working on that. They're looking at whether similar mechanisms might be at play in other severe infections. It's not just about COVID-19, but about understanding brain injury in severe illnesses more broadly. >> Which is exactly why we shouldn't jump to conclusions about COVID-19 being uniquely damaging to the brain. We need to wait for those comparative studies before we make any sweeping statements or policy changes. >> Well, this has certainly been an enlightening discussion. It's clear that while this study provides important insights into the potential long-term effects of COVID-19 on cognition, there's still much to learn. As we wait for more research, it's crucial to balance caution with proactive measures. Thank you both for sharing your perspectives today.