Just as society shrugs off protection from the COVID-19 Omicron variant and other subvariants of Omicron such as BA.2, the Lancet Journal of Psychiatry recently concluded that infection can lead to long-term brain damage. published a study that found that

The Lancet Psychiatry ranks second among 157 psychiatric journals worldwide. Omicron and other variants of Omicron, such as BA.2, account for 70% of new infections in the United States.

COVID-19 infection is like a bad cold.

Early symptoms are misleading about the dangers of COVID-19. Although the number of deaths per infection is much lower than in previous variations, a University of Oxford study examining data from the health records of more than 1.3 million people living in seven countries around the world found that COVID-19 infections Later adults were found to have an increased risk of dementia. Deficits, dementia, psychotic disorders, psychoses including brain fog, and epilepsy or seizures remained after 2 years.

A Washington Post article (August 10) about the Oxford study reported that David Putrino, Director of Rehabilitation Innovation at New York’s Mount Sinai Health System, found very disturbing consequences from COVID-19 infection. .

“We can undoubtedly see the emergence of significant neuropsychiatric sequelae. [the consequence of a previous disease] It’s much more common in people who have had covid than in people who haven’t.

“Common discourse continues to omit the long covid,” Putrino told The Washington Post. There is none.”

Looking at this report, science deniers would argue that it is flawed, inconclusive, and therefore unremarkable. In this way they prove either ignorant of the scientific research process or conquer knowledge for political ends.

The scientists who conducted the study and wrote the report made it clear that their study was not the final word on the questions they pursued. subspecies “suggests an ongoing neuropsychiatric burden”.

In their report, the researchers acknowledged that “our study has certain limitations in addition to those inherent in electronic health record research,” and cited areas where additional research is needed.

How the news media reports research is a major problem in the understanding of scientific research by “men and women in the street.” Few journalists have a significant education in science.

So the blinds are leading the blinds.

One reason is the fact that most journalists avoided science classes in high school and college as much as possible.

The future of public understanding of science is not bright. Many would say it’s bad luck.

The rise of television in the 1950s marked a tipping point in which we became less dependent on newspapers as the primary source of news, but the advent of the Internet had dire consequences for newspapers.

The United States has lost over 2,200 newspapers in the last 17 years.

Newspapers have never done a good job of educating people about science, but they are nonetheless our only hope for doing the job.

But financial concerns have forced the newspaper to cut headcount and cut print numbers. This undermines the hope that the remaining newspapers will report meaningfully on science.

Television news is an utter disaster, not only in terms of reporting science, but in terms of reporting anything that makes sense. And the Internet isn’t all that great at science reporting.

Day is a retired faculty member of Washington State University and has been a Pullman resident since 1972. He has a lifelong interest in agriculture, history, law, politics and religion. He recommends sending an email with pros and cons to terence@moscow.com.