Summary: In SARS-CoV-2 patients, there's dramatic alteration of gene expression in the olfactory bulb of the brain, yet this doesn't correlate with the virus's presence or absence...
... in the olfactory bulb. Seeking to explain this, they checked for a marker of connectivity of sensory nerve fibres (afferants) called OMP-1, and as controls looked at a marker for olfactory lesions (TH) and general. neural activity (SNAP-25)
Results?
OMP-1 - the connectivity marker - was highly depleted in COVID patients (A) with anosmia, in comparison to non-COVID patients. No difference was seen in the marker for lesions (TH) or neural activity (SNAP-25). It thus appears that the pathology is upstream of the olfactory bulb.
While the loss of the sensory nerve connections (deafferentation) was not determined, listed possible measures included "coagulopathy, deleteriously upregulated immune response, autoimmune mechanisms, hypoxia or multiorgan failure"
Good news for the brain? Not exactly.
The problem is that the olfactory bulb is well connected with the amygdala particularly, as well as other brain regions, and the transcriptional changes in it can be seen to a lesser extent in them - alongside as various forms of directly measurable pathology.
In particular, olfactory bulbectomy in rats can be used to stimulate depression. It's also associated with memory and cognitive effects.
One may remember from long ago the first major study that raised concerns of SARS-CoV-2's impact on the brain, based on extensive MRI imaging, showed the most dramatic changes in the olfactory bulb, but next most in well-connected regions.
At the time, the authors suggested direct CNS neuroinvasion via the olfactory nerve. Critics countered that, while rarer, other causes of postviral anosmia can also cause visible neurological changes. The implication being that the observed degeneration is not harmful.
However, as the authors in the current paper note, while the changes are not suggested of direct damage to the olfactory bulb, deafferentation (loss of connectivity) itself can create knock-on effects, not just in the olfactory bulb, but elsewhere in the brain.
Indeed, the loss of the sense of smell is one of the first signs of a number of neurological diseases - most famously, Parkinson's Disease (although one runs into the issue of confounding cause and effect)
This evening, I decided to put all of my masks to a proper qualitative fit test using a nebulizer, bitrex solution, and improvised hood. From the upper left, counterclockwise:
Hey @elonmusk, any way to rollback this horrid UI update? It's destroyed the usability of common controls on the bottom bar. Literally imposdible to have things like defrost and seat heaters as one-click. Is hiding "defrost" even legal? Shouldn't be.
Who designed this thing, and who approved it? All logic is gone. Like, if I swipe my music down off the screen, them swipe back up, it's not the music that comesup, but the giant climate control screen! Is that "intuitive" or "helpful"?
With all the things that vanished from the bottom bar, it's now mostly blank unused space, on the most important part of the screen - even if I fill the custom bar from the limited subset of choices.
What were designers thinking with moving wiper controls so far from the wheel?
* 35% as severe as Delta (which was in turn ~200x that of Wuhan-Hu-1) - in contrast with 95% as severe in the Imperial College report.
* 10x greater risk of reinfection than with Delta
* Boosters give 57%...
... protection against symptomatic infection.
The nuance:
* Age *is* controlled for. This is important, as 49% of Omicron cases were age 20-39.
* Vaccination status is controlled for, but past infection is not.
* Small sample size (15 hospitalized patients)
* They *do* appear to control for time bias with a Cox proportional hazards regression model.
* "Only individuals reporting symptoms at the time of test were included in this study" - Not sure why they're doing this, sounds like a good way to introduce bias.
Beyond the mentioned:
* +30% transmission
* boosted=90% protection v. infection (was 95%)
It's:
* boosted=93% protection vs. severe (same)
* 2,4x more severe strain than Delta
The 2,4x more severe ("those not inoculated have a 2.4 times greater chance of developing serious symptoms") runs contrary to the narrative being spun in some African nations that it's a "mild strain" - statements often made right before insisting on lifting the travel bans.
Statements that - I should add - were just repeated by an anonymous WHO official, along with claims that vaccine efficacy isn't reduced, and also demanding the lifting of travel bans:
A reminder when viewing exponential growth charts: a wave with faster case growth, plotted against waves with slower growth, will *inherently* seem to take longer for hospitalizations, ICU admissions and deaths to "catch up". Simulated scenario with varying doubling times below.
In the above graphs, the slower waves were seeded with more initial cases, so that the faster growing waves past the slower ones on day 27. But hospitalizations don't pass until day 34, ICU admissions until day 38, and deaths on Day 41.
This is an inherent result in the delay between cases and more severe outcomes. If case growth reaches a given height corresponding to an earlier wave, but at a faster growth rate, it hasn't had as much time for cases to become more severe - thus they plot lower vs. cases.
Since comments were shut down on this thread... a reply thread.
1) The existence of a finite number of things that professionals have been wrong about in their field does not in any way imply the likelihood that a random person is likely to be more correct than professionals.
E.g., if climatologists get some specific detail of climatology wrong in regards to *rapidly evolving news*, that doesn't mean that one should listen to John Doe over the IPCC.
2) When one posits "theoretical harms" of COVID restrictions up against the actual measured harms...
.... the real, demonstrable harms win. I used excess death figures to avoid the "died with COVID vs. died of COVID" red herring. And to be clear: yes, these excess deaths are mainly due to respiratory disease, & to a lesser extent cardiac - the way COVID kills people.