[HN Gopher] Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One - Johns Hopkins
___________________________________________________________________
Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One - Johns Hopkins
Author : alwillis
Score : 147 points
Date : 2022-03-22 16:42 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (publichealth.jhu.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (publichealth.jhu.edu)
| darzu wrote:
| What's the effect size? Didn't see this anywhere in the article
| and seems pretty important to know.
| anamax wrote:
| Do we know whether Covid-19 is different wrt heart and other
| effects than other corona viruses or even flu viruses in general?
| For example, how is Covid-19/SARS-CoV-2 different from 2002-4's
| SARS-CoV-1 in this respect?
|
| I ask because the reports of mental sluggishness for a couple of
| months after Covid-19 reminded me of how I felt after some
| previous flus.
| andrew_ wrote:
| New studies are suggesting links to nerve damage as a cause for
| long-covid symptoms https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-
| news/long-covid-sympto...
| anamax wrote:
| My question is how different covid-19 is.
|
| One of the things that has come out of Covid-19 is how little
| was actually known about flus, despite the fact that flus
| have been killing 30-70k Americans each year for decades.
| This ignorance is "interesting" because "we need to be ready
| for the next Spanish flu" has been at the core of the "give
| us more money for research" argument for decades.
|
| For example, it looks like we still don't understand
| transmission in any useful sense. There was some reasonable
| research in the late 40s but we've learned more in the last
| two years than in the intervening 80 years.
|
| Yes, some of the tools used in the last two years weren't
| available 20 years ago but they were available 10 years ago.
| That said, many of the tools have been available, albeit
| unused, for 80+ years.
| avgDev wrote:
| I think going forward we are going to learn a lot more
| about these long term issues. Before COVID, getting chronic
| fatigue from flu was mostly ignored by the medical
| community. Now, with popularity of covid a lot more doctors
| are aware of some possible neurological issues.
|
| There have been case studies, research and support groups
| for these things for many years. However, handful of
| physicians treating patients. I am now seeing more doctors
| seeing patients with odd symptoms at clinics all over the
| US, some even have ads targeting long covid.
|
| I think we are going to make some major advancements in the
| next 10 years, and I'm happy many suffering quietly will be
| heard.
| johndfsgdgdfg wrote:
| The racist and white supremacist republicans have put everyone in
| grave danger. A part, which has absolutely no regard for human
| lives and well-being.
| elevenoh wrote:
| throwawaycities wrote:
| There was a lot of information coming out of college athletics
| early on consistent with the research in this article. Young,
| healthy athletes that were asymptomatic showed signs of
| inflammation in the heart.
|
| Since then there were follow up studies which were split in their
| findings. The early studies used MRI testing and suggested "high-
| risk" of heart damage/myocarditis in the athletes. Follow up
| studies tended not to use MRI, opting for testing for certain
| proteins associated with heart inflammation and ultra sounds and
| those studies found heart damage to be uncommon in the athletes.
| thelettere wrote:
| If there's been such heart damage to athletes that caught it,
| how come they all are invariably coming back to the same exact
| performance they had previously? Is there such a thing as
| damage to the heart that has no effect on performance,
| particularly the incredibly demanding kinds of performances
| that sports like professional basketball require?
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > how come they all are invariably coming back to the same
| exact performance they had previously?
|
| What is that based on? It wouldn't be hard to study, given
| the statistics already available.
| okaramian wrote:
| I think this post lacks an understanding of heart conditions.
| You can have an enlarged heart or other heart issues and
| still be a professional athlete. Ask Reggie Lewis. It took
| Jason Tatum many months to get back to some kind of playing
| condition after he contracted Covid, etc.
|
| https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/celtics/celtics-star-
| jayson...
| reggedtorespond wrote:
| They haven't all. Look up Asia Durr if you want an anecdote.
| #2 draft pick for WBNA and hasn't played since her rookie
| season due to long haul covid effects.
|
| I am not aware of any study on covid in athletes in
| particular, though.
| tremon wrote:
| Some cyclists even survive cancer, and then come back to a
| higher level of performance than they had previously. Does
| that mean there is such a thing as a cancer that has a
| positive effect on athletic performance?
|
| To keep on the topic of cyclists:
|
| Tim DeClerq - out for months after being diagnosed with
| pericarditis after Covid infection.
|
| Sonny Colbrelli - suffered cardiac arrest yesterday after his
| race, two months after Covid infection.
| throwawaycities wrote:
| To your second question, yes, heart inflammation doesn't mean
| they can't participate, participate at a high level, or that
| the athlete even notices any issue. It means they have heart
| inflammation which carries associated risks both long term
| and acute. If you are looking for anecdotal evidence, there
| are plenty of athletes that talk about post covid struggles
| that include a range of issues impacting performance (i.e.
| reduced cardio, more labored breathing, brain fog).
| Dharmat55 wrote:
| [deleted]
| wlakjlkjkerg wrote:
| timr wrote:
| It's worth saying that all of Al-Aly's papers so far have had the
| same basic structure, and the same basic problems: they take a
| population of older, sicker people (veteran's administration
| data), compare to some synthetic, non-randomized control group
| (this is where the "study of 15M" comes from), then extrapolate
| from that comparison to _everyone_. This is problematic for a few
| reasons:
|
| * the older, sicker population is simply not representative of
| the population at large. No amount of normalization or adjustment
| can truly fix this.
|
| * Moreover, the normalization process creates a "modeling
| problem" -- it's too easy for the researcher to find whatever
| outcome he's seeking by mucking with the weightings. With methods
| like this, you have to be _very_ careful interpreting the
| results, because tiny details in the methods matter a lot.
|
| * the signals in the data often are smaller in magnitude than the
| covariates in the study population (e.g. finding an X% difference
| in thing Y, when the population is _more than X% sicker_ ,
| overall)
|
| * Use of ICD (medical billing) codes for a study like this is
| fraught. Choice of codes can create/remove a small signal in the
| data, and yet, it's not always clear that certain codes _should_
| be used (basic example: do you use the ICD code for a bypass
| graft as a "cardiac event" in a study like this? Almost
| certainly, a heart bypass surgery reflects a life-long problem,
| not an acute event due to Covid.) Again, methods matter a great
| deal here.
|
| * Al-Aly is...less than transparent...about the size of the
| observed effect and its dependence on age and health. Often these
| details are buried in supplemental materials, and then he goes in
| the news media and makes bombastic claims about something "even
| happening in younger populations", based on a relatively weak
| effect size extrapolated in younger, healthy people.
|
| * Relatively strong claims are made about _small_ differences in
| outcome. For example, I just saw one last night from Al-Aly that
| turned a 13 per 1000 difference in outcome (1.3%), into a
| breathless claim of "over 40% increased risk". Mathematically
| true, perhaps, but utterly misleading (also, the difference was
| observed primarily in the oldest people, so the citing _mean
| difference_ was simply wrong).
|
| I could go on. Point is, please don't take this study as
| definitive. This is _one_ paper, and Al-Aly has an agenda.
| SnowProblem wrote:
| We should expect some heart damage because it happens after the
| flu too, but this study is flawed. If you had covid but weren't
| tested, you were put into the control group, meaning the
| conclusions they draw (ie. 5% increase in heart problems after a
| year) are going to be higher than in reality.
| temptemptemp111 wrote:
| smitty1110 wrote:
| Dr. Al-Aly's paper is here:
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3?s=08
| yamrzou wrote:
| Previous discussion:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30249618
| rkk3 wrote:
| What was the methodology around asymptomatic covid cases and
| cardiac outcomes?
|
| This seems like a sensationalist claim.
| mmaunder wrote:
| Don't obsess over this. It'll distract you and stress you out,
| which comes with its own health risks. None of us get out alive
| anyway. Go live as healthy a life as you can, find happiness, and
| help others when the opportunity presents.
| vkou wrote:
| You don't need to obsess over this, but you do need to remember
| that there has been, and continues to be a large pro-COVID
| faction that insists that getting everyone sick with it will be
| no big deal, because it only kills <0.X%> of people in
| <particular age range>.
|
| They were, of course, speaking from a position of ignorance of
| long-term side effects, because the data wasn't yet in. It's
| been two years, and in many ways, the data is _still_ not in
| yet.
|
| We'll have another go-around[1] on the COVID rodeo next holiday
| season, if another dangerous variant emerges.
|
| [1] Just because the news has forgotten about the virus,
| doesn't mean that the virus has forgotten about us. There are
| more daily worldwide cases right now, then there have been at
| _any_ point prior to November 2021. That 's a lot of
| opportunity for variants to mutate.
| brink wrote:
| A life well-lived comes with inherent risks.
|
| I'm not saying I want to go live recklessly, but I'd rather
| die slightly less old and happy, than old and miserable
| because I spent it worrying only to realize on my deathbed
| that I never lived.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > I'm not saying I want to go live recklessly, but I'd
| rather die slightly less old and happy, than old and
| miserable because I spent it worrying only to realize on my
| deathbed that I never lived.
|
| So you're somewhere in the middle, like basically everyone
| else? Or are you saying that you're the reasonable one and
| anybody who takes precautions against COVID infection is
| living their life in a miserable state of worry?
| president wrote:
| Most are willing to live life to the fullest with negligible
| risks. Others who want to live life locked down and living in
| a plastic bubble, feel free to do so. If you think Covid can
| be eradicated with zero-covid policies, look at how China is
| faring [1]. Live and let live.
|
| [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/china/refuse-quarantine-
| frustr...
| vkou wrote:
| The whole point of this sub-thread is that for the past two
| years, there has been no end of wishful-thinking arguments
| that tried their best to downplay and ignore the risks.
|
| But your raise an excellent point - if only there were
| solutions that allowed you to live life to the fullest with
| negligible risks...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_washing
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_control_(respiratory_d
| i...
| mwint wrote:
| > It's been two years, and in many ways, the data is still
| not in yet.
|
| But we hopefully aren't expected to hide until the data _are_
| in?
| vkou wrote:
| You're expected to take simple, cheap precautions,
| proportionate to the expected consequences.
|
| You're also expected to not take what you think is the best
| case scenario, and extrapolate that it's the scenario that
| we are actually in.
| kragen wrote:
| A more accurate headline would be "it spares 93%-97% of people,"
| though the interview meticulously omitted almost all quantifiable
| information. The hazard ratios in the paper smitty1110 cited
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3?s=08 are
| mostly 1.49-1.85, which as I understand it means that people with
| covid were 11/2-2 times as likely to experience the condition,
| pericarditis or stroke or whatever, than thr control group. The
| exceptions are things that normally happen only once in a
| lifetime, like cardiac arrest (HR=2.45), so we're still talking
| about a tiny fraction of people.
|
| This justifies the statement in the paper's abstract, "Our
| results provide evidence that the risk and 1-year burden of
| cardiovascular disease in survivors of acute COVID-19 are
| substantial," but (unless I'm misunderstanding the paper) shows
| that the interview headline is an irresponsible, sensationalist
| lie.
| jah242 wrote:
| I would add that for the non-hospitalised groups it is
| substantially lower again at more like HR of 1.3-1.4 - (see
| supplementary tables - https://static-
| content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs415...)
|
| I would also add a few factors that likely mean that this is an
| upper bound: 1. As noted this is without vaccination 2. The
| mean age in the study is 60-65 (depending on the regression) 3.
| There is inherent bias in testing uptake (case ascertainment)
| over the period of the study early in the pandemic. This means
| the sample is inevitably skewed towards more severe cases (and
| will miss a very large fraction of asymptomatic cases) than
| either the population of Covid positive individuals or the
| sample of positive covid people today (as now testing is
| abundant).
|
| This is not to say that the study is wrong that COVID increases
| one's risk of heart disease but for me the language used in the
| interview does seem inappropriate.
| dash2 wrote:
| I now feel much less happy than I did. "Significant increase"
| could mean anything. A risk ratio of 1.49-1.85 is a _huge_
| increase. These conditions are rare but not that rare. Now I
| should be twice as worried about them? Oosh. Will someone at
| least tell me that Omicron 's not so bad?
| exo-pla-net wrote:
| False.
|
| > We went into it thinking that [the risk] was going to be most
| pronounced and evident in people who smoked a lot or had
| diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, or some [other] risk
| factors. What we found is that even in people who did not have
| any heart problems start with, were athletic, did not have a
| high BMI, were not obese, did not smoke, did not have kidney
| disease or diabetes--even in people who were previously healthy
| and had no risk factors or problems with the heart--COVID-19
| affected them in such a way that manifested the higher risk of
| heart problems than people who did not get COVID-19.
|
| They found that even mild COVID damaged otherwise healthy
| people's hearts so badly that their risk for heart problems are
| now comparable to those of obese people.
|
| In other words, it _does_ damage your heart. That damage
| _might_ result in a heart attack, reflected in the increased
| hazard ratio.
| fallingknife wrote:
| > In other words, it does damage your heart. That damage
| might result in a heart attack, reflected in the increased
| hazard ratio.
|
| Or it only damages the heart in a small number of patients,
| and that damage always results in heart conditions. It is not
| possible to tell the difference between these two
| possibilities without actually taking a sample and looking
| for asymptomatic heart damage in the affected patients, which
| this study did not do.
|
| These are the stats for heart conditions on mild covid
| patients from the paper.
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3/figures/5
| They don't look bad at all. Where is it stated that this
| effect is as bad as obesity?
| margalabargala wrote:
| > They found that even mild COVID damaged otherwise healthy
| people's hearts so badly that their risk for heart problems
| are now comparable to those of obese people.
|
| > In other words, it does damage your heart. That damage
| might result in a heart attack, reflected in the increased
| hazard ratio.
|
| This seems an inaccurate reading of what's in the study. They
| did not find that _all_ people who had COVID had heart
| damage, which would be the case if "it _does_ damage your
| heart " were true. Instead it found that _some_ previously
| healthy people now had some heart damage.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Well put, I think this should be considered the prevailing
| consensus for this discussion, frankly. There's a lot of
| noise here...
| dwaltrip wrote:
| Thanks for clarifying.
|
| What percentage of previously healthy people had heart
| damage from covid? Did they break this down by age and
| vaccination status?
| hedora wrote:
| How did they know they were previously healthy? Did they
| have pre-infection health screens?
| cde-v wrote:
| Yes, they were all vets in the VA system so their pre-
| infection health had been documented.
| bhk wrote:
| First, the study does not even use the term "mild". They did
| look at three levels of severity: non-hospitalized,
| hospitalized, and admitted to ICU. The "non-hospitalized"
| group surely includes people who would describe their case as
| "worse than any flu", as well as those would describe theirs
| as "mild" (e.g. a few sniffles for a few days, like a number
| of my friends recently.)
|
| Second, the hazard ratios differ widely between the three
| levels of severity. For example, for MACE (major adverse
| cardiac events) versus the contemporary control group, hazard
| ratios are: Non-hospitalized 1.26
| Hospitalized 2.41 ICU 4.36
|
| One would expect a similar gradation of risk by severity
| among the "non-hospitalized" group.
| froh wrote:
| In the context of this and similar studies non-hospitalized
| means 'mild', even if it subjectively was 'real bad'
|
| Hospitalized is severe
|
| ICU is very severe / life threatening
| TrevorJ wrote:
| >They found that even mild COVID damaged otherwise healthy
| people's hearts so badly that their risk for heart problems
| are now comparable to those of obese people.
|
| False.
|
| The study did NOT look for heart damage in the study
| population as a proximal cause for other cardiac events, it
| simply looked at incidence of cardiac events. Your
| interpretation is one possible explanation as to why this
| might be, but the study neither supports nor disproves this
| explanation.
| Retric wrote:
| False...
|
| Increased incidents is in support of that conclusion, but
| does not provide direct evidence of it. An important but
| subtle difference.
| TrevorJ wrote:
| Lack of evidence supports precisely _nothing_.
| Retric wrote:
| Increased incidence is evidence as is the known link
| between viral infections and heart problems.
|
| Suppose your car doesn't start. That supports the
| possibility of a dead battery, it also supports broken
| wire or anything else that's a possible cause. What it
| doesn't support is your car being in proper working
| order.
|
| If your car doesn't start and you haven't used it in 2
| months, well it could be something else but ...
| TrevorJ wrote:
| >Suppose your car doesn't start. That supports the
| possibility of a dead battery, it also supports broken
| wire or anything else that's a possible cause. What it
| doesn't support is your car being in proper working
| order.
|
| Yes, these are hypotheses. But they are not meaningful in
| a scientific sense until you design a study and set about
| to try to disprove them. OP's claim was in relation to
| precisely what a scientific paper did or did not prove.
| Therefore, the appropriate level of rigour we need to
| apply here is a scientific one.
| Retric wrote:
| It is the study's author referring to damage, he wasn't
| willing to say what kind.
|
| "even in people who were previously healthy and had no
| risk factors or problems with the heart--COVID-19
| affected them in such a way that manifested the higher
| risk of heart problems than people who did not get
| COVID-19.
|
| It was really eye-opening that the risk was also evident
| in people who did not have severe COVID-19 that
| necessitated hospitalization or ICU care. People who got
| COVID-19 and were asymptomatic ...
|
| Why would SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID 19,
| which we all thought about as a respiratory virus, attack
| the heart up to a year down the road?"
|
| I am sure the author would love to preform a more
| detailed study, but calling his conclusions unscientific
| seems to be overreaching.
| tpoacher wrote:
| aw, cmon, you broke the "False" chain ...
| TrevorJ wrote:
| True. ;)
| adrianmonk wrote:
| Nevertheless, the sentence begins with "they found that",
| so the sentence is false.
|
| "They found that" means their findings _include_ it.
| Which is different from their findings being _consistent
| with_ it.
| Retric wrote:
| He did say: _What we found is that even in people who did
| not have any heart problems start with, ... --COVID-19
| affected them in such a way that manifested the higher
| risk of heart problems than people who did not get
| COVID-19._
|
| That doesn't imply that COVID caused damage directly, it
| could have done something else and that something else
| caused damage. But that still means COVID started a chain
| of events resulting in heart damage.
|
| _Why would SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID 19,
| which we all thought about as a respiratory virus, attack
| the heart up to a year down the road?_
| postalrat wrote:
| Is "False." the new "Wrong."?
| bigfudge wrote:
| No, there's not enough data to be sure either way, but given
| that some/most people experience absolutely no lingering
| symptoms the simplest explanation is that even mild disease
| cases damage in some people.
|
| EDIT: to be clear. We have no idea if the outcome-generating
| process is continuous or discontinuous. You seem to think
| it's continuous, analogous to risks from smoking or obesity,
| but others would assume not.
| Retric wrote:
| Lingering symptoms isn't a useful diagnostic tool in this
| case. Hart damage is generally invisible up until people
| have a significant problem. This is why young marathon
| runners occasionally die of undiagnosed heart problems and
| the elderly get in depth testing before voluntary medical
| procedures.
|
| Hypothetically, if 3/4 of population has the baseline risk
| and 1/4 the population has 8x the risk then you could say
| most people are at identical risks. But unless you can
| determine which population someone was in that's
| irrelevant.
| wrs wrote:
| The headline is badly phrased but I wouldn't call it a "lie".
| The intended interpretation is that significant long term risks
| were observed across the broad population, including otherwise
| healthy people. I perceive pretty widespread belief to the
| contrary right now, which could be dangerous for public health
| planning.
| hedora wrote:
| Future experimental vaccines could contain tracker chips and
| cause autism.
|
| ^--- also not a lie.
|
| I'd expect John Hopkins to do better though.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| It's baffling that a public health institution would discredit
| themselves so obviously in this way.
|
| I don't understand the world that these people live in. It's
| like they don't understand the concept of trust _at all_,
| they're a few iterations of doubling down on just going into
| some sort of echochamber nonsense.
|
| The headline isn't even true in the superlative sense (e.g.
| maybe it spares the odd person, but we make a reasonable
| allowance for that in colloquial speech.). It's in fact the
| case that it spares the vast majority - most of us have zero
| detectable symptoms, both during infection and after the fact.
| xorfish wrote:
| The increased risk affects everyone, even if the risk doesn't
| materialize for everyone.
| jdmichal wrote:
| "At increased risk for being at increased risk" is
| theoretically meaningful, but practically nonsensical unless
| you can tell which group someone falls into. If you can't,
| you may as well collapse all the probability into either
| being at increased risk or not.
| fallingknife wrote:
| This chart from the actual paper contains much more useful
| information than the linked article.
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3/figures/5
|
| Basically, don't worry about this if you were not hospitalized
| with covid.
|
| Whole paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3
| quadrifoliate wrote:
| Looking at the title, I am sad to see the discourse in research
| sink to this level over the last few years (well, _I think_ so -
| perhaps it was already at this level before?).
|
| Honestly, it's hard to blame the author(s) for using such a
| clickbait title when Governments across the world have done
| precisely the same thing by trivializing the effects of a largely
| unknown disease, banning public health measures, or declaring the
| lifting of public health restrictions as a "Freedom Day".
|
| I don't have a great solution for this - perhaps just that we
| should all tend towards discourse that is a bit more dry and
| phrased in terms of data; and steer it back to that phrasing when
| required.
| EricE wrote:
| The experiences of countries that didn't lock down proves that
| the "restrictions" were ineffective at best and more and more
| it looks like they caused and are continuing to cause more
| harm.
|
| Lockdowns in cities was particularly dumb. Let's lock everyone
| indoor, in apartment buildings with shared air systems - yup,
| brilliant strategy for a highly contagious respiratory virus.
| If the weather is nice enough for people to be outside, the
| more that are outside the better!
|
| The selective enforcement driven by non-medial reasoning was
| even more egregious. For example, forcing small businesses to
| close while allowing big box stores to remain open - either the
| virus is deadly enough to warrant the prohibition of ALL public
| contact or it isn't. Same with the ridiculous posturing during
| the "summer of love" as if the virus was smart enough to avoid
| spreading at BLM protests, but deadly everywhere else outdoors.
|
| All the lockdowns did was foster the greatest transfer of
| wealth from the little guys to the big guys in all of human
| history :p
|
| Even the definition of "emergency" is now hopelessly devalued.
| The best analogy to demonstrate this that I have heard: If
| someone asks to borrow your car for two weeks and after two
| years they still haven't brought it back, they are no longer
| borrowing your car.
|
| How many people ended up in the hospital on a ventilator and
| potentially died needlessly while the government panned
| ivermectin and HCQ and the media/big tech demonized, banned and
| flat out declared war on anyone talking about anything other
| than complying with ridiculous mandates and vaccination as the
| only solution? Going on a ventilator was a 50/50 death
| sentence. ANYTHING that could have POSSIBLY prevented ANYONE
| from ever having to go into the hospital should have been
| thrown at anyone willing to try it. Ivermectin and HCQ are
| DECADES old, given to millions if not billions of people and
| even if they were 100% ineffective they certainly were not
| going to do harm to the VAST majority of people. But here we
| are. People still make fun of Ivermectin with the "horse
| dewormer" slur. It's very common for drugs to have human and
| animal uses and anyone who implies otherwise is either grossly
| ignorant or the most evil kind of person out there deliberately
| distorting actual science for political/tribal reasons.
|
| I could go on, but the parameters of the disease were well
| known by the March after the December the virus really broke on
| our consciousness. The real problem is politics and money took
| over. Big pharma had a risk free gravy train as long as the
| "restrictions" and vaccine mandates were underway. Politicians
| got to boss people around and make themselves even more
| important. The government, media and big tech blatantly
| collaborated in flogging the messaging in ways never before
| seen in human history.
|
| Trust in government, the media and big tech is at an all time
| low for very, very good reasons.
|
| What's going to be really tragic - there may be a future
| biological incident where there are legitimate reasons for
| dramatic and long term restrictions; good luck getting everyone
| to cooperate after the ridiculous way COVID was handled. The
| more evidence that keeps coming out that much of the response
| and overreaction to it was utterly unwarranted, the more trust
| is going to be eroded. The most egregious that I am just
| dumbfounded that here is ongoing controversy over: it's beyond
| criminal that ANY kids are being forced to still wear face
| masks. It's flat out child abuse mainly to pleasure the teacher
| unions.
|
| That you seem to be implying that governments didn't take COVID
| seriously enough when it's beyond obvious now that the opposite
| is true - the vast majority of governments dramatically
| overreacted and probably made things FAR worse with their
| policies shows just how big of a disconnect remains,
| unfortunately.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| The lockdowns were not ineffective. They were only less
| effective because of people who cried "muh freedumbs". Masks
| have repeatedly shown to be effective, especially the
| N95/KN95 variety. Vaccines were shown to be very effective,
| if not 100% preventative. Big Tech is not a publisher and
| expects you to be skeptical of things you read that don't
| come from mainstream sources. Mainstream sources, other than
| Fox, tend to have some bias, but almost always contain facts
| they are based on. Fox however regularly breaks that trust
| between media and viewers/readers and has been called out
| over and over.
|
| ----
|
| There are tens of thousands of stories that go out every day
| without errors. Pulling 8 or 10 stories out of those
| thousands upon thousands of stories that go out on legit news
| sources being incorrect or slipping in way too much does not
| bring into question the other 99.99% legit stories. You
| aren't making much sense to me here. Almost a million people
| have died above and beyond what normally would not have died
| in the USA due to Covid-19. I don't know about you, but that
| makes me extremely sad with the knowledge that 70-80% of
| those deaths could have been prevented with vaccines,
| masking, and observing proper protocols. It breaks my fucking
| heart to be honest, and I didn't even lose anyone close to me
| personally.
| zuminator wrote:
| I'd be curious to know how the numbers compare other infections
| generally. This page [0] leads me to conclude that all types of
| infections, even the common cold, often affect the heart
| adversely. Are Covid's effects on the heart more severe than
| other studied viruses, or is this really just business as usual,
| the main difference being the comparatively widespread nature of
| the Covid virus?
|
| [0] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-
| conditions/myocarditis/s...
| etaioinshrdlu wrote:
| I had chest pains for the first time in my life in 2021 and I'm
| in late 20's. Doctor couldn't find anything. Felt much better
| after a month. But it came back after getting a booster.
|
| I had COVID confirmed in 2020 with no such issues. For me, as far
| as i can tell, the chest pains are more correlated with the
| vaccinations. I'm rather grumpy at the idea of getting additional
| boosters.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Sorry about the chest pain, but I don't think a guess that
| vaccines caused chest pains - something that many people have
| experienced long before Coronavirus and vaccines - informs the
| conversation.
| brianwawok wrote:
| It's possible they are related, or also possible just
| coincidence. When I was 31 or 32 I had a bout of crazy chest
| pains. Did all the tests, got all the EKGs... end result was Dr
| told me I was fine, lay off the stress. Has not come back, so I
| think it was just a reminder to take care of my flesh bag a big
| better.
| yosito wrote:
| I'm sorry you had that experience with vaccines. I know it
| won't make much difference to you personally, but the truth is
| that these sorts of chest pains and heart problems are far more
| common in immune-naive people who are infected with covid than
| in people who get vaccines.
| andrew_ wrote:
| Could you drop a link to some research for side effects of
| immune-naive infection versus vaccine? I've read the latest
| on the Pfizer side effects but have nothing to compare it to
| for immune-naive infection effects and rate of those kinds of
| symptoms.
| EricE wrote:
| Citation needed!
|
| In fact, there is more and more data every day the EXACT
| opposite is true.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| You demand citations from the parent, and then immediately
| make an opposing claim without providing any citations.
| ccn0p wrote:
| Lots of signals coming from the VAERS system [1]? And a
| few studies to take a look at below. I'd be curious what
| folks think about these studies.
|
| In any case none of this compares to post-infection heart
| issue stats but it seems to me that there should be more
| research in this area.
|
| "Myocarditis Cases Reported After mRNA-Based COVID-19
| Vaccination in the US From December 2020 to August 2021"
| [2]
|
| "Epidemiology of Acute Myocarditis/Pericarditis in Hong
| Kong Adolescents Following Comirnaty Vaccination" [3]
|
| [1] https://openvaers.com/ [2]
| https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346
| [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34849657/
| wlakjlkjkerg wrote:
| tui_smuggler wrote:
| Same for me (30), second dose gave me chest pains for 4/5 days.
| Doc did the standard checks and came back with nothing. First
| time I have ever experienced anything like this. I will not be
| ever injecting myself with another rna based "vaccine" again.
| abhishekjha wrote:
| Surprisingly I am having the same symptoms. Like I can feel
| chest pain during cycling and hours after I am done. This was
| not the case earlier.
|
| I haven't got it checked yet. I am gonna do that soon.
| EricE wrote:
| It will be interesting to see the long term numbers for this on
| the vaxxed vs. unvaxxed.
| azth wrote:
| What about those that took the vaccine?
| exo-pla-net wrote:
| If you're referring to cases of myocarditis caused by
| vaccination itself, the cases are negligible: 2.3 per 100,000
| [1]. Compare that with the apparent near-certainty of heart
| damage (and likely brain damage) if you contract COVID while
| being unvaccinated, and the decision to not get vaccinated is
| not just selfish but self-destructive.
|
| [1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737
| vikingerik wrote:
| Heart damage from Covid is nothing like a "near-certainty".
| The vast majority don't experience it, upwards of 95%
| depending on the study. Framing this as "near-certainty" or
| "spares no one" is irresponsible fear-mongering.
| exo-pla-net wrote:
| Near-certainty is literally the finding of the linked
| article. You're confusing your numbers. Heart damage !=
| heart attacks.
| runako wrote:
| This claim really requires a citation of some sort. In
| particular,
|
| > don't experience it
|
| is reckless, given that we know the vast majority of heart
| disease is undiagnosed until there are symptoms.
| pdonis wrote:
| The study is not saying that 95% of people who get COVID do
| not experience heart damage. It is only saying that 95% of
| people who get COVID did not have a heart-related acute
| event in the time period examined. That doesn't mean they
| had no heart damage at all. Their hearts were not directly
| examined.
|
| The point of this study was to assess whether people who
| have had COVID are at increased _risk_ for heart-related
| problems (and the conclusion was that yes, they are), not
| to assess what percentage of them had actual heart damage.
| Daishiman wrote:
| 95% is not a "vast majority"; that's 5% of the population
| with quantifiable degradation in heart function. I fear for
| the catastrophe it will cause 20 years down the line in
| increased disease burden.
| j16sdiz wrote:
| It's 1 in 10,000 according to NHS's vaccine factsheet.
| andrew_ wrote:
| > near-certainty of heart damage (and likely brain damage) if
| you contract COVID while being unvaccinated
|
| This is the first I've seen it presented as a near-certainty.
| Where is this documented?
| wolverine876 wrote:
| I think they are referring to the paper in the OP.
| the_doctah wrote:
| Please knock it off with the "selfish" nonsense. Even if
| everyone got vaccinated, the virus would still get passed
| around. Then, when the next variant inevitably arises, and
| everyone's immunity wears off, we're back at square one. The
| anti-anti-vax crowd is just a walking meme at this point.
| seattle_spring wrote:
| > The anti-anti-vax crowd is just a walking meme at this
| point.
|
| Not more than the actual anti-vax crowd.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > Even if everyone got vaccinated, the virus would still
| get passed around.
|
| That's not necessarily true. The virus needs to spread
| faster than it dies (look up the R value). Vaccines have
| eliminated other diseases, such as small pox.
| cf141q5325 wrote:
| Thats not a realistic option for COVID and the vaccines
| we have for it. Its a leaky vaccine (meaning you still
| get sick and spread it just as much) and the reduced
| likelihood for infection is nowhere near enough to get R0
| under 1. Especially with every mutation (delta, omicron
| ...) having higher R0
| usefulcat wrote:
| You have a valid point, but hospital beds are still a
| finite resource. So in that sense, yeah, it is selfish to
| not get vaccinated in the absence of other mitigating
| factors, since vaccination prevents hospitalization in a
| large majority of cases.
| EricE wrote:
| What's even more selfish is not treating COVID but just
| telling people to wait until it is bad enough to go into
| the hospital before doing anything, when we absolutely
| knew very early on that anyone going on a ventilator was
| essentially a 50/50 death sentence. Keeping everyone off
| of ventilators at all costs should have been the number
| one goal instead of futilely trying to stop the spread of
| a highly contagious arial virus that is in the same
| family as the common cold. I know few people who would
| think you were rational if you prescribed any of the
| COVID "solutions" to try to prevent cold viruses - yet
| somehow we were going to be effective with COVID?
|
| What's beyond evil is demonizing any treatment other than
| vaccination - but that's still going on even today, as
| evidenced by posts like yours.
|
| I got COVID and was (and still am) unvaccinated, yet I
| did not get anywhere near a hospital; and that is what
| happened to just about anyone who wasn't in one of the
| well known and well understood risk groups.
|
| Treating everyone the same instead of focusing on those
| most at risk was and still is particularly dumb, but here
| we are with people like you still making completely
| baseless claims that are certainly not backed by any
| actual medical science.
|
| Before baselessly judging everyone else as selfish you
| might want to spend more time looking in a mirror.
| usefulcat wrote:
| What I'm saying is that maybe some people who have been
| hospitalized due to covid wouldn't be in the hospital if
| they had gotten vaccinated.
|
| Hospital beds are not an unlimited resource, and there
| are plenty of other conditions apart from covid that may
| also require hospitalization.
|
| I genuinely fail to see what is unreasonable, selfish or
| factually wrong about any of the above statements.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| Counterpoint: dude does not have a valid point.
| cf141q5325 wrote:
| Does that cover risky behavior that could lead to
| hospitalization as well? Lets be honest, we did collect
| quite a bit of data over the pandemic years and your risk
| of hospitalization from COVID is not some random chance
| but determined by your state of health.
|
| Differently put, i am having a hard time calling healthy
| teenagers selfish if nobody thinks about calling anyone
| with a still obese BMI after 2 years the same. Because to
| be perfectly blunt, looking at the numbers the later is a
| lot bigger of a problem then the former.
|
| edit: In case anyone is skeptical about the giant impact
| obesity has, here the CDC numbers from last year
| https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2021/pdf/21_0123.pdf
| Figure 1 has leading underlying medical conditions.
| Hypertension, Lipid metabolism (cholesterol), obesity
| itself, diabetes and coronary atherosclerosis being the
| first 5. Table 1 has the numbers of hospitalized. ~95%
| had two or more on the list.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| You are correct. We should use the terminology "insanely
| selfish." If everyone (not immunosuppressed etc) got
| vaccinated, fewer people would die. This is science, not
| religion. This is not hard to understand unless you're
| willfully committed to ignorance. The existing vaccines
| have so far still been effective against newer strains,
| just less so.
|
| > The anti-anti-vax crowd is just a walking meme at this
| point.
|
| This is a semantically null statement.
| blueline wrote:
| > This study was done before vaccination was widely available.
| Is there any indication that, for example, breakthrough
| infections would have a different result long term?
|
| > Yes. We are [studying] this, but I think the jury is still
| out. We're certainly very interested in addressing that
| publicly as soon as we can.
| smegsicle wrote:
| neat! that first quoted line has css text-transform:uppercase
| in the article, so firefox copies as original, lowercase
| text, but chromium copies as all caps!
| lapetitejort wrote:
| > THIS STUDY WAS DONE BEFORE VACCINATION WAS WIDELY AVAILABLE.
| IS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, BREAKTHROUGH
| INFECTIONS WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT RESULT LONG TERM?
|
| > Yes. We are [studying] this, but I think the jury is still
| out. We're certainly very interested in addressing that
| publicly as soon as we can.
| Fargoan wrote:
| My friend died 2 days ago. Heart attack at 31 years old. He had
| some unhealthy eating habits, but nothing out of the ordinary and
| he was at most slightly overweight. I wouldn't be surprised if
| him having covid a couple months ago was a major factor in his
| death.
| parrellel wrote:
| Very possible, there was a teen girl who was recovering from
| Covid around here a month ago that just hemorrhaged to death.
| Cardiovascular damage continues to be no joke.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| Young people who are seemingly healthy do die of heart attacks
| from time to time. This happened before Covid. If we're picking
| random things preceding his death, why not some other thing he
| did in the last couple of months? Why Covid?
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Seems unlikely. Usually something as drastic as a heart attack
| at a young age like that is linked to genetics.
| LouisSayers wrote:
| Unfortunately these things happen sometimes.
|
| Unless you investigate though it's all pure speculation.
|
| Here's a pro athlete that also died (at age 33) - riding his
| bike up a hill.
|
| https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/76467759/kiwi-mount...
| melling wrote:
| Was the person vaccinated? This was done before people were
| vaccinated so it's unclear if being vaccinated helped:
|
| "THIS STUDY WAS DONE BEFORE VACCINATION WAS WIDELY AVAILABLE."
| wolverine876 wrote:
| I'm very sorry about your friend. That's incredible - 31 years
| old. How heart-breaking it must be.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-22 23:01 UTC)