Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Heart-disease risk soars after Covid, even with a mild case

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 546 posts

Re: Heart-disease risk soars after Covid, even with a mild case

#231

Post by Barrin92 »

verisimi wrote: post #188
EnKopVand wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m Danish, like everyone of my fellows I had my 3 shots and a case of Omniwhatever. I’m 39 and in relatively decent shape, I can run 5km in 25 minutes and I do 20-30 minute of semi-cardio every day as I walk an 3km steep incline going home from work. Post covid (two months now) I feel the burn so much faster. Completely anecdotal but it had my doctor worried enough that she send me to an EKG and for blood testing (w…

Quoted post unavailable.

>Flu doesn't usually have this sort of impact, people fully recover.

I legitimately cannot stand this flu meme any more. I'll quote Charles Stross:

"Remember, this isn't a simple pneumonia bug. It's a virus that attacks the RAAS/ACE2 system, in particular all the epithelial tissues, and any other cells that express ACE2 receptors on their surfaces. It can mess with your kidneys. It can mess with fat cells, changing their response to insulin. It apparently shows up in brain tissue. Viral RNA can be found in all of these cells many months after recovery from the acute infection: it may have long-term sequelae, like Shingles, which only show up years to decades later. We do know long COVID effects up to 15% of people who are diagnosed with an infection, and can last months to years. We know that immunity is short-lived, and people can get repeat infections (currently mostly by new strains, but reinfection with an old strain is not impossible)."

The ace2 system that covid-19 attacks plays a vital role in the regulation of the cardiovascular system, and this has been known since 2020.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41569-020-0360-5

Re: Heart-disease risk soars after Covid, even with a mild case

#232

Post by arisAlexis »

csee wrote: post #34
wesleywt wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rate of myocarditis is much higher if you get Covid than if you get the vaccine . So indirectly getting vaccine will lower your risk since of heart disease as everyone will eventually get covid.

> The rate of myocarditis is much higher if you get Covid than if you get the vaccine . What are you basing this on? There was a recent UK study (preprint, last I checked) of 40 million people that showed that the risk of myocarditis was definitively higher compared to Covid in the Moderna sample and higher (albeit statistically insignificant) in the Pfizer sampler for young men. > So indirectly getting vaccine will…

This has been debunked even by Nassim Taleb, wrong statistics.

Re: Heart-disease risk soars after Covid, even with a mild case

#233

Post by verisimi »

ummonk wrote: post #217
verisimi wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

While this was a case of omicron (which is more flu-like in terms of which parts of the human body it targets), pre-omicron variants of Covid were certainly very different from the flu, and in particular more likely to target the nervous system. And a lot of respiratory viruses (both flu and other influenza-like viruses) do cause major effects on the human body sometimes. E.g. when I got hit with the flu in 2009 (mig…

Having an effect on the lungs makes sense to me - its a respiratory illness. But why would a respiratory disease cause blood clots?

Re: Heart-disease risk soars after Covid, even with a mild case

#234

Post by jcbrand »

jmpman wrote: post #139

New Zealand has been basically isolated and Covid free for the past year. Their population is approaching 95% vaccinated. It would be interesting to see statistics on heart disease rates in their population over the past year, as we could then be certain any increase is vaccine related and not Covid related.

It can be both. It's already known that vaccines increase rates of Myocarditis, especially amongst young males.

It seems to be that the spike protein is responsible for this, which is present in both the virus and the vaccine.

Re: Heart-disease risk soars after Covid, even with a mild case

#235

Post by MauranKilom »

shermand89 wrote: post #145
gpu_explorer wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm probably going to get down voted, which only proves my points. It proves precisely none of your points. Data please.

Data please? Have you been living under a rock? There are very intelligent people on HN, but this weird obsession with data and scholarly articles is honestly stupid. We're not talking about events that occurred 100 years ago, we are all living this right NOW! Personal and eyewitness testimonies count for nothing now? You're going to pretend that data is not manipulated? If you knew any history, you would know how co…

> Personal and eyewitness testimonies count for nothing now?

Can't see your original comment, but assuming this refers to side effects with sub-percent occurrences, then the answer is "no, random testimonies have no statistical significance without a base rate to compare to".

You could put hundreds of people into the same room whose testimonies show that eating bread is deadly - you just have to find enough celiacs. That doesn't make the baking industry a big conspiracy.

Re: Heart-disease risk soars after Covid, even with a mild case

#236

Post by [deleted] »

inciampati wrote: post #170
lucd wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vaccine antigen is only a small part of the virus. Furthermore is was modified and is inert. https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/tiny-tweak-behi... Because of international pharmacovigilance we know that ARNm vaccine induce some myocarditis and pericarditis, at a much lower rate than the virus and less severe.

There is not evidence that heart inflammation after vaccination is less common or severe than after COVID-19 infection. For instance: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v... suggests rates several fold higher for vaccination than infection. Not to say that on balance vaccination is anything but preferable to naive infection, but it's not a side effect free panacea.

[deleted]

Re: Heart-disease risk soars after Covid, even with a mild case

#237

Post by p1necone »

kkjjkgjjgg wrote: post #149
blkhp19 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you have any symptoms leading up to it? Perhaps you were wearing an Apple Watch?

I hope wearing an Apple watch is not a risk factor for heart attacks? :-)

I can imagine there being a small positive correlation between wearing an Apple watch and having heart attacks, somewhat like the plane armor story from WWII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias#In_the_milit...).

Without the Apple watch monitoring your heart rate: you don't see the warning signs early enough and have a fatal heart attack, once.

With the Apple watch: you get alerted earlier, get to hospital and survive your heart attack. So you can go on to have another, and another, and another. All contributing to the "heart attacks while wearing Apple watches" statistic ;)

Re: Heart-disease risk soars after Covid, even with a mild case

#238

Post by nodamage »

walterbell wrote: post #230
nodamage wrote: post #220

It is important to note that given the timeline in the study (March 2020 to Jan 2021) most of the COVID-19 group was likely unvaccinated. It remains to be seen whether vaccination protects against these same risks. Edit: This is confirmed in the supplementary data. Only 347 (0.23%) of the 162,690 people in the COVID-19 group were vaccinated prior to infection. That being said, a reasonably large percentage (61.93%) w…

Paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3 That's the pool of 60+ year-old veterans who were selected after testing positive and then subsequently monitored for one year. It is likely that many were vaccinated during the 1-year period from Jan 2021 - Jan 2022. e.g. as of July 2021, the VA % vaccinated was about 50%, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/07/26/va-man... We know that mRNA vacci…

I'm not sure how that contradicts what I said? Most of the people in the COVID-19 group tested positive before the vaccines were approved in December 2020. Yes, they might have been vaccinated afterwards, but my point is they did not have vaccine-induced antibodies at the time of their infections.

Re: Heart-disease risk soars after Covid, even with a mild case

#239

Post by Hallucinaut »

inciampati wrote: post #170
lucd wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vaccine antigen is only a small part of the virus. Furthermore is was modified and is inert. https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/tiny-tweak-behi... Because of international pharmacovigilance we know that ARNm vaccine induce some myocarditis and pericarditis, at a much lower rate than the virus and less severe.

There is not evidence that heart inflammation after vaccination is less common or severe than after COVID-19 infection. For instance: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v... suggests rates several fold higher for vaccination than infection. Not to say that on balance vaccination is anything but preferable to naive infection, but it's not a side effect free panacea.

Thanks for that link. It contradicts previous studies that put the risk of myocarditis from unvaccinated COVID infection at between 6 and 15 times higher than that from vaccination (and 30x general baseline rate).

So I read through it and in fact, it doesn't say what you assert to say it does. This is comparing vaccinated Vs vaccinated+COVID. See the comments from vepe for full explanation.

Re: Heart-disease risk soars after Covid, even with a mild case

#240

Post by Asooka »

arisAlexis wrote: post #221
inciampati wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is not evidence that heart inflammation after vaccination is less common or severe than after COVID-19 infection. For instance: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v... suggests rates several fold higher for vaccination than infection. Not to say that on balance vaccination is anything but preferable to naive infection, but it's not a side effect free panacea.

This has been debunked many times

I don't see you posting links to papers that support your assertion.
Post reply on HN