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

271–280 of 546 posts

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

#271

Post by croon »

Hallucinaut wrote: post #239
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.

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.

Is it comparing vaccinated vs vaccinated + infection or simply vaccinated vs infection (regardless of vaccination)?

Do we have data on specifically unvaccinated infections?

Otherwise we can only speculate on whether the long side effects of infection are less severe with vaccines than without. Considering the general hospitalization rate between unvaccinated vs vaccinated, I know what my guess would be.

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

#272

Post by usrusr »

spupe wrote: post #168

These numbers are exceptionally high on aggregate. From the article: "out of every 1,000 people studied, there were around 4 more people in the COVID-19 group than in the control group who experienced stroke." This means that for every million people who got COVID-19, we would expect 4,000 more strokes. Using a lower-bound estimate that 50% of the population will get COVID-19 at some point, this would mean roughly 65…

...and that's a generously low lower bound, because at this point, the only thing that could prevent a percentage approaching 100% would be a (near) extinction event like an asteroid strike or an all-out nuclear war.

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

#273

Post by bigodbiel »

fer wrote: post #13
ekianjo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How many have had instances of heart failure? Who knows when every authority seems to have a vested interest in promoting vaccines no matter what.

Who is this person/organisation that made every authority agree with each other for the first time in history?

Why first time in history? Iraqi WMD? From Fox to NYT, all supported the invasion. Steele Dossier? All major media outlets (except Fox and OANN) supported its claims and took Russiagate as fact.

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

#274

Post by Taniwha »

verisimi wrote: post #233
ummonk wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's an illness of the epithelial tissues, - ie the surfaces of your organs, especially the insides of the vascular system that pumps the blood around your body - sure there's a lot of epithelial tissues in your lungs but they are all through your body, especially in the circulatory system and heart - it's not really surprising that damaging that results in strokes and heart attacks.

It's also not surprising that it results in the virus travelling through the entire body

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

#275

Post by prmph »

From the article:

>Even a mild case of COVID-19 can increase a person’s risk of cardiovascular problems for at least a year after diagnosis, a new study shows.

> “I am actually surprised by these findings that cardiovascular complications of COVID can last so long,”

Does this imply that the risk decreases with time as the body recovers? Or is the elevated risk permanent?

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

#276

Post by [deleted] »

brainphreeze wrote: post #251
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Omicron is not unstoppable. See mainland China. See Taiwan.

Trusting the numbers that come out of China, yeah right. Taking a look at your post history, you seem to spend a considerable amount of time defending China, what's up with that?

[deleted]

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

#277

Post by thematrixturtle »

lampe3 wrote: post #99
kodah wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had Delta once. Prior to it I would ride 30 miles on my bike like it was a breezy day. When I'd take breaks to vacation or whatever I could pick back up easily. A year after COVID, I'm struggling to hit 20 miles and I lose my progress easily. I'm not sure it's COVID related, but nothing else has changed in my life.

I know two people who have basically the same story. One was a runner a Marathon was nothing for him and now almost a year later he can do a half Marathon. The other one was a natural body builder. They know the weights they can push. He told me that 8 Months after Covid he was down 20% in weights.

This isn't really specific to COVID though, any serious illness can do a real number on you.

Anecdote: I'm an avid runner and cyclist, but after I had dengue fever, it took me months to regain my fitness. I used to run 10K's before breakfast, but the first time I attempted a 5 km walk afterwards, I was basically comatose for the rest of the day.

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

#278

Post by GuB-42 »

madballster wrote: post #270

Many of the "Covid-19 increases risk of XYZ" popular media articles lack baseline comparisons to other virus infections. (Disclaimer: Yes, we know Covid-19 isn't the flu, and it's more deadly.) My point is: how much does heart-disease risk increase post-Covid compared to say post-Influenza? Is it comparable or is the risk magnitudes larger than with other virus infections? This is an important benchmark, I understand…

The only study that I've seen compare Covid-19 to the flu is one related to long-covid. You can have long-covid-like symptoms after the flu, but it is about twice more likely with Covid-19 than with the flu.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...

I guess there are others, I just didn't randomly stumbled across them.

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

#279

Post by sumosudo »

Ambolia wrote: post #12
ptidhomme wrote: post #4

Quoted post unavailable.

Would have been interesting to have control groups in every country that did a vaccine rollout. But I guess we will never know now.

well luckily there exists a control continent. Africa doesn't trust the western medicine cabal, so we'll see in due time whats going on

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

#280

Post by nodamage »

tomp wrote: post #10

This blog post argues that the risk is even higher for COVID after vaccine. https://dailysceptic.org/2022/02/09/heart-problems-after-cov... Heart Problems After Covid Are Much Worse for the Vaccinated, Nature Study Shows – But It’s Hidden in the Appendix*

I don't think the author of this article has interpreted this study correctly. She appears to be comparing the myocarditis rates in Supplementary Table 21 vs Table 22 to get the numbers of 370 per million vs 500 per million, but those two tables represent two fundamentally different cohorts and cannot be compared straight across like that.

Table 21 removes individuals from the cohort once they become vaccinated, whereas Table 22 continues to follow up with those individuals until the 12 month mark. It is entirely possible that many of the individuals that were removed from Table 21's cohort did go on to develop myocarditis, but they aren't included in the measured rate by virtue of being censored from the analysis. In other words, you would naturally expect the numbers in Table 21 to be lower than the numbers in Table 22 simply based on the fact that they are measuring two different things, and this has nothing to do with the actual risk of vaccination because this study wasn't trying to measure that in the first place.

Given the above, the napkin math performed by the author pretty much comes across as nonsense. You can't play with the numbers like that because they don't actually mean what you think they mean.

Post reply on HN