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

501–510 of 546 posts

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

#501

Post by tempestn »

legulere wrote: post #117
tempestn wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone will eventually be exposed to covid (probably repeatedly). It's possible with vaccinations that not everyone will be infected with covid however, as even against omicron it appears 3 doses of vaccine (especially a mix of pfizer and moderna) provide efficacy of 60%+ for at least 15 weeks. Omicron-specific versions of the mRNA vaccines are also already in testing, so I would hope those will be available for fu…

The way it looks people in China won't.

China can't stay locked down to the extent they are forever. Hopefully they will have a chance to get their population substantially vaccinated before most there are exposed though.

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

#502

Post by Barrin92 »

quenix wrote: post #371
Barrin92 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 t…

Who is Charles Stross? Wikipedia: "[he is] a writer of science fiction and fantasy." What qualifies him to make such a statement?

what disqualifies him? Do you need a license to read a paper?

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

#503

Post by dang »

croon wrote: post #449
shermand89 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen a ton of videos on social media. I didn't save the links to the videos, or the news articles about the incidents, but surely you can find them easily? I know vaccinated people as well, and non-vaccinated people, both who have had covid, and all are doing fine.

> I've seen a ton of videos on social media. This is your problem right here. 1) Was it real or not? Was it a video of someone getting a hernia in 2005? How did you verify it was real? 2) If it was real, what's the sample size? I'm assuming every occurence that's filmed in the world would show up. Can you make a video of half of them? A quarter? 4.23B people are vaccinated, did you see 50 videos? That's statistically…

Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30307300.

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

#504

Post by sizzle »

rajin444 wrote: post #425
lampe3 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I had Covid and hit a new all time high deadlift (515 lbs) at a lower body weight a few months later.

Congrats, I’m trying to get into squats. Do you recommend the starting strength program or something else for a lifting noob?

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

#505

Post by StanislavPetrov »

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.

That's certainly an important year over year comparison that would be very illuminating about the actual heart-related risks of the vaccine. It is important though that we focus this comparison on New Zealand itself, as far too many studies have been comparing countries with disparate ages and obesity rates while using vaccinate rates as the only relevant metric.

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

#506

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

xupybd wrote: post #475
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll add a bit of nuance here: something that is underappreciated is that China does extremely good contact tracing. Cities do not go into full-on lockdown over a single case. The first reaction is to rapidly do contact tracing, and to quarantine and PCR test all close contacts of the infected person. This is done within hours. The building or neighborhood in which the person lives might be locked down, and there wil…

It's amazing how good a totalitarian government can be at tracking and controlling the movement of their citizens. Don't get me wrong for the most part the average Chinese citizen gets a pretty good deal from the government. It's just scary how much power the government has and how little freedom the people could have should the government wish it.

Taiwan and South Korea also do a lot of cellphone tracking.

So does the NSA, but for completely different reasons...

> how little freedom the people could have should the government wish it.

In some ways, yes, but even the Chinese government is subject to pressure from public opinion. A major reason why the government continues the zero-CoVID policy is that it's popular. There are also scandals that force a change in policy: for example, changes to how the Xi'an lockdown was implemented after a number of highly publicized stories of individuals who suffered because of rigidly enforced rules.

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

#507

Post by blangkz »

Thorentis wrote: post #247
MauranKilom wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it the opposite? If there's a strong effect in "had COVID" vs "probably did not have COVID", doesn't that prove that there would be an even stronger effect in "had COVID" vs "definitely did not have COVID"?

But where did "probably did not get" come from? It is highly likely that COVID numbers are far higher than we know about due to many mild and asymptomatic cases that go undetected.

Why is that highly likely?

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

#508

Post by stakkur »

“Ardehali cautions that the study’s observational nature comes with some limitations. For example, people in the contemporary control group weren’t tested for COVID-19, so it’s possible that some of them actually had mild infections. And because the authors considered only VA patients — a group that’s predominantly white and male — their results might not translate to all populations.” This might sound like minor information, but it calls the conclusions and broad claims into question. In fact, it’s a very narrow study.

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

#509

Post by wwweston »

yay_throw wrote: post #499
wwweston wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Childcare is definitely an issue in so many contexts, can definitely recognize that. Hopefully that's something more people are thinking about going forward with an eye towards the social value of it and the problems of people facing it in even non-epidemic situations. But gains from no-commute / remote setups weren't limited to single/childless people. Some of the people I know who were taking rides / runs in the hi…

>I also saw people continue babysitting or au pair arrangements I mean what I said. Where I live (Wales, UK), it was illegal to have people in your house (and obviously, that meant you also couldn't go into anyone else's house) until mid-2021. Obviously, we did not follow that law, as it was absurd and would have caused significant harm to me and those close to me. Do not patronise me, by suggesting I should have "pl…

> Where I live (Wales, UK), it was illegal to have anyone in your house (and obviously, that meant you also couldn't go into anyone else's house) until mid-2021.

Maybe lead with that specific, then. You know, the idea that people weren't properly accounting for Wales, rather than what you said, which was that people weren't properly accounting for those with children.

Though if we're accounting for Wales, my understanding is that like the rest of the UK (and similar to many other western countries) it had established "alert levels" as described here:

https://gov.wales/covid-19-alert-levels

with restrictions that varied over time. Looking at the alert levels for early 2021 via the wayback machine, it seems like up through Alert Level 3 [0], it's hard to read the restrictions as "illegal to have anyone in your house" so I don't know what to make of that. Even if we're saying Alert Level 4 [1] was simply constant from 2020 onset through mid 2021, the language under that seems to have some wiggle room in it.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20210309231028/https://gov.wales...

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20210302230652/https://gov.wales...

> Do not patronise me

If acknowledgement that there were genuine struggles alongside examining the shortcomings in generalizations within your comment feels patronizing, I can drop the empathy. Would that be better for you, or would you like us to stick with politely allowing that regrettable difficulty and acceptable adaptation could actually overlap?

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

#510

Post by yay_throw »

wwweston wrote: post #509
yay_throw wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I also saw people continue babysitting or au pair arrangements I mean what I said. Where I live (Wales, UK), it was illegal to have people in your house (and obviously, that meant you also couldn't go into anyone else's house) until mid-2021. Obviously, we did not follow that law, as it was absurd and would have caused significant harm to me and those close to me. Do not patronise me, by suggesting I should have "pl…

> Where I live (Wales, UK), it was illegal to have anyone in your house (and obviously, that meant you also couldn't go into anyone else's house) until mid-2021. Maybe lead with that specific , then. You know, the idea that people weren't properly accounting for Wales , rather than what you said, which was that people weren't properly accounting for those with children. Though if we're accounting for Wales, my unders…

Thank you for quickly googling my lived experience. Yes, we had "Alert Levels". The actual laws and guidelines in place at any one time also did not bear much resemblance to the supposed "Alert Level". FYI, it was June 7th 2021 when we were allowed to have other people inside our houses.

I appreciate that I have lived through a particularly draconian and frankly absurd set of restrictions since 2020. However, my comments on being a parent over this time are still valid. It has been especially tough, and I doubt that anyone I referenced in my original comment has kids of their own.

Post reply on HN