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

521–530 of 546 posts

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

#521

Post by native_samples »

nradov wrote: post #457
native_samples wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's just an assumption. Many people seem to have pre-existing immunity. A study was done in which unvaccinated, non previously infected volunteers actually lay down in bed for a while with SARS-CoV-2 infected liquid in their noses (eww). So they were unequivocally exposed to a massive dose but only about half got COVID. There is no explanation for this within the bounds of the assumptions made by authorities.…

Some level of pre-existing immunity due to prior exposure to other similar coronaviruses is possible but hasn't been confirmed. https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(21)00571-3/ful... Many patients who are exposed to SARS-CoV-2 quickly fight off the infection with an innate immune response before the adaptive immune response really engages. That can happen with no pre-existing immunity. Some people just have…

Are you trying to define an immune system that can fight off SARS-CoV-2 without having seen it before is not "pre-existing immunity"? If so isn't that merely playing with words? You seem to be agreeing with what I'm saying but arguing that the terminology should be different.

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

#522

Post by chiefalchemist »

nradov wrote: post #515
chiefalchemist wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a question of ineffectivrness. It's a question of treating a large number of people, with a spot light on them, and then blaming the illness for "long Covid". Maybe it is the virus? But maybe it's the treatment? Or a combo of both? Or a combo plus some other factor? Two examples that might help frame things: 1) Chemo. It's toxic. 2) A couple of yrs ago a family member was hospitalized from a stroke. They nee…

Many of the treatments listed in the official NIH guidelines have significant negative side effects. Those are clearly acknowledged so I don't understand why you seem to think they're being hidden? In fact some of the treatments are only recommended for more severe cases partly due to the risk of side effects. https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/ Mechanical ventilation was overused early in the p…

I didn't say nor imply they are being hidden. What I'm questioning is the attribution of so called long Covid strictly to the virus and not to any of the treatments and/or people's general state of health prior to getting sick. It's the mono-lens. It's the thumb on the scale narrative.

Sure there are outliers (i.e., people in very good health getting long Covid) and the media is great in highlighting them. It makes for profitable "news." But the typical American doesn't exercise enough, and doesn't eat particularly well. These things impact health. They impact recovery (from any illness or injury). Yet we continue to be stuck with leadership and a narrative that is afraid to discuss such things.

That's all I'm questioning.

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

#523

Post by maxerickson »

ls15 wrote: post #474
maxerickson wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3 doses of vaccination is 60% protective against Omicron transmission. Its not 100% effective, but it's a lot higher than "doesn't".

60% seems quite high, given that the CDC director says that the vaccines cannot prevent transmission anymore, but I haven't seen any confirmed numbers for Omicron transmission so far. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/cdc-director-covid-...

Only a little high:

https://twitter.com/wanderer_jasnah/status/14924411217289134...

(effectiveness against Omicron peaks at 55% after the boosters and then declines)

Protection against severe disease remains high even with just 2 doses.

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

#524

Post by x86_64Ubuntu »

johnisgood wrote: post #491
x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People talk about NEVER recovering their previous cardio performance after a COVID infection. No one expects anyone to be seriously sick, and then have anything resembling their previous performance levels when they first start back.

> People talk about NEVER recovering their previous cardio performance after a COVID infection. And how would they know, really?

Because it's been years since their infection and they haven't recovered it yet.

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

#525

Post by girvo »

skocznymroczny wrote: post #345
girvo wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your “opinion” is contrary to observable facts and puts others in danger, yes. Pretty straightforward actually. Those posting this nonsense ignore the facts, so ignoring them seems prudent.

"puts others in danger", "threat to public security", "views incompatible with society" have been used by authoritarians to excuse their actions since forever.

Sure. I’m a civilian though, I have no power over you, so you going on my block list has nothing to do with authoritarianism. Try again.

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

#526

Post by girvo »

postsantum wrote: post #379
YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you don't want to and even if you are a hermit in the mountain you are still part of the society. Your decision is not personal it never was and there are now protein based vaccines available so at least you can't use the mrna cop out anymore.

It is personal. As long as people around me are vaccinated, why would they care about my health? The vaccine doesn't prevent transmitting In case you are talking about burdening the medical system, why not apply the same rhetoric to smoking, drinking, being fat and riding motorcycles?

> In case you are talking about burdening the medical system, why not apply the same rhetoric to smoking, drinking, being fat and riding motorcycles?

People absolutely do. What’s your point?

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

#527

Post by csee »

arisAlexis wrote: post #232
csee wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Summarize his argument for us?

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

#528

Post by RedBeetDeadpool »

NullInvictus wrote: post #192

Every COVID story here is an interesting little glimpse into how a seemingly normal forum has their latent political views exploited into adopting a conspiracy theory, re: anti-vaccine rhetoric. It becomes a little more extreme every day. This study has nothing to do with the vaccine, and yet this is what HN clamors for. I wonder how many people here understand what kind of ride they're being taken for.

> re: anti-vaccine rhetoric

Correction, it should be "re: vaccine rhetoric". Normality is no vaccine.

Remember, vaccination is an idea propagated by some entity - "anti-vax" as anyone who disagrees has been labeled, is in actuality the base condition.

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

#529

Post by chansiky »

isolli wrote: post #8

What I would like to know is, for young males (i.e. those who are most at risk of myocarditis after the vaccine), does the vaccine lessen cardiac risks in a subsequent infection or not?

> "This is the figure, and it shows really clearly, that when you look at myocarditis just in this group, men under the age of 40, it is crystal clear, pfizer dose 2, pfizer dose 3, moderna dose 1, moderna dose 2, have rates of myocarditis greater than the rate of myocarditis post SARS-CoV-2 infection"

- Vinay Prasad MD MPH ( https://youtu.be/NR_ZVzrTeYk?t=47 )

Source used by the video author from nature.com: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf

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

#530

Post by ekianjo »

fer wrote: post #406
ekianjo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the FDA does something it influences regulatory bodies around the world, in case you have not heard.

I think you overestimate the influence of the FDA around the world. To point an example, the FDA approved oxycodone for oral administration (and trusted patients with the dosage of a strong opioid). Meanwhile in most European countries it's rarely prescribed, and often only given IV/IM form (i.e. in the hospital). Anecdotally, a typical post in "Expat in XXX" groups on FB involves Americans shocked that their medicin…

> To point an example, the FDA approved oxycodone for oral administration (and trusted patients with the dosage of a strong opioid). Meanwhile in most European countries it's rarely prescribed, and often only given IV/IM form (i.e. in the hospital).

So you take the exception to make a case? Around the world most regulatory bodies look at what the FDA has approved and take it from there to elaborate their own opinions. Oxycodone was an exception because it's an opoid and most countries knew better than to accept such classes of drugs because of well known experiences with such drugs in the past.

Post reply on HN