51–60 of 162 posts
Basically, don't worry about this if you were not hospitalized with covid.
Whole paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3
[0] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/myocarditis/s...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 p…
> 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, wh…
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 1½–2 times as likely to experience the condition, pericarditis or stroke or whatever, than…
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 p…
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
False… Increased incidents is in support of that conclusion, but does not provide direct evidence of it. An important but subtle difference.
Lack of evidence supports precisely nothing .
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 …
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.
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 of people in . 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…
But we hopefully aren’t expected to hide until the data are in?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 nei…
False… Increased incidents is in support of that conclusion, but does not provide direct evidence of it. An important but subtle difference.
"They found that" means their findings include it. Which is different from their findings being consistent with it.
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.
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 of people in . 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…
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.