Live data from Hacker News

Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins

publichealth.jhu.edu

61–70 of 162 posts

Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins

#61
post #44

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.

Nevertheless, the sentence begins with "they found that", so the sentence is false. "They found that" means their findings include it. Which is different from their findings being consistent with it.

He did say: What we found is that even in people who did not have any heart problems start with, … —COVID-19 affected them in such a way that manifested the higher risk of heart problems than people who did not get COVID-19.

That doesn’t imply that COVID caused damage directly, it could have done something else and that something else caused damage. But that still means COVID started a chain of events resulting in heart damage.

Why would SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID 19, which we all thought about as a respiratory virus, attack the heart up to a year down the road?

Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins

#62
post #11

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…

First, the study does not even use the term "mild". They did look at three levels of severity: non-hospitalized, hospitalized, and admitted to ICU. The "non-hospitalized" group surely includes people who would describe their case as "worse than any flu", as well as those would describe theirs as "mild" (e.g. a few sniffles for a few days, like a number of my friends recently.)

Second, the hazard ratios differ widely between the three levels of severity. For example, for MACE (major adverse cardiac events) versus the contemporary control group, hazard ratios are:

    Non-hospitalized  1.26
    Hospitalized      2.41
    ICU               4.36
One would expect a similar gradation of risk by severity among the "non-hospitalized" group.

Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins

#64

I had chest pains for the first time in my life in 2021 and I’m in late 20’s. Doctor couldn’t find anything. Felt much better after a month. But it came back after getting a booster. I had COVID confirmed in 2020 with no such issues. For me, as far as i can tell, the chest pains are more correlated with the vaccinations. I’m rather grumpy at the idea of getting additional boosters.

No post body was provided.

Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins

#65
post #60
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A life well-lived comes with inherent risks. 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.

> 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.

So you're somewhere in the middle, like basically everyone else? Or are you saying that you're the reasonable one and anybody who takes precautions against COVID infection is living their life in a miserable state of worry?

Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins

#67

Looking at the title, I am sad to see the discourse in research sink to this level over the last few years (well, I think so – perhaps it was already at this level before?). Honestly, it's hard to blame the author(s) for using such a clickbait title when Governments across the world have done precisely the same thing by trivializing the effects of a largely unknown disease, banning public health measures, or declarin…

The experiences of countries that didn't lock down proves that the "restrictions" were ineffective at best and more and more it looks like they caused and are continuing to cause more harm.

Lockdowns in cities was particularly dumb. Let's lock everyone indoor, in apartment buildings with shared air systems - yup, brilliant strategy for a highly contagious respiratory virus. If the weather is nice enough for people to be outside, the more that are outside the better!

The selective enforcement driven by non-medial reasoning was even more egregious. For example, forcing small businesses to close while allowing big box stores to remain open - either the virus is deadly enough to warrant the prohibition of ALL public contact or it isn't. Same with the ridiculous posturing during the "summer of love" as if the virus was smart enough to avoid spreading at BLM protests, but deadly everywhere else outdoors.

All the lockdowns did was foster the greatest transfer of wealth from the little guys to the big guys in all of human history :p

Even the definition of "emergency" is now hopelessly devalued. The best analogy to demonstrate this that I have heard: If someone asks to borrow your car for two weeks and after two years they still haven't brought it back, they are no longer borrowing your car.

How many people ended up in the hospital on a ventilator and potentially died needlessly while the government panned ivermectin and HCQ and the media/big tech demonized, banned and flat out declared war on anyone talking about anything other than complying with ridiculous mandates and vaccination as the only solution? Going on a ventilator was a 50/50 death sentence. ANYTHING that could have POSSIBLY prevented ANYONE from ever having to go into the hospital should have been thrown at anyone willing to try it. Ivermectin and HCQ are DECADES old, given to millions if not billions of people and even if they were 100% ineffective they certainly were not going to do harm to the VAST majority of people. But here we are. People still make fun of Ivermectin with the "horse dewormer" slur. It's very common for drugs to have human and animal uses and anyone who implies otherwise is either grossly ignorant or the most evil kind of person out there deliberately distorting actual science for political/tribal reasons.

I could go on, but the parameters of the disease were well known by the March after the December the virus really broke on our consciousness. The real problem is politics and money took over. Big pharma had a risk free gravy train as long as the "restrictions" and vaccine mandates were underway. Politicians got to boss people around and make themselves even more important. The government, media and big tech blatantly collaborated in flogging the messaging in ways never before seen in human history.

Trust in government, the media and big tech is at an all time low for very, very good reasons.

What's going to be really tragic - there may be a future biological incident where there are legitimate reasons for dramatic and long term restrictions; good luck getting everyone to cooperate after the ridiculous way COVID was handled. The more evidence that keeps coming out that much of the response and overreaction to it was utterly unwarranted, the more trust is going to be eroded. The most egregious that I am just dumbfounded that here is ongoing controversy over: it's beyond criminal that ANY kids are being forced to still wear face masks. It's flat out child abuse mainly to pleasure the teacher unions.

That you seem to be implying that governments didn't take COVID seriously enough when it's beyond obvious now that the opposite is true - the vast majority of governments dramatically overreacted and probably made things FAR worse with their policies shows just how big of a disconnect remains, unfortunately.

Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins

#68

There was a lot of information coming out of college athletics early on consistent with the research in this article. Young, healthy athletes that were asymptomatic showed signs of inflammation in the heart. Since then there were follow up studies which were split in their findings. The early studies used MRI testing and suggested “high-risk” of heart damage/myocarditis in the athletes. Follow up studies tended not t…

If there's been such heart damage to athletes that caught it, how come they all are invariably coming back to the same exact performance they had previously? Is there such a thing as damage to the heart that has no effect on performance, particularly the incredibly demanding kinds of performances that sports like professional basketball require?

They haven't all. Look up Asia Durr if you want an anecdote. #2 draft pick for WBNA and hasn't played since her rookie season due to long haul covid effects.

I am not aware of any study on covid in athletes in particular, though.

Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins

#69
post #57
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It's been two years, and in many ways, the data is still not in yet. But we hopefully aren’t expected to hide until the data are in?

You're expected to take simple, cheap precautions, proportionate to the expected consequences.

You're also expected to not take what you think is the best case scenario, and extrapolate that it's the scenario that we are actually in.

Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins

#70
post #56
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lack of evidence supports precisely nothing .

Increased incidence is evidence as is the known link between viral infections and heart problems. 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 …

>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.

Yes, these are hypotheses. But they are not meaningful in a scientific sense until you design a study and set about to try to disprove them. OP's claim was in relation to precisely what a scientific paper did or did not prove. Therefore, the appropriate level of rigour we need to apply here is a scientific one.

Post reply on HN