Has anyone found a quantification of the HR for vaccinated vs non-vaccinated patients in the study?
Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins
111–120 of 162 posts
Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins
#112A 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…
I now feel much less happy than I did. "Significant increase" could mean anything. A risk ratio of 1.49-1.85 is a huge increase. These conditions are rare but not that rare. Now I should be twice as worried about them? Oosh. Will someone at least tell me that Omicron's not so bad?
Life's too short to worry about everything and anything. What can you do about it anyway. Pretty much everyone will get COVID at some point and some people will develop heart conditions. You won't be able to prevent getting infected, so you might as well just accept it.
Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
One cannot live in 2022 without catching covid, the level of precautions I would have to take to avoid it would be extreme and damage my quality of life and probably my mental health.
I've definitely had it once, likely twice, just doing basic things exposes me to it now, so what can I do?
Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I think this post lacks an understanding of heart conditions. You can have an enlarged heart or other heart issues and still be a professional athlete. Ask Reggie Lewis. It took Jason Tatum many months to get back to some kind of playing condition after he contracted Covid, etc. https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/celtics/celtics-star-jayson...
Yeah and he just won eastern conference player of the month. Article makes it sound like he's at risk of any game now dropping down with a heart attack, which on the face of it is ridiculous.
Exceptions do not contradict the rule - athletes in high demanding sports rarely have heart problems, and the idea that they are at equal risk than the gen pop is laughable.
Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please knock it off with the "selfish" nonsense. Even if everyone got vaccinated, the virus would still get passed around. Then, when the next variant inevitably arises, and everyone's immunity wears off, we're back at square one. The anti-anti-vax crowd is just a walking meme at this point.
You are correct. We should use the terminology "insanely selfish." If everyone (not immunosuppressed etc) got vaccinated, fewer people would die. This is science, not religion. This is not hard to understand unless you're willfully committed to ignorance. The existing vaccines have so far still been effective against newer strains, just less so. > The anti-anti-vax crowd is just a walking meme at this point. This is…
You cant just apply some general knowledge about vaccinations to COVID with some selfrighteousness sprinkled on top. Unfortunately its not that easy
>If everyone (not immunosuppressed etc) got vaccinated, fewer people would die.
People at risk of a severe case of covid fare better when vaccinated. Thats it. You vaccinating yourself doesnt save an obese elderly person from covid. Its not magic.
To be more precise, there wont be any herd immunity and that has been clear for well over a year. Its a leaky vaccine which means you still get it and spread it just as much as unvaccinated do. You are a bit less likely to catch it, but not to any meaningful degree. Especially not with the R0 of COVID mutations. Your behavior and non pharmaceutical interventions are still the driving factor.
Differently put, you are vaccinating yourself to protect yourself, not others. You have some implicit protection of others through not overloading the hospital system, but not to the degree some people think. Risk groups are a very real thing and if you are not in one, there are a lot of daily risks you take which are quite a lot riskier. Unless we categorize them as selfish too, i am calling hypocritical double standard.
I would also recommend some self reflection into whether you are using the fact that you are vaccinated as an letter of indulgence like far too many do. You do still spread it and covid isnt just solved once everyone is vaccinated. Not being honest with that could be described as willfully ignorant. Having identified a few especially stupid caricatures doesnt mean you are done thinking.
Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins
#116A 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…
It's baffling that a public health institution would discredit themselves so obviously in this way. I don't understand the world that these people live in. It's like they don't understand the concept of trust _at all_, they're a few iterations of doubling down on just going into some sort of echochamber nonsense. The headline isn't even true in the superlative sense (e.g. maybe it spares the odd person, but we make a…
> It's baffling that a public health institution would discredit themselves so obviously ...
Here's your proximate cause: The article's author is "director of public relations and marketing". This may go some way toward explaining why there's no link to the actual research document in the article.
Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins
#117My friend died 2 days ago. Heart attack at 31 years old. He had some unhealthy eating habits, but nothing out of the ordinary and he was at most slightly overweight. I wouldn't be surprised if him having covid a couple months ago was a major factor in his death.
Was the person vaccinated? This was done before people were vaccinated so it’s unclear if being vaccinated helped: “THIS STUDY WAS DONE BEFORE VACCINATION WAS WIDELY AVAILABLE.”
The study, if I found the right one, has tables where they compare myocarditis in Covid patients to non-vaccinated by excluding data after vaccination, 62% of Covid patients and 56% of non-covid group excluded, to show that Covid itself caused damage.
I would hardly call half of data coming from vaccinated people "before widely available".
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3
Also an interesting bit, myocarditis hazard ratio for covid-infected by non-hospital / hospital / ICU vs:
Contemporary: 3.47 / 12.13 / 35.57
Historical: 5.67 / 19.82 / 58.11
The other outcomes were basically identical between contemporary and historical. I wonder what caused higher levels of mycarditis in half-vaccinated, uninfected contemporary group? That is a tough one.
Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The lockdowns were not ineffective. They were only less effective because of people who cried "muh freedumbs". Masks have repeatedly shown to be effective, especially the N95/KN95 variety. Vaccines were shown to be very effective, if not 100% preventative. Big Tech is not a publisher and expects you to be skeptical of things you read that don't come from mainstream sources. Mainstream sources, other than Fox, tend to…
Your response is the perfect example why I no longer try to discuss this topic with any covid-response-enthusiasts. You're, obviously, entitled to your beliefs, and must consider them well-backed by your knowledge, life experiences and values. Just as six-days creationists are entitled to theirs. I do not judge either. But this response is so typical that I'll use it to point most problematic issues.
First, it contains a brisk, insulting, dismissive and unfalsifiable claim involving modern slur. This is in response to the GP post, where the author went to the pains of writing long-form in a very polite way.
Second, it professes the trust to mainstream media, which seems infallible to the poster. All while crapping en passe on "others" that they do not like. Sometimes it also contains accolades to bureaucrats and/or scientists. Cherry-picked ones, of course.
And concluded with another unfalsifiable claim that "70-80% of those deaths could have been prevented with vaccines, masking, and observing proper protocols.", again implying that all "measures" must have been followed precisely, and anyone disagreeing is nothing short of murderer. While all the available data increasingly pointing to the opposite, that all the "proper protocols" did bugger all and caused more harm then good. Heck, even the latest study from the beloved doom merchants of John Hopkins University declares that "lockdowns in Europe and the United States reduced only COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average." Note the order of magnitude. No, not completely ineffective, right?
It is sad, sad state of things, and the fallout will be felt for decades, I think. I absolutely agree with GP post, that when the real challenge comes the society mobilization will be impossible, because the trust is completely broken. I know mine is.
Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins
#119Don’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…
> speaking from a position of ignorance of long-term side effects, because the data wasn't yet in.
That’s a two-way street (which I don’t think you’re denying). In 20 years it may turn out that the shot was worse than the disease.
Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins
#120Earlier 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…
Is "False." the new "Wrong."?
False.Incorrect.Wrong.
Are all easy ways to tell if someone is about to speak like Dwight Schrute from the Office.