So basically everyone who has had COVID (presumably even the "milder" Omicron variant family, although we seem to be permanently stuck on the name Omicron, so the association with "mildness" probably won't last forever) has heart damage, that could last for a year or more? Oh boy.
Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins
141–150 of 162 posts
Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins
#142Don’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…
We need to just all stay inside forever. Be safe my friend.
Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no indication either way because the reseach was done before widespread vaccination. > if i had to guess Your guesses are worthless (as are mine), unless you have some expertise. The last thing we need is more BS on the Internet about Coronavirus.
Even if it was that way, precautionary principle would still apply. Saying "nobody could have known" in a few years doesnt make your heart damage go away.
Couldn't you apply this logic to excuse doing any random thing? It might help so why not do it since we will potentially regret it in the future if we don't? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but by that logic we should certainly be giving everyone Ivermectin, it's been proven to be extremely safe and it might help so why not? You would certainly regret not taking it if it turns out it prevented heart damage.
Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 p…
It is the study’s author referring to damage, he wasn’t willing to say what kind. “even in people who were previously healthy and had no risk factors or problems with the heart—COVID-19 affected them in such a way that manifested the higher risk of heart problems than people who did not get COVID-19. It was really eye-opening that the risk was also evident in people who did not have severe COVID-19 that necessitated…
I'm not calling the author's conclusions unscientific. At. All. He does not refer to damage, he does not draw conclusions about the mechanism which leads the cohort to have a higher risk of heart problems, and he certainly doesn't draw conclusions about individuals within the cohort, only the cohort as a whole.
Other people reading into the study things that aren't there is what I am calling out.
Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins
#145A 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?
1.5 is a small increase, particularly when the baseline probabilities are small (as they are here).
For context, a "big" increase would be something like smoking, where the effect sizes are measured in HR multiples of ten.
Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
"At increased risk for being at increased risk" is theoretically meaningful, but practically nonsensical unless you can tell which group someone falls into. If you can't, you may as well collapse all the probability into either being at increased risk or not.
You have no way of knowing if the increased risk materializes for you. Saying that playing russian roulette doesn't affect you if you don't get the bullet is nonsensical.
No, see, that's not a good comparison. You're already doing exactly what I said, which is compressing to a single probability.
There's only one probability in russian roulette. The prior is that you pulled the trigger. The probability is whether you got a bullet.
There's two layers of probability in this instance. The prior is that you had COVID. The first layer is whether, due to your infection, you're at increased risk for the various heart diseases. The second layer is whether you actually get heart disease.
If you cannot determine which group an individual is in for the first layer, then insisting that it exists doesn't really help except for "well akshually". "You're at risk for increased risks of heart disease." Just collapse the probabilities to a single layer, "You're at increased risks of heart disease."
Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for clarifying. What percentage of previously healthy people had heart damage from covid? Did they break this down by age and vaccination status?
Just one person but i was an early case (family member went to Wuhan 1-2 times each month. During the firsr year of COVID, as early as march of 2020, i had serious issues with gut and hearth inflamation - repeated bouts that started as back pain, became chest pain, elevated heart-rate to 150 for ~3 days at a time, 24 hours a day. Gradyally the episodes became less frequent leading up to a stroke type event co current…
Condolences. That's terrible. I'm glad you're doing better than you were.
Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins
#148Earlier 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. > 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…
Thanks for clarifying. What percentage of previously healthy people had heart damage from covid? Did they break this down by age and vaccination status?
Finding this out would require doing mass exploratory surgery on asymptomatic people, which is obviously unethical, because it would kill a substantial number of them and damage all of their hearts.
Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if it was that way, precautionary principle would still apply. Saying "nobody could have known" in a few years doesnt make your heart damage go away.
Couldn't you apply this logic to excuse doing any random thing? It might help so why not do it since we will potentially regret it in the future if we don't? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but by that logic we should certainly be giving everyone Ivermectin, it's been proven to be extremely safe and it might help so why not? You would certainly regret not taking it if it turns out it prevented heart damage.
Sorry I cant follow. I was arguing for quite the opposite, just assuming something will help wont make it so. We know there is heart damage as well as long covid even in low and asymptomatic cases. Sure you can bet that the vaccines will help there as well, but how confident are you in that? Because as far as i know nobody promised anything of the sorts. It is a leaky vaccine, you still get sick, you just get lung antibodies so you dont end up on intensive care.
Are you really willing to risk both on the grounds that it might or might not help? I would say if you dont know, you assume that its not a magic shield and adapt your behavior accordingly. Which means so you dont catch it.
Re: Covid and the Heart: It Spares No One – Johns Hopkins
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Huh, you've got to reach to the WNBA to find someone. Kinda proves my point. Edit: And to all the wonderful people who no doubt checked themselves to make sure they had expertise on the subject before they downvoted my question (!), here's some food for thought: A 2021 study of 789 professional athletes found that only 5 (0.6%) had heart inflammation. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/... An…
> Edit: And to all the wonderful people who no doubt checked themselves to make sure they had expertise on the subject before they downvoted my question (!), here's some food for thought:
My original comment specifically highlights that the studies are split, but you are cherry-picking articles that support an argument you are trying to make that athletes aren’t suffering from heart inflammation.
Moreover, based on your initial question to my comment, you don’t even seem to be aware that heart inflammation isn’t necessarily going to effect performance, rather it presents potential longterm and acute risks of a negative outcome to the athletes, and you are specifically citing athlete performance as evidence athletes aren’t suffering from heart inflammation.
All things being equal it is probably better to be a young athlete with heart inflammation than to live a sedentary lifestyle and be obese with heart inflammation for purposes of health outcome, but I think you are confounding risk of having heart inflammation with risk of negative outcomes from heart inflammation. As research and studies continue it could very well be the risk of heart inflammation is in fact equal among the populace, while negative outcomes will be unequal, ultimately this is still going to drive up negative outcomes across the board.