Live data from Hacker News

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

publichealth.jhu.edu

161–162 of 162 posts

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

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did the guys who did the study control for vaccination status? Seems very relevant to the conversation. It’s a proven fact a small portion of recipients experience heart issues after getting one of the mRNA vaccines.

> Did the guys who did the study control for vaccination status? Did they? > It’s a proven fact a small portion of recipients experience heart issues after getting one of the mRNA vaccines. How many? It's a proven fact that a small portion of people drown in their bathtubs, die of lightening strikes, and win the lottery.

I’m asking. If you don’t know the answer to my question you can say so.

Sometimes people experience very low probability events. Sometimes those events are random. Sometimes they’re not. It seems like vaccination status is a confounding variable that should have been controlled for.

You misspelled lightning, by the way.

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

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

How am I cherry-picking when I included several reviews? Find one review that concludes the opposite (or that such studies are "split" as you say) and perhaps you'll have an argument.

"based on your initial question to my comment, you are specifically citing athlete performance as evidence athletes aren’t suffering from heart inflammation"

How did I "cite" that in a question? That WAS my question, the answer to which I found myself.

Post reply on HN