Cardiac Damage Even in Mild Cases

[ClimbDad]

Two studies of COVID-19 sufferers show serious damage to the heart, even in mild and asymptomatic cases. 78% of people had damage in one study, which specifically excluded anyone who’d previously been diagnosed with a heart condition. 2/3rds of people in the study were never hospitalised with COVID19, and were classed as mild or asymptomatic cases who’d recovered at home.

“These were relatively young, healthy patients who fell ill in the spring, Valentina Puntmann, who led the MRI study, pointed out in an interview. Many of them had just returned from ski vacations. None of them thought they had anything wrong with their hearts.”

Dirk Westermann, a cardiologist at the University Heart and Vascular Centre in Hamburg, said in an interview. “We don’t know the long-term consequences of the changes in gene expression yet. I know from other diseases that it’s obviously not good to have that increased level of inflammation.”

Taken together, the two studies, published Monday in JAMA Cardiology, suggest that in many patients, Covid-19 could presage heart failure, a chronic, progressive condition in which the heart’s ability to pump blood throughout the body declines. It is too soon to say if the damage in patients recovering from Covid-19 is transient or permanent, but cardiologists are worried.“

78%, not 1%, not even 7%. 78% with heart problems. These complications are not rare. I don’t understand why so many people on MN are willing to gamble their long-term health and the health of friends and family.

If schools are to open with normal class sizes in September, students and teachers must wear masks. The long-term human and economic cost of this virus is only just starting to become clear. We need to do everything possible to minimise transmission.

www.statnews.com/2020/07/27/covid19-concerns-about-lasting-heart-damage/

There is a personal vendetta against this poster as they perceive he is a tad hysterical. There's always an appalling pile on whenever he comments / posts.

If we're going to go down that road, of using posters and their posting history as a metric for verifying how valid we are viewing a post/ study then BigChoc was alarmed reading it and that's enough for me to be concerned.

Also on nurseries & early years settings, there are lots of reported outbreaks in nurseries & day care elsewhere in the world, eg Singapore & especially the US although obvs their community spread is far far higher than ours.

@Bluebellpainting - it is alarming to find that 78% of people who thought they had nothing wrong with their heart actually did. That’s my whole point. Rather than tell the bearer of the news off for being alarmist, it is hugely more effective to acknowledge that, on the face of it, that sounds alarming, but actually, it was a very small study which contained various flaws - and then enumerate the flaws (eg what proportion of people who think they are healthy but have definitely not had covid 19 actually have identifiable heart issues? How were the study participants selected? etc) and then identify studies that show this to be an anomaly, or less alarming than it first seems.

@Hardbackwriter I understand what you're saying but so far nurseries and schools have been open in lockdown. Lots of parents working from home. Siblings not at school or in small bubbles. September is going to be very different.

@Walkaround it sounds alarming because people look at that one headline figure without understanding the context. That is the point 78% compared to what? 0%, 50% or 70%. They defined abnormal as even very mild disease- something I wouldn’t worry about. It sounds alarming on the surface but when you actually examine it for the context it isn’t clear. And that is what is wrong. People posting a figure that scares people like the poor poster earlier who had Covid- is well and is now worried that they are going to have long term illness and is hoping that they are ‘in the 20% who don’t get heart problems from Covid’ when the study doesn’t show that. That is the problem.

Hi all,
We've received several reports about this thread and the other ones that ClimbDad has posted.

We might prefer for tidiness that the research was all kept to the one thread but his actual posts are not breaking guidelines, so we'd like to point out that it is incumbent on the people who don't like what he's posting either to take issue with the data, to navigate away from the thread or hide it altogether.

Play the ball, not the man, that sort of thing. We hope that makes our position clear as we all adjust to this new normal.

That sort of thing? ... how about you send an actual clear message that the bullying of one poster just because they don't like what he says actually won't be tolerated. What a wishy washy response

@onesleep

That sort of thing? ... how about you send an actual clear message that the bullying of one poster just because they don't like what he says actually won't be tolerated. What a wishy washy response

I don’t think yours is a fair response either.

I’m not really partaking in this thread, reason being, I feel like it’s a scaremongering thread by the OP. The ‘shocking’ headline etc... aiming to frighten at best and manipulate at worst.

I have therefore chosen to mainly bypass it and not get in to the guts of it. Some people are so concerned that it’s difficult for them to simply ignore it and others are angry at what appears to be a scaremongering thread.

That’s not to say the finding aren’t true, but as other posters have stated, they need to be taken with caution. Figures can also be manipulated to suit whatever agenda.

So I think MN response is perfectly fine.

People don’t have to agree on a forum. This is such a stressful time for many many people, but some people won’t be suited until we’re locked down again indefinitely. They actively want that. They don’t care about the mental health of children. They just are about the impact on them and their family. They will go to whatever lengths possible to get people to feel the same as them. Not saying that’s what the OP is doing- but that’s why people are getting frustrated.

Agree, 2020wasshocking.

I really don't see how people can agree with such a blatant misrepresentation of what people have actually said. 2020wasshocking, you are completely making up what other people are saying. Do people actually read?

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

The thing is though that how things are communicated matters. You can have the most valid point in the world but if the way you communicate it is poor you won't influence others to hear you.

The point I'm making is that if we are not careful, being too negative and too insistent on impending risks will make people disregard any future concerns that are raised. Particularly when previous warnings haven't resulted in the negative consequences warned of. If lots of people stop listening entirely then that is a real problem in terms of keeping control of this thing.

I guarantee that repeated posts will cause quite a lot of posters to completely disregard the contents of those posts, regardless of their validity. People will be sceptical of the entire message when perhaps they shouldn't be.

@2020wasShocking - what you are seemingly failing to acknowledge is that ClimbDad is clearly anxious himself, not deliberately scaring others for pleasure. He is behaving in exactly the way anxious people do - focusing on the negative and the things that are making him anxious. All the aggressive responses towards him are singularly unhelpful, will do nothing to reduce his anxiety, and make the aggressors come across as the unreasonable ones. If you were really concerned about people being made anxious, you wouldn’t be so tolerant of some of the rather vitriolic attacks against him.

@Walkaround

Anxiety has been suggested and robustly rejected by the OP.

@nellodee

I really don't see how people can agree with such a blatant misrepresentation of what people have actually said. 2020wasshocking, you are completely making up what other people are saying. Do people actually read?

That's the narrative on any board whenever posters don't post incessantly optimistic and positive posts.

Any hint of realism is met with cries of "you want us all to stay locked down forever". It's ridiculous and irresponsible.

[quote Sunshinegirl82]@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

The thing is though that how things are communicated matters. You can have the most valid point in the world but if the way you communicate it is poor you won't influence others to hear you.

The point I'm making is that if we are not careful, being too negative and too insistent on impending risks will make people disregard any future concerns that are raised. Particularly when previous warnings haven't resulted in the negative consequences warned of. If lots of people stop listening entirely then that is a real problem in terms of keeping control of this thing.

I guarantee that repeated posts will cause quite a lot of posters to completely disregard the contents of those posts, regardless of their validity. People will be sceptical of the entire message when perhaps they shouldn't be.[/quote]
This op is posting in a far more factual, even handed way than any of the "it's just flu" or "we'll definitely have a vaccine by September" (where have all those posters gone?) posters.

Virtually every "positive" post on Covid is from an emotional or anecdotal perspective rather than backed up by science, and yet the criticism and vitriol is being reserved for a poster presenting the opposite view.

Unfortunately, this is a global pandemic. You really can't insist on only happy, cheery posts because the truth is unpalatable. Maybe if people hear the truth, rather than a sugar coated version that many mnetters seem to want, behaviours might start to change and we could avert a second wave?

Having written papers for scientific journals myself I would say no scientist bases their theory solely on one study or one piece of research. You really need multiple sources to effectively proof a theory.
Therefore, one paper (wherever it may be published) does not prove anything.

@Sunshinegirl82 - so, you believe the OP when he says he is not anxious, but don’t believe anything else he says, because it comes across as excessively negative. I know a lot of highly stressed, anxious people who deny it is anxiety that is making them think that way.

But @Hearhoovesthinkzebras so is some of his posting without context.

He is very much like a tabloid newspaper cherry picking the bits of the research that suit his narrative (or the narrative that gets clicks) rather than presenting the research in a much more balanced manner.

Keep posting @ClimbDad I'm a grown up and I'm happy to read the truth, however unpalatable. Equally happy to read research that knocks your links down, in fact I'd be bloody delighted.

But God am I over the 'la-la-la-everything-is-fine' brigade. The foolish wishful thinking of grown adults has been truly shocking to me.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

I completely disagree with you on that. There are plenty of positive study results which are posted in a perfectly sensible way.

The numbers and graphs thread is fantastic for dealing with all data that is available in a very measured way.

In any event my point is not really about the actually study that has been referenced it is about accepting that the "boy who cried wolf " effect is real and that the way information is communicated can directly impact the likelihood that someone will take it on board and act on it.

I firmly believe a measured and balanced approach bears the most fruit. That does not mean being endlessly positive but it also does not mean focussing almost exclusively on the negative and issuing repeated warning that are not subsequently born out.

I am still positive (but realistic) about the vaccine by the way, results of the next stage of the trial are expected due next month. Most of the vaccine followers are now over on the vaccine thread.

@nellodee

I really don't see how people can agree with such a blatant misrepresentation of what people have actually said. 2020wasshocking, you are completely making up what other people are saying. Do people actually read?

I’ve not read all the thread at all no. I’m replying to the fact that people seem to think the OP was being bullied.

I don’t believe that to be the case.

I have no idea what you’re taking about other than that!!

Yes this thread

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/3972437-Daily-numbers-graphs-analysis-thread-13?pg=21

Is very good at looking at and analysing the research and data out there and creating a balanced view

[quote Walkaround]**@2020wasShocking* - what you are seemingly failing to acknowledge is that ClimbDad* is clearly anxious himself, not deliberately scaring others for pleasure. He is behaving in exactly the way anxious people do - focusing on the negative and the things that are making him anxious. All the aggressive responses towards him are singularly unhelpful, will do nothing to reduce his anxiety, and make the aggressors come across as the unreasonable ones. If you were really concerned about people being made anxious, you wouldn’t be so tolerant of some of the rather vitriolic attacks against him.[/quote]
I’m saying everyone is anxious!!!

From an outsiders perspective (ie not really part of the debate other than now)

As stated, I’ve not read all 10 pages, but from the initial post I can tell some people’s anxiety levels are going to escalate.

Both sides of the fence are going to have their say. That’s not bullying.

The point I'm making is that if we are not careful, being too negative and too insistent on impending risks will make people disregard any future concerns that are raised.

Oh. Spin, then.
We were given the light touch - ‘wash your hands, folks! Mild sniffles for most’ - and there are now 65,000 excess deaths in four months, tens of thousands with Long Covid and one of the worst economic outcomes.
I would rather have the facts, however difficult, about the risks we face so we can make sensible decisions about how to proceed. Otherwise aren’t we going to repeat past mistakes?

I agree @mac12 we do need the facts

I am just not always sure that Climbdad presents facts more his analysis of the data that further serves his cause.

Facts should be neutral and opinion free. His posts are not