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/

@mac12

You can disregard it, that's fine. It depends on what you're looking to achieve. If your aim is to get people to actually listen to what you are saying, take it on board and act on it then how you communicate it matters.

Maybe you think it shouldn't but in reality, it does. It's the leave/remain thing all over again (and I say that as an ardent remainer!)

OP posts tabloid style 'we're all doomed' headlines, then sits back and watches the subsequent shit storm. There's a word for that

@Quartz2208

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.

He's not presenting at some scientific symposium. Why does he have to present papers alongside opening and closing arguments?

Maybe go and have a look at some of the "positive" threads - you'll be lucky if they cite the Daily Mail as a sour e of their Covid feel good story - do you go onto those threads demanding they provide context, a balanced argument and don't cherry pick the stories that suit their narrative?

Op has referenced this study. If you have questions about it, or don't trust the data why not go and do some research of your own to see if there are alternative studies that have been done?

@WhatABellend

OP posts tabloid style 'we're all doomed' headlines, then sits back and watches the subsequent shit storm. There's a word for that

Do you mean as opposed to the "we'll definitely have a vaccine by September" thread or the "it's no worse than the flu" threads?

Obviously they are balanced, unbiased, scientifically robust points that are being presented right?

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.

How anyone can describe a global pandemic as "the boy who cried wolf" shows a distinct absence of a grasp on reality to be honest.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

Those threads are just as heavily scrutinised. The idea that any one point of view is given a free run and not challenged is not representative of the threads I have read.

@WhatABellend

OP posts tabloid style 'we're all doomed' headlines, then sits back and watches the subsequent shit storm. There's a word for that

@WhatABellend

Busy?

I’ve answered questions, explained my ‘agenda’ and been polite in the face of abuse.

If you’d rather not know the risks of COVID19, maybe don’t come onto coronavirus boards and click on a ‘Cardiac Damage in Mild Cases’ thread?

And the idea of JAMA Cardiology being in any way tabloid is laughable. What you mean is you don’t like what the science is telling us. Fair enough. I don’t like it either. My response is to try to build a consensus around measures that might prevent these horrible outcomes becoming real for myself and others.

Some people have a different approach and would prefer to bury their heads in the sand.

Do carry on making me the point of discussion and playing the man not the ball. That will really help us all face the pandemic.

[quote Sunshinegirl82]@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

Those threads are just as heavily scrutinised. The idea that any one point of view is given a free run and not challenged is not representative of the threads I have read.[/quote]
No, those threads have a couple of dissenting voices on them and those posters are derided with juvenile name calling (dementors anyone). I've not seen you or any of the other anti op posters on those boards complaining about a lack of peer reviewed studies backing up the "good news" claims, a lack of a balanced argument of a lack of a plan of action.

@2020wasShocking - here is an early response to the OP on this thread:

“ @ClimbDad Almost certainly transient in most cases. Stop posting inaccurate, scaremongering thread headlines. It's soooooooo Daily Express.

I think you must be a teacher (which is rather worrying) as you seem obsessed with kids and teachers wearing face masks.”

No need whatsoever for claiming ClimbDad’s posts are soooooo Daily Express, nor to claim it is worrying that he may be a teacher. That comes across as condescending bullying, making him sound more reasonable than the poster who wrote those remarks!

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

You are entirely missing my point. In the tale of the boy who cried wolf, the wolf eventually appeared and ate the boy. The wolf was real, the danger was real, but the boy's repeated previous warnings made the villagers disregard him.

@ClimbDad but clearly you are reading all the time

[quote Sunshinegirl82]@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

You are entirely missing my point. In the tale of the boy who cried wolf, the wolf eventually appeared and ate the boy. The wolf was real, the danger was real, but the boy's repeated previous warnings made the villagers disregard him.

[/quote]
Yes, the villagers didn't believe him in the end because he lied - but the op hasn't lied. He's been posting links to scientific studies. Those studies are initially concerning and clearly more research needs to be done - but he isn't crying wolf. He's saying what a lot of people are saying - early signs are worrying and so it seems prudent to take precautions in order to minimise the numbers infected, at least until we know exactly what this virus can do.

I really fail to see what is so harmful or alarmist about that?

Anything short of that in my view is just sticking your head in the sand and denying reality.

The difference between the boy who cried wolf and people issuing warnings is that initially, there were no wolves. In this case, there are very real risks. Some of them are inaccurately calculated, because the available information is not present. However, the warnings still need to be issued, because the threats are still real.

Take bird flu. We have had many, many warnings about bird flu, or swine flu, popping up in China or elsewhere. None of these have come to much. But bird flu and swine flu strains both have the capability of making Covid look like child's play. Whenever there is a new strain, epidemiologists and virologists need to be alert and keep a very close eye on it. It is highly unlikely that the next one that comes along will cause a huge pandemic, but it's important that we pay each one attention. Sooner or later, it's inevitable that one will come along that will cause a pandemic. It doesn't mean the false alarms were crying wolf. It means, we were alert, and the danger turned out to be minor, rather than major.

As we continue to release suppression mechanisms, without a vaccine, on a population that has very limited immunity, at some point, we will go too far and have to re-impliment the suppression mechanisms. If we keep releasing, this is inevitable. Being wary at every stage, going slowly, is not crying wolf. It is being alert.

I fail to see why he posts a new thread each time. I mean it's not like attention seeking is it!?

Hearhoovesthinkzebras You were much quicker and more succinct than I was there!

If there was one post, then people would think, there is one person who thinks there is evidence to support being cautious. If he makes multiple posts, we can see there are multiple experts who support this position.

@climbdad no one has said JAMA is a tabloid far from it.

What I have said is that your posting on it is the same as what newspapers do - taking out the bits that suit whatever agenda you are trying to achieve

I dont have a problem with you posting the papers and doing the research it is interesting. But slanting it to a particular argument and then posting the influenza paper and comparing the two as being 78% for COVID to 10% Influenza I do object to.

As if the two papers somehow come up with that as a statement of fact. When actually the data collection of the COVID and Influenza papers are so inherently different the two figures are meaningless in comparison.

Covid is a serious illness whose seriousness lies in our lack of immunity and knowledge about it. In a time where are desire to be knowledgeable trumps all others.

It is however by no means the worse we have ever faced nor will it not be surpassed.

Quartz2208, do you patrol the good news sites with the same vigor you do Climbdad's, and accuse them of only giving a one sided argument? If not, you are as guilty of cherry picking as he is.

@nellodee

I am not accusing him of cherry picking the research articles he has shown. I am saying that he is taking out the bits from them that suit his agenda. The actual paper itself isnt quite so sensational - exactly how newspaper take scientific research and take out the bits that suit what they are trying to say.

The first post doesnt even link to the research paper itself. But to the newspaper.

My annoyance has always been at posters/articles that take scientific research and use the bits that suit their agenda. As a rule I always read the scientific paper and make my own mind up.

I wish he would do the same - the links he posts (once he did post it) was an interesting read. As was the influenza paper. But the two do not show that COVID damages the heart in 78% of cases to Influenza 10%

At all. And that is what I find concerning. People who use these research papers to make statements of fact that are not actually and that states facts are scary.

@Quartz2208 well said.

And that is what I find concerning.

In the middle of a pandemic, with data like some given here (indisputably credible, if requiring further research), that is what you find concerning.

Right.

If you have so much concern to spare, why not divert it in the direction of our rising infection levels and the likelihood of this continuing as we all abandon social distancing. Or the (hopefully few) children who will become seriously ill from a Covid related reaction this winter? Or those teachers and students who have underlying conditions (like asthma) and will be with other colleagues and students without the benefit of masks?

My brother is a scientist but not in this area. I asked him to show some of your posts to a scientist friend of his who does work in virology. He says the studies the op is sharing are skewing the narrative in a determined way and there are hundreds of studies out there saying completely the opposite. He also pointed out that the op doesn’t use scientific language or arguments, it’s just google speak. Telling people you are working in this area is hugely irresponsible.

yes @5363738383j concern is like love it isnt finite and just focused on one area. Just because this concerns me doesnt mean others things dont.

But in all of this I do find misreporting of credible scientific research and using it to make points of comparison that are clearly incomparable in order to forward an agenda concerning and worrying. And one that isnt actually limited to here but is used by media as slanted so it says something that it isnt. And gets people reacting accordingly to what they THINK the research is showing. Rather than what is actually shows.

Surely you can realise that the research doesnt say that 78% of cases leads to cardio damage. Or that only 10% of influenza do. Or indeed that viral damage to the heart is (sadly) a fairly common result of a nasty viral infection.

In doing so you are taking away crediblity from the points you are trying to make. And indeed as this study clearly states it is not relevant for the under 19s. Because all it does it undermine the point that you are trying to make about rising infection and social distancing.

You have no idea what my stance is on it or going back to school - just that I dislike the taking of scientific research and tailoring it to make a point and using it to make incorrect facts

Scientists usually lobby the policy makers not random people on parenting websites.

Would be good if all links to studies could be in once thread as suggested by MN.