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/

@Theluggage15

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.

Oh well, if a friend of your brother said that - why didn't you say so before?

Perhaps you could publish the peer reviewed research conducted by your brother's friend whereby he produced this theory? After all, that's the standard required on these threads apparently.

Tbf @Hearhoovesthinkzebras yesterday you used an anecdote from your personal doctor about long term issues, so that isn't exactly fair.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

Again, the point is the perception of the "villagers" if you will. It doesn't matter if there weren't any wolves and the boy lied, or if he genuinely did see a wolf it just didn't eat him the first few times. The villagers' perception will be the same, the warnings will lose their effect because the wolf never seems to actually turn up.

I think these threads demonstrate the point. The people you want to convince are not the people who are already very concerned about these issues. Why alienate the people you are trying to reach because of the way the information is communicated?

@Quartz2208 - ClimbDad has linked the credible research for you. He is not telling you that you must believe his panicky interpretation rather than read it for yourself, he is just giving his interpretation and his opinion. He doesn’t state anything as an incontrovertible fact. His OP states nobody knows if the inflammation is transient or permanent. He is not claiming to be an eminent scientist. If you think he is interpreting what he reads in the classic way extremely anxious people read things (focusing on the worst possible interpretation and convincing themselves this is most likely actually the case), then just explain that in ways that don’t effectively accuse him of having a deliberate agenda, like some tabloid journalist. He may have a form of unconscious bias, but I don’t think he is deliberately pulling the wool over people’s eyes.

@Jrobhatch29

Tbf *@Hearhoovesthinkzebras* yesterday you used an anecdote from your personal doctor about long term issues, so that isn't exactly fair.

It's very fair - I've not been demanding that people post not only peer reviewed studies published in respected journals but also opposing information in order to give a balanced argument, plus a suggested plan action.

You cannot credibly criticise a piece of peer reviewed research by citing a friend of your brother's as your source.

You cannot credibly criticise a piece of peer reviewed research by citing a friend of your brother's as your source.

[quote Sunshinegirl82]@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

Again, the point is the perception of the "villagers" if you will. It doesn't matter if there weren't any wolves and the boy lied, or if he genuinely did see a wolf it just didn't eat him the first few times. The villagers' perception will be the same, the warnings will lose their effect because the wolf never seems to actually turn up.

I think these threads demonstrate the point. The people you want to convince are not the people who are already very concerned about these issues. Why alienate the people you are trying to reach because of the way the information is communicated?

[/quote]
Neither I nor the op nor any of the sensible posters on this thread are running MN equivalent of public health England. It's not up to us to educate people or to convince people who can't recognise what is happening in front of their faces.

Op is drawing attention to this piece of research - if you aren't interested then don't read it. Why do any of us need to consider how best to discuss it? This is an internet forum not a health education site.

Well, it is possible, as people say frequently on here, to be concerned about more than one thing at the same time. It is actually fairly useless to be 'concerned' about the (slowly) rising infection level per se; there is on the other hand a point in modifying one's behaviour to try to keep the infection level down.

Posting decontextualised snapshots like the headline of this thread could suggest to some casual readers that without doubt 78% of all people who have ever suffered COVID will develop heart disease. That is not what the data indicates.

The Data thread is the best one for a balanced view. It is attempting to interpret data rather than cherry picking good or bad news. There are other things in people's lives to be concerned about in addition to COVID-19. People are still getting ill and dying of other things. People are living in poverty. Children are not getting educated or may be stuck in abusive households. We can direct our concern at these things too.

Nor should we base our understanding of the matter on what your doctor said on the phone. You can't critisise someone for second hand info when you have done the same yourself.

@Walkaround before the comparison to flu I would agree with you and uttered the words facts are scary both of which I think go against that.

This post as a whole no but all of them together do show an agenda when it comes to schools.

One in many ways he is right with as it a happens teachers should be wearing masks if they want and there should be smaller groups and less large interactions.
Ironically his approach takes away from that by sensationalising and misrepresenting credible research

And didn’t him claim to be a scientist at one point t

@Ontopofthesunset

Well, it is possible, as people say frequently on here, to be concerned about more than one thing at the same time. It is actually fairly useless to be 'concerned' about the (slowly) rising infection level per se; there is on the other hand a point in modifying one's behaviour to try to keep the infection level down.

Posting decontextualised snapshots like the headline of this thread could suggest to some casual readers that without doubt 78% of all people who have ever suffered COVID will develop heart disease. That is not what the data indicates.

The Data thread is the best one for a balanced view. It is attempting to interpret data rather than cherry picking good or bad news. There are other things in people's lives to be concerned about in addition to COVID-19. People are still getting ill and dying of other things. People are living in poverty. Children are not getting educated or may be stuck in abusive households. We can direct our concern at these things too.

I really agree with you! I am really worried about covid, i do not think it is the flu. I follow all the guidelines. However I am equally worried about other issues and really disagree with the theme that only covid matters

quartz

If you're going to get concerned about the kind of biased reporting you describe, I don't know how you stomach most of mumsnet. Didn't you have a connuption at the poster upthread who retorted (without even an attempt at a citation) that this is almost certainly transient? Or is it just when people post links to the research itself (giving you the opportunity to easily make your own mind up) that you get bothered? And wouldn't it be better to be bothered about what the government is doing in this vein (on the basis that they have a lot more power than climbdad)? You could be eloquent about that, perhaps?

@Jrobhatch29

Nor should we base our understanding of the matter on what your doctor said on the phone. You can't critisise someone for second hand info when you have done the same yourself.

So, disregard what my Dr said then, which was basically a back log of respiratory referrals due to Covid. I'm quite sure it wasn't particularly controversial since it's pretty well known now that Covid has caused a back log and extended waiting lists within the NHS. It still remains, I was posting a personal anecdote, I was not critiquing a scientific study by using a personal anecdote as my evidence that the study was controversial.

is actually fairly useless to be 'concerned' about the (slowly) rising infection level per se; there is on the other hand a point in modifying one's behaviour to try to keep the infection level down.

Without wanting to be pedantic, the cause and effect logic is fairly self-evident there.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras i actually dont mind anecdotes. Infact I quite like them on here to see what is happening in real life. Just your post was really defensive to that poster for something you did yourself. You used that example to support the evidence in this thread that there is alot of people with long term effects (i dont doubt this is true) but when someone else uses an anecdote saying other papers say differently, suddenly personal stories are not okay.

@5363738383j it’s the misrepresentation of scientific research that gets me (in all forms of life). When someone says it’s transient without a citation it’s clear it’s wrong. Neither does producing an opposite source upset me either as that is part and parcel of research.

This though does get me annoyed! It is a bugbear of mine outside of COVID and mumsnet. But that isn’t about this thread at all so I don’t feel the need to get eloquent as you put in about the Gvt

But that is enough of psychoanalysing me

@Quartz2208 - since schools appear to be practically the only indoor space where people will be giving up on social distancing, to a greater rather than lesser extent, and not wearing masks, even though there is zero evidence that teenagers don’t get and easily spread covid 19, and the WHO is blaming the recent spike in European covid cases on young people, why would you say the OP has an “agenda” rather than an entirely legitimate concern about an apparent illogicality with regard to secondary schools in particular?

When someone says it’s transient without a citation it’s clear it’s wrong.

To you, perhaps. Expect more of people, you're going after the wrong person in climbdad, IMO.

Having read back the last few pages, I find it sad that anyone who offers a different opinion, any balance or perspective is basically being put into the "ignore them, they think this is the flu" club. I have not seen anyone on mumsnet say they think this is the flu for months.

I agree - what is the point of threat. As PP said it's not like people are choosing to get COVID?!

Some people are actively choosing to socialise more than others, they are choosing to take more risks.

[quote Jrobhatch29]@Hearhoovesthinkzebras i actually dont mind anecdotes. Infact I quite like them on here to see what is happening in real life. Just your post was really defensive to that poster for something you did yourself. You used that example to support the evidence in this thread that there is alot of people with long term effects (i dont doubt this is true) but when someone else uses an anecdote saying other papers say differently, suddenly personal stories are not okay.[/quote]
As I explained - I wouldn't have had any problem with that poster using an anecdote except for the fact that they've used it to try and discredit an op who has posted a peer reviewed piece of research.

That's quite hypocritical no? I'm going to doubt your credentials to comment on a peer reviewed study, published in a renowned journal. My criticism of your conclusions is that my brother's mate doesn't think you use scientific language????

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

Well, this thread turned into a ding dong. For the avoidance of future diversions, herewith a list of rules:

1. If you have a negative piece of science about Covid, you must only post a link to a scientific peer-reviewed study in one of the world's leading science publications.
2. You must add no commentary or narrative to the post because that would mean you have an agenda.
3. If you have something positive to say about Covid, an anecdote by your brother's colleague's second cousin has equal weight to said peer-reviewed study.
4. If someone says stop being a big cry baby because, you know, flu, you must accept this.
5. If you are a teacher, then what are you doing on here you feckless waste of space?
6. If said study concludes it does not know if a negative impact is transient or permanent, you must accept that means it is definitely transient.
7. If you understand that "absence of evidence" is not the same as "evidence of absence" then please step away from the thread. Only positive vibes here.
8. You must not be a man or have a user name that implies you might be a man.
9. If your brother's colleague's second cousin says he knows a scientist who says the forementioned study is bogus, then you must accept this.
10. If the poster says they are a scientist working on a treatment you must deride them and say they are a troll with mental health issues. Or worse, possibly a teacher.
11. If you disagree with the OP's chosen study, you may undermine their argument by questioning their mental health. For further guidance on this technique please refer to the Gaslighting Handbook 2020: Pandemic edition
12. If you think current schools re-opening policy is flawed then that means you want all schools to close forever and hate children.

I hope that will clarify things and allow us all to move on. @nellodee
@ClimbDad @Hearhoovesthinkzebras have all, like me, been persistent offenders and I think if we all join hands and whisper "make it go away" three times then we can all relax with no worries about September.

@mac12

Well, this thread turned into a ding dong. For the avoidance of future diversions, herewith a list of rules:

1. If you have a negative piece of science about Covid, you must only post a link to a scientific peer-reviewed study in one of the world's leading science publications.
2. You must add no commentary or narrative to the post because that would mean you have an agenda.
3. If you have something positive to say about Covid, an anecdote by your brother's colleague's second cousin has equal weight to said peer-reviewed study.
4. If someone says stop being a big cry baby because, you know, flu, you must accept this.
5. If you are a teacher, then what are you doing on here you feckless waste of space?
6. If said study concludes it does not know if a negative impact is transient or permanent, you must accept that means it is definitely transient.
7. If you understand that "absence of evidence" is not the same as "evidence of absence" then please step away from the thread. Only positive vibes here.
8. You must not be a man or have a user name that implies you might be a man.
9. If your brother's colleague's second cousin says he knows a scientist who says the forementioned study is bogus, then you must accept this.
10. If the poster says they are a scientist working on a treatment you must deride them and say they are a troll with mental health issues. Or worse, possibly a teacher.
11. If you disagree with the OP's chosen study, you may undermine their argument by questioning their mental health. For further guidance on this technique please refer to the Gaslighting Handbook 2020: Pandemic edition
12. If you think current schools re-opening policy is flawed then that means you want all schools to close forever and hate children.

I hope that will clarify things and allow us all to move on. @nellodee
@ClimbDad @Hearhoovesthinkzebras have all, like me, been persistent offenders and I think if we all join hands and whisper "make it go away" three times then we can all relax with no worries about September.

Wow. Top marks for the most patronising post I have seen on mumsnet so far.