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/

This thread is certainly getting a lot of attention. Evrtyv

Every time there's a new post it bumps the thread up. The more it's bumped, the more people will see OP's interesting facts.

For clarity, if someone says they are a scientist working on a vaccine that must be acceptable as Gospel however, if someone else says their brother is a scientist then it’s bollocks?

Thanks for the information ClimbDad

@CovoidanceMechanism

Thanks for the information ClimbDad

You’re welcome.

@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.

No wonder so many people got so upset. It’s clear I broke every single rule

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

But the OP said he wanted to spread awareness. That's the point of his threads. If the method of communication alienates pretty much everyone apart from a few who agreed with you in the first place it's all a bit pointless isn't it?

If it's a case of being satisfied with everyone just preaching to the converted (repeatedly) then crack on.

I'm feeling quite honoured to be on mac12's list of shame

@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.

I think this should be pinned to the top of the Covid boards - in a nutshell it basically sums up every thread on MN that mentions Covid.

Ps I was thinking more of a Harry Potter style patronus rather than whispering three times?

@nellodee

I'm feeling quite honoured to be on mac12's list of shame

Me too

@lousleftkneelies

For clarity, if someone says they are a scientist working on a vaccine that must be acceptable as Gospel however, if someone else says their brother is a scientist then it’s bollocks?

No, not at all.

If, however, a piece of research is posted, taken from a renowned journal I will give that just a tad more credence than aforementioned poster's brother's friend.

Climbdad has posted some interesting studies over the past few days that have prompted to read around them and see what other people are saying. That's how it should be isn't it? Publish the source and let people read it for themselves? I can't really check the credentials of someone's brother's friend.

Hearhoovesthinkzebras

I’m confused, how is posting a link to a research paper evidence of a poster’s credentials? Unless of course it’s their paper and I missed that?

I have close family member who is a highly regarded professor (medical research) so by virtue of the fact that I’m not posting a link to a research paper makes me a liar?

@lousleftkneelies

Hearhoovesthinkzebras

I’m confused, how is posting a link to a research paper evidence of a poster’s credentials? Unless of course it’s their paper and I missed that?

I have close family member who is a highly regarded professor (medical research) so by virtue of the fact that I’m not posting a link to a research paper makes me a liar?

It isn't evidence of the posters credentials, but why do we need ops credentials in order to follow the link to the study and read it for ourselves?

The pp anecdote about her brother's friend isn't verifiable, it isn't quantitive, it's simply opinion.

It doesn't matter who linked to this study - it doesn't change the nature of the study or the results so, to me, the credentials of the poster are immaterial. I've found Climbdads posts on the threads that I've been reading to be interesting and, frankly, eminently sensible and I don't need to know their credentials to acknowledge that.

I am really starting to suspect the motives behind this virtual character assassination that you are launching against op tbh. Have they touched a nerve or rumbled your plot Dominic pp?

am really starting to suspect the motives behind this virtual character assassination that you are launching against op tbh. Have they touched a nerve or rumbled your plot Dominic pp?

Are you referring to me? If yes, show me where I did this? I simply asked you why in your mind the OPs statement about being a scientist was credible yet a poster saying the same was not. I’m not really sure where I was attacking the OP by saying that?

The fact that you have argued and argued with any poster that wasn’t in agreement with the OPs motives indicates a nerve being touched.

mac12

Applause.

This is all very worrying and depressing. I thought I'd got away lightly as my covid infection only lasted a few weeks and was mostly tiredness and a bit of breathlessness. Reading the article it sounds like I'm highly likely to have cardiac damage which I won't know about and can't be treated but will accelerate the onset of heart disease, which will in turn eventually kill me at an early age. I think I need a large glass of wine whilst I process that one!

I actually don’t give a shit what you think hearhooves. This op only cites bad news papers always accompanying them with a ‘I’m just trying to be helpful vibe’. Not content with just doing that (which is fine if rather miserable) they are stating that they’re working in the area to give the doom and gloom remarks they make an air of authority. I think it’s irresponsible, and I’m pointing out the likelihood that they work in this area is very unlikely.

I know nothing about science but yes I do have a brother who is a scientist and surprise, surprise he has a lot of scientist mates. It’s a shame mumsnet doesn’t make people prove their credentials when it comes to things like the op is doing but impossible I know.

@Pingu21 please dont think that at all. It is

All of those who defend how he cites the papers read how those who have had it had panicked from reading this and the slant he has put on it and realise that is the danger.

No one is denying that it is serious and we should be cautious but the producing posts in this way and making it sound like people have a death sentence over them even if they recover isnt a good thing.

I would hope he isnt a scientist based on how he has presented some of his research and compared papers

[quote Quartz2208]@Pingu21 please dont think that at all. It is

All of those who defend how he cites the papers read how those who have had it had panicked from reading this and the slant he has put on it and realise that is the danger.

No one is denying that it is serious and we should be cautious but the producing posts in this way and making it sound like people have a death sentence over them even if they recover isnt a good thing.

I would hope he isnt a scientist based on how he has presented some of his research and compared papers[/quote]
Because no one would have been exposed to this research if I hadn’t shared it...

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8565201/Coronavirus-inflict-damage-heart-attacks-study-suggests.html

Hope you’re going to attack all the newspapers and websites that reported the study for sharing scary information with millions of people.

Feel very sorry for everyone suffering with the aftermath of COVID19. I know from friends how awful it can be. I believe it’s important people know how serious this virus is so we all do whatever we can to help slow its spread.

they are stating that they’re working in the area to give the doom and gloom remarks they make an air of authority.

Grow up! He/she doesn't need to give an air of authority. Go to the bloody article and read it yourself. He's not making unsubstantiated statements, he's posting links to articles in respected journals. Yes, we know his personal response but he is doing much more to substantiate his opinions and expose them to honest critique than 98% of posters on MN (which has a remarkable number of people who know it all and rarely bother to explain how they know or reference credible research you can independently read and critique if you wish).

producing posts in this way and making it sound like people have a death sentence over them even if they recover isnt a good thing.

He's done no such thing. You must have confused him with the DM.

pingu

The information is coming out thick and fast at the moment and not at the standards we would usually expect. This is a passing observation and the long-term could turn out to be entirely different- such is the nature of research at breakneck speed. However, do look after yourself and rest up.

I don’t know why everyone is in awe of this ‘peer reviewed’ research. It’s all been reported in the mainstream media who post links to the sources so really all you need is the ability to read and click on a link.

In regard to the subject matter of this thread, heart damage caused by a viral infection is certainly not new or exclusive to COVID, it can occur from a common cold, there’s plenty of research on this also.

What I should have added was that based on the research referred to, it appears to occur more commonly with COVID although the research is new and limited. It’s not yet known if it’s temporary or at such a high rate as the true figure of infection is not known.