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/

And the whole point of having children in every other week is so that class sizes can be half as big, meaning social distancing would be possible. Why on earth would we have the whole school running but only for half the time? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

My personal preference for secondaries is for a 50/50 split of remote (not online) learning and in school.

That renders one parent (in most cases the mother) unemployable.

[quote commentatorz]@RoseAndRose of course I'm new to reading medical papers, my qualifications have nothing to do with medicine and health. I'm simply spe playing on the real reason behind the OP's post, because it certainly isnt an altruistic concern for mumsnetters' health[/quote]
But you tried to play down not only the study but also the journal and now admit to not being in the field so have no idea of the reputation of said journal.

So, you've tried to call into question the reputation of a journal that you know nothing about?

LaurieMarlow, I did say that it was my suggestion for secondary, not primary.

I disagree, and also from parents' bitter experience many teachers couldn't be bothered to provide any education provision during the crisis.

According to your own words, making this provision would increase teachers' hours, so it's likely many simply wouldn't bother.

Additionally the economies of scale and superior approach of having a single expert, well-versed in online provision of material will provide a level playing field for all pupils and provide increased results.

So basically if you want to sit at home half the time, that's fine but you get half pay.

@nellodee I totally agree with you. But what do we know? We are lazy teachers hoping for part-time working 😂😂.

I find it really worrying parents don't look to our advice and knowledge.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras please could you provide an example of where I have tried to "call into question the reputation of [the] journal"?

Oh that's right, I didn't. You've just made it up.

I did say that it was my suggestion for secondary, not primary.

Are people really okay with their 11/12/13 year olds at home by themselves all day for a week at a time?

I have younger children, so I don’t know.

If nothing else it seems dreadfully isolated.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

If all he was trying to do was raise awareness why would masks be mentioned in every thread?

The story is used to support the narrative that masks should be used in schools. That appears to be the sole point of all of the OP's numerous posts.

Anyway there is no point continuing because I strongly suspect the OP will abandon this thread as he has done all the others.

Additionally the economies of scale and superior approach of having a single expert, well-versed in online provision of material will provide a level playing field for all pupils and provide increased results.

How do you get this online expert to differentiate for all different abilities?

How do you co ordinate the timetable for all schools in the country eg school in Kent currently studying To Kill A Mockingbird in English in year 9, while a school in Lambeth is studying poetry of the 1930s in year 9 currently (these aren't the correct texts, just an example). Now multiply that across all schools, all year groups and all subjects.

How am I suggesting we sit at home half the time? If we split the groups in half, we would be teaching one half one week, one half the next. We would be working full time. The advantage of providing paper based work is that many students do not have access to online learning. It would also echo fully what we were teaching in our lessons and be differentiated for the students we are actually teaching. You may not realise it, but we will plan and teach every lesson differently depending on the makeup of the children in the class.

But I did not mean to derail - my point isn't that my plan is perfect (though I think it's a shed load better than the one we have). My point is that my plan is certainly not "No kids back at school until we have a vaccine" which is the strawman argument that every person concerned with schools reopening under current guidelines is supposed to be putting forwards.

@nellodee I agree with you. We should be doing everything we can to keep schools open for as many pupils as possible by masks & SD & being creative in how we approach this. Plan now for possible partial or total closure of schools in October/November.
But the anti-teacher mob won’t even consider it’s a possibility but will be the first to howl when we’re stuck with school closures and no proper or consistent contingency plan to fall back on.
Based on some of the comments above about defunding schools & getting private sector third party providers in, i can’t help thinking what their agenda is? Certainly way more sinister than OP sharing credible & worrying science.

Sunshinegirl82

Because he's giving a suggestion as to how to try and avoid infection? Wasn't that what you all wanted? Posters on this thread are saying don't just post the study, make suggestions too.

What do you want? Do you want the truth hidden? You only want to see positive stories and just hide the more worrying aspects of this? That's just being an ostrich isn't it?

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

Sunshinegirl82

But all that he's doing is pointing out studies that have been done. The fact that they aren't positive shouldn't mean they get hidden away should it? If you know of positive studies why not highlight them and balance it out?

It really does feel like censorship tbh to criticise someone for linking to respected journals just because the studies don't support what you believe.

Jrobhatch29

It's a scientific study not a scary and emotive story. The ones being emotive are the ones saying they don't believe it but without being able to.present an opposing argument backed up by studies.

People keep saying everyone should make their own judgements. Well, to do that they need the full picture, not just half the picture.

It seems to me that a lot of you have got your own agenda that you are pushing. Why are you determined to aggressively push the "it's only the flu, don't worry, all get back to normal, nothing to worry about" agenda?

The problem is that it does become scary and emotive to people when you look at the outline or the headline figures without actually appraising the paper. I read it twice and as I said before a couple of things jumped out at me:

• they didn’t say how many of the controls had abnormal cmr results- so it is a case of 78% versus what?
• they didn’t give an age range to the participants. Were these changes correlated with age?
• they highlighted that these findings couldn’t be applied to asymptomatic individuals in their own limitations

Of course some of their findings are significant but you need to understand the context of them as well. It is a small study and further research is needed. It is very different to say 78% of those who had Covid had abnormal findings, compared to 78% of Covid and 68% of controls (made up figure as they don’t give it) had abnormal findings. Also they are talking very mild changes so yes it is a concern but it isn’t like saying you are going to be permanently disabled by it. Of course some with be more affected than others but that is the same with any disease. I’m not saying it is mild either- just that we need to be careful when looking at a single paper in isolation.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

Nope, because it is his only suggestion. Ever. Then he disengages from the thread and starts another one (or four).

It's lobbying, I just wish he'd be honest about it. It's like the Daily Mail and Boris. Are they picking their news stories out of a genuine need to share information? Lots of the stories they print will be based around genuine scientific study too. Or do they select what they print to support their particular point? This is the same thing just on a smaller scale.

Laurie, I don't think it's ideal, but I think it's better to have them in one week on, one week off, than to risk schools closing entirely. I have two primary aged children of my own, as do 7 out of the 9 teachers in my department. We're going to lose a lot of staffing time just due to people isolating for normal winter viruses, even before we think about Covid and even if we get a 48 hour turnaround from symptom to test result. Maybe it would be better to have a MT off W T F on MT on WTF off, so kids didn't go 5 days at a time on their own? And obviously, make sure vulnerable children had a place at all times. I'd even be open to year 7s being in more fully, if that was what was needed to make it work.

I just think if we work stretched to capacity and don't build any flex to the system, that when it breaks, it's going to break completely.

So isolating 11/12 year olds in their own home every second week ‘isn’t ideal’? Sheesh.

Your suggestion strikes me as asking for mental health problems and depression for this age group. People aren’t meant to spend this much time alone. Particularly teens.

I’m all for making schools as safe as possible, but we have to work on the basis that nothing is as good as face to face teaching (for a whole myriad of reasons) and if we abandon that it should be an absolute last resort. And yes, funding would have to be entirely rethought, because remote teaching could be done on a much, much, much more cost effective basis.

[quote commentatorz]@RoseAndRose of course I'm new to reading medical papers, my qualifications have nothing to do with medicine and health. I'm simply spe playing on the real reason behind the OP's post, because it certainly isnt an altruistic concern for mumsnetters' health[/quote]
Not everyone here is new.

For others who might be, JAMA is one of the oldest, largest and most respected journals in the world.

It's sort of the US equivalent of the BMJ, but somewhat more (IYSWIM)

Well I've had It, and after around 4 weeks I was fine. I have no ongoing issues, I'm healthy and fit. I did find that after I had it, my fitness had declined, and I had to build up again and still not where I was.
I had a slight cold last week, and it affected my breathing slightly but my heart rate wasn't quite as high as iwhen I had COVID, when it was jumping to 150 just walking up stairs.

Wow. Some of the comments are astonishing. Don’t talk about me. Talk about the science and what it means for our communities.

To be crystal clear and above board, I’ve posted 7 threads here since Friday, not 4 or 5 per day as someone suggested. Previously commented on a couple of threads but otherwise just been an infrequent visitor and lurker. Mumsnet has been a good source of information and a gauge of public feeling.

My ‘agenda’ is:

1. To make people aware of how serious the virus is. To dispel the myth it’s mild and highlight the potential for long-term complications.
2. To suggest there should be a masks for all policy (as far as possible) in schools to limit transmission in light of the seriousness of the virus. It’s not just about what it might do to kids long-term, it’s about what might happen to teachers and parents if kids become a serious vector for transmission.
3. To suggest class sizes should be as small as possible for the same reasons.
4. To start a conversation with other parents about the issues.

Why Mumsnet? Where else do parents congregate online in any numbers? And despite what some people have said, it is a forum to influence policy. How many newspapers trawl MN for stories? As a community MN has influence.

I’m sorry if some people have been upset by the scientific papers I’ve shared, but the news about this virus isn’t good. We’re living through a pandemic and it’s going to be bleak for a while, until we develop treatments and vaccines - and yes I am part of a team working on one. We’re human too and have kids and use social media. Not lab robots. So I am confident we can beat this thing, but in the meantime I’d like as few of us as possible to get sick, which means being careful.

So ultimately that’s my agenda: individual and community health. If you see something sinister in that, you might want to stand a little further away from the 5G mast

Ah, sorry, LaurieMarlow, I took your question at face value. I didn't realise it was intended as a trap so you could push your agenda.

I took your question at face value. I didn't realise it was intended as a trap so you could push your agenda.

It wasn’t. Simply that I don’t think your plan is workable.

I'm simply curious as to where you are going to get "online" provision cheaper than a staff group providing in addition to their full time working hours in schools (ie, basically as free overtime).

08LaurieMarlow

My personal preference for secondaries is for a 50/50 split of remote (not online) learning and in school.

That renders one parent (in most cases the mother) unemployable.

I have 4 school age children I get it. Surely it is better to have a workable plan in place than just wing it which is what's proposed now. Otherwise we are going to have unexpected disruption non stop which is impossible to plan for.