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/

So in that case why do you assume that everyone on here is stupid, uneducated and doesn't work in science too? Why do we need you to educate us and point out that this is a serious situation (doh, global pandemic, locked down for months, relatives dying, I hadn't noticed ...)

Try giving the tedious mansplaining tone a rest and maybe people (women, mums) will be more willing to engage with you and share there own opinions and insight, which will even sometimes be as scientifically valid as yours. If you're not actually a man then I apologise, but you certainly sound like every other opinionated man that has ever come on MN to educate us dumb women.

@ClimbDad

I've learned more in that one comment than from all the other threads combined!

Mansplaining is not coming in and posting a link to a peer review journal. That's a sex neutral act. Mansplaining is doing that to the woman who wrote it.

You're on a hiding to nothing here OP. On Mumsnet there is a large cohort of people who think that if you point out anything negative you enjoy trying to control people's behaviour, you have a massively skewed idea of absolute risk, you are a puppet who is happy to forego their civil liberties, and/or you don't care about people with mental health problems. Meanwhile, there is the emerging research showing that this is definitely not over and that there are a multitude of possible long-term effects. It's batshit.

So in that case why do you assume that everyone on here is stupid, uneducated and doesn't work in science too? Why do we need you to educate us and point out that this is a serious situation (doh, global pandemic, locked down for months, relatives dying, I hadn't noticed

The OP has not said this.

Try giving the tedious mansplaining tone a rest and maybe people (women, mums) will be more willing to engage with you and share there own opinions and insight, which will even sometimes be as scientifically valid as yours

Nothing the OP has said has been directed towards women per se, unless anything said by a man on a woman's forum is mansplaining.

If you're not actually a man then I apologise, but you certainly sound like every other opinionated man that has ever come on MN to educate us dumb women

I apologise but, i.e. you don't. Talk about wanting it both ways. If the OP is man he's mansplaining, if the OP is woman he sounds like a man.

If you're not actually a man then I apologise

Way to give the game away. It’s not the tone or the style because you wouldn’t find it a problem if it was actually a woman. It’s because you think OP is a man. Right.

I am going to have to disengage with MN. I have found it a useful source of information & debate in recent hard months but the teacher-bashing & the relentless playing the man not the point, combined with the passive aggressive ‘is it your mental health hun?’ Is just getting very tiring.

You want schools back full on with no masks & SD & no plans for distance learning? Go for it...but please no complaints on here when it goes to shit.
You want to defund schools...well now we know where you stand.

@2020wasShocking

I take it OP doesn’t want schools to open then.......

Why? The opening post doesn't say that. It says re-open with masks

(not so different from stance of NASWT)

@echt &@nellodee

To be fair, whilst the posting of the study itself is not mansplaining and is gender neutral, sometimes the commentary that comes along with it has quite a condescending air. The Florida schools thread is a good example, where mumsnet is implored to "stop expecting the virus to be nice to us" amongst other things!

Anyway, it's good to have a better idea of the OP's intentions. If the idea is to use mumsnet to influence policy (fine) those who disagree with the suggested policy also need to engage with those posts otherwise it is not representative.

The people who push for everyone back to school in September, no masks,no SD because anything less than that is just too awful to contemplate really aren't considering what the reality will be.

Self isolation will be in place so teachers and pupils will need to isolate if they have symptoms - which are relatively common amongst most upper respiratory tract infections. So, coming in to winter anyone that develops a cough, or fever will need to stay at home. That will be disruptive for students of they have to miss some time but the real disruption will be when staff are off.

Then you've got the practicalities of bubbles bursting - when bubbles are whole year groups in secondary schools so 150 + students. Two positive tests within that bubble and the whole bubble has to isolate. Of course, that doesn't consider the issue highlighted yesterday where some parents explained that their children wouldn't be having a test - how will schools manage that? What if that child does have Covid and, if tested, would be the second positive that would cause the bubble to isolate? Will it have to be done solely on symptoms in those cases? Because if they are positive then the risks and implications are the same as if they had actually had the test.

This is not considering the health impacts of staff or students actually contracting Covid of course.

To me, as with trying to get the economy on track, it seems much more sensible to take a cautious approach and minimise the chance of widespread repeated closures rather than go for this "boom.and bust" approach that so many are in favour of.

@climbDad I find your posts interesting reading, please carry on. If people don't like it they don't have to read them.

How does the in half the time out half the time work for the children of teachers? What do they do with their children on the week they are not in school? Leave them at home?
Does this plan only work for secondary when they get to an age where we are happy to leave them alone all day.
Yes paper packs reduce the need for access to technology but those kids then get no interaction or feedback from their teacher for a week. What also do you do with the vulnerable children who don’t have a safe space to work or parents to support - some children will have a week of roaming free with their friends every other week.

There is no simple answer and out government do seem to be burying their head in the sand with a hope for the best. Head teachers are being thrown under the bus with the vague and useless advice given. And believe me I really don’t get why it is essential for me to wear a mask for the 2 minutes pop into to Tesco but no for 6 hours in a cramped classroom with 30 kids!

I also believe that schools have had far more time to prepare this time for quality on line learning than we did before. Last time it was announced on Thursday that schools would be shut on Monday no one at that point Knew how long for. We will now have been able to learn what worked and what didn’t and put more in place. I was providing 7 lessons a day was it perfect no. Would I do it differently with the benefit for hindsight this time - yes.

Finally, let’s face it for teachers if we show any kind of worry or fear about going back then it’s insinuated by many that we are lazy and work shy and looking to extend out already too long holidays.

I posted this upthread and no one responded but I do think it needs saying again - people said all of this (it's suicide for the workers, who can't wear PPE; there will be constant shutdowns and children will be off more than they're in; children will be having constant tests) about nurseries and it's been two months now since they reopened and that hasn't been my experience or - as far as I know or has been reported in the press - most people's.

[quote Sunshinegirl82]**@echt* &@nellodee*

To be fair, whilst the posting of the study itself is not mansplaining and is gender neutral, sometimes the commentary that comes along with it has quite a condescending air. The Florida schools thread is a good example, where mumsnet is implored to "stop expecting the virus to be nice to us" amongst other things!

Anyway, it's good to have a better idea of the OP's intentions. If the idea is to use mumsnet to influence policy (fine) those who disagree with the suggested policy also need to engage with those posts otherwise it is not representative.[/quote]
Can you really wonder at any attitude the op might have? And to be fair, in all of their threads I think they've been patient and shown more good grace than many of the posters. Many posters have been insulting, sarcastic and just down right hateful to a poster who is presenting some important research to help inform debate.

Now we get the ridiculous cries of "mansplaining" and how their attitude is only acceptable of they're a woman - wtf?

I am so.shocked that a forum comprising of supposedly intelligent people cannot see how important it is to present all data even if it doesn't conform to the narrative you'd like to believe.

This is a pandemic - it isn't good news. It's an awful situation with some emerging positive advances and hopefully they continue to grow and to multiply but those who want to believe and act like this is over are seriously deluded. You can't just wish this away by pretending it's all ok now.

I do think we now face a "boy who cried wolf" issue. People have been told so often that bad things will happen as a result of steps taken that I think they have become a bit desensitised to it.

I know that some people are sceptical of the behavioural scientists on SAGE but psychology plays such a huge role in how people respond to things. Too much warning of danger and people switch off to it which is problematic.

Where have I said it's all over? That is an attitude that you have ascribed to people but there are very few posters who actually say anything of the sort and those that do are quite open about it generally.

@Hardbackwriter

I posted this upthread and no one responded but I do think it needs saying again - people said all of this (it's suicide for the workers, who can't wear PPE; there will be constant shutdowns and children will be off more than they're in; children will be having constant tests) about nurseries and it's been two months now since they reopened and that hasn't been my experience or - as far as I know or has been reported in the press - most people's.

I think nurseries are a different entity. The children are very young and outside of nursery their interactions are, hopefully, limited if parents are complying with the rules around meeting people outside of the household. Most things suitable for young children are still closed - soft play, swimming pools etc so there's nowhere for them to mix with lots of other people.

Compare that to say a secondary school - older children mixing on buses going to school, chatting to friends in the playground before school, sat in classrooms of 30 + students,mixing with 150 + in their year group and mixing up classes across that so maybe one group of 30 for English but then a different group for drama, then at lunchtime they will be mixing with potentially the whole school. At he time they'll be back onto buses, trains potentially again mixing with more people. Outside of school they are likely to be mixing with others, possibly going to the shops or even out with friends - I can see the number of interactions between secondary school students and therefore risk of infection being much higher than with nursery age children. We are also, still, in a relatively low phase of infection at the moment so things might change anyway and if you look at infection rate it is climbing so all of the relaxation of measures will be contributing to that.

All ClimbDad has done is share alarming data, not fiction. I don’t understand the vitriol - he is worried about something and sharing data and his opinions. Rather than being aggressive and rude, why can’t people who strongly disagree with him just post their scientific, reassuring response? Attacking him personally comes across really badly and makes the aggressor sound less credible.

@Sunshinegirl82

I do think we now face a "boy who cried wolf" issue. People have been told so often that bad things will happen as a result of steps taken that I think they have become a bit desensitised to it.

I know that some people are sceptical of the behavioural scientists on SAGE but psychology plays such a huge role in how people respond to things. Too much warning of danger and people switch off to it which is problematic.

And I think it's far too early to be making claims like that. We are in the midst of it and we have no.idea how this will pan out. Have a look at the US - do you think they cried wolf?

Maybe nurseries are a different case, though plenty of nursery aged children live with older siblings, adults who do jobs where they come into contact with huge numbers of people, etc. None of the parents I know are enforcing social distancing with family on toddlers at all.

In any case, what I find interesting is that nurseries may be different but that's not what people were saying before they opened - as I said, the rhetoric was exactly the same as around schools now. And all those people seem to have just quietly forgotten they ever said that about nurseries now, since it doesn't fit their narrative around schools.

@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

What I am saying is that the repeated warnings have made people sceptical. That doesn't mean that the warnings themselves were not/are not valid merely that if the warnings repeatedly fail to come to fruition people will start to pay them less attention. That is human nature.

I dont disagree with him, I don't think, its a bit hard to tell with all the hyperbole over the 7/8 posts. Now that he has properly detauled his agenda re schools I completely agree - I am also very worried about the governments plans for schools reopening in September and think it will be a bit of a shitshow with many schools having to close by halfterm.

That doesn't mean I think were all doomed with no end in sight. I think vaccine and treatment development are continuing at a rapid pace and will allow us to get this particular virus under control at some point in the short to medium future. Nor does it mean I don't take this virus or covid seriously. My family member was killed by it. I don't want me or my family to ever get it and will take any steps I can to minimise that risk.

What I do object to is people trying to force me to think in a certain way, or follow a certain agenda, by presenting small parts of the debate in the most negative and black and white way possible, not actually informing or debating, especially when I probably largely agree with them!

Oh well, back to reddit where people seem to debate and inform in the more neutral way that I expect from scientists.

[quote Sunshinegirl82]@Hearhoovesthinkzebras

What I am saying is that the repeated warnings have made people sceptical. That doesn't mean that the warnings themselves were not/are not valid merely that if the warnings repeatedly fail to come to fruition people will start to pay them less attention. That is human nature. [/quote]
Meanwhile I find the repetitive "it's only the flu. It's only people who were going to die within the next year who have died. If you're healthy you've got nothing to worry about so let's all get back out there and start living and anyone vulnerable needs to stay at home because we've sacrificed enough for them" posts dangerous because it's encouraging people to believe something that isn't true.

People need to.understand the serious nature of what we are facing but understand that it's not all or nothing - there's a middle way that means that we can still do things, see people, go to work and school but we need to modify those things for now or we will end up like America.

We do need to show some restraint and some common sense frankly. Instead I'm.seeing people acting like toddlers "I want to.do this now and you can't stop me!"

These aren't just empty threats that he's posting. These are studies that are raising questions and will form the basis of more in depth research. We should heed them and proceed cautiously until.we know, absolutely, what the real effects of Covid are. Anything less is negligence in my view.

@Walkaround

All ClimbDad has done is share alarming data, not fiction. I don’t understand the vitriol - he is worried about something and sharing data and his opinions. Rather than being aggressive and rude, why can’t people who strongly disagree with him just post their scientific, reassuring response? Attacking him personally comes across really badly and makes the aggressor sound less credible.

Again can we please stop calling this data alarming without understanding the context. 78% versus how many of the controls? I could not find it when I read the article so if someone knows please tell me. From examining the graphs did appears some of the controls had abnormal findings to. I’m not saying Covid doesn’t raise the risk as it does but not from 0% to 78%.

Within nurseries & EY settings, the guidance allowing settings to no longer operate in small bubbles was only eased on July 20 so I suspect it’s still too early to say what impact normal operations will have on transmission.