13 ms·

The team reviewed 662 MIS-C cases reported worldwide between Jan. 1 and July 25 So does that mean there are only a total of 662 cases reported worldwide? Becau

The team reviewed 662 MIS-C cases reported worldwide between Jan. 1 and July 25 So does that mean there are only a total of 662 cases reported worldwide? Because if so, this doesn't seem to be a significant issue. Edit: yes, it seems like there are only a few hundred cases in the US [0], not a significant risk. I've seen this article in a few places and everyone seems to interpret it as saying a significant portion of children have a damaged heart after COVID, which just isn't true. Not a problem with the article, just peoples critical thinking skills. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/infographic-mis-c.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/infogra...

officialjunk 6y ago
the pandemic is not over. information is limited. it is not possible to definitively draw this conclusion yet. it is possible it is significant.
- dv_dt 6y ago
  The significant observation is that there is a possible pathway from Covid infection to MIS-C...
- dehrmann 6y ago
  Maybe we're doing what we can, but I wish we were putting more effort into collecting data around mid to long-term effects and their likelihood because not knowing that makes it hard to make informed decisions. My money is on this being between rare and uncommon because I'd expect to hear more specific reports on it. Widespread things surface a lot faster.
- cm2187 6y ago
  Until there is hard data that shows it is a significant problem, this is just more covid FUD. There are rare complications with pretty much every disease. Doesn’t mean it deserves to be a concern in term of public health.
  - hinkley 6y ago
    Do you understand the difference between precautions, hedging, and FUD? Pre caution. Pre. You can’t wait for all the data and then decide. That’s postcaution.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      You’ll never ever have all the data. You can however once you have a statistically significant sample size say with a high degree of confidence and that’s completely sufficient. It’s also fair to say there’s been an awful lot of fud. Not least is the whole “reinfections” business. Your immune system mounted a sufficient response to clear the virus and then just immediately forgot how? That would be an absolute novelty to medical science.
      - cm2187 6y ago
        Plus at the same time we are told we must be locked down until there is a vaccine, which of course will only happen if we ever develop immunity!
        arcticbull 6y ago
        Ahh but I’m sure it’s different when a doctor injects inactivated our attenuated viruses.
    - just-juan-post 6y ago
      Could you help me understand how India, with 4x the population of the USA and almost no mask wearing, has 1/3 the cases of the USA? Is it possible that your risk assessment of the virus is too heavily influenced by the confounding variable of your own personal fear?
      - dv_dt 6y ago
        Less consistent reporting of statistics, or fewer tests, or being at an earlier stage of spread, or effective contact tracing.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  How many cases do you need to get a statistically significant sampling? Somehow we know what SARS does to a human with just a couple hundred cases. At some point we’re going to have to say we have a pretty good idea. India alone has 4,000,000 cases.
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    But we don’t know what SARS would’ve done if it became a pandemic illness, because it’s a whole other set of conditions at that scale. We’re not anywhere at the point where we have a clear picture of the long term health consequences of this disease because enough time has not passed since it began spreading. This is an initial review of a troubling new complication. It will likely take years for us to understand it’s full effects, whatever they are or are not.
epmaybe 6y ago
Depends on your definition of "significant". That's a tremendous amount of lifelong morbidity that will affect those children around the world. They may need heart transplants, multiple surgeries, hospitalizations, etc. Just because it won't affect a lot of people doesn't suddenly make it insignificant.
- GhostVII 6y ago
  When I say it is insignificant, I'm saying that it is not nearly as big of a problem as the other risks from COVID. When a million people have died from COVID, and millions of children have been infected with COVID, I view any COVID symptom that affects less than 1000 people worldwide as insignificant relative that. Now it is very possible that we will realize that over the period of years, some significant percentage of children with COVID are affected by this. But so far the data doesn't support this.
  - mgleason_3 6y ago
    This article appears to be a summary of the original paper. But, it leaves out some critical points - i.e.: - The papers "Discussion" section concludes with: "MIS-C is rare but the potential long-term sequelae from this disease are currently unknown." Also, the fact that it says: - ”Children might have no symptoms, no one knew they had the disease, and a few weeks later, they may develop this exaggerated inflammation in the body.“ and then a few sentences later - "...100% had fever, 73.7% had abdominal pain or diarrhea, and 68.3% suffered vomiting." Seems contradictory.
    - claudeganon 6y ago
      It’s not contradictory. The children experienced none of the typical COVID symptoms during their initial infection, which present themselves in 2-14 days. Hence, they’re categorized “asymptomatic.” Subsequent to the infection (3-4 weeks), they develop MIS-C, which manifests with the cited symptoms.
- 300bps 6y ago
  Just because it won't affect a lot of people doesn't suddenly make it insignificant. It makes it put into context. Literally any virus, bacteria, fungi or parasite can cause myocarditis. There are about 200,000 cases of it per year. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/myocarditis https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/myocarditis My friend’s eight year old daughter had a cold about 9 years ago that turned into myocarditis. A year on the heart transplant list using some unapproved device from Mexico to assist her heart beating, the a heart transplant, then rejection a couple years later and then a second heart transplant. From a cold.
stefan_ 6y ago
I don't think anyone is systematically screening positive COVID cases for this kind of damage. The 662 is the severely affected ones that end up in the ICU, but how many others have inflammatory damage?
- irq11 6y ago
  You don’t need to systematically screen for it. MIS is obvious and dramatic when it occurs.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Probably a lot, but mild heart inflammation just isn't a very big deal. It's a common complication of viral diseases in general.
  - drran 6y ago
    Yep, but this syndrome happens weeks AFTER disease, so it's causes by some kind of damage to tissues, not by virus or toxins directly.
    - nouveaux 6y ago
      Can your sources? This differs from things I have been reading.
      - drran 6y ago
        From linked article: > Case studies also show MIS-C can strike seemingly healthy children without warning three or four weeks after asymptomatic infections, said Alvaro Moreira, MD, MSc, of The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. Dr. Moreira, a neonatologist, is an assistant professor of pediatrics in the university’s Joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long School of Medicine.
      - vikramkr 6y ago
        You're currently in the comments section of a hacker news post of a source on the syndrome occurring weeks after infection.
umvi 6y ago
> Not a problem with the article, just peoples critical thinking skills. I'd say it's a problem with the ways news outlets and articles in general phrase headlines. "Post-Covid syndrome" implies it happens after getting covid. Yet if you read the article: "[MIS-C], believed to be linked to COVID-19..." So really headline should say something like: "MIS-C, a syndrome linked to <1% of children post-covid, damages children's hearts."
- dahfizz 6y ago
  > MIS-C, a syndrome linked to <1% of children post-covid, damages children's hearts There is also never causality discussed in all these post-covid syndrome articles. With many millions of confirmed cases, you are guaranteed that some people who have had covid will get unrelated diseases later on after recovering. With <1% of cases linked I don't think this is worth worrying about.
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  They also leave out context. Regular old flu and other respiratory infections are leading causes of permanent damage resulting in asthma. So... How does this compare in quantity and scale?
Alex3917 6y ago
> everyone seems to interpret it as saying a significant portion of children have a damaged heart after COVID, which just isn't true. We don't know what percentage of children without this inflammatory condition have heart damage. In fact it's probably true based on the monitoring of college football players, we just don't know for sure yet.
- brightball 6y ago
  Fwiw, there's a lot of conflicting information there. Even the doctor who was quoted with the 30-35% number based on Big 10 athletes said it was actually "closer to 10%" the next day once he was all over the news. Original correction: https://twitter.com/BonaguraESPN/status/1301644428025540608 https://twitter.com/BonaguraESPN/status/1301644428025540608 Mayo Clinic doctor's who's been advising may sports leagues came out contradicting it. https://twitter.com/MJAckermanMDPhD https://twitter.com/MJAckermanMDPhD (there's a lot here in recent posts) And here is a more complete interview with him as a followup to this a couple of days ago: http://dailyorange.com/2020/09/mayo-clinic-doctor-advises-myocarditis-risk/ http://dailyorange.com/2020/09/mayo-clinic-doctor-advises-my... Other team numbers that don't show any significance cases (in Clemson's case, 0 occurrences). https://twitter.com/ADavidHaleJoint/status/1301581365238956033 https://twitter.com/ADavidHaleJoint/status/13015813652389560... NFL has also had zero (trying to locate that source).
just-juan-post 6y ago
You won't win. A large portion of the internet is now of the thinking that 1 is too many. They will not admit it but they are anti-abortionists in their thinking and in their behavior. No matter what numbers or facts they see it does not change their emotional response - much like an anti-abortionist. This large portion of the internet follows the media to find something new to be scared of each day. As soon as they find out a study or news article wasn't correct they latch on to the next study in an attempt to justify their fear. This large portion of the internet also claims they follow "the science". They do not. They follow whatever scary story is in the news that day. As the days go by more and more facts pile up that this virus was never the threat we thought it was - yet they disregard it and continue to say they follow "the science". More and more information piles up every day yet they don't change their mind or their position. Just like those anti-abortionists. Just like science deniers.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  > They will not admit it but they are anti-abortionists in their thinking and in their behavior. Between BLM and COVID, neo-puritanism is in full swing.
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    Neo-puritanism. Love it. Great term!
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  You got my upvote and support. I've changed political parties because of it. It's fascinating watching this madness take hold of the world and hear people actually say thinks like: "Don't think for yourself, let the experts do it for you" "I think people should be FORCED to do the reasonable thing" These kind of ideas are becoming main stream now. Any questioning of the narrative or critical thought is demonized. Even if shown to be correct like Sweden. There are no more discussions, things are black and white. The threat of force whether via job loss or police action or censorship is ever present for thought crime. You are simply not allowed to have unsanctioned non main stream opinions anymore. Cancel culture and PC culture have destroyed numerous careers in the court of popular opinion even if exonerated in the legal system. Newspapers and media are censoring things at levels not seen in quite some time. Brave new world were entering. Democracy is at risk but not from where were being told.
cnst 6y ago
It's the same for a lot of things regarding COVID19. People treat all these complications as something really scary, ignoring the plenty of cases where people didn't even know they had any illness at all. In reality, many folks are already living with significant nerve damage from HSV-1 and EBV (Epstein-Barr Virus -- common cause of mononucleosis), and that's kind of old news these days. EBV/mono, for example, would often cause tiredness for months on end, due to the permanent Central Nervous System (CNS) damage. It's very common as well -- much more so than COVID19; the neverending tiredness as a result of mono is very common as well. Yet when was the last time EBV made the news?

officialjunk 6y ago

the pandemic is not over. information is limited. it is not possible to definitively draw this conclusion yet. it is possible it is significant.

dv_dt 6y ago
The significant observation is that there is a possible pathway from Covid infection to MIS-C...
dehrmann 6y ago
Maybe we're doing what we can, but I wish we were putting more effort into collecting data around mid to long-term effects and their likelihood because not knowing that makes it hard to make informed decisions. My money is on this being between rare and uncommon because I'd expect to hear more specific reports on it. Widespread things surface a lot faster.
cm2187 6y ago
Until there is hard data that shows it is a significant problem, this is just more covid FUD. There are rare complications with pretty much every disease. Doesn’t mean it deserves to be a concern in term of public health.
- hinkley 6y ago
  Do you understand the difference between precautions, hedging, and FUD? Pre caution. Pre. You can’t wait for all the data and then decide. That’s postcaution.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    You’ll never ever have all the data. You can however once you have a statistically significant sample size say with a high degree of confidence and that’s completely sufficient. It’s also fair to say there’s been an awful lot of fud. Not least is the whole “reinfections” business. Your immune system mounted a sufficient response to clear the virus and then just immediately forgot how? That would be an absolute novelty to medical science.
    - cm2187 6y ago
      Plus at the same time we are told we must be locked down until there is a vaccine, which of course will only happen if we ever develop immunity!
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        Ahh but I’m sure it’s different when a doctor injects inactivated our attenuated viruses.
  - just-juan-post 6y ago
    Could you help me understand how India, with 4x the population of the USA and almost no mask wearing, has 1/3 the cases of the USA? Is it possible that your risk assessment of the virus is too heavily influenced by the confounding variable of your own personal fear?
    - dv_dt 6y ago
      Less consistent reporting of statistics, or fewer tests, or being at an earlier stage of spread, or effective contact tracing.
arcticbull 6y ago
How many cases do you need to get a statistically significant sampling? Somehow we know what SARS does to a human with just a couple hundred cases. At some point we’re going to have to say we have a pretty good idea. India alone has 4,000,000 cases.
- claudeganon 6y ago
  But we don’t know what SARS would’ve done if it became a pandemic illness, because it’s a whole other set of conditions at that scale. We’re not anywhere at the point where we have a clear picture of the long term health consequences of this disease because enough time has not passed since it began spreading. This is an initial review of a troubling new complication. It will likely take years for us to understand it’s full effects, whatever they are or are not.

epmaybe 6y ago

Depends on your definition of "significant". That's a tremendous amount of lifelong morbidity that will affect those children around the world. They may need heart transplants, multiple surgeries, hospitalizations, etc. Just because it won't affect a lot of people doesn't suddenly make it insignificant.

GhostVII 6y ago
When I say it is insignificant, I'm saying that it is not nearly as big of a problem as the other risks from COVID. When a million people have died from COVID, and millions of children have been infected with COVID, I view any COVID symptom that affects less than 1000 people worldwide as insignificant relative that. Now it is very possible that we will realize that over the period of years, some significant percentage of children with COVID are affected by this. But so far the data doesn't support this.
- mgleason_3 6y ago
  This article appears to be a summary of the original paper. But, it leaves out some critical points - i.e.: - The papers "Discussion" section concludes with: "MIS-C is rare but the potential long-term sequelae from this disease are currently unknown." Also, the fact that it says: - ”Children might have no symptoms, no one knew they had the disease, and a few weeks later, they may develop this exaggerated inflammation in the body.“ and then a few sentences later - "...100% had fever, 73.7% had abdominal pain or diarrhea, and 68.3% suffered vomiting." Seems contradictory.
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    It’s not contradictory. The children experienced none of the typical COVID symptoms during their initial infection, which present themselves in 2-14 days. Hence, they’re categorized “asymptomatic.” Subsequent to the infection (3-4 weeks), they develop MIS-C, which manifests with the cited symptoms.
300bps 6y ago
Just because it won't affect a lot of people doesn't suddenly make it insignificant. It makes it put into context. Literally any virus, bacteria, fungi or parasite can cause myocarditis. There are about 200,000 cases of it per year. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/myocarditis https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/myocarditis My friend’s eight year old daughter had a cold about 9 years ago that turned into myocarditis. A year on the heart transplant list using some unapproved device from Mexico to assist her heart beating, the a heart transplant, then rejection a couple years later and then a second heart transplant. From a cold.

stefan_ 6y ago

I don't think anyone is systematically screening positive COVID cases for this kind of damage. The 662 is the severely affected ones that end up in the ICU, but how many others have inflammatory damage?

irq11 6y ago
You don’t need to systematically screen for it. MIS is obvious and dramatic when it occurs.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Probably a lot, but mild heart inflammation just isn't a very big deal. It's a common complication of viral diseases in general.
- drran 6y ago
  Yep, but this syndrome happens weeks AFTER disease, so it's causes by some kind of damage to tissues, not by virus or toxins directly.
  - nouveaux 6y ago
    Can your sources? This differs from things I have been reading.
    - drran 6y ago
      From linked article: > Case studies also show MIS-C can strike seemingly healthy children without warning three or four weeks after asymptomatic infections, said Alvaro Moreira, MD, MSc, of The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. Dr. Moreira, a neonatologist, is an assistant professor of pediatrics in the university’s Joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long School of Medicine.
    - vikramkr 6y ago
      You're currently in the comments section of a hacker news post of a source on the syndrome occurring weeks after infection.

umvi 6y ago

> Not a problem with the article, just peoples critical thinking skills. I'd say it's a problem with the ways news outlets and articles in general phrase headlines. "Post-Covid syndrome" implies it happens after getting covid. Yet if you read the article: "[MIS-C], believed to be linked to COVID-19..." So really headline should say something like: "MIS-C, a syndrome linked to <1% of children post-covid, damages children's hearts."

dahfizz 6y ago
> MIS-C, a syndrome linked to <1% of children post-covid, damages children's hearts There is also never causality discussed in all these post-covid syndrome articles. With many millions of confirmed cases, you are guaranteed that some people who have had covid will get unrelated diseases later on after recovering. With <1% of cases linked I don't think this is worth worrying about.
Consultant32452 6y ago
They also leave out context. Regular old flu and other respiratory infections are leading causes of permanent damage resulting in asthma. So... How does this compare in quantity and scale?

Alex3917 6y ago

> everyone seems to interpret it as saying a significant portion of children have a damaged heart after COVID, which just isn't true. We don't know what percentage of children without this inflammatory condition have heart damage. In fact it's probably true based on the monitoring of college football players, we just don't know for sure yet.

brightball 6y ago
Fwiw, there's a lot of conflicting information there. Even the doctor who was quoted with the 30-35% number based on Big 10 athletes said it was actually "closer to 10%" the next day once he was all over the news. Original correction: https://twitter.com/BonaguraESPN/status/1301644428025540608 https://twitter.com/BonaguraESPN/status/1301644428025540608 Mayo Clinic doctor's who's been advising may sports leagues came out contradicting it. https://twitter.com/MJAckermanMDPhD https://twitter.com/MJAckermanMDPhD (there's a lot here in recent posts) And here is a more complete interview with him as a followup to this a couple of days ago: http://dailyorange.com/2020/09/mayo-clinic-doctor-advises-myocarditis-risk/ http://dailyorange.com/2020/09/mayo-clinic-doctor-advises-my... Other team numbers that don't show any significance cases (in Clemson's case, 0 occurrences). https://twitter.com/ADavidHaleJoint/status/1301581365238956033 https://twitter.com/ADavidHaleJoint/status/13015813652389560... NFL has also had zero (trying to locate that source).

just-juan-post 6y ago

You won't win. A large portion of the internet is now of the thinking that 1 is too many. They will not admit it but they are anti-abortionists in their thinking and in their behavior. No matter what numbers or facts they see it does not change their emotional response - much like an anti-abortionist. This large portion of the internet follows the media to find something new to be scared of each day. As soon as they find out a study or news article wasn't correct they latch on to the next study in an attempt to justify their fear. This large portion of the internet also claims they follow "the science". They do not. They follow whatever scary story is in the news that day. As the days go by more and more facts pile up that this virus was never the threat we thought it was - yet they disregard it and continue to say they follow "the science". More and more information piles up every day yet they don't change their mind or their position. Just like those anti-abortionists. Just like science deniers.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
> They will not admit it but they are anti-abortionists in their thinking and in their behavior. Between BLM and COVID, neo-puritanism is in full swing.
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  Neo-puritanism. Love it. Great term!
nickthemagicman 6y ago
You got my upvote and support. I've changed political parties because of it. It's fascinating watching this madness take hold of the world and hear people actually say thinks like: "Don't think for yourself, let the experts do it for you" "I think people should be FORCED to do the reasonable thing" These kind of ideas are becoming main stream now. Any questioning of the narrative or critical thought is demonized. Even if shown to be correct like Sweden. There are no more discussions, things are black and white. The threat of force whether via job loss or police action or censorship is ever present for thought crime. You are simply not allowed to have unsanctioned non main stream opinions anymore. Cancel culture and PC culture have destroyed numerous careers in the court of popular opinion even if exonerated in the legal system. Newspapers and media are censoring things at levels not seen in quite some time. Brave new world were entering. Democracy is at risk but not from where were being told.

cnst 6y ago

It's the same for a lot of things regarding COVID19. People treat all these complications as something really scary, ignoring the plenty of cases where people didn't even know they had any illness at all. In reality, many folks are already living with significant nerve damage from HSV-1 and EBV (Epstein-Barr Virus -- common cause of mononucleosis), and that's kind of old news these days. EBV/mono, for example, would often cause tiredness for months on end, due to the permanent Central Nervous System (CNS) damage. It's very common as well -- much more so than COVID19; the neverending tiredness as a result of mono is very common as well. Yet when was the last time EBV made the news?