3 ms·

Psychosomatic speculation is a possibility but the evidence should make you cautious. The previous SARS-COV1 epidemic in 2003, created lung scaring and reduced

Psychosomatic speculation is a possibility but the evidence should make you cautious. The previous SARS-COV1 epidemic in 2003, created lung scaring and reduced lung function in patients, this damage was persistent even after 7 years post-recovery. [0] There is zero evidence that the reported endothelial damage in SARS-COV2 is any 'milder' than SARS-COV1. [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27501327/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27501327/

irq11 6y ago
There is evidence: we’ve now had 40 million cases, and if the WHO is to be believed, as many as 10% of the world population has had it. If this “endothelial damage” were happening at even a 1% rate, there would be millions of people with obvious symptoms. There simply aren’t.
- DoingIsLearning 6y ago
  I am not sure why caution in a pandemic is a controversial point but I'll bite. Basically on top of lung damage, SARS-COV2 can also cause blood vessel and cardiac tissue damage, there are multiple cases of myocarditis post-infection.[0] Most of the symptoms are hard to study like shortness of breath or fatigue. Unless you have a prior VO2max study it's hard to _prove_ that you are worse off post infection but that is exactly what is happening with athletes being infected (loss of VO2max, which pretty much is a loss in peak performance for many athletes). Another aspect is that a loss in cardiac output or lung capacity is likely also a loss in life expectancy but it is the type of thing you would need decades to prove. My point is, with the information we already have the sensible approach is to use caution rather than trying to be stoic about it. [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32747875/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32747875/
  - irq11 6y ago
    “Conclusion: Current available data on COVID-19 myocarditis is limited. Further research is needed to advance our understanding of COVID-19 myocarditis.”

irq11 6y ago

There is evidence: we’ve now had 40 million cases, and if the WHO is to be believed, as many as 10% of the world population has had it. If this “endothelial damage” were happening at even a 1% rate, there would be millions of people with obvious symptoms. There simply aren’t.

DoingIsLearning 6y ago
I am not sure why caution in a pandemic is a controversial point but I'll bite. Basically on top of lung damage, SARS-COV2 can also cause blood vessel and cardiac tissue damage, there are multiple cases of myocarditis post-infection.[0] Most of the symptoms are hard to study like shortness of breath or fatigue. Unless you have a prior VO2max study it's hard to _prove_ that you are worse off post infection but that is exactly what is happening with athletes being infected (loss of VO2max, which pretty much is a loss in peak performance for many athletes). Another aspect is that a loss in cardiac output or lung capacity is likely also a loss in life expectancy but it is the type of thing you would need decades to prove. My point is, with the information we already have the sensible approach is to use caution rather than trying to be stoic about it. [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32747875/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32747875/
- irq11 6y ago
  “Conclusion: Current available data on COVID-19 myocarditis is limited. Further research is needed to advance our understanding of COVID-19 myocarditis.”