31 ms·
Heart-disease risk soars after Covid, even with a mild case
- greenyoda 5y agoLink to the original paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3
- bongoman37 5y agoAnecdotally, a friend of mine in his early 40s got covid, recovered fully, had a fatal heart attack a month later. Seems we will see an uptick in deaths from this for some time.
- abc_lisper 5y agoVaccination status?
- TranquilMarmot 5y agoAlso could be a coincidence... lots of factors go into whether or not you have a heart attack.
- abc_lisper 5y agoAnecdotal anxiety ;) I guess
- meheleventyone 5y agoThis is the worst conclusion to jump to by the way. I had a heart attack last year at 39 with no larger cause that could be established. No chronic heart disease, exercised regularly, no family history and so on. It’s just one of those things that can happen. I then went on to get vaccinated, have COVID and get a booster all without issue.
- blkhp19 5y agoDid you have any symptoms leading up to it? Perhaps you were wearing an Apple Watch?
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoI hope wearing an Apple watch is not a risk factor for heart attacks? :-)
- p1necone 5y agoI can imagine there being a small positive correlation between wearing an Apple watch and having heart attacks, somewhat like the plane armor story from WWII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias#In_the_military https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias#In_the_milit...). Without the Apple watch monitoring your heart rate: you don't see the warning signs early enough and have a fatal heart attack, once. With the Apple watch: you get alerted earlier, get to hospital and survive your heart attack. So you can go on to have another, and another, and another. All contributing to the "heart attacks while wearing Apple watches" statistic ;)
- meheleventyone 5y agoFWIW Apple watches are 100% not recommended as a way of telling if you're having a heart attack: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208931 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208931 They're also not testing for the more dangerous ventricular fibrillation.
- raxxorrax 5y agoI believe elevated anxiety for health isn't good for your health in general, especially for your heart.
- meheleventyone 5y agoJust some heart flutters I hadn't had before that I in hindsight should have probably got checked out. They continued after I had the heart attack but have disappeared completely now. But lots of people also have them and they're completely benign so who knows really. I was swimming hard 5x a week and didn't notice anything during that and the weekend before was hiking about the countryside carrying my kids on my shoulders so it feels a bit of a mystery. I'm pretty sure, again in hindsight that I had a milder attack/angina on the Thursday before which I chalked up as heartburn. Because it was during the night I sort of soldiered through it and fell asleep again. Which could have been very bad. The actual heart attack I had whilst swimming and because I'm an idiot, just slowed down a bit and finished another 30 minutes of swimming. It only got very painful after I was chilling after my swim. I got out and dry heaved a couple of times in the bath room and walked home. Lay down, took some antacids, that did nothing and it was painful so got my wife to take me to the hospital. They seemed pretty skeptical that there was much wrong with me until they hooked me up to an EKG and then I got filled full of drugs and ambulanced straight into surgery. Ended up with a stent as the main left artery feeding the heart was totally blocked. It's an amazing experience as you're totally conscious for the surgery and get to watch whats happening on a monitor. The only really painful part was a lower branch getting collapsed, I got some morphine for that but am not 100% convinced it did much of anything. Instant relief once it was opened again.
- rex-mundi 5y agoWhen was this,? asking as omicron is a very different beast than delta
- bongoman37 5y ago
- bongoman37 5y ago
- hanselot 5y ago
- ptidhomme 5y ago
- soperj 5y agoYou've got billions of people worldwide who've been vaccinated. How many have had instances of heart failure?
- ekianjo 5y ago> How many have had instances of heart failure? Who knows when every authority seems to have a vested interest in promoting vaccines no matter what.
- f6v 5y agoSomewhat off-topic, but my favorite game now is one upping the COVID conspiracy theorists. Whenever they talk about the pandemic being engineered by the world elites, I say: “You really think it has been created here on Earth? Oh, poor you! It obviously has extraterrestrial origin!”.
- WaxedChewbacca 5y ago
- Ambolia 5y agoShould be simple to determine if we just check if the increased cases started in 2020 before vaccine rollout or in 2021 after the rollout.
- isolli 5y agoWhat I would like to know is, for young males (i.e. those who are most at risk of myocarditis after the vaccine), does the vaccine lessen cardiac risks in a subsequent infection or not?
- donquichotte 5y agoWe got rid of the control group, I wonder if that was smart.
- jmnicolas 5y agoControl group here. My heart is perfectly fine and I got symptomatic COVID 2 times.
- scarygliders 5y agoAlso control group here. Early 50's, caught original (& symptomatic) Rona early on. Heart seems fine. Son (also control group) caught COVID recently, recovered, heart seems fine. Wife had a vaccine so not in the control group - had an adverse reaction to it and stopped at jab #1.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Santosh83 5y agoAm unvaccinated and recovered too. Heart is fine, as far as I can tell.
- kqr 5y agoIt's not a control if it's self-selected.
- scarygliders 5y agoNonsense. If a person is unjabbed, they're in the control group, period.
- tomp 5y agoThis blog post argues that the risk is even higher for COVID after vaccine. https://dailysceptic.org/2022/02/09/heart-problems-after-covid-are-much-worse-for-the-vaccinated-nature-study-shows-but-its-hidden-in-the-appendix/ https://dailysceptic.org/2022/02/09/heart-problems-after-cov... Heart Problems After Covid Are Much Worse for the Vaccinated, Nature Study Shows – But It’s Hidden in the Appendix*
- wesleywt 5y agodoubt source is suspect.
- thedrbrian 5y agoThe source is the same paper just someone reading a supplementary table. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3
- f6v 5y ago> Heart Problems After Covid Are Much Worse for the Vaccinated, Nature Study Shows It might as well be that those who are vaccinated and still get sick are just predisposed to heart complications. Saying they get those because they were vaccinated is a fallacy.
- qwertox 5y agoDidn't even request his "findings" to be peer reviewed. Or ask the authors to clarify his questions. Just assumes some stuff and hits it out with a catchy headline.
- hedora 5y agoYeah. The “analysis” hurt my head. There’s lots of extrapolation from a table in someone else’s supplementary results. Maybe there were flaws in the original paper’s statistics (didn’t read it), but that doesn’t imply some implausible and tangentially related theory is correct.
- escape_goat 5y agoI should presume you all enjoy hearing members of the public explain how easily [your domains of competence] can be understood through intuition and cursory 'research', and that you yourselves are more serious about [critical systems you are responsible for] largely due to some sort of amorphous nefarious evil or incompetence on your own parts?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- dzink 5y agoCOVID and the autoimmune response to it damages the endothelial layer of your cardiovascular systems. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/ATVBAHA.121.316101 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/ATVBAHA.121.316101 and https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-021-00819-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-021-00819-6 The big question is how quickly and completely can that layer restore itself? If damage accumulates over time and people are catching new variants every 3-4 months it is only a matter of time before mortality from cardiovascular issues in COVID negative formerly infected people goes much higher and much younger. We need studies on the cardiovascular recovery pace after COVID damage in different age groups, and after repeat COVID diagnosis from different variants.
- kodah 5y agoI had Delta once. Prior to it I would ride 30 miles on my bike like it was a breezy day. When I'd take breaks to vacation or whatever I could pick back up easily. A year after COVID, I'm struggling to hit 20 miles and I lose my progress easily. I'm not sure it's COVID related, but nothing else has changed in my life.
- forgingahead 5y agoDid you take the vaccine?
- laurent92 5y agoLockdowns have also broken everyone’s regular exercise and healthy habits. On charts we all assign this to Covid, but lockdowns were an artificial, additional decision.
- AlishaOwen 5y agoThis is interesting to contrast with the numerous studies mentioned here: https://www.statnews.com/2021/05/14/setting-the-record-straight-there-is-no-covid-heart/ https://www.statnews.com/2021/05/14/setting-the-record-strai...
- cesnja 5y agoGiven this article was written almost a year ago, should we consider it a bit too old for dismissing newer discoveries?
- AlishaOwen 5y agoDid not mean to "dismiss" the conclusions in the new study per se. For example, one potential source of the contrast is that many of the studies in the Stat News article were focused on young (or young-ish) athletes, while the VA study is entirely military veterans.
- ben-schaaf 5y agoThe biggest standout difference I see is that the largest study in that article is for 3,000 covid cases, whereas this one is on 153,000.
- AlishaOwen 5y agoThose 3,000 cases were actively monitored for cardiac issues, while the VA study is purely passive and observational (which the article itself raises as a caveat). It's not just a matter of comparing raw sample sizes.
- loki19 5y agoI love this kind of discussion where people seek truth and do their best to remove biases. Keep up the good work, we need much more ppl like you!
- lampe3 5y agoThis is how Science work old studies and new studies can come to contrast conclusion. Why? Because of time, better understanding, more data and many more facts. So yeah we will probably see more long covid problems in the next 2 years.
- christmm 5y ago
- TT-392 5y agoI am currently in bed, sick from covid, can you guys stop scaring me?
- draugadrotten 5y agoCan recommend reading a book and turning off the devices. Cryptonomicron is a good read.
- baal80spam 5y ago> Cryptonomicron I chuckled. Was it an intentional typo?
- rob74 5y agoNot sure if this will improve your mood, but I know the feeling. I had Covid in November (despite being vaccinated), and I got it from my father (86, also vaccinated). So I alternated between (mostly) worrying about him and also a bit about myself ("does it still count as a mild case if you lose your sense of smell? Will it come back?"). But I am happy to say that we both got through it ok. Although articles like this are scary for me too...
- hnplj 5y ago
- lpolovets 5y agoIf I'm reading Figure 5 right in the original paper*, it looks like the biggest cardiac impact is on people who were hospitalized or went to the ICU for covid, and the effect on people who were not hospitalized is present but relatively small. Am I interpreting the data correctly? * https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3 h/t to @greenyoda for posting elsewhere in this thread.
- MrYellowP 5y ago
- DeWilde 5y agoBut that is what the paper says, or am I reading it wrong? That is having a case of Covid that leads to hospitalization will also put you at 30 to 60 times more likely to have a heart-disease.
- raziel2p 5y agothat's how I'm reading it as well. the Nature article does acknowledge this, but not with a lot of detail.
- Al-Khwarizmi 5y agoRelatively small compared to the impact for severe cases, but it looks very relevant if you consider the amount of people that are getting COVID and that many governments and societies are basically throwing the towel and accepting that people should just catch it.
- timr 5y agoThis isn't a representative sample of the general public. Per supplementary tables 1-2, the average age of the participant was over 60, and had multiple co-morbidities. We know that age is the #1 risk factor. The people in the "hospitalized" cohort, in particular, were quite old and sick prior to the disease.
- 5y ago
- b3nji 5y agoVaxxed, unvaxxed, or both?
- mupuff1234 5y agoI find it weird that there's no mentions of variants, but I assume based on the timeline it's probably Delta and older. Seems impossible to tell if this holds for omicron as well, given that it's replication behavior and general outcome is a bit different and usually more mild.
- EnKopVand 5y agoI’m Danish, like everyone of my fellows I had my 3 shots and a case of Omniwhatever. I’m 39 and in relatively decent shape, I can run 5km in 25 minutes and I do 20-30 minute of semi-cardio every day as I walk an 3km steep incline going home from work. Post covid (two months now) I feel the burn so much faster. Completely anecdotal but it had my doctor worried enough that she send me to an EKG and for blood testing (which was normal) leave her with no answer other than “who knows”.
- jsiaajdsdaa 5y agoAll the technology, training, and funding in the world and the result ("who knows" and stress) is worse than the base case (ignorance).
- verisimi 5y ago
- wyattpeak 5y agoWhy would you expect it to be similar to the flu? Covid is entirely unrelated to the flu. SARS killed fifteen percent of people who got it. Was that due to treatment, since the flu doesn't do that?
- verisimi 5y agoIt's worth considering that the treatment could also be the cause of the blood clotting though. Do you agree?
- uptownfunk 5y agoThis comment will probably get flagged, but I am genuinely curious from a scientific lens. What is the distribution of post-COVID heart disease conditional on having taken the vaccine?
- dijit 5y agoThis is actually the best reason to have people remain unvaccinated, and to not strictly mandate vaccines. I'm pro-vax (god, why do I have to say that?) but what's seriously pissed me off about this whole COVID thing is how quickly it became political. At the beginning there was a real sense of "we're in this together" but now you can be pretty certain of someones political affiliation if they choose not to wear a mask. Vaccines prevent you getting the worst of the illness, they don't really prevent you catching and infecting others, so vaccines are a "cure" for overwhelmed healthcare systems and a protection for the individual. So why do you need to have a vaccine pass to go places? You can still carry the virus and infect people. Having unvaccinated parts of the population means we can track if it was the wise decision or not, hindsight is 20-20 and it seems obvious to me now that we should vaccinate.. But it also seemed obvious in the 50s that fireproofing buildings with asbestos was the right decision too.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- verisimi 5y agoRegardless of your position - pro-vax - I love that you point out the political elements to this. The politics goes deeper: the definitions of the terms 'vaccine' and 'virus' were changed, governments have undertaken the biggest advertising campaign in history effectively bankrolling the media, people who died of unrelated causes but had a positive test were counted as covid deaths which plainly skews statistics, governmental psychological units were given a few rein, large corporations were allowed to remain open but small businesses were not, etc. These are examples of how this was handled not in a neutral way, but to advance a political agenda. Especially when you consider that most western countries were implementing the same measures in a coordinated way.
- 5y ago
- shermand89 5y ago
- gpu_explorer 5y ago> I'm probably going to get down voted, which only proves my points. It proves precisely none of your points. Data please.
- shermand89 5y agoData please? Have you been living under a rock? There are very intelligent people on HN, but this weird obsession with data and scholarly articles is honestly stupid. We're not talking about events that occurred 100 years ago, we are all living this right NOW! Personal and eyewitness testimonies count for nothing now? You're going to pretend that data is not manipulated? If you knew any history, you would know how common it is that data is manipulated. Tell me, do you not see ANYTHING suspicious about what has been going on for the past 3 or even 6 years?
- gpu_explorer 5y ago> Data please? Have you been living under a rock? > There are very intelligent people on HN, but this weird obsession with data and scholarly articles is honestly stupid. We're not talking about events that occurred 100 years ago, we are all living this right NOW! I would just like to see data that supports what you propose in your original remarks. It doesn't have to be an encyclopedia of references. It's okay if there isn't data - I'll just assume you're sharing your opinion (which is totally cool as well of course).
- Brakenshire 5y ago> Data please? Have you been living under a rock? I’d say the same to you, if you didn’t see reports of heart problems before the vaccine were you living under a rock? Either you weren’t reading much or your filter bubble was removing that news, perhaps because the media you were reading was trying to minimise its impact at the time. It was very widely covered where I am. There was even a widely watched documentary in the UK of a well known science/health presenter who had heart problems after a Covid infection in early 2020. You can probably look it, it was called “Surviving the Virus: My Brother & Me“
- jmpman 5y agoNew Zealand has been basically isolated and Covid free for the past year. Their population is approaching 95% vaccinated. It would be interesting to see statistics on heart disease rates in their population over the past year, as we could then be certain any increase is vaccine related and not Covid related.
- xupybd 5y agoWe had over 400 for the first time today. Soon our Covid free status will end. Omicron is unstoppable.
- DiogenesKynikos 5y agoOmicron is not unstoppable. See mainland China. See Taiwan.
- jsiaajdsdaa 5y agoWhat has Taiwan done that NZ has not?
- rjzzleep 5y agoChina has applied the rules to everyone(although you get really fancy quarantine facilities if you're important). There is also interprovince quarantine requirements. Apparently Taiwan is playing with fire again. They have 3 weeks of quarantine(two in real isolation and 1 where you have to avoid crowds yourself), but apparently contrary to official policy some business travellers have been offered 3 day quarantine(that's how their "second" wave happened, 3 day quarantine for airline staff). The offerings were made in private meetings and not in writing though. I guess everyone learned that paper trails are bad if you want to keep outrage and accountability low.
- Accacin 5y agoYeah my wife went back to China to visit family recently, and on arriving in Shanghai had a 21 day quarantine. To even be able to fly there she had two COVID tests prior to leaving UK, and one when she arrived in Finland (on way to China).
- Thorentis 5y ago> For example, people in the contemporary control group weren’t tested for COVID-19, so it’s possible that some of them actually had mild infections. How doesn't this completely invalidate the title? If we aren't actually comparing between a group that provably did not have COVID and one that did, we can't possibly draw any conclusions about the effect of having COVID compared to not having it at all.
- MauranKilom 5y agoIsn't it the opposite? If there's a strong effect in "had COVID" vs "probably did not have COVID", doesn't that prove that there would be an even stronger effect in "had COVID" vs "definitely did not have COVID"?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Thorentis 5y agoBut where did "probably did not get" come from? It is highly likely that COVID numbers are far higher than we know about due to many mild and asymptomatic cases that go undetected.
- MauranKilom 5y agoThat makes the case even stronger. Not sure where you're going with this. Unless you want to imply that everyone has had COVID already, the argument works the same.
- blangkz 5y agoWhy is that highly likely?
- spupe 5y agoThese numbers are exceptionally high on aggregate. From the article: "out of every 1,000 people studied, there were around 4 more people in the COVID-19 group than in the control group who experienced stroke." This means that for every million people who got COVID-19, we would expect 4,000 more strokes. Using a lower-bound estimate that 50% of the population will get COVID-19 at some point, this would mean roughly 650,000 more cases in the US alone (~330 million people), and this is in addition to baseline. A totally devastating pandemic.
- qbasic_forever 5y agoLife insurers are already seeing it play out too, there was a 40% increase in life insurance claims for working age adults in the last couple years: https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/588738-huge-huge-numbers-death-rates-up-40-percent-over-pre https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/58... A significant amount of people are dying unexpectedly early.
- usrusr 5y ago...and that's a generously low lower bound, because at this point, the only thing that could prevent a percentage approaching 100% would be a (near) extinction event like an asteroid strike or an all-out nuclear war.
- jd115 5y agoLuckily, the latter is not entirely out of the question now! (Thank you Russia!)
- peteradio 5y agoYou seem to be assuming the U.S. is made up exclusively of 60 year old veterans.
- hispanic 5y agoWhile the study appears to be based on VA data, I don't see anything about it being based on 60-year-olds.
- verisimi 5y agoIs it soaring after the illness or after the medical intervention? These are 2 different things. The vaccines obviously have not had any long term testing.
- jsiaajdsdaa 5y agoAnd lung cancer risk soars with a few cigarettes. Stop living in fear! Accept that you are going to die at some point! Make decisions rationally and then move on and live!!!
- jdkjs 5y agoWhy move on when I can live in fear and, what’s even better, legally compel the rest of people to live in fear as well?
- jsiaajdsdaa 5y agoWhen you put it that way, sign me up! When is it my turn to play despot? :)
- pcdoodle 5y ago
- NullInvictus 5y agoEvery COVID story here is an interesting little glimpse into how a seemingly normal forum has their latent political views exploited into adopting a conspiracy theory, re: anti-vaccine rhetoric. It becomes a little more extreme every day. This study has nothing to do with the vaccine, and yet this is what HN clamors for. I wonder how many people here understand what kind of ride they're being taken for.
- YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y agoThis, and I don't understand why there isn't more scrutiny from the moderators. Especially the one-day old accounts are the most annoying part. If you have hottakes at least have the curtousy to do it with your primary account so we know who to ignore afterwards.
- adflux 5y ago
- girvo 5y agoIf your “opinion” is contrary to observable facts and puts others in danger, yes. Pretty straightforward actually. Those posting this nonsense ignore the facts, so ignoring them seems prudent.
- adflux 5y ago>If your “opinion” is contrary to observable facts I'm sure that is the same reason why many once people believed the earth was flat, or that the earth was at the center of the universe. It's very arrogant to think that "the science" and "the facts" are always right. Any scientist worth their money understands the importance of challenging the status quo. Unfortunately nowadays, especially on the topic of COVID, challenging the status quo is enough to be considered a pariah by narrow-minded people like yourself.
- deleted 5y ago
- ummonk 5y agoNotable point from the actual paper, that adds clarity to the "even with a mild case" title: "These risks and burdens were evident even among individuals who were not hospitalized during the acute phase of the infection and increased in a graded fashion according to the care setting during the acute phase (non-hospitalized, hospitalized and admitted to intensive care)." You can see the effects of covid severity in this figure: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3/figures/5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3/figures/5
- peakaboo 5y agoHeart decease comes from the vaccines but they will never admit that of course.
- nodamage 5y agoIt is important to note that given the timeline in the study (March 2020 to Jan 2021) most of the COVID-19 group was likely unvaccinated. It remains to be seen whether vaccination protects against these same risks. Edit: This is confirmed in the supplementary data. Only 347 (0.23%) of the 162,690 people in the COVID-19 group were vaccinated prior to infection. That being said, a reasonably large percentage (61.93%) were vaccinated by the end of the follow up period, which would seemingly indicate that vaccination post-infection doesn't help all that much against these risks.
- arisAlexis 5y agoIt's crazy that they do not say anything in their study about the biggest confound ever, the vaccine.
- walterbell 5y agoPaper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01689-3 That's the pool of 60+ year-old veterans who were selected after testing positive and then subsequently monitored for one year. It is likely that many were vaccinated during the 1-year period from Jan 2021 - Jan 2022. e.g. as of July 2021, the VA % vaccinated was about 50%, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/07/26/va-mandates-employee-vaccines-covid-infections-double/8084671002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/07/26/va-man... We know that mRNA vaccines have resulted in negative cardiac consequences in some patients, although that has mostly been in younger men.
- nodamage 5y agoI'm not sure how that contradicts what I said? Most of the people in the COVID-19 group tested positive before the vaccines were approved in December 2020. Yes, they might have been vaccinated afterwards, but my point is they did not have vaccine-induced antibodies at the time of their infections.
- shmde 5y agoAfter recovering from covid, my resting heartbeat has gone up from 60-70 to 90-100 BPM. And I now cannot eat food without a glass of water because my throat gets so dry that I have the sensation of getting choked all the time.
- madballster 5y agoMany of the "Covid-19 increases risk of XYZ" popular media articles lack baseline comparisons to other virus infections. (Disclaimer: Yes, we know Covid-19 isn't the flu, and it's more deadly.) My point is: how much does heart-disease risk increase post-Covid compared to say post-Influenza? Is it comparable or is the risk magnitudes larger than with other virus infections? This is an important benchmark, I understand scientific journals don't cater to laypeople but popular media does. From CDC website: "Studies have shown that flu illness is associated with an increase in heart attacks and stroke. A 2018 study found that the risk of having a heart attack was 6 times higher within a week of a confirmed flu infection."
- spywaregorilla 5y ago> A 2018 study found that the risk of having a heart attack was 6 times higher within a week of a confirmed flu infection." Within a week seems trivially small to the point of irrelevance. That would be when they are still sick with the flu, no?
- GuB-42 5y agoThe only study that I've seen compare Covid-19 to the flu is one related to long-covid. You can have long-covid-like symptoms after the flu, but it is about twice more likely with Covid-19 than with the flu. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003773 https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo... I guess there are others, I just didn't randomly stumbled across them.
- prmph 5y agoFrom the article: >Even a mild case of COVID-19 can increase a person’s risk of cardiovascular problems for at least a year after diagnosis, a new study shows. > “I am actually surprised by these findings that cardiovascular complications of COVID can last so long,” Does this imply that the risk decreases with time as the body recovers? Or is the elevated risk permanent?
- Fomite 5y agoRisk decreases over time, but the distribution of time-until-recovery is longer than one might hope.
- NinjaViking 5y agoIt can also mean that the people who were at the highest risk didn't live for a year, so the statistical risk is reduced for the remaining population.
- throw_covid112 5y agoI think I mentioned this before but I had the strangest Covid experience - for years I've struggled with Opiates/Cocaine & to a lesser degree Alcohol. I got Covid early on & since recovering have little to no desire for that stuff - so I've stopped drinking, dont use anymore & am (slowly) coming off my maintanence medication. I'm only one person of course but I find it the strangest thing..
- farmerstan 5y ago“For example, people in the contemporary control group weren’t tested for COVID-19, so it’s possible that some of them actually had mild infections.” I can’t believe such unthorough data but extremely alarmist headline is allowed in print.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- tinus_hn 5y ago> Ardehali cautions that the study’s observational nature comes with some limitations. For example, people in the contemporary control group weren’t tested for COVID-19, so it’s possible that some of them actually had mild infections. Let’s just say that there are some statistical issues with this study design.
- TheGigaChad 5y ago
- Volker_W 5y agoLooking at this comment section restores my faith in humanity and nuanced discourse. HN is way better than twitter.
- t0bia_s 5y ago"it is important that those who are not vaccinated get their vaccine immediately." Sounds like another biased article to promote experimental vaccines. Curiously right after so many studies about increased hear failures, myocarditis and pericarditis in healthy population and dying athletes in front of the cameras. > https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346 > https://swprs.org/covid-vaccines-a-reality-check/ https://swprs.org/covid-vaccines-a-reality-check/ > https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.21.21268209v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.21.21268209v... > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0 > https://goodsciencing.com/covid/athletes-suffer-cardiac-arrest-die-after-covid-shot/ https://goodsciencing.com/covid/athletes-suffer-cardiac-arre...
- stakkur 5y ago“Ardehali cautions that the study’s observational nature comes with some limitations. For example, people in the contemporary control group weren’t tested for COVID-19, so it’s possible that some of them actually had mild infections. And because the authors considered only VA patients — a group that’s predominantly white and male — their results might not translate to all populations.” This might sound like minor information, but it calls the conclusions and broad claims into question. In fact, it’s a very narrow study.