3 ms·

There is no indication that vaccination changes that. You still get it and and if i had to guess, lung antibodies will likely help as much for heart problems as

There is no indication that vaccination changes that. You still get it and and if i had to guess, lung antibodies will likely help as much for heart problems as they do for upper respiratory symptoms.

wolverine876 5y ago
There's no indication either way because the reseach was done before widespread vaccination. > if i had to guess Your guesses are worthless (as are mine), unless you have some expertise. The last thing we need is more BS on the Internet about Coronavirus.
- cf141q5325 5y ago
  Even if it was that way, precautionary principle would still apply. Saying "nobody could have known" in a few years doesnt make your heart damage go away.
  - drugstorecowboy 5y ago
    Couldn't you apply this logic to excuse doing any random thing? It might help so why not do it since we will potentially regret it in the future if we don't? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but by that logic we should certainly be giving everyone Ivermectin, it's been proven to be extremely safe and it might help so why not? You would certainly regret not taking it if it turns out it prevented heart damage.
    - cf141q5325 5y ago
      Sorry I cant follow. I was arguing for quite the opposite, just assuming something will help wont make it so. We know there is heart damage as well as long covid even in low and asymptomatic cases. Sure you can bet that the vaccines will help there as well, but how confident are you in that? Because as far as i know nobody promised anything of the sorts. It is a leaky vaccine, you still get sick, you just get lung antibodies so you dont end up on intensive care. Are you really willing to risk both on the grounds that it might or might not help? I would say if you dont know, you assume that its not a magic shield and adapt your behavior accordingly. Which means so you dont catch it.

3 ms·

There is no indication that vaccination changes that. You still get it and and if i had to guess, lung antibodies will likely help as much for heart problems as

by cf141q5325 5y ago

wolverine876 5y ago
There's no indication either way because the reseach was done before widespread vaccination. > if i had to guess Your guesses are worthless (as are mine), unless you have some expertise. The last thing we need is more BS on the Internet about Coronavirus.
- cf141q5325 5y ago
  Even if it was that way, precautionary principle would still apply. Saying "nobody could have known" in a few years doesnt make your heart damage go away.
  - drugstorecowboy 5y ago
    Couldn't you apply this logic to excuse doing any random thing? It might help so why not do it since we will potentially regret it in the future if we don't? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but by that logic we should certainly be giving everyone Ivermectin, it's been proven to be extremely safe and it might help so why not? You would certainly regret not taking it if it turns out it prevented heart damage.
    - cf141q5325 5y ago
      Sorry I cant follow. I was arguing for quite the opposite, just assuming something will help wont make it so. We know there is heart damage as well as long covid even in low and asymptomatic cases. Sure you can bet that the vaccines will help there as well, but how confident are you in that? Because as far as i know nobody promised anything of the sorts. It is a leaky vaccine, you still get sick, you just get lung antibodies so you dont end up on intensive care. Are you really willing to risk both on the grounds that it might or might not help? I would say if you dont know, you assume that its not a magic shield and adapt your behavior accordingly. Which means so you dont catch it.