4 ms·
I'm not calling the author's conclusions unscientific. At. All. He does not refer to damage, he does not draw conclusions about the mechanism which leads the co
by TrevorJ 5y ago
I'm not calling the author's conclusions unscientific. At. All. He does not refer to damage, he does not draw conclusions about the mechanism which leads the cohort to have a higher risk of heart problems, and he certainly doesn't draw conclusions about individuals within the cohort, only the cohort as a whole.
Other people reading into the study things that aren't there is what I am calling out.
- Retric 5y ago>He does not refer to damage “Why would SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID 19, which we all thought about as a respiratory virus, attack the heart” “Why would SARS-CoV-2, … attack the heart” Are you suggesting attack the heart doesn’t mean to cause damage to it? I have trouble reading that as meaning anything else, how do you read it?
- TrevorJ 5y agoHe's asking the same question I'm asking: "Why"? The scientist who conducted the study is saying his findings raises more questions, as any good study is likely to do. - I'm not sure why so many people want to read between the lines versus picking up the line of inquiry and doing further studies. There are any number of reasons why we could see heart issues from covid. Simply saying 'well, it must be direct damage to the heart, case closed' is completely reductive.
- Retric 5y agoI agree he doesn’t know what specific method of action(s) or type of damage(s) is involved. I suspect multiple different things result from getting COVID that directly or indirectly cause harm. The study only looks at the effects without digging into the proximate causes.