5 ms·

This article is framed in such an odd way. As if the virus that literally uses the ACE2 receptor for cell entry wouldn't have cardiovascular effects or if they

This article is framed in such an odd way. As if the virus that literally uses the ACE2 receptor for cell entry wouldn't have cardiovascular effects or if they were not known and assumed immediately. That's wild. The article itself doesn't even have the letter sequence "ACE2" in it... Of course binding to ACE2 is going to throw the cardiovascular Renin/Angiotensin system all out of wack. Even if the sars-cov-2 virus weren't specifically entering and killing off ACE2 expressing cardiovascular cells.

afavour 3y ago
I think it’s an article targeted at laypeople, many of whom consider COVID to be a respiratory disease like the flu. It’s simply spreading awareness of the fact that it’s more complicated than that.
- wutwutwat 3y ago
  > COVID‑19 is caused by infection with a strain of coronavirus known as 'Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2' (SARS-CoV-2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19#Cause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19#Cause > Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2)[2] is a strain of coronavirus that causes COVID-19, the respiratory illness responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS-CoV-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS-CoV-2
  - afavour 3y ago
    I’m not suggesting that COVID isn’t a respiratory disease but that its effects seem to go beyond solely the respiratory system.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Grubbo 3y ago
      It passes the bloodbrain barrier.
    - mharig 3y ago
      Like influenza.
  - francisofascii 3y ago
    not "just" a respiratory disease
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
yieldcrv 3y ago
A lot of obvious things like that were met with source!?!? stop fearmongering!!! thats a preprint!! despite such things clearly needing 3 years to begin existing while there was a need to react in the present. so having a source is nice. thats the odd paradigm of studies, either nobody agrees with it or everyone says “well, duh”
- mlyle 3y ago
  On the flip-side, we know we're easily fooled and that the scientific method is a barely sufficient set of tools to be fooled a lot less. There was a sea of preprints pointing in different directions, and it was difficult to navigate and know whom to believe. Someone believing something strongly 3 years ago based on a few preprints is hardly vindicated for having great process when published research comes out validating that view now. IMO the only approach is to roll with the punches and to go "ehhhhh, mayyyybe." (And of course use the best weight of information we have now).
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    > There was a sea of preprints pointing in different directions, and it was difficult to navigate and know whom to believe. right, this was only obvious with particular education instead of relying on the educated, who were saying all sorts of random things in every direction.
    - mlyle 3y ago
      > this was only obvious with particular education instead of relying on the educated, Hindsight bias. We tend to remember our intuitions when we were right, instead of fairly measuring them. Thus, we become convinced we are reliable and experts are not. Damage to other tissues, especially from mild illness, was a possibility that was neither well-supported nor well-refuted in 2020. It was clear there was morbidity risk, but the mechanism was not understood (and is still not well-understood) and the magnitude was also uncertain and confounded.
      - 3y ago
croes 3y ago
Never seen the hashtag #SuddenlyAndUnexpected used to blame every sudden (heart related) death to the Corona vaccines because the virus as such is harmless and just a flu or cold?
- _ea1k 3y ago
  It is bizarre tbh. I've had people say "why are they only talking about covid heard damage now, after the vaccines?" But we were all talking about this way back in 2020. People just have strange memories and attention windows.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > People just have strange memories and attention windows. Indeed, but IMHO the strangeness is in you (and many others): How do you are you still calling this behavior "strange" - as if it's inexplicable - after seeing it right in front of your nose for years (in many areas, not just covid)? Think of it this way: I can predict when this behavior will occur (though not its precise presentation). So can you. What predicts - what strongly correlates with - this behavior of theirs? \ \ \ \ \ \ (Answer, obscured to prevent accidental reading: xreactionaryxpoliticsx.xthexreactionaryxmovementxfabricatesxwhateverxsuitsxtheirxideologicalxgoalsx;xtruthxandxconsequencesx,xincludingxhumanxlifex,xarexdisregarded.xwhenxthexmovementxturnedxagainstxcoronavirusx(toxbexantiliberal)xixhadxnoxdoubtxwhatxwasxcoming).
    - rsynnott 3y ago
      It's probably not surprising that it happens to some extent (like, you get flat earthers and FotLs/SovCits and various other loonies), but more how _common_ it is. It has to be one of this century's most widespread conspiracy theories.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        I'm not talking about random 'loonies', but a large movement that follows the same playbook every time - probably the most influential social force of the day, electing US presidents and other world leaders, oppressing people worldwide, causing mass social change, etc. They follow the same playbook, with the same rhetorical tactics, every time! Look at the reactionary (sometimes called populist) political messaging in country after country - it's like it's written by the same person. > It has to be one of this century's most widespread conspiracy theories. The same group of people believe all sorts of conspiracy theories.
pdonis 3y ago
The article does not appear to be claiming that SARS-CoV-2 damages the heart directly. From the article: "Research has since shown that myocytes for the most part escape infection. Instead, SARS-CoV-2 damages the heart indirectly by unleashing inflammatory reactions that affect cardiovascular functioning."
- isolli 3y ago
  The same is true of pneumonia, I believe.
bugglebeetle 3y ago
The popular narrative, including that being pushed by most western governments, is that COVID either never was or is no longer is dangerous, beyond the level of other common respiratory illnesses. This article begins from that (false) framing.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  Is that false? I thought that that was the understanding from the get go, that for most people or was fine but that it was dangerous for certain people with pre-existibg respiratory issues, of whom there were enough that their sudden and widespread hospital admittance put a strain on the health service as a whole, meaning that all sorts of other issues that were normally easily treated became considerably more dangerous due to a lack of staff/facilities. What is the true narrative?
  - francisofascii 3y ago
    The "long Covid" or long term health effects are missing from that narrative. And these can be unrelated to respiratory issues, like the heart issues. And the set who suffer from "long Covid" does not seem to be correlated with those with respiratory pre-existing conditions.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > thought that that was the understanding from the get go There were many get go’s, and one for each variant. I know a healthy person who got the original and then delta variant, the latter which attacked his pancreas and left him with type 1 diabetes. > for most people or was fine but that it was dangerous for certain people with pre-existibg respiratory issues For most people, it’s asymptomatic in the short term. We’ve known it would have novel systemic effects from the “get go,” because it hits a nasty receptor. With the flu, a cytokine storm and non-respiratory cellular damage is a fluke. With Covid, every infection—even the asymptomatic ones—damage the gut, testes, gallbladder and heart (ACE2). We don’t know how that damage manifests in the long run, there hasn’t been a long run. But we know there is damage being accumulated. We just don’t know if it’s benign. (You can’t generally look at a body and tell how many times it’s had the flu. You can with Covid.)
MightyBuzzard 3y ago
[dead]
libraryatnight 3y ago
It's written this way to hopefully get some information across to people trippin on fox acid.

afavour 3y ago

I think it’s an article targeted at laypeople, many of whom consider COVID to be a respiratory disease like the flu. It’s simply spreading awareness of the fact that it’s more complicated than that.

wutwutwat 3y ago
> COVID‑19 is caused by infection with a strain of coronavirus known as 'Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2' (SARS-CoV-2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19#Cause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19#Cause > Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2)[2] is a strain of coronavirus that causes COVID-19, the respiratory illness responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS-CoV-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS-CoV-2
- afavour 3y ago
  I’m not suggesting that COVID isn’t a respiratory disease but that its effects seem to go beyond solely the respiratory system.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Grubbo 3y ago
    It passes the bloodbrain barrier.
  - mharig 3y ago
    Like influenza.
- francisofascii 3y ago
  not "just" a respiratory disease
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

yieldcrv 3y ago

A lot of obvious things like that were met with source!?!? stop fearmongering!!! thats a preprint!! despite such things clearly needing 3 years to begin existing while there was a need to react in the present. so having a source is nice. thats the odd paradigm of studies, either nobody agrees with it or everyone says “well, duh”

mlyle 3y ago
On the flip-side, we know we're easily fooled and that the scientific method is a barely sufficient set of tools to be fooled a lot less. There was a sea of preprints pointing in different directions, and it was difficult to navigate and know whom to believe. Someone believing something strongly 3 years ago based on a few preprints is hardly vindicated for having great process when published research comes out validating that view now. IMO the only approach is to roll with the punches and to go "ehhhhh, mayyyybe." (And of course use the best weight of information we have now).
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  > There was a sea of preprints pointing in different directions, and it was difficult to navigate and know whom to believe. right, this was only obvious with particular education instead of relying on the educated, who were saying all sorts of random things in every direction.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    > this was only obvious with particular education instead of relying on the educated, Hindsight bias. We tend to remember our intuitions when we were right, instead of fairly measuring them. Thus, we become convinced we are reliable and experts are not. Damage to other tissues, especially from mild illness, was a possibility that was neither well-supported nor well-refuted in 2020. It was clear there was morbidity risk, but the mechanism was not understood (and is still not well-understood) and the magnitude was also uncertain and confounded.
    - 3y ago

croes 3y ago

Never seen the hashtag #SuddenlyAndUnexpected used to blame every sudden (heart related) death to the Corona vaccines because the virus as such is harmless and just a flu or cold?

_ea1k 3y ago
It is bizarre tbh. I've had people say "why are they only talking about covid heard damage now, after the vaccines?" But we were all talking about this way back in 2020. People just have strange memories and attention windows.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > People just have strange memories and attention windows. Indeed, but IMHO the strangeness is in you (and many others): How do you are you still calling this behavior "strange" - as if it's inexplicable - after seeing it right in front of your nose for years (in many areas, not just covid)? Think of it this way: I can predict when this behavior will occur (though not its precise presentation). So can you. What predicts - what strongly correlates with - this behavior of theirs? \ \ \ \ \ \ (Answer, obscured to prevent accidental reading: xreactionaryxpoliticsx.xthexreactionaryxmovementxfabricatesxwhateverxsuitsxtheirxideologicalxgoalsx;xtruthxandxconsequencesx,xincludingxhumanxlifex,xarexdisregarded.xwhenxthexmovementxturnedxagainstxcoronavirusx(toxbexantiliberal)xixhadxnoxdoubtxwhatxwasxcoming).
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    It's probably not surprising that it happens to some extent (like, you get flat earthers and FotLs/SovCits and various other loonies), but more how _common_ it is. It has to be one of this century's most widespread conspiracy theories.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      I'm not talking about random 'loonies', but a large movement that follows the same playbook every time - probably the most influential social force of the day, electing US presidents and other world leaders, oppressing people worldwide, causing mass social change, etc. They follow the same playbook, with the same rhetorical tactics, every time! Look at the reactionary (sometimes called populist) political messaging in country after country - it's like it's written by the same person. > It has to be one of this century's most widespread conspiracy theories. The same group of people believe all sorts of conspiracy theories.

pdonis 3y ago

The article does not appear to be claiming that SARS-CoV-2 damages the heart directly. From the article: "Research has since shown that myocytes for the most part escape infection. Instead, SARS-CoV-2 damages the heart indirectly by unleashing inflammatory reactions that affect cardiovascular functioning."

isolli 3y ago
The same is true of pneumonia, I believe.

bugglebeetle 3y ago

The popular narrative, including that being pushed by most western governments, is that COVID either never was or is no longer is dangerous, beyond the level of other common respiratory illnesses. This article begins from that (false) framing.

AlecSchueler 3y ago
Is that false? I thought that that was the understanding from the get go, that for most people or was fine but that it was dangerous for certain people with pre-existibg respiratory issues, of whom there were enough that their sudden and widespread hospital admittance put a strain on the health service as a whole, meaning that all sorts of other issues that were normally easily treated became considerably more dangerous due to a lack of staff/facilities. What is the true narrative?
- francisofascii 3y ago
  The "long Covid" or long term health effects are missing from that narrative. And these can be unrelated to respiratory issues, like the heart issues. And the set who suffer from "long Covid" does not seem to be correlated with those with respiratory pre-existing conditions.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > thought that that was the understanding from the get go There were many get go’s, and one for each variant. I know a healthy person who got the original and then delta variant, the latter which attacked his pancreas and left him with type 1 diabetes. > for most people or was fine but that it was dangerous for certain people with pre-existibg respiratory issues For most people, it’s asymptomatic in the short term. We’ve known it would have novel systemic effects from the “get go,” because it hits a nasty receptor. With the flu, a cytokine storm and non-respiratory cellular damage is a fluke. With Covid, every infection—even the asymptomatic ones—damage the gut, testes, gallbladder and heart (ACE2). We don’t know how that damage manifests in the long run, there hasn’t been a long run. But we know there is damage being accumulated. We just don’t know if it’s benign. (You can’t generally look at a body and tell how many times it’s had the flu. You can with Covid.)

MightyBuzzard 3y ago

[dead]

libraryatnight 3y ago

It's written this way to hopefully get some information across to people trippin on fox acid.