>One expensive doctor explained it to me this way – historically medical community don't have enough data about how post-infection recovery has been in large po

>One expensive doctor explained it to me this way – historically medical community don't have enough data about how post-infection recovery has been in large populations w.r.t heart rates. Only recently, with smart watches etc such data is available. This is absolutely true and one part of the root problem. The other aspect of this is that most of the heart tracking devices we use live on the wrist and the data is of questionable quality and application. Many cardiologists know this and dismiss the devices and its uses wholesale, but that approach is wrong. The data isnt 'wholesale bad' its just bad at many things (hilariously, particularly bad at the things they advertise on the most). One of the things its GOOD at doing is noting when your heart is behaving differently from your baselines, which is why its generally pretty good at noting AFIB or pre-AFIB characteristics, for example. This level of complexity on the issue, coupled with the relative lack of understanding with post-infection behavior/detailed immunoresponse, is definitely leading to some less than ideal approaches to patient care. and obviously the nature of COVID, being the first generally uniform viral infection of the entire population since 1918, being a huge wrench. source: I am not a doctor in any way, my dad has a 30 year history of complex heart problems and i get to speak with his specialists a lot. like, 12 of them by this point. I work in tech and play with many types of health tracker devices regularly so it comes up in conversation.