Hotel Putingrad

May 14th, 2021 at 1:10 PM ^

My point is more that the OP is misrepresenting the article he links.

He's implying such a condition is non-existent, whereas the authors are in fact saying,

"We take away two lessons from the Covid-19 myocarditis story. One is that SARS-CoV-2 can sometimes, though rarely, cause heart inflammation — just as many other viruses do. Clinicians, therefore, can appeal to sound medicine; further testing can be decided on an individual basis. Screening low-risk patients with MRI and other fancy tests is neither necessary nor wise."

 

Joined: 12/10/2014

MGoPoints: 212089

teldar

May 14th, 2021 at 12:05 PM ^

This is also cherry picking data. If you read the article at all, it says that myocarditis is no more common from the corona virus than it is from other viral infections. It most definitely does not say that the Corona virus does not cause viral myocarditis. The article condemns the study that had no controls and cherry-picked data as their data set.

My anecdote is I had a woman who was a patient of mine who died in 2 days from viral myocarditis when I worked in the ICU 15 years ago. Also, I had viral myocarditis from the Corona virus and my symptoms, PACs, lasted for nearly a year before they finally went away. My other symptom was tachycardia after eating. Or during eating for that matter. My activity levels were never impacted and for the first time in my life at 45 I ran a mile, intentionally, rather than being made to run one in school 30 years ago. While I was still having PACs. 

So what's the point of all this? Don't cherry pick your data and use reasonable controls.

Joined: 07/14/2009

MGoPoints: 8230

SanDiegoWolverine

May 14th, 2021 at 12:11 PM ^

I'm definitely not refuting the article. I was just saying that there's dozens of examples - like my Boston Celtics - where the athlete had a really rough go of it and struggled to come back fully from it. I just mentioned the those two athletes because they were having heart issues last July that knocked them out of their seasons around the same time these published reports are coming out. 

Joined: 02/03/2009

MGoPoints: 7204

Blue@LSU

May 14th, 2021 at 1:36 PM ^

Except Covid spreads easier than other viral infections like the flu. So even though the percentage of people who develop myocarditis from the flu or Covid might be the same, many more people will develop it as a result of Covid than the flu, right?

Joined: 11/04/2016

MGoPoints: 80121

ToDefyTheFrizzleFry

May 14th, 2021 at 1:30 PM ^

I wish my PACs and PVCs would just go away. They’re not covid related and I’ve thankfully never caught covid, but damn are they annoying (used to cause panic attacks before I was assured by many doctors that they are harmless in my case). Glad to hear you’re on the mend, though!

Joined: 08/12/2010

MGoPoints: 1875

jaspersail

May 14th, 2021 at 3:08 PM ^

Dr. Murthy's opening twitter statement says COVID heart is "mostly not a thing." Mostly. 

The article's title claims "there is no ‘Covid heart’."

One of these statements is sensationalized--just like the occurrence of COVID heart warnings--and I believe it's the article title.

 

Joined: 12/09/2010

MGoPoints: 794

Booted Blue in PA

May 14th, 2021 at 11:17 AM ^

breaking news...... in a breakthrough development, the CDC has announced:

 

if you've been vaccinated you no longer need to wear a mask....

Joined: 12/18/2018

MGoPoints: 60408

BlockM

May 14th, 2021 at 11:18 AM ^

Real shame people were careful about something until they got further evidence and information.

Joined: 07/03/2008

MGoPoints: 40727

DetroitBlue

May 14th, 2021 at 11:27 AM ^

Literally EVERYONE was ignorant about covid when people were really concerned about this because ‘rona was a novel and - wait for it - unprecedented disease. You seem to be mad that the medical community was trying to be cautious when faced with a new, unique threat. We know better now, and it’s less of a concern - isn’t that supposed to be how it works?

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 30312

BananaRepublic

May 14th, 2021 at 11:31 AM ^

That's simply wrong. Many on this board were ignorant as to the actual science at the time and they professed that loudly and proudly, to be sure. But the data made a pretty clear case for anyone willing to read it. Too much hysterical media consumption (see atlantic article above) not much sober analysis of knowns and unknowns. I don't expect anyone here to learn much from this episode as people are extremely protective of their egos, but they still ought to confront reality from time to time.

Joined: 09/04/2017

MGoPoints: 2315

DetroitBlue

May 14th, 2021 at 11:43 AM ^

So you’re trying to tell us that people knew how covid 19 - a completely novel virus that hadn’t been known, let alone studied, by anyone, ever - would affect cardiovascular health a year ago? This is 100%, unadulterated revisionist history. 
 

Seriously, how can you even pretend this is true? Nobody knew anything about covid and pretending otherwise is putting the blinders on. 

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 30312

coldnjl

May 14th, 2021 at 12:51 PM ^

As someone who sounds like they know, can you cite any evidence that was published that we knew what we were dealing with when Covid started in the winter?

We didn't sequence the genome until Feb, 2020 (A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China | Nature )

The target of vaccines were being identified in January of 2020: SARS-CoV-2 SPIKE PROTEIN: an optimal immunological target for vaccines - PubMed (nih.gov)

The structure of the SPike protein wasn't published until Nov 2020: Structural analysis of full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike protein from an advanced vaccine candidate | Science (sciencemag.org)

 

Joined: 12/31/2009

MGoPoints: 13934

Wendyk5

May 14th, 2021 at 3:15 PM ^

Speaking as the parent of an athlete who had Covid, I'm glad he went through the cardiac protocols. After speaking to a pediatric cardiologist and determining that, although rare, it can happen, I think no amount of caution is too much. If it was your kid, you'd feel the same. Or at least I hope you would. 

Joined: 11/20/2008

MGoPoints: 67736

evenyoubrutus

May 14th, 2021 at 12:16 PM ^

That's like calling seasonal flu "novel" influenza. So, I guess technically by that definition you're correct. But if the implication is that Coronavirus is a brand new virus, people are going to be disappointed to find out that they've been getting sick (or not sick) from contracting coronaviruses since they were babies.

And 100 fake mgopoints if you can guess what the "2" stands for in SARS-COV-2

Joined: 11/04/2008

MGoPoints: 178241

teldar

May 14th, 2021 at 12:09 PM ^

This is actually true even though there are a lot of people negging you because of your true statement. Both SARS and MERS were Corona viruses and fairly well understood. Particularly in the Eastern Asian countries in which they originated. Korea is familiar with Corona viruses and shared information about how to treat them.

Joined: 07/14/2009

MGoPoints: 8230

Sopwith

May 14th, 2021 at 12:21 PM ^

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.                  --Unknown (so attributed to Mark Twain by default)

That's exactly what got the world into trouble. The WHO and China's CDC saw a coronavirus outbreak and thought they had seen this movie before. Except they hadn't.

Neither SARS-CoV-1 nor MERS-CoV spread asymptomatically and, as a result, were comparatively easy to get under control despite being deadlier on a per-case basis (MERS was particularly lethal). The asymptomatic spread of SARS-CoV-2 is why things blew up, along with a heaping teaspoon of public policy fails.

For comity's sake, though, I'll give you points for not saying this is the 19th Covid disease.

EDIT: for clarity, when I say "asymptomatic" I'm lumping in "presymptomatic" with it, i.e., people who later develop symptoms.

Joined: 06/29/2010

MGoPoints: 61103

JHumich

May 14th, 2021 at 1:44 PM ^

There actually isn't much peer-reviewed data for asymptomatic spread in this case either. There are differences in secondary attack rate, but that isn't one of them. And the fact that I fear a little to say something that may be perceived as being on the "wrong" (i.e. "not what Ace would approve) side of the "discussion" says that there's room for improvement in how the Board has been handled.

Full disclosure: Despite my username and avatar, I am not purporting to be either white or Jim Harbaugh. I am an African/Arab American who attended only one year at Umich before transferring. 

Joined: 02/18/2017

MGoPoints: 52926

Sopwith

May 14th, 2021 at 2:00 PM ^

You seem like you're willing to have a reasonable discussion about it but this thread is probably mostly played out, suffice to say I think I could change your mind about the first sentence (based on the implications of higher ACE-2 receptor affinity relative to SARS-CoV-1 [LINK] and subsequent transmission modeling [LINK], see esp. cited refs 8-10) but maybe this isn't the place for a battle of the links.

I'm not sure what to make of your disclosure. I'm not really a World War I Flying Ace.

 

Joined: 06/29/2010

MGoPoints: 61103

Westside Wolverine

May 14th, 2021 at 12:26 PM ^

Just because the two viruses are in the same family it does not mean that they will behave or impact the human body in the same way. Little was understood about this form of SARS COVID-19 and caution was the correct approach. Better to play it safe that have many more millions dead or sickened. 

Joined: 12/24/2011

MGoPoints: 3781

coldnjl

May 14th, 2021 at 12:56 PM ^

They are indeed Corona viruses... the similiarities diverge quickly from there. Absolutely, some of the initial work on Corona viruses that predated Covid helped speed up vaccine development, but it still took months to develop successful treatment regimes. In addition, there is still no identification as to the origin of the virus (animal vector, synthetic, or whatever). 

Joined: 12/31/2009

MGoPoints: 13934

MGoStretch

May 14th, 2021 at 11:29 AM ^

Think you might be misreading Block M's post.  Correct me if I'm wrong but I read their post to mean sarcastically, "yea, how terrible that people were careful about a potentially lethal consequence of a novel disease until well done studies were completed". I don't think they're implying the initial study was done carefully.

Joined: 03/20/2015

MGoPoints: 8630

Sopwith

May 14th, 2021 at 12:02 PM ^

The very article you link to is basing their editorial on a publication in the exact same journal as the original (Huang et al.) study you're criticizing, which wasn't withdrawn. And this is the entirety of the conclusion from that (original) publication:

Cardiac involvement was found in a proportion of patients recovered from COVID-19. CMR manifestation included myocardial edema, fibrosis, and impaired right ventricle function. Attention should be paid to the possible myocardial involvement in patients recovered from COVID-19 with cardiac symptoms. (emphasis mine)

That's it. That is not an excerpt, that is the entire conclusion section from that paper (LINK). What about that was alarmist? 

Joined: 06/29/2010

MGoPoints: 61103