Findings In this cohort study including 100 patients recently recovered from COVID-19 identified from a COVID-19 test center, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging revealed cardiac involvement in 78 patients (78%) and ongoing myocardial inflammation in 60 patients (60%), which was independent of preexisting conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness, and the time from the original diagnosis.
What does that mean? I don’t understand the meaning, severity or prognoses related to “cardiac involvement” and “ongoing myocardial inflammation”.
Given the studies that we have that do suggest long-term problems from COVID-19 and no evidence for long-term problems due to the vaccine,
Oh come on, I expect better from people on LW. There was no opportunity yet to produce evidence for long-term problems due to the vaccine.
What does that mean? I don’t understand the meaning, severity or prognoses related to “cardiac involvement” and “ongoing myocardial inflammation”.
This means you have a medical test that shows the heart was damaged. We don’t have the full knowledge of how that heart damage plays out years down the road.
Oh come on, I expect better from people on LW. There was no opportunity yet to produce evidence for long-term problems due to the vaccine.
This sounds to me like you don’t understand what the word evidence means when it’s used on LessWrong. On LessWrong the word evidence is generally meant in the Bayesian sense.
There are long-term effects that only appear after a while. Neither for COVID-19 nor for the vaccine we can measure those effects currently.
On the other hand there are adverse effects that happen when a person gets vaccinated or a person gets ill. We can measure whether those effects disapper after 2-3 months or are still there.
What does that mean? I don’t understand the meaning, severity or prognoses related to “cardiac involvement” and “ongoing myocardial inflammation”.
Oh come on, I expect better from people on LW. There was no opportunity yet to produce evidence for long-term problems due to the vaccine.
This means you have a medical test that shows the heart was damaged. We don’t have the full knowledge of how that heart damage plays out years down the road.
This sounds to me like you don’t understand what the word evidence means when it’s used on LessWrong. On LessWrong the word evidence is generally meant in the Bayesian sense.
There are long-term effects that only appear after a while. Neither for COVID-19 nor for the vaccine we can measure those effects currently.
On the other hand there are adverse effects that happen when a person gets vaccinated or a person gets ill. We can measure whether those effects disapper after 2-3 months or are still there.
If a vaccine was causing long-term problems, how would you expect the world to be different from what we have now?
I would expect that there are reported vaccine side effects that don’t go away after a few days.