6 ms·

How about exposure to actual coronavirus? Most everyone is exposed at least to small degrees on a daily/weekly basis given the levels in air.

by wazer5 4y ago

nyrulez 4y ago
Yes, that's definitely possible. All of this would be much easier to decipher if the studies went deeper into cohorts of who got the vaccination and where the heart attack delta is. So if you had 4 cohorts of people and noticed their heart attack delta: covid/no vaccine, no covid/no vaccine, covid/vaccine, no covid/vaccine, that itself would tell you a lot. Because if no covid/vaccine is showing a much higher or similar delta as covid/*, that would be pretty worrisome. I think that seems to be missing in the given study.
- steve1977 4y ago
  Can we reliably detect if someone was vaccinated but not exposed to the actual virus?
  - michilehr 4y ago
    Yes. I did a test last year to check for antibodies generated through the vaccine and antibodies generated through an infection. Vaccine was positive, infection negative.
    - lostlogin 4y ago
      Is the rest reliable? “In participants that had COVID-19 and were tested one week after symptoms developed, antibody tests detected only 27% to 41% of infections. In week 2 after first symptoms, 64% to 79% of infections were detected, rising to 78% to 88% in week 3. Tests that specifically detected IgG or IgM antibodies were the most accurate and, when testing people from 21 days after first symptoms, they detected 93% of people with COVID-19. Tests gave false positive results for 1% of those without COVID-19.” https://www.cochrane.org/CD013652/INFECTN_what-diagnostic-accuracy-antibody-tests-detection-infection-covid-19-virus https://www.cochrane.org/CD013652/INFECTN_what-diagnostic-ac...
ekianjo 4y ago
[flagged]
- defrost 4y ago
  Well, I know that I didn't as I haven't spent any time at all in China since 2018. Were you there long enough to have conclusive statistical significant observations? Perhaps you have access to some trove of reliable trustworthy epidemiological data from Wuhan guaranteed untainted by party hands that you can share and provenance?
spaceman_2020 4y ago
People also rule out significantly higher levels of sedantary activity, coupled with higher obesity and lower physical activity levels. Sitting at home and working all day is really bad for your health, especially if you do it on/off for two years. The group in question - 25-44 year olds - are primary members of the workforce, and most likely saw their work shift to WFH for extended periods of time. Anecdotally, all the people who worked from home within my circle struggled a lot with inactivity and weight gain, coupled with poor diets.
- soundnote 4y ago
  This works for office rats, but not really athletes, who've also seemed to have an unusually high rate of heart issues.

How about exposure to actual coronavirus? Most everyone is exposed at least to small degrees on a daily/weekly basis given the levels in air.

by wazer5 4y ago

How about exposure to actual coronavirus? Most everyone is exposed at least to small degrees on a daily/weekly basis given the levels in air.

nyrulez 4y ago

Yes, that's definitely possible. All of this would be much easier to decipher if the studies went deeper into cohorts of who got the vaccination and where the heart attack delta is. So if you had 4 cohorts of people and noticed their heart attack delta: covid/no vaccine, no covid/no vaccine, covid/vaccine, no covid/vaccine, that itself would tell you a lot. Because if no covid/vaccine is showing a much higher or similar delta as covid/*, that would be pretty worrisome. I think that seems to be missing in the given study.

steve1977 4y ago
Can we reliably detect if someone was vaccinated but not exposed to the actual virus?
- michilehr 4y ago
  Yes. I did a test last year to check for antibodies generated through the vaccine and antibodies generated through an infection. Vaccine was positive, infection negative.
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    Is the rest reliable? “In participants that had COVID-19 and were tested one week after symptoms developed, antibody tests detected only 27% to 41% of infections. In week 2 after first symptoms, 64% to 79% of infections were detected, rising to 78% to 88% in week 3. Tests that specifically detected IgG or IgM antibodies were the most accurate and, when testing people from 21 days after first symptoms, they detected 93% of people with COVID-19. Tests gave false positive results for 1% of those without COVID-19.” https://www.cochrane.org/CD013652/INFECTN_what-diagnostic-accuracy-antibody-tests-detection-infection-covid-19-virus https://www.cochrane.org/CD013652/INFECTN_what-diagnostic-ac...

ekianjo 4y ago

[flagged]

defrost 4y ago
Well, I know that I didn't as I haven't spent any time at all in China since 2018. Were you there long enough to have conclusive statistical significant observations? Perhaps you have access to some trove of reliable trustworthy epidemiological data from Wuhan guaranteed untainted by party hands that you can share and provenance?

spaceman_2020 4y ago

People also rule out significantly higher levels of sedantary activity, coupled with higher obesity and lower physical activity levels. Sitting at home and working all day is really bad for your health, especially if you do it on/off for two years. The group in question - 25-44 year olds - are primary members of the workforce, and most likely saw their work shift to WFH for extended periods of time. Anecdotally, all the people who worked from home within my circle struggled a lot with inactivity and weight gain, coupled with poor diets.

soundnote 4y ago
This works for office rats, but not really athletes, who've also seemed to have an unusually high rate of heart issues.