Setting the record straight: There is no 'Covid heart'

It&#x27;s really tempting for any author to write an article as such it is the final words and dismissed some of the findings and worst perhaps discourage future useful findings by potential researchers. I think this article falls into this demotivating category. I beg to differ, since as far as Covid-19 and heart are concerned, the jury is still out and no record has been straighten.<p>It is interesting to note that most of the papers cited only consider echocardiography, troponin and cardiac MRI as biomakers but not the pervasive ECG. Most of the cardiologists still stucked with the perception of rudimentary and limited accuracy provided by the venerable Pan-Tomskin (PT) based algorithm that was introduced in 1980s i.e. 40 years back. Real world accuracy of the PT algorithm for ECG analysis is probably less than 75%, that means it will only reliably detect very serious heart disease [1]. Modern ECG analysis algorithm can already detect with more than 99% accuracy, specificity and sensitivity [2].<p>Just a small request for the authors (any small chance they will read this comment) or any cardiologists for that matter. Please provide open ECG dataset by donating them to open physiological databases for example MIT-BIH [3]. Provide at least 1000 samples (minimum 1 hour duration) of Covid-19 patients&#x27; ECG data without previous history of heart diseases. These essential data will enable other researchers to perform modern ECG analysis. After that we will probably know whether the &quot;Covid heart&quot; is true or not. IMHO, it will be much more constructive than writing the posted popular science article.<p>[1]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.researchgate.net&#x2F;publication&#x2F;319066214_The_Accuracy_on_the_Common_Pan-Tompkins_Based_QRS_Detection_Methods_Through_Low-Quality_Electrocardiogram_Database" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.researchgate.net&#x2F;publication&#x2F;319066214_The_Accur...</a><p>[2]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Receiver_operating_characteristic" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Receiver_operating_character...</a><p>[3]<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.physionet.org&#x2F;content&#x2F;mitdb&#x2F;1.0.0&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.physionet.org&#x2F;content&#x2F;mitdb&#x2F;1.0.0&#x2F;</a>

There was a lot of breathless nonsense from a bunch of people about this disease. I just Bayes low-weighted it because the prior probability is low. So far a whole bunch of these things are coming back non-replicable. It&#x27;ll be an interesting test of each of our epistemological techniques.<p>My prior to start with is high that the contagiousness-increasing mutation (the novel spike protein) improves likelihood of the virus attacking more organs and improves its ability to massively infect the organ but that once you&#x27;ve got a massive infection of the organ, you should see effects after recovery that are similar to any other such infection of the organ.<p>I&#x27;m actually curious if anyone has neat software that tracks one&#x27;s predictions and allows one to adjust their knowledge of the world systematically. Currently only using a shared spreadsheet with friends.

Is covid still a vascular disease, or does this new study negatively replicate this study? <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;pmc&#x2F;articles&#x2F;PMC7556303&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;pmc&#x2F;articles&#x2F;PMC7556303&#x2F;</a>

Over half of the US tuned it out accurately, no worries mate.<p>Urban areas of dense mixed unit housing accurately should have attempted the most mitigation efforts, but keeping them in poorly ventilated indoors was a fatal mistake, with anything else (such as recommending going outside but distanced every few hours while the building was ventilated) likely being impractical too.