That's an interesting study, thanks for sharing!
Here's a link to the original study your figaro article is talking about:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2768916This study has several limitations that are talked about in the article itself:
First, in the discussion part, they cite 5 other studies that also found increased levels of clinical markers for heart inflammation in former covid patients. Then, they point out that these 5 previous studies on the subject did not find cardiac incolvement to be uncorrelated with the severity of the disease.
Second, they stress several limitations of their study:
The bolded part seems particularly troubling to me. If their cohort contained several patients who were still showing covid symptoms, this may completely skew or bias the data.
Third, the study did actually find a small but positive association between the severity of the disease (operationalized here by home recovery vs hospitalization) and one of the clinical markers of cardiac involvement (Native T1), and the fact that this difference is not significant for their third marker (troponin T) seems to be the result of all subgroups having a large share of patients where this marker takes on the base value of 3. If you excluded the 3s in the figure below and only looked at those patients with an increased level of troponin T, the difference between home recovererd and hospitalized covid patients should become significant.
https://i.imgur.com/kYq94ox.pngTo sum it up: the authors of this study cited five previous studies who, unlike them, did find an association between severity of the disease and markers of heart damage. They included several patients with a still ongoing covid disease in their study. And they did in fact find a significant difference between home and hospital recovered covid patients with regards to one of their markers, and potentially also for a second marker if we exclude cases where that marker doesnt react at all. Only for the Native T2 marker did they show data which is fairly clear in not exhibiting a difference between patients with the more and the less severe course of the covid infection.
Dont get me wrong, I dont want to shit all over this study, I just wanted to point out that it's findings run partly contrary to previous research on this subject and are much less conclusive than the newspaper article suggested.
Bold part is fine, blood system seems to suffer and "several" is not such a game changer destroying the study.
some patients are sick for months.
Don't get me wrong, but sras or mers are both corona viruses and there's severe sequels with both.
I posted that months ago: like war, crippled ones are a super huge issue.