"this is just one thing showing up and it's an early study" It...

"this is just one thing showing up and it's an early study"

It is indeed an early study.
Early and narrow.
Very narrow.

And it is a study that is objectively not anywhere statistically significant or representative, for a number of reasons, including (but not confined to):

- the small sample size,
- the fact that the cohort was unselected,
- the narrow, and not-young, demographic,
- one-third of the cohort was seriously ill to begin with, requiring hospitalisation (one-fifth of the cohort requiring ventilation),
- the cohort presented with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions including:
- hypertension,
- diabetes,
- known coronary artery disease,
- asthma,
- chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.'


In summary, it is a very narrow study (to their credit, by their own implied admission in the Limitations section, and unsurprising given the relative newness of the virus):

They've taken a small sample of some middle-aged people, with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions, applied one certain kind of imaging protocol and postprocessing approach, and come up with results (78% cardiac involvement (no surprises there) and 60% myocardial inflammation.

I think that the final sentence of the conclusion is prescient, viz., "These findings indicate the need for ongoing investigation of the long-term cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19".

That they might do, but what they most definitely do not do is offer any semblance of clinical evidence.

.