Kim Jung Gi has died (latimes.com)

I was recently taught in first aid class that the survival rate of an out-of-hospital heart attack is about 10-12%. Heart attacks have a ton of causes, lifestyle is just one of those. Sometimes, things go very wrong without an apparent, explainable cause. Medicine hasn't yet figured out everything that might cause a heart attack.

Even with help on scene, people still die in hospital a few days later because of a mix of underlying causes.

CPR on scene doubles the chances of survival, but they aren't a guarantee someone will survive. The entire point of learning CPR is to maximize the number of people that don't have to die in the event of a heart attack, no matter how minute that fraction.

About 800k people suffer a heart attack in the U.S. yearly accordign to the CDC (this is both in-hospital as well as out-of-hospital).

Can any expert here help me understand why his heart attack was not reversible by administering tPA to dissolve blood clots?

You can enjoy things that are bad for you... Polish film director Zanussi said that it was always his goal to have poor health in the old age, because, if he didn't, it'd meant he hadn't push himself hard enough in the pursuit of excellence in his art.

Yes and this news should make us all reflect on those habits and try to improve.

We do know that in USA, republican males are dying faster then democrat males.

Also, there is no reason to imply that Kim Jung Gi had increased absorption of alcohol or was depressed last years. Especially since you are just speculating in order to push for political agenda.

who is being forced to stay home at this point?

But are the drawings any good? Feels weird to have to watch a video instead of seeing the finished art.

Yeah it's unreal. And the result is so well-proportioned and 3-dimensional as well. I wonder how much of it was in his mind before he started, and how much was about figuring out what would fit along the way.

Huh. This is the first time I read this quote, but it resonates so well. Does anyone else program this way? I usually sit for a while thinking about the problem, write the program mentally, try out edge cases, sometimes rework the program a few times, then once I feel it's correct I type out all the code, with that phase taking much less time than the "mental work". I'd estimate my usual process is about 90% thought, 10% typing. Anecdotally, from some teams I've worked in, people often find this process quite strange.

I've read anecdotes about genius programmers who just sit around playing videogames or watching movies for a bit while they work out the details of complicated problems in their heads and then just finish up and start typing out the right solution in one shot.

Also reminds me of Feynman, who Fixes Radio By Thinking!

I often operate this way, that I design and build and run or use constructions in my mind before I feel comfortable committing to sitting down at the computer and making it, or sketching it. I've been made aware, recently, that some people can't picture things in their mind, rotate them, apply physics to them, etc.

One thing about working this way is it's very frustrating to people who operate by documenting in real time, in something like org or Notion. I am not a note taker and I never really have been. I actually find my thinking gets cloudier when I try to document something I personally find "intuitive".

One example of this clash of styles was recently with a manager where he asked me, directly, how could I know how to design something if I hadn't written out the structure yet? How would I know to build space for a feature if I hadn't documented all the features that were required? I told him the requirements should be known, already, by anyone who was thinking about this problem... that for instance anyone who bothers to even imagine a "Create" action would automatically, symmetrically, imagine a "Delete" action and budget for that. He didn't agree and made me write it out anyway.

Both have the surname Kim.

> What do you do when your bloodwork is good?

Yearly blood panels provide time series data against which it might be easier to spot changes even if all metrics are in the "healthy" zone.

At Kaiser, which usually has its own lab in every facility, yearly blood panels are completely routine. As an HMO Kaiser has every incentive to minimize costs, and they don't make any such practices routine unless and until they've been demonstrated to provide clear benefit across their patient population. (They also regularly run all sorts of trials--they're vertically integrated from the research lab on up.)

You can actually, e.g.: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/10/10/1651

> Blood clots, myocarditis etc. is only ever attributed to

This class of statements, or rhetoric generalizations which cannot be read as a logical statement (where 'only ever' is strict), should be avoided. False universal statements add nothing to the style - they may easily detract -, they are gratuitous, they are offensive, and technically they clash with the requirement of respect which seems to be implicit in the guidelines.

I can reassure you: yes, some of us wondered of what could have been the chance that blood circulation affecting diseases may have impacted, and also of the chances of other factors, and also of the weakness of such estimations, and finally of the limited time these vague thoughts deserve.

"Why not also question if he was infected by corona virus?"

Sure, it is legit question. But for me personally not relevant, because I know more previously healthly people dead/serious ill because of vaccines and just one (obese) dead because of covid. I prefer to gather non-anonymous and non-generalized examples.

> Because they're already jumping to a biased conclusion by asking the question

You «jump[] to a biased conclusion» only when the conclusion is held - which you cannot conclude. The poster should keep it open: you should do the same. As you are mandated by the guidelines and the constraint against weak interpretations.

  Study Type: Observational
  Official Title: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 BNT162b2 Vaccine Effectiveness Study - Kaiser Permanente Southern California
  Actual Study Start Date:  May 15, 2021
  Estimated Primary Completion Date: March 31, 2023
  Estimated Study Completion Date: March 31, 2023

  Protein subunit
  RNA
  Non Replicating Viral Vector
  Inactivated Virus

"Because they're already jumping to a biased conclusion by asking the question."

Well... Maybe your conclusion is biased.

"Covid/vaccine related questions should best be left to topics concerning large scale studies, not a single tragic instance."

Why? I prefer individual, non-anonymous source of data. Without conclusions.

Not sure where he first had chest pains, but the message says on the way to the airport. Whether they reached the airport, or in the car, but don't think on the plane.

Heart damage resulting from vaccine-induced myocarditis can cause or contribute to heart attacks weeks, months, or years later, long after the acute symptoms of heart inflammation have seemingly resolved. And myocarditis isn't an on-off thing. The symptoms can be so severe and alarming that an individual will seek treatment immediately or mild enough that they ascribe them to a less serious issue (e.g. heartburn/indigestion) and "tough it out" without seeking care. Whether they get care or not, the acute symptoms may dissipate but permanent damage may have been done to their heart.

Under the unusual circumstances prevailing in many developed nations over the past couple of years, with the authorities and medical professions coercing entire populations into indiscriminately receiving experimental injections that have turned out to damage some low-covid-risk-persons' hearts, there is a generalized reluctance on the part of the same groups (government and medical bureaucracies) to acknowledge the damage their actions have inflicted. Your belief that vaccine-related fatalities are restricted to a period of a few days post-shot, is a result of the authorities' grudging admissions (and those only because the deaths are undeniable) rather than an accurate picture of what's going on.

Here's a link to a Danish study about the longer-term outlook for patients with acute myocarditis who were hospitalized, using pre-covid, pre-covid-shot data ("Long-term prognosis following hospitalization for acute myocarditis – a matched nationwide cohort study"): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14017431.2021.1...

From the abstract:

Prognosis in patients with apparently uncomplicated myocarditis is in general perceived as good, but data on long-term outcomes are sparse.

A bit further down...

Myocarditis in younger patients without prior cardiac disease was associated with a long-term excess risk of HF hospitalization, and death, even in patients free of events and HF medication 1 year after discharge.

Many nations are seeing a large increase in non-covid excess deaths of working-age persons and the magnitude of the effect seems to correlate with the uptake of mRNA and adenovirus-vector covid shots and boosters. It's hard to get to the bottom of what's going on now because the same people responsible for investigating this sort of thing have gone all-in on forcing shots onto people who mostly (non-elderly/non-direly-ill) aren't at risk of severe covid. Until the members of that cohort of experts and officials move on, retire, or are fired, I'm afraid that this will all continue to be either "baffling"/"mysterious" or falsely normalized.

Stop with the conspiracy nonsense already. You are not the holder of "tHiNgS THEY DoN't WaNT U tO KnOW!!1~", as much as you'd like that to be the case.

so sad to hear that. he had both talent and hard work. best wishes to his family :(

It was on the announcement Twitter linked, it said heart attack.

hope its not the covid vaccine side effect!