You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Options
"An abundance of caution"
It sounds good, doesn't it. "An abundance of caution." Until you look at it closely.
Let's start with quoting from an article today from the BBC's Health and Science correspondent, entitled
"AstraZeneca: Is there a blood clot risk?"
"Is the AstraZeneca vaccine safe?
Nothing in medicine in completely safe and even therapies that are highly toxic are used in the right circumstance.
Chemotherapy drugs have brutal side effects, but are hugely valuable; and even over-the-counter painkillers like paracetamol and ibuprofen have severe side-effects, they are just incredibly rare.
What you need to know about vaccine safety
The real decision is always whether the benefits outweigh the risks.
This is particularly challenging in a pandemic. Normally medicine would rely on the "precautionary principle" to prove adequate safety before giving a new medicine to large numbers of people. But in a pandemic, any delays in vaccinating people will also cost lives.
Based on the Germany data alone, if you vaccinate a million people then you would expect 12 to have a blood clot and four of them to die.
But if a million 60-year-olds catch coronavirus then around 20,000 would die of Covid-19. If a million 40-year-olds catch coronavirus then around 1,000 die. It would be a few hundred people in their 30s."
So-let's translate that into simple English.
If a million people have an AZ jab, somewhere between 0 and 4 people will die as a result. 4 is the highest figure-from the German study. There are also question marks about whether other factors are relevant, particularly taking the contraceptive pill. But let's run with 4 per million. A risk of 0.0004%.
Risk of death for 1 million 60-yr-old with Covid? 20,000 (2%). Even people in their 30s? 300-400. Still nearly 100 times the risk compared to non-vaccination.
When a country says "we are acting out of an abundance of caution" they are really saying "we have decided to treat this matter as though there is only risk, and not reward."
Let's use France as an example. Only 12% of their population has received their first jab-roughly 8 million out of 64 million. Now there are a variety of reasons for this, including
1. Lack of AZ vaccine
2. Lack of Pfizer vaccine
3. Scare stories often involving "an abundance of caution" causing the French to be far less willing to be vaccinated
Their Covid cases are going up massively. Currently running at nearly 60,000 reported cases per day. As opposed to under 5,000 in the UK.
It is generally accepted that the death rate is roughly 1% of people with Covid. Even ignoring the additional cases that have gone unreported, that means in excess of 500 extra deaths per day in France over and above the UK. Every day. Whereas if every single adult French citizen were vaccinated today, and if the worst case scenario of the German study were true, about 200 people might die. Total. Not every day.
Caution is something you need to have the right amount of. Not an abundance-that is as stupid as none.
Let's start with quoting from an article today from the BBC's Health and Science correspondent, entitled
"AstraZeneca: Is there a blood clot risk?"
"Is the AstraZeneca vaccine safe?
Nothing in medicine in completely safe and even therapies that are highly toxic are used in the right circumstance.
Chemotherapy drugs have brutal side effects, but are hugely valuable; and even over-the-counter painkillers like paracetamol and ibuprofen have severe side-effects, they are just incredibly rare.
What you need to know about vaccine safety
The real decision is always whether the benefits outweigh the risks.
This is particularly challenging in a pandemic. Normally medicine would rely on the "precautionary principle" to prove adequate safety before giving a new medicine to large numbers of people. But in a pandemic, any delays in vaccinating people will also cost lives.
Based on the Germany data alone, if you vaccinate a million people then you would expect 12 to have a blood clot and four of them to die.
But if a million 60-year-olds catch coronavirus then around 20,000 would die of Covid-19. If a million 40-year-olds catch coronavirus then around 1,000 die. It would be a few hundred people in their 30s."
So-let's translate that into simple English.
If a million people have an AZ jab, somewhere between 0 and 4 people will die as a result. 4 is the highest figure-from the German study. There are also question marks about whether other factors are relevant, particularly taking the contraceptive pill. But let's run with 4 per million. A risk of 0.0004%.
Risk of death for 1 million 60-yr-old with Covid? 20,000 (2%). Even people in their 30s? 300-400. Still nearly 100 times the risk compared to non-vaccination.
When a country says "we are acting out of an abundance of caution" they are really saying "we have decided to treat this matter as though there is only risk, and not reward."
Let's use France as an example. Only 12% of their population has received their first jab-roughly 8 million out of 64 million. Now there are a variety of reasons for this, including
1. Lack of AZ vaccine
2. Lack of Pfizer vaccine
3. Scare stories often involving "an abundance of caution" causing the French to be far less willing to be vaccinated
Their Covid cases are going up massively. Currently running at nearly 60,000 reported cases per day. As opposed to under 5,000 in the UK.
It is generally accepted that the death rate is roughly 1% of people with Covid. Even ignoring the additional cases that have gone unreported, that means in excess of 500 extra deaths per day in France over and above the UK. Every day. Whereas if every single adult French citizen were vaccinated today, and if the worst case scenario of the German study were true, about 200 people might die. Total. Not every day.
Caution is something you need to have the right amount of. Not an abundance-that is as stupid as none.
Comments
British regulators on Thursday said they have identified 30 cases of rare blood clot events after the use of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, 25 more than the agency previously reported. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency said it had received no such reports of clotting events following use of the vaccine made by BioNTech SE and Pfizer Inc . The health officials said they still believe the benefits of the vaccine in the prevention of COVID-19 far outweigh any possible risk of blood clots.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9429125/UK-regulator-total-30-cases-blood-clot-events-AstraZeneca-vaccine-use.html
30 million vaccinated. Of 18.1 million checked, 30 reported problems-under 2 per million. Some of which will not have died. So a small fraction of the Germany's worst case scenario of the 4 deaths per million outlined above.
While in France- 4 times fewer people vaccinated. Scare stories running wild. 50-60,000 new cases per day. Hospitalisation at record levels. Country shutting down.
Those risk/reward figures must be a real toss-up.
If you are blinkered, or have no concept of maths.
The Guardian leads on quotes from the prime minister urging people to keep getting vaccines, despite a trial of the jab in children being put on hold.
The paper's health editor, Sarah Boseley, points out that all medicines have side-effects, which she believes in this case are far outweighed by the benefits of mass inoculation.
In the Times' view, any decision to limit the jab's use will not only be a big setback for the UK's vaccination programme, but also "seriously damage hopes that the world can bring the pandemic under control this year".
The Daily Telegraph's front page features a suggestion from a member of the government's immunisation advisory committee that vaccines should be paused for people under the age of 50 until the safety of the Oxford jab can be fully established.
Dr Maggie Wearmouth - who was speaking to the paper in a personal capacity - said the move could be necessary to maintain the public's trust and confidence.
Another expert, Dr Simon Clarke from the University of Reading, tells the online-only Independent the UK can afford to be cautious on the issue because it has access to a number of other vaccines.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-56657519
Dr Maggie Wearmouth, a member of the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation (JCVI), opened the possibility to 'slowing things down' until the MHRA determines Britain's home-grown shot is completely safe. She said: 'The issue is about safety and public confidence. We don't want to cover anything up that we feel that the public should be knowing.' Last night Oxford University halted trials of its vaccine in children until the MHRA probe publishes its conclusion, which is expected in the coming days. People are still being encouraged to have the AstraZeneca jab and yesterday Boris Johnson (pictured left, on a visit to an AZ plant yesterday) said it was 'very very important' the public go for their inoculations. Scientists stress that cases of blood clotting remain extremely rare and have only been displayed in 30 recipients of the AstraZeneca vaccine - out of a total 18million (graph, top right). But Dr Wearmouth warned ministers threatened fracturing public trust if they pressed ahead with the rollout without being in full command of the evidence. Nearly 32million have now received their first dose (chart, bottom right).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9443007/Vaccine-rollout-50s-paused-regulator-rules-safety.html
If you wish to make what you feel is a relevant point on this thread, please do so.
However, if you wish to flood a thread with countless posts about British vaccines, you have your own threads to do that. Because, next to no-one reads them. Because there is too much there. So I have taken the article that provides the most detail, to look at how it relates to "an abundance of caution."
It has always been clear that, when reading Mail articles, you can safely ignore the Headline. It is almost always different to the article. Now that could just be that the Mail is monumentally stupid. But I prefer the idea that, in its desperation to remain relevant in these changing times (like all newspapers) it uses lurid headlines as Clickbait.
Now-let us look at the "facts" presented by the graphic. Now they are all true. But, they are slanted. Because the figures are not like-for-like comparisons. They use the German study-the 1 that makes AZ look slightly worse than all the others. And it compares "risk of death" with "risk of blood clot". Ignoring that 66% of the clots in the German study did not cause death. And the thousands of young people that develop blood clots with Covid that do not die. And ignoring the fact that Pfizer is also not 100% safe.
So-let's get back to risk and reward. Using the German study/Cambridge findings the Mail uses:-
Risk of dying of Covid if 25-44:-0.04%
Risk of dying of Covid if 15-24: 0.01%
Risk of getting blood clot (if German study is correct, and all cases only due to jab):-0.0004%
Risk of dying (if same conditions as last):-0.00015%
Paracetamol and NSAIDS such as Ibuprofen have co-existed for decades. Both of them have undoubted rare side effects. No-one has ever sought to gain advantage about which tiny risk is smaller. Why? Because everyone knows that that argument would cause far more deaths than continuing to use both.
And because they were invented at a time when Big Pharma was concentrating on the health of the World rather than just profits and national flag-waving more than today.
I thought I was being helpful, by posting articles pertinent to this thread.
I didnt realise you owned it.
In fact I didnt realise that people could own threads.
I have no real interest in debating the topic, and nor does anyone else by the looks.
Nobody else has posted on it.
Although you may generate a bit of interest after this post, as some way wish to just prove me wrong.
I will stay away from this thread, and any others you may own.
However I did watch NewsNight last night, and although I agree that the percentages are really small, some factors do need investigating.
Like why the overwhelming majority of the cases have related to women?
Only a younger age group?
Why only AZ, and not the other vaccines?
Even saving a small number of deaths is surely worthwhile.
ps. You are welcome to post on any threads I start, but dont consider I own.
Nice try at blaming a complete lack of interest in your thread, on me posting valid articles.
But they think it likely that there is a link with vaccine and taking the contraceptive pill. As that is known to cause similar risks.
And they don't want that to stop people taking the pill. Although it is already clear that known risks of taking the pill far exceed anything AZ vaccine might.
Why? Because they know the risks are far outweighed by the benefits. Caution. In action. The right amount. As opposed to an abundance.
Why is the world's press only talking about AZ risks? No idea.
Here is what the NHS says are the risks of the Pfizer vaccine:-
"Like all vaccines, COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 can cause side effects, although not everybody gets them.
Most side effects are mild or moderate and go away within a few days of appearing. If side effects such as pain and/or fever are troublesome, they can be treated by medicines for pain and fever such as paracetamol.
Side effects may occur with following frequencies:
Very common: may affect more than 1 in 10 people
pain at injection site
tiredness
headache
muscle pain
chills
joint pain
fever
Common: may affect up to 1 in 10 people
injection site swelling
redness at injection site
nausea
Uncommon: may affect up to 1 in 100 people
enlarged lymph nodes
feeling unwell
Rare side effects: may affect up to 1 in 1,000 people
temporary one sided facial drooping
Not known (cannot be estimated from the available data)
severe allergic reaction
Some people have reported a sudden feeling of cold with shivering/shaking accompanied by a rise in temperature, possibly with sweating, headache (including migraine-like headaches), nausea, muscle aches and feeling unwell, starting within a day of having the vaccine and usually lasting for a day or two.
If your fever is high and lasts longer than three days, or you have other persistent symptoms, this might not be due to side effects of the vaccine and you should seek appropriate medical advice according to your symptoms."
In other words, very similar to AZ according to the NHS. The only differences seem to be additional risks, such as the facial drooping and the enlarged lymph nodes.
The scientists on NewsNight merely pointed out that because the overwhelming majority of the blood clot cases, were women, in younger age groups, ie none over 60, and no cases had been reported using other vaccines, that this should be investigated.
I dont think anyone in their right mind could disagree with that.
They might have something in common, the problem could be solved, and lives could be saved.
No point in trying to pretend that I am not clever
There are 2 distinctly different methods for Covid vaccines. There is the rather older (and more tested) method used by, for example AZ. And there is the newer technology used by, for example Pfizer and Moderna. Newer technology that looks ground-breaking.
Until now, AZ has been the only Western provider to use the older method. It may be that the effects are different for that reason. Except that the new entrant, Johnson & Johnson uses similar technology to AZ, rather than Pfizer/Moderna. That is why (for example) factories have been making both AZ and J&J, and Pfizer and Moderna, but not other combinations.
So-why is no-one looking very, very closely at Johnson & Johnson? Because the levels of risk and reward are extremely likely to be closer between that and AZ.
Could see a certain logic in that. If it were true.
Because studies have previously shown that older people tend to favour the older, more tested/dull stuff. and young people prefer cutting-edge stuff. And what you had to spend on the more expensive vaccines would be offset in not having to argue the toss with people. As I have seen when I got my 1st dose.
But it won't. We are not getting much Moderna/Pfizer vaccines at the moment. Whereas we have signed a massive deal with Johnson & Johnson, specifically aimed at providing single doses to millennials.
It is going to be a choice. But, unless we get far more of the others, the choice is going to be AZ or "Janssen".
Moderna is preferred to Pfizer in rural areas, as the differences in transportation costs are massive.
And most of Wales is rural-you know, where very few people want to live
Lots on order-but only 100,000 doses per week expected to actually get here.
Funny how you think he always lies. Yet at the same time think he never will where it suits you.
You think that, despite the clear threats he has received about keeping to the roadmap from his own party, he will follow the science, and have no regard for what is best for Boris Johnson.
And I don't.
Under-30s should be given an alternative to the AstraZeneca vaccine, says UK regulator, in blow to Britain's jab roll-out after 79 people suffer brain blood clots out of 20MILLION dose
https://video.dailymail.co.uk/preview/mol/2021/04/07/4931863981568049771/964x580_MP4_4931863981568049771.mp4
Britons under 30 should not be given AstraZeneca's coronavirus vaccine due to mounting evidence linking it to rare blood clots, UK health chiefs ruled today. In a major blow to the UK's vaccination rollout, the Government's vaccine advisory group is recommending healthy people aged 19 to 29 be offered either the Pfizer or Moderna jabs instead when the programme moves to younger groups in the coming months. A review by the drugs watchdog the MHRA found that by the end of March 79 out of 20million Britons vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine had suffered deadly blood clots in the brain or arteries, a rate of about one in 250,000. Nineteen of the cases died and three were under the age of 30. The MHRA insisted there was still no concrete proof that the British-made vaccine is causing the clots, but admitted the link was getting firmer. The review prompted the Government's vaccine advisory group, the JCVI, to recommend that people aged 18 to 29 be given an alternative jab.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9445467/Under-30s-NOT-AstraZeneca-vaccine-says-UK-regulator.html
Sorry I just posted another article, but only because you didnt believe me.
I am off.