11–20 of 41 posts
Does this confirm the motivations were scientific?
For those that want a bit of evidence and scientific background on this, Derek Lowe's writings are, as usual, an excellent source. https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/03/16/wh... It is a scientifically and statistically rigorous look at the available data that takes into account how people probably feel about the whole issue.
Also scientists in Norway claim they found the mechanism that causes it.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/it-s-very-special-pi...
https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/KyGv2G/professor-says-...
Specifically it doesn't say "safe and effective", it says "benefits outweight risks" (BBC says that at well, but they removed that bit from the headline).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>but I pity the ones they go first and suffer from overzealous cheerleading of a particular vaccines efficacy Given the incident rate and the growing COVID swells in a few european countries (France and Italy especially), the slow vaccination progress, not helped by hesitance over AZ and surprising prevalence of vaccine hesitancy in general, you could just as well argue the opposite. Nations that are overcautious may…
> Nations that are overcautious may lose far, far, far, far more lives thanks to covid infections than an extremely rare handful of blood clots which haven't even been tied concretely to the vaccine yet. The risk reward analysis on this topic has been really bizarre so far. You seem to suggest risk-reward analysis be viewed at by the number of deaths. Germany had to suspend vaccination (temporarily) due to legal reas…
At the moment this is right next to “ Norwegian experts say AstraZeneca vaccine is behind the deadly blood clots” on the front page. I think it’s up to each nation to decide for itself if a vaccine is going to work or not, but I pitty the ones they go first and suffer from overzealous cheerleading of a particular vaccines efficacy.
I think the EMA press release is a better source: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-vaccine-astrazene... Specifically it doesn't say "safe and effective", it says "benefits outweight risks" (BBC says that at well, but they removed that bit from the headline).
“ The committee has come to a clear scientific conclusion: This is a safe and effective vaccine. Its benefits in protecting people from COVID19 with the associated risks of death and hospitalization outweigh the possible risks.”
[1] https://youtu.be/qYmP02SIQNIFor those that want a bit of evidence and scientific background on this, Derek Lowe's writings are, as usual, an excellent source. https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/03/16/wh... It is a scientifically and statistically rigorous look at the available data that takes into account how people probably feel about the whole issue.
I think this article is a bit more nuanced based on what they are seeing on the ground. Derek brings up good points about background rates, but papers over some things. It's a complex picture and the below article paints it well. Also scientists in Norway claim they found the mechanism that causes it. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/it-s-very-special-pi... https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/KyGv2G/professo…
There is also a twitter thread by one of the article's authors summarizing the article and discussing some additional information.
about 3/4 of theway thru the text i finally find some numbers >>What has AstraZeneca said? The company says there is no evidence of an increased risk of clotting due to the vaccine. It said it had received 37 reports of blood clots out of more than 17 million people vaccinated in the EU and UK as of 8 March. 37 reports out of 17 million vaccinations. this is aprox. 1 report out of 510 000 vaccinations. what is not sh…
That being said, every drug has side effects. A vaccine isn't any different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>but I pity the ones they go first and suffer from overzealous cheerleading of a particular vaccines efficacy Given the incident rate and the growing COVID swells in a few european countries (France and Italy especially), the slow vaccination progress, not helped by hesitance over AZ and surprising prevalence of vaccine hesitancy in general, you could just as well argue the opposite. Nations that are overcautious may…
Right. The WHO listed 'vaccine hesitancy' as one of the top global health threats, and that was in mid 2019, before the pandemic. [0] On the other hand, vaccine side-effects have never been a major health threat. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_hesitancy
Admittedly, I don't know much about vaccine safety, but isn't it unusual to have a vaccine rolled out to millions of otherwise healthy people without any long-term studies into its safety? I understand we create new flu vaccines yearly, but my understanding is that's a slight variant of previous flu vaccines which have been proven to be safe over long periods of time – and it's only rolled out to vulnerable people who want it, not everyone under threat of not being able to travel, etc.
I think we probably should have some level of caution when taking any new drug or vaccine – especially one that is going to be rolled out to millions of people. How many times would we need to run this experiment before a 'safe' vaccine does actually cause blood clots or some similar side effect? Or are side effects from vaccines basically impossible? (I genuinely don't know).
For some context, I'm saying this as someone who now suffers from permanent side effects after taking a medication that was once deemed safe and without risk of permanent side effects so unfortunately its hard for me not to be a little hesitant.