201–210 of 344 posts
What a huge shame. The risk/benefit analysis does not support this decision at all. The risks of blot clotting from a variety of other sources are orders of magnitude higher (looking at you hormonal contraception) but those are risks that large sections of the population gladly accept.
Did they even compute/estimate how many more people are going to die because of this decision, or how many will be saved? Also, since experts have said that the side-effects occur because of an immune-reaction to the adenovirus that is used as the delivery mechanism of the vaccine, what are the chances that the people who have side-effects would die (or at least have the same kind of complications) from covid?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so exports are a political non-starter ...in the US and the UK. In the end it's also a reflection of what is important to a nation. Should the strong help the weak? Is it every man for themselves? Thank you for making my point. I think pointing to "international organizations" to do something, when you could have done something yourself, is a weak argument.
Why on earth would the US export when it's supply-constrained itself? Of course, the US can and will export once it has sufficient supply. But countries exist in large part to look after the self-interest of their own population. It would rightly be a complete political non-starter for the US to start shipping vaccines elsewhere while it still needed more doses domestically.
If these countries didn't export, Israel wouldn't have any vaccine, Australia wouldn't have any vaccine, Canada wouldn't have any vaccine, New Zealand wouldn't have any vaccine. And let's not even talk about the rest of the world.
But yeah, it's inconvenient. I get it. Greed is good! Let them starve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Confidently stated, but the impact of lockdowns is likely more complex in reality. It may require years of research to tease out all the components; lockdown vs general pandemic stress, differences in implementation, etc. For example: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0... > Rate ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs based on the observed versus expected numbers of suicides showed no evidence of a signifi…
Less human contact, less stress, less suicide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correction: The risk is not 0 for men, only a fair bit lower.
Also it's more like 1 in 100K for women with AZ. Still very unlikely so I don't understand the need for people to under state it by 10x.
Which is the newest I could find on that matter.
> VIPIT seems to be rare, occurring in anywhere from 1 in every 125,000 to 1 in 1 million people
So, 1 in 100K seems to be the number to be on the safe side. But with rather rare events, it is probably hard to get an exact number there.
What a huge shame. The risk/benefit analysis does not support this decision at all. The risks of blot clotting from a variety of other sources are orders of magnitude higher (looking at you hormonal contraception) but those are risks that large sections of the population gladly accept.
[0]: (In Danish) https://www.sst.dk/-/media/Udgivelser/2021/Corona/Vaccinatio...
Did they even compute/estimate how many more people are going to die because of this decision, or how many will be saved? Also, since experts have said that the side-effects occur because of an immune-reaction to the adenovirus that is used as the delivery mechanism of the vaccine, what are the chances that the people who have side-effects would die (or at least have the same kind of complications) from covid?
Denmark are done giving vaccines to 65 and older on Friday. How many do you think can die in a few days that a vaccine could have saved?
[1] https://www.sst.dk/-/media/Udgivelser/2021/Corona/Vaccinatio... (in Danish)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why not choose (1)? This seems to have been the strategy in the past with similar risks. And it avoids the costs of freedom and live at the same time. What am I missing?
That it doesn't work. Sweden had to go back on it, and in many countries trying to do (1) ended up with hospitals full - like France. Everything was done to avoid a third lockdown this spring, but hospitals are at 150% capacity and here we are again. Are you aware of some magic trick that negates that?
Most other lockdown measures are questionable at best, including mandatory mask usage. They are clearly symbolic tools for the political class to signal that something is being done, but the data to support them is not very strong considering that there is not much of a control group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not allocate most of the Pfizer to the young and give the AZ exclusively to the older people?
Does Denmark actually have older people to give it to? A lot of EU countries are restricting it to over 60s only, but AFAIK the Denmark vaccine program has gone quicker than most EU ones; there may not be many if any over 60s available.
In the danish source below you can on the last pages see the before and after calender with the decision.
Source in Danish: https://www.sst.dk/-/media/Udgivelser/2021/Corona/Vaccinatio...
Not giving it to 65+ people seems overly cautious. There are zero cases in that group and even just a small delay will mean many dead. This is trading a potential unlikely side effect for a large number of severe Covid cases in high risk groups. Edit: yes I'm aware they have only a dozen or so dead per week but that also translates to hundreds of severe cases, missed elective surgeries, etc. For what would most likel…
_Are_ there unvaccinated over-65s in Denmark? AIUI it's generally a bit ahead of the EU curve, and over-70s are generally done in most European countries.
[1] https://www.sst.dk/-/media/Udgivelser/2021/Corona/Vaccinatio... (in Danish)
[2] https://www.sst.dk/-/media/Udgivelser/2021/Corona/Vaccinatio... (in Danish)