3 ms·

> So what? Find out which contraindications there are and then no longer use it for people that are suspectible to those problems. It's not that simple. You ca

> So what? Find out which contraindications there are and then no longer use it for people that are suspectible to those problems. It's not that simple. You can be an apparently healthy individual with some undiagnosed condition that makes you prone to clots.

bhaak 6y ago
Nothing is that simple. We are complicate biological machines. This case clearly shows that. The problem is if you don't use the vaccine, you won't find out what problems there are. We are talking about single digits of cases for more than 1 million vaccinated persons. Whereas in the UK, they vaccinated even more people and have apparently no deaths.
- readflaggedcomm 6y ago
  >The problem is if you don't use the vaccine, you won't find out what problems there are. Is that true? It's not like the brain barrier defect injured by the nasal swab, which could be detected ahead of time?
  - bhaak 6y ago
    For rare conditions that only affect one person in a million, you are very unlikely to find out about in the usual clinical trials. That's just a statistical fact. You can reduce that risk with all the testing facilities we have available to us but every vaccine that is approved for humans has already run that course.
    - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
      I don't care about trials or aggregate risk. If I might be individually likely to be injured by a vaccine or nasal swab, it's irresponsible to the point of harm for doctors not to make available ways to avoid that. That's their oath, not statistics.
      - bhaak 6y ago
        To put it into perspective, the risk of getting killed as a pedestrian in the US is more than twice as likely as the German numbers for the AZ vaccine (which has a bias towards middle aged women and are completely different than the UK numbers, so we already know that we don't have the whole picture). There were 20 deaths per 1 million people in the US in 2019. Every time you stand up, there's a chance something bad might happen. Likewise with any medical procedure. Of course the doctors are trying to minimize the risks but if you don't take the vaccine, you take the risk of getting infected. Life is just not riskless. There are no certainties.
        readflaggedcomm 6y ago
        Evaluating the risk of individual actions shouldn't be done this way. It is bizarre to argue about how rare a bad effect is when a disorder can be detected ahead of time. There is a certainty that this attitude is killing people.
        bhaak 6y ago
        That's not true. We don't know which condition triggers this effect. Remember, the UK data doesn't show this effect. It's not known ahead of time who is susceptile to this effect. It still can't even be ruled out if this is just a statistical anomaly. That's somewhat unlikely though but we just don't know which precondition is increasing the risk. In an ideal situation we would suspend vaccinating with AZ but it's also a fact that not vaccinating would be putting more people at risk. Currently, there are not enough alternatives around to do otherwise.

bhaak 6y ago

Nothing is that simple. We are complicate biological machines. This case clearly shows that. The problem is if you don't use the vaccine, you won't find out what problems there are. We are talking about single digits of cases for more than 1 million vaccinated persons. Whereas in the UK, they vaccinated even more people and have apparently no deaths.

readflaggedcomm 6y ago
>The problem is if you don't use the vaccine, you won't find out what problems there are. Is that true? It's not like the brain barrier defect injured by the nasal swab, which could be detected ahead of time?
- bhaak 6y ago
  For rare conditions that only affect one person in a million, you are very unlikely to find out about in the usual clinical trials. That's just a statistical fact. You can reduce that risk with all the testing facilities we have available to us but every vaccine that is approved for humans has already run that course.
  - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
    I don't care about trials or aggregate risk. If I might be individually likely to be injured by a vaccine or nasal swab, it's irresponsible to the point of harm for doctors not to make available ways to avoid that. That's their oath, not statistics.
    - bhaak 6y ago
      To put it into perspective, the risk of getting killed as a pedestrian in the US is more than twice as likely as the German numbers for the AZ vaccine (which has a bias towards middle aged women and are completely different than the UK numbers, so we already know that we don't have the whole picture). There were 20 deaths per 1 million people in the US in 2019. Every time you stand up, there's a chance something bad might happen. Likewise with any medical procedure. Of course the doctors are trying to minimize the risks but if you don't take the vaccine, you take the risk of getting infected. Life is just not riskless. There are no certainties.
      - readflaggedcomm 6y ago
        Evaluating the risk of individual actions shouldn't be done this way. It is bizarre to argue about how rare a bad effect is when a disorder can be detected ahead of time. There is a certainty that this attitude is killing people.
        bhaak 6y ago
        That's not true. We don't know which condition triggers this effect. Remember, the UK data doesn't show this effect. It's not known ahead of time who is susceptile to this effect. It still can't even be ruled out if this is just a statistical anomaly. That's somewhat unlikely though but we just don't know which precondition is increasing the risk. In an ideal situation we would suspend vaccinating with AZ but it's also a fact that not vaccinating would be putting more people at risk. Currently, there are not enough alternatives around to do otherwise.