3 ms·

All of you points are reasonable, but less so considering we can wait a few weeks and eliminate the risk with another vaccine like Pfizer/Biontech. As the othe

All of you points are reasonable, but less so considering we can wait a few weeks and eliminate the risk with another vaccine like Pfizer/Biontech. As the other posters of sources show, this is a very rare kind blod failure that only hits 1/3000000 people, and often leads to death. Not just a little blod clots. German research says 7 times the amount of blod clots in AZ vaccinated already against background: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/it-s-very-special-picture-why-vaccine-safety-experts-put-brakes-astrazeneca-s-covid-19?fbclid=IwAR2TlWrt3pBsflwNdq_zEecXJbEx3iqhu95D9-yT2TYDnoP4HCAaMI87muk https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/it-s-very-special-pi.... https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2021-03-19-blodpropper-er-almindelige-men-det-er-ikke-dem-der-bekymrer-eksperterne https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https... My line of thinking at the moment is: 1) Seems right. It's about 5% in DK/NO. [1] Comorbidities is about 90% in DK for deaths, this is pretty much the pattern everywhere. In other words only about 10% percent die without "known" comorbidities - but very importantly obesity is excluded here often - it's relatively rare to find in-shape healthy "younger" people dying - that's why it becomes sensational. I only have comorbidity sources in danish (unstrained system), but to compare to the UK this is the pattern seen in "strained" public health system - from after the NY first wave meltdown[2]. Notice how few without comorbidities. Only 17 in the age group 18-44, in 15000 deaths. Today the NYC numbers have doubled so lets extrapolate and say 34 people have died in the age group 18-44. If 3/4 of those where obese which is pretty likely[3], then we end up with about 9 deaths out of 50000 in the 18-44 bracket in NYC, a heavily strained city with 8.5 million inhabitants. Not zero, but seriously bordering on it noise and scale wise. 2) Considering above ratios 4 deaths per 150.000 in the 0-60 bracket, and problems with non fatal haemorrhages that often leaves people completely handicapped still seems worse in a "semi experimental" vaccine without large scale testing yet. Again 4 healthy people have already died, two in their thirties in Norway. That just doesn't happen statistically with DIC haemorrhages. 3) The main theory is bad batches, or bad laboratories. The UK makes its AZ vaccines in completely different labs than the rest of Europe. Could also be genes, diet, local medications etc. No matter what - the "lets just divide the NO/DK/DE" high death rates into the succesfull UK vaccinations is extremely dishonest. Right now the numbers look bad in both Norway, Denmark and Germany this is why there is already several specialists that are alarmed independently in NO/DE (see first sciencemag article). [1]https://www.ined.fr/fichier/rte/166/Page%20Data/Norway/NorwegianDocumentationCovid19-From-12-03-2021_To-18-03-2021.zip https://www.ined.fr/fichier/rte/166/Page%20Data/Norway/Norwe... [2]https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/imm/covid-19-daily-data-summary-deaths-05132020-1.pdf https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/imm/covid-19-d... [3]https://www.worldobesityday.org/assets/downloads/COVID-19-and-Obesity-The-2021-Atlas.pdf https://www.worldobesityday.org/assets/downloads/COVID-19-an... -- disclaimer, i am not against vaccines, and would gladly take the Pfizer vaccine at the moment at least. Also seems to have way less side effects after vaccination like fever/shaking/headache/vomiting. Everyone i know who's taken the AZ vaccine has been very sick for a few days (nurses/doctors), no side effects from the pfizer vaccine - anecdotally i know.

NamTaf 6y ago
Thank you for the comprehensive response. All of your points are fair and I like your logic. Particularly, you make a good point regarding differing manufacturing locations and possible batch issues. I did not consider that. It wasn't my intention to be dishonest, but I agree that it was flawed logic to think ti would necessarily apply. What it does highlight, though, is that it's reasonable to consider this particular batch/source of the AZ vaccine to be risky, but I think then it's important to then stress that "The AZ Vaccine" in general temrs is not automatically undermined by this, since evidence clearly demonstrates that other locations have used it successfully without this issue. To me, this is an important distinction to draw since without it, public confidence in the AZ vaccine as a whole is undermined. Public rejection of vaccines other than Pfizer & Moderna is a particular concern of mine, as I believe the Pfizer & Moderna vaccines have a much higher barrier to manufacture, so there's much less ability to scale them in the short-to-medium term. As far as I'm concerned, we need vaccines such as from AZ, J&J, etc. to be able to produce vaccines at the scale necessary to move from only vaccinating the elderly in 1st world countries, to vaccinating 7+ billion across the entire globe. As an aside, I really appreciate that this discussion was fact-based, respectful and open-minded. It's an incredibly refreshing change compared to the overwhelming majority of other vaccine-related discussions I endure! Thank you, to you and to the HN community in general for this quality of discourse.
- kossTKR 6y ago
  All fair points, - i also appreciate the quality discussion! Luckily a myriad of vaccines are on their way with differing technologies. As far as i know many of them "better" in various ways, so i hope we at some point are going to get something very robust, even for variations - but that also makes it so important to be extremely cautious in the meantime - as with the current AZ vaccine in the northern regions.

NamTaf 6y ago

Thank you for the comprehensive response. All of your points are fair and I like your logic. Particularly, you make a good point regarding differing manufacturing locations and possible batch issues. I did not consider that. It wasn't my intention to be dishonest, but I agree that it was flawed logic to think ti would necessarily apply. What it does highlight, though, is that it's reasonable to consider this particular batch/source of the AZ vaccine to be risky, but I think then it's important to then stress that "The AZ Vaccine" in general temrs is not automatically undermined by this, since evidence clearly demonstrates that other locations have used it successfully without this issue. To me, this is an important distinction to draw since without it, public confidence in the AZ vaccine as a whole is undermined. Public rejection of vaccines other than Pfizer & Moderna is a particular concern of mine, as I believe the Pfizer & Moderna vaccines have a much higher barrier to manufacture, so there's much less ability to scale them in the short-to-medium term. As far as I'm concerned, we need vaccines such as from AZ, J&J, etc. to be able to produce vaccines at the scale necessary to move from only vaccinating the elderly in 1st world countries, to vaccinating 7+ billion across the entire globe. As an aside, I really appreciate that this discussion was fact-based, respectful and open-minded. It's an incredibly refreshing change compared to the overwhelming majority of other vaccine-related discussions I endure! Thank you, to you and to the HN community in general for this quality of discourse.

kossTKR 6y ago
All fair points, - i also appreciate the quality discussion! Luckily a myriad of vaccines are on their way with differing technologies. As far as i know many of them "better" in various ways, so i hope we at some point are going to get something very robust, even for variations - but that also makes it so important to be extremely cautious in the meantime - as with the current AZ vaccine in the northern regions.