5 ms·

That article is not very helpful is it. Explicitly, i believe knowingly, excludes information. For example > In a separate development, the UK medical regulat

That article is not very helpful is it. Explicitly, i believe knowingly, excludes information. For example > In a separate development, the UK medical regulator said on Saturday that out of 30 people who suffered blood clots after receiving the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, seven have died. Excluding that that population sample is in the region of 19 million people who have received at least one dose of ChAdOx in the UK and the incidence of the clot is likely lower than the incidence rate in the population in general, as I understand it.

argvargc 6y ago
Oh, so now it's ok to use this type of argument?
logicchains 6y ago
>the incidence of the clot is likely lower than the incidence rate in the population in general It's lower than the incidence rate of general blood clots, not than that specific type of blood clots. One of Norway's chief physicians (not just some quack) concluded that the clots are indeed due to the AstraZeneca vaccine: https://sciencenorway.no/covid19/norwegian-experts-say-deadly-blood-clots-were-caused-by-the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine/1830510 https://sciencenorway.no/covid19/norwegian-experts-say-deadl... . At the time that occured, only 130,000 people had been vaccinated in Norway, and so the four deaths of people under age 50 resulting from the clots actually suggested the AstraZeneca might be more dangerous to young people than Covid (which has a less than 4/130,000 fatality rate for the young).
- newacct583 6y ago
  I don't see how you can "conclude" that with N=30, though. If these numbers were the basis for a study about some unimportant thing submitted to a peer reviewed journal it would be thoroughly laughed at and rejected. AZ is safe. Get your shots, people.
  - smnrchrds 6y ago
    > AZ is safe. Get your shots, people. This attitude is what is causing people to distrust authorities.
    - newacct583 6y ago
      Rather, treating understanding of numbers and statistics as an "attitude" seems to be more of a problem to my eyes. AZ is safe. That's not a statement of opinion. Get. Your. Shot.
      - mrlonglong 6y ago
        It's ONE in 600,000. Very safe. I got my AZ shot two weeks ago.
      - strken 6y ago
        It's really not helpful to say "Get. Your. Shot." in a threatening way to someone who's on the fence about getting vaccinated. It's a lot better to try to understand them and walk through their decision, and (gently!) question whether why they've taken the advice of a Facebook post over that of their doctor, or how they're comparing the (huge) risks of COVID infection against the (tiny yet highly publicised) risks of getting vaccinated.
        newacct583 6y ago
        The upthread poster wasn't "on the fence". I read that comment as vaccine denialism, not indecision. And misinformation needs to be called out as such, not coddled.
        strken 6y ago
        "Denialism" runs the gamut from your undecided aunt who read a Facebook post and can be talked around in five minutes, through to actual strong opposition to vaccines based on years of conspiracy theories, and absolutely none of the people on that gamut respond well to unsourced claims that a vaccine is safe. If you want to feel smug and superior, make dogmatic statements. If you want to change opinions, then you have to treat denialists with respect for their humanity, and separate the person from the opinion.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  Is it a lot less? China and Spain both reported 0.2% death rate in the 20-29 range. 4/130,000 is 0.03% The worst case scenario for vaccine side effect seems to be almost 7 times better than the disease. https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid
  - the_mitsuhiko 6y ago
    Careful with this comparison: you want to vaccinate 100% of the population but get as few as possible to contract coronavirus. This means that you cannot compare fatality rate of the infected vs fatality rate of the vaccinated and extrapolate to the entire population. In Norway if the trend of AZ fatalities were to continue they would quickly have more deaths of AZ below 55 than the virus claimed.
    - LatteLazy 6y ago
      Edit: ah, you're saying if we vaccinate 100% that's but only 50% were ever going to get covid then we need to allow for twice the vaccine side effects compared to covid issues? Original comment: I'm not sure I follow your logic? Haven't we already allowed for that by comparing via percentages? Unless we expect younger people to have a higher rate of side effects? Sorry if I'm being dull...
- DangerousPie 6y ago
  Where are you getting those numbers from? Based on Figure 2 of this paper the IFR for people 35-39 is between 0.01 and 0.1%. So in 130,000 infected people you would still expect between 13 and 130 to die from covid. And that's ignoring all sorts of other issues, like the amount of people that will need to be hospitalised, long covid, etc. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0
- tonfa 6y ago
  https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/03/astrazeneca-vaccine-blood-clot-issue-wont-go-away/618451/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/03/astrazene... Was a pretty good overview of the issues

argvargc 6y ago

Oh, so now it's ok to use this type of argument?

logicchains 6y ago

>the incidence of the clot is likely lower than the incidence rate in the population in general It's lower than the incidence rate of general blood clots, not than that specific type of blood clots. One of Norway's chief physicians (not just some quack) concluded that the clots are indeed due to the AstraZeneca vaccine: https://sciencenorway.no/covid19/norwegian-experts-say-deadly-blood-clots-were-caused-by-the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine/1830510 https://sciencenorway.no/covid19/norwegian-experts-say-deadl... . At the time that occured, only 130,000 people had been vaccinated in Norway, and so the four deaths of people under age 50 resulting from the clots actually suggested the AstraZeneca might be more dangerous to young people than Covid (which has a less than 4/130,000 fatality rate for the young).

newacct583 6y ago
I don't see how you can "conclude" that with N=30, though. If these numbers were the basis for a study about some unimportant thing submitted to a peer reviewed journal it would be thoroughly laughed at and rejected. AZ is safe. Get your shots, people.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  > AZ is safe. Get your shots, people. This attitude is what is causing people to distrust authorities.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    Rather, treating understanding of numbers and statistics as an "attitude" seems to be more of a problem to my eyes. AZ is safe. That's not a statement of opinion. Get. Your. Shot.
    - mrlonglong 6y ago
      It's ONE in 600,000. Very safe. I got my AZ shot two weeks ago.
    - strken 6y ago
      It's really not helpful to say "Get. Your. Shot." in a threatening way to someone who's on the fence about getting vaccinated. It's a lot better to try to understand them and walk through their decision, and (gently!) question whether why they've taken the advice of a Facebook post over that of their doctor, or how they're comparing the (huge) risks of COVID infection against the (tiny yet highly publicised) risks of getting vaccinated.
      - newacct583 6y ago
        The upthread poster wasn't "on the fence". I read that comment as vaccine denialism, not indecision. And misinformation needs to be called out as such, not coddled.
        strken 6y ago
        "Denialism" runs the gamut from your undecided aunt who read a Facebook post and can be talked around in five minutes, through to actual strong opposition to vaccines based on years of conspiracy theories, and absolutely none of the people on that gamut respond well to unsourced claims that a vaccine is safe. If you want to feel smug and superior, make dogmatic statements. If you want to change opinions, then you have to treat denialists with respect for their humanity, and separate the person from the opinion.
LatteLazy 6y ago
Is it a lot less? China and Spain both reported 0.2% death rate in the 20-29 range. 4/130,000 is 0.03% The worst case scenario for vaccine side effect seems to be almost 7 times better than the disease. https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid
- the_mitsuhiko 6y ago
  Careful with this comparison: you want to vaccinate 100% of the population but get as few as possible to contract coronavirus. This means that you cannot compare fatality rate of the infected vs fatality rate of the vaccinated and extrapolate to the entire population. In Norway if the trend of AZ fatalities were to continue they would quickly have more deaths of AZ below 55 than the virus claimed.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    Edit: ah, you're saying if we vaccinate 100% that's but only 50% were ever going to get covid then we need to allow for twice the vaccine side effects compared to covid issues? Original comment: I'm not sure I follow your logic? Haven't we already allowed for that by comparing via percentages? Unless we expect younger people to have a higher rate of side effects? Sorry if I'm being dull...
DangerousPie 6y ago
Where are you getting those numbers from? Based on Figure 2 of this paper the IFR for people 35-39 is between 0.01 and 0.1%. So in 130,000 infected people you would still expect between 13 and 130 to die from covid. And that's ignoring all sorts of other issues, like the amount of people that will need to be hospitalised, long covid, etc. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0
tonfa 6y ago
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/03/astrazeneca-vaccine-blood-clot-issue-wont-go-away/618451/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/03/astrazene... Was a pretty good overview of the issues