4 ms·

Here's a question for someone smarter than me. Is there a chance that this number (six cases in seven million doses) will rise as regulators comb through previo

by jdhn 6y ago

Here's a question for someone smarter than me. Is there a chance that this number (six cases in seven million doses) will rise as regulators comb through previous reports of adverse effects?

exyi 6y ago
I'm probably not smarter, but based on what happen with AZ I don't think it will rise. AZ clot cases rised after people became more aware of the issue so it was reported more often as the vaccine side effect
Nokinside 6y ago
Not an expert in but one of those expert drug regulators is my friend. 1 per million adverse effects is nothing. If that would be a solid fact, there would be no reason to pause vaccinations. The pause happens very early so that experts have time to check the data and methodology and verify that it's all that there is. When a new drug is given for emergency evaluation or a new side effect is discovered he works 14 hours per day 7 days a week with a team going through a massive amount of data and documentation to verify and check everything. The media and most commentators don't understand why decisions can take weeks. Why you don't have the scheduled emergency approval meeting just now. They fail to understand that fact-finding is not happening in the meeting just by people giving their expert opinions. Experts work around the clock without taking any time off to figure out what is happening. But lazy bureaucratic regulators, right?
- nscalf 6y ago
  I have some friends in this field as well (though they are in small sample size things, like specific breast cancer trials). Some of the fact-finding looks like calling up every patient who has gone through their treatment, but they have agreed to cooperate extensively in order to get into their trials. I can't imagine how painful it is to do fact-finding on this scale.
bluGill 6y ago
Yes, but not from previous reports. See the other responses about how previous reports are handled. I would expect cases to rise as unreported things get reported, and as doctors start to ask the right questions when they see these events and report things that previously wouldn't have been reported but probably should have. Not to mention that with these reports I expect doctors to ask the right questions and so previously misdiagnosed events get diagnosed correctly (some of these might be unrelated to the vaccine though making the data messy).

by jdhn 6y ago

Here's a question for someone smarter than me. Is there a chance that this number (six cases in seven million doses) will rise as regulators comb through previous reports of adverse effects?

exyi 6y ago

I'm probably not smarter, but based on what happen with AZ I don't think it will rise. AZ clot cases rised after people became more aware of the issue so it was reported more often as the vaccine side effect

Nokinside 6y ago

Not an expert in but one of those expert drug regulators is my friend. 1 per million adverse effects is nothing. If that would be a solid fact, there would be no reason to pause vaccinations. The pause happens very early so that experts have time to check the data and methodology and verify that it's all that there is. When a new drug is given for emergency evaluation or a new side effect is discovered he works 14 hours per day 7 days a week with a team going through a massive amount of data and documentation to verify and check everything. The media and most commentators don't understand why decisions can take weeks. Why you don't have the scheduled emergency approval meeting just now. They fail to understand that fact-finding is not happening in the meeting just by people giving their expert opinions. Experts work around the clock without taking any time off to figure out what is happening. But lazy bureaucratic regulators, right?

nscalf 6y ago
I have some friends in this field as well (though they are in small sample size things, like specific breast cancer trials). Some of the fact-finding looks like calling up every patient who has gone through their treatment, but they have agreed to cooperate extensively in order to get into their trials. I can't imagine how painful it is to do fact-finding on this scale.

bluGill 6y ago

Yes, but not from previous reports. See the other responses about how previous reports are handled. I would expect cases to rise as unreported things get reported, and as doctors start to ask the right questions when they see these events and report things that previously wouldn't have been reported but probably should have. Not to mention that with these reports I expect doctors to ask the right questions and so previously misdiagnosed events get diagnosed correctly (some of these might be unrelated to the vaccine though making the data messy).