3 ms·
Sure, but at the same time 3 is too small a number to have any confidence in that expectation. Looking at the rates from other countries where AZ has been depl
by SiempreViernes 6y ago
Sure, but at the same time 3 is too small a number to have any confidence in that expectation.
Looking at the rates from other countries where AZ has been deployed more heavily, it seems like Norway mostly had bad luck, and the rate is fairly small.
Though as you say for the younger population the risks with covid are also small and the choice ultimately depends on the infection rate in the country.
An interesting question is if there actually is any public health argument in favour of vaccinating the inhabitants in the countries that have managed to keep it out completely? There the choice is between taking on the risks of the vaccine versus just not allowing travel, and the public health impact of the latter isn't very clear.
- ghaff 6y agoEven New Zealand presumably can't keep its border sealed indefinitely.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- marvin 6y agoNorthern Europe's greater observed incidence of this side effect is obviously one of the deciding factors of Denmark's decision. It could be a statistical anomaly, but concluding is premature at this point, especially when comparing with globally-reported AstraZeneca-related blood clots. Even at half the incidence of deaths reported in Norway, which would be on the order of 1:100,000, it puts the risk of a 25-year old dying from the vaccine at ~5 times the risk of dying of a Covid infection. At one tenth incidence, it's an even bet. That seems unlikely. This seems like a pretty obvious decision to me, when looking at the Covid incidence in these countries. Given that alternative vaccines are available. I'm surprised at the level of controversy, honestly. Given the presumed science-based background for the topic. Just use one of the others.