3 ms·

You really do have to segment by age groups when doing this analysis.

by fighterpilot 5y ago

ben_w 5y ago
Would it change the conclusion? I can’t find good age-specific fatality rates for either thanks to all the search results being polluted with news about controversy rather than actual science, but the baseline pre-COVID stats I’ve seen for the incidence rate of venous thromboembolism in the USA is 30/100k/y in 25-35 year olds and 300-500/100k/y in 70-79 year olds. Again, that’s the rate it was happening already (well, in 2003), no vaccine and no pandemic. This doesn’t seem enough to counteract the roughly one thousand-fold decrease in risk of being vaccinated relative to not being vaccinated. In any case, this isn’t “people getting blood clots and dropping like flies in parking lots”. I’m old enough to remember when deep vein thrombosis was all over the news, convincing people to buy special socks for long-haul flights.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  I meant when comparing it to how deadly the virus is. The virus might be 1000x more deadly for the average person, but that's grouping 20 year-olds with 85 year-olds.
- gnfargbl 5y ago
  I have linked to this before but I like it so much I will link to it again: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/976877/CovidStats_07-04-21-final.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... The TL;DR is that for people 20-29, in the case where there is a low level of Covid-19 expected to be circulating in the community ("low" meaning incidence of around 2 in 10,000), the balance of risk vs harm is against taking the AZ vaccine if offered. In every other case (older age group or higher incidence of covid), the balance is in favour of AZ. Of course, this doesn't account for the possibility that the patient has a choice of vaccines.

3 ms·

You really do have to segment by age groups when doing this analysis.

by fighterpilot 5y ago

You really do have to segment by age groups when doing this analysis.

ben_w 5y ago
Would it change the conclusion? I can’t find good age-specific fatality rates for either thanks to all the search results being polluted with news about controversy rather than actual science, but the baseline pre-COVID stats I’ve seen for the incidence rate of venous thromboembolism in the USA is 30/100k/y in 25-35 year olds and 300-500/100k/y in 70-79 year olds. Again, that’s the rate it was happening already (well, in 2003), no vaccine and no pandemic. This doesn’t seem enough to counteract the roughly one thousand-fold decrease in risk of being vaccinated relative to not being vaccinated. In any case, this isn’t “people getting blood clots and dropping like flies in parking lots”. I’m old enough to remember when deep vein thrombosis was all over the news, convincing people to buy special socks for long-haul flights.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  I meant when comparing it to how deadly the virus is. The virus might be 1000x more deadly for the average person, but that's grouping 20 year-olds with 85 year-olds.
- gnfargbl 5y ago
  I have linked to this before but I like it so much I will link to it again: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/976877/CovidStats_07-04-21-final.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... The TL;DR is that for people 20-29, in the case where there is a low level of Covid-19 expected to be circulating in the community ("low" meaning incidence of around 2 in 10,000), the balance of risk vs harm is against taking the AZ vaccine if offered. In every other case (older age group or higher incidence of covid), the balance is in favour of AZ. Of course, this doesn't account for the possibility that the patient has a choice of vaccines.