5 ms·

From what David Spiegelhalter said earlier it's about 1 in 250k for the under-30s. That's 0.0004%. The problem is that if you control for the right parameters t

From what David Spiegelhalter said earlier it's about 1 in 250k for the under-30s. That's 0.0004%. The problem is that if you control for the right parameters the expected outcome is worse, possibly by multiple orders of magnitude, than that of being infected with covid.

spoonjim 5y ago
What do you mean by that? Control in what way?
- ggm 5y ago
  It's an odd way of saying if you pre screen you can say which people probably shouldn't get this vaccine.
data_acquired 5y ago
This pre-print (edit : now published apparently!) argued that the likelihood of clots from Covid was still higher than AZ vaccines https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.19.21253980v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.19.21253980v.... Fauci agreed with their conclusions (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-blood-clots-risk-disease/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-blood-clots-risk-...) but disagreed with the aspects of this study that looked at mRNA vaccines and blood clots (but hasn't given reasons why he disagrees with this aspect).
- jozvolskyef 5y ago
  You seem to have linked a different article.
  - data_acquired 5y ago
    My bad. Have fixed the link. Thanks!
  - data_acquired 5y ago
    "While the AstraZeneca vaccine has been the focus, other vaccines have also been reporting adverse events. Searching the EMA EV database for Moderna vaccine reports for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism identified 29 DVTs, of which 12 also had pulmonary embolism; no reported deaths or fatal events [16]. Similarly, searching for the Pfizer vaccine reports, 13 DVTs were found in the same study period, from 17 February to 12 March, as this paper reporting on the AstraZeneca vaccine adverse events. With the Pfizer vaccine, 11 people also developed pulmonary embolism and two died [16]." Seems to be the case that Pfizer and Moderna didn't get in as much trouble with clot risk I guess?
    - jozvolskyef 5y ago
      Not necessarily, we can't draw any conclusions from these numbers without knowing how many vaccines were administered and to whom.
      - data_acquired 5y ago
        Agreed, but I doubt that the difference in # of AZ and Moderna/Pfizer doses administered is off by too many orders of magnitude [edit : on second thought, could be off by a factor of 10]. The central issue in my mind is the difference in populations since Americans have predominantly received Pfizer/Moderna while Brits have predominantly received AZ. Its possible that Brits have an intrinsically higher clot risk with the AZ preparation than Americans do with the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines (although, the J&J clots in the US certainly questions this idea too).
        jozvolskyef 5y ago
        I edited my comment before noticing you already replied. I agree.
outworlder 5y ago
> The problem is that if you control for the right parameters the expected outcome is worse, possibly by multiple orders of magnitude, than that of being infected with covid. How come? COVID infections have a high probability of causing blood clots.

spoonjim 5y ago

What do you mean by that? Control in what way?

ggm 5y ago
It's an odd way of saying if you pre screen you can say which people probably shouldn't get this vaccine.

data_acquired 5y ago

This pre-print (edit : now published apparently!) argued that the likelihood of clots from Covid was still higher than AZ vaccines https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.19.21253980v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.19.21253980v.... Fauci agreed with their conclusions (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-blood-clots-risk-disease/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-blood-clots-risk-...) but disagreed with the aspects of this study that looked at mRNA vaccines and blood clots (but hasn't given reasons why he disagrees with this aspect).

jozvolskyef 5y ago
You seem to have linked a different article.
- data_acquired 5y ago
  My bad. Have fixed the link. Thanks!
- data_acquired 5y ago
  "While the AstraZeneca vaccine has been the focus, other vaccines have also been reporting adverse events. Searching the EMA EV database for Moderna vaccine reports for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism identified 29 DVTs, of which 12 also had pulmonary embolism; no reported deaths or fatal events [16]. Similarly, searching for the Pfizer vaccine reports, 13 DVTs were found in the same study period, from 17 February to 12 March, as this paper reporting on the AstraZeneca vaccine adverse events. With the Pfizer vaccine, 11 people also developed pulmonary embolism and two died [16]." Seems to be the case that Pfizer and Moderna didn't get in as much trouble with clot risk I guess?
  - jozvolskyef 5y ago
    Not necessarily, we can't draw any conclusions from these numbers without knowing how many vaccines were administered and to whom.
    - data_acquired 5y ago
      Agreed, but I doubt that the difference in # of AZ and Moderna/Pfizer doses administered is off by too many orders of magnitude [edit : on second thought, could be off by a factor of 10]. The central issue in my mind is the difference in populations since Americans have predominantly received Pfizer/Moderna while Brits have predominantly received AZ. Its possible that Brits have an intrinsically higher clot risk with the AZ preparation than Americans do with the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines (although, the J&J clots in the US certainly questions this idea too).
      - jozvolskyef 5y ago
        I edited my comment before noticing you already replied. I agree.

outworlder 5y ago

> The problem is that if you control for the right parameters the expected outcome is worse, possibly by multiple orders of magnitude, than that of being infected with covid. How come? COVID infections have a high probability of causing blood clots.