3 ms·

There are many reasons that I wouldn't fault anyone for being 'hesitant' at this point: 1. For young people, the risks seem to outweigh the benefits. By no sma

There are many reasons that I wouldn't fault anyone for being 'hesitant' at this point: 1. For young people, the risks seem to outweigh the benefits. By no small margin either [0]. If your response to this is "but herd immunity", try to remember that this has been described as "mythological", given the leakiness of the vaccines, and the undue confidence socialising shown in the double jabbed. 2. The pharma companies are providing these vaccines in exchange for massive profit - tens of billions of dollars so far - while they simultaneously disallow any possible legal action. It's hard for me to believe that something is safe, while the manufacturer sells them on condition they won't be sued over any potential side-effects. 3. Pharma companies have a record of hiding data they don't like. They bribe academics and lawmakers, pressure newscasters, and have a looong history of testing vaccines and medications on unwilling / unknowing particiapants. Tip of the iceberg. 4. Mainstream media has given us many reasons to distrust it in the last, oh, 7 decades or so. Even more so recently. 5. The governments who are managing the pandemic the worst seem to be more interested in bringing in "vaccine passports", lockdowns, and mandatory vaccinations than actually hiring / training more nurses & building more ICU units. Where I am, the government has been caught having secret parties with vulture funds and large franchise operators; our Chief Medical Officer pretends antigen tests have no use; our Attorney General just changed the rules around social gatherings after our top leaders were caught at a party. 6. Better vaccines - by all accounts, ie Novavax - are on the horizon. 7. The utter disregard of human rights, civil liberties, and medical ethics shown by a horridly wide swathe of media and government, who are happy to dehumanise the vaccine hesitant in the name of [mythical] herd immunity. 8. The fact that this whole thing stinks; from the censorship of discussion regarding a lab-leak scenario, to the extreme politicisation of potential cures and hypotheses, to the simple brow-beating and straight-up death threats thrown at people outside the groupthink. [0] - https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40328123.html https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40328123.html - note that this is only death due to clots caused by vaccination vs Corona death, and does not include the vaccine's risk of myocarditis, pericarditis, GBS, CFS, lingering numbness and swelling, missing periods, Bell's palsy, etc. Also note that Moderna and Pfizer were shown to have similar clotting issues.

rrss 5y ago
> Also note that Moderna and Pfizer were shown to have similar clotting issues Do you have any links about this point?
- mandmandam 5y ago
  [1] https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/07/29/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-blood-clot-risk-similar-to-pfizer-spanish-study-finds https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/07/29/astrazeneca-covid-1... [2] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/blood-clots-as-prevalent-with-pfizer-and-moderna-vaccine-as-with-astrazenecas-report-2021-04-15 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/blood-clots-as-prevalent-w... While both links say the clot risk is about 8 times higher with Corona than either vaccine, the fact that they don't break those results down by age like the original link [0] above seems relevant.
  - rrss 5y ago
    The particular concern with the AstraZeneca vaccine is the rare combination of blood clots with low blood platelet count (thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome - TTS), not just blood clots in general. Accordingly the Eurosurveillance modeling study [a] (which the Irish Examiner article you cited [0] is based upon) studied specifically the risks of TTS. Neither of the papers that these links [1 & 2] reference indicate that either of the mRNA vaccines are associated with TTS. The first pre-print [b]: > No safety signals were seen for ATE or TTS. > Rates of thrombosis with concomitant thrombocytopenia after vaccination with BNT162b2 were low and in line with expected rates The second study [c] examined only the risk of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) and portal venous thrombosis (PVT) after COVID-19, and did not assess the safety of the vaccines: > Importantly, the present study cannot be used to draw conclusions on the relative risk of developing a CVT or PVT after receiving an mRNA vaccine compared to the baseline incidence or compared to other vaccines. Far larger samples are needed (such as those used by the EMA and the FDA pharmacovigilance studies) because the events have so far been found to be extremely rare. The observed incidence of CVT in the matched cohort of people who received an mRNA vaccine is compatible with even the lowest estimate of the baseline rate in the USA of 0.53 per million people in any 2-week period (binomial test: P=0.18). The marketwatch thing [2] seems pretty misleading IMO as it implies conclusions that the researchers specifically warned cannot be drawn from the study - the relative risk of developing CVT or PVT after receiving one vaccine when compared to another vaccine. [a]: https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.26.2100533 https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.E... [b]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3886421 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3886421 [c]: https://osf.io/a9jdq/ https://osf.io/a9jdq/

rrss 5y ago

> Also note that Moderna and Pfizer were shown to have similar clotting issues Do you have any links about this point?

mandmandam 5y ago
[1] https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/07/29/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-blood-clot-risk-similar-to-pfizer-spanish-study-finds https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/07/29/astrazeneca-covid-1... [2] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/blood-clots-as-prevalent-with-pfizer-and-moderna-vaccine-as-with-astrazenecas-report-2021-04-15 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/blood-clots-as-prevalent-w... While both links say the clot risk is about 8 times higher with Corona than either vaccine, the fact that they don't break those results down by age like the original link [0] above seems relevant.
- rrss 5y ago
  The particular concern with the AstraZeneca vaccine is the rare combination of blood clots with low blood platelet count (thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome - TTS), not just blood clots in general. Accordingly the Eurosurveillance modeling study [a] (which the Irish Examiner article you cited [0] is based upon) studied specifically the risks of TTS. Neither of the papers that these links [1 & 2] reference indicate that either of the mRNA vaccines are associated with TTS. The first pre-print [b]: > No safety signals were seen for ATE or TTS. > Rates of thrombosis with concomitant thrombocytopenia after vaccination with BNT162b2 were low and in line with expected rates The second study [c] examined only the risk of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) and portal venous thrombosis (PVT) after COVID-19, and did not assess the safety of the vaccines: > Importantly, the present study cannot be used to draw conclusions on the relative risk of developing a CVT or PVT after receiving an mRNA vaccine compared to the baseline incidence or compared to other vaccines. Far larger samples are needed (such as those used by the EMA and the FDA pharmacovigilance studies) because the events have so far been found to be extremely rare. The observed incidence of CVT in the matched cohort of people who received an mRNA vaccine is compatible with even the lowest estimate of the baseline rate in the USA of 0.53 per million people in any 2-week period (binomial test: P=0.18). The marketwatch thing [2] seems pretty misleading IMO as it implies conclusions that the researchers specifically warned cannot be drawn from the study - the relative risk of developing CVT or PVT after receiving one vaccine when compared to another vaccine. [a]: https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.26.2100533 https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.E... [b]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3886421 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3886421 [c]: https://osf.io/a9jdq/ https://osf.io/a9jdq/