Side effect worry grows for AstraZeneca vaccine(science.sciencemag.org)
science.sciencemag.org
Side effect worry grows for AstraZeneca vaccine
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6537/14.full
120 comments
Please don't submit multiple stories about pretty much the same thing within hours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26689526
Since I joined this website almost 1 and 1/2 decades ago, I have never seen science so politicized. In 2021, if you ask a perfectly reasonable scientific question, there's a good chance that it's somehow gotten associated with political party X or political party Y, and this question is treated with the same semantics as an armband, a bumper sticker, or a flag. This is madness!
This is not how it's supposed to work, if we are supposed to be reasoning, thinking beings. Ideas are supposed to be ideas not tokens of affiliation!
I brought up Lysenkoism here a few years back. One notable reaction, upon hearing of this for the first time, was for that commenter to declare that "Lysenkoism" was then to be pattern matched as a talking point of political party W. No intellectual curiosity. No discussion on the philosophical or practical implications. Just knee-jerk us versus them.
This is not how it's supposed to work, if we are supposed to be reasoning, thinking beings. Ideas are supposed to be ideas not tokens of affiliation!
I brought up Lysenkoism here a few years back. One notable reaction, upon hearing of this for the first time, was for that commenter to declare that "Lysenkoism" was then to be pattern matched as a talking point of political party W. No intellectual curiosity. No discussion on the philosophical or practical implications. Just knee-jerk us versus them.
I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
While it's sad that legitimate questions can label one, it's because "just asking questions" is a rhetoric now often used by trolls or conspiracy nuts. So most of these questions aren't really "reasonable", they are done in bad faith.
See: "JAQing off" or https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
See: "JAQing off" or https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
So most of these questions aren't really "reasonable", they are done in bad faith.
Ask yourself this: Would a policy automatically labelling any question as conspiracy nut rhetoric, be acting in good faith? Such a policy could easily be exploited by a bad faith actor to silence actual substantive questions.
IMO, and from what I have seen, rationalwiki has a poor record, when it comes to intellectual integrity.
Ask yourself this: Would a policy automatically labelling any question as conspiracy nut rhetoric, be acting in good faith? Such a policy could easily be exploited by a bad faith actor to silence actual substantive questions.
IMO, and from what I have seen, rationalwiki has a poor record, when it comes to intellectual integrity.
> […] is a rhetoric now often used by trolls or conspiracy nuts.
Can be used a DoS to eat up someone's time in responding to things:
> Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".[5]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
Can be used a DoS to eat up someone's time in responding to things:
> Sealioning (also spelled sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".[5]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
The saddest phase of the pandemic for me was watch the descent of the debate from initial phase in which people seemed genuinely interested in understanding what was going on to sad polarized tribal squabbling.
As an exercise, go and look up the mainstream news coverage of Hydroxychloroquine, then go and look up many dozens of research papers. Here's what you'll find:
It turns out that Hydroxychloroquine isn't that great. However, Ivermectin seems to hold a lot of promise, last I checked in on research. What's more, ask yourself this: Many people expected governments and organizations to react to the pandemic by combing through huge amounts of data, to see if existing drugs might have some effect. This is what a lot of medical professionals expected would happen. This isn't what happened. Instead, independent parties and agencies in 3rd world countries had to push things like that through, seemingly despite opposition. Go and look up the underwhelming numbers from studies for Remdesivir, and then ask yourself why that drug was so pushed for awhile, when others with far better study numbers were seemingly ignored or talked down. (Could it be the price?)
My conclusion, is that even the intellectualism of our society and its science has been corrupted. The liberal values of the philosophe have been replaced with "us versus them" jingoism, dressed up in flowery language. This flowery language turns out to be all surface. It has no historical and practical substantive support, but instead has its basis on emotional appeal.
- Mainstream news on the topic is inaccurate, *highly sensationalized*,
and is often pointedly emotionally manipulative
- The evidence is not one sided, and there is considerable signal in the
politically unpopular direction.
- Mainstream news dotes on just a few studies which support their narrative
and often don't talk about the problems with those studies, or even
when those studies are retracted
It turns out that Hydroxychloroquine isn't that great. However, Ivermectin seems to hold a lot of promise, last I checked in on research. What's more, ask yourself this: Many people expected governments and organizations to react to the pandemic by combing through huge amounts of data, to see if existing drugs might have some effect. This is what a lot of medical professionals expected would happen. This isn't what happened. Instead, independent parties and agencies in 3rd world countries had to push things like that through, seemingly despite opposition. Go and look up the underwhelming numbers from studies for Remdesivir, and then ask yourself why that drug was so pushed for awhile, when others with far better study numbers were seemingly ignored or talked down. (Could it be the price?)
My conclusion, is that even the intellectualism of our society and its science has been corrupted. The liberal values of the philosophe have been replaced with "us versus them" jingoism, dressed up in flowery language. This flowery language turns out to be all surface. It has no historical and practical substantive support, but instead has its basis on emotional appeal.
There's a certain irony to this comment. It contains exactly zero science and it's currently at the top of the thread.
An appeal to listen to the data rather than the politics may not be science, but it is certainly the scientific mindset. It's not amiss to remind ourselves to turn our science brain on before starting this conversation.
What makes this (and science generally) difficult is at least the following:
1. The general public are not scientists, yet they distrust institutions so now they want to interpret data themselves but have no training.
2. Data can be sliced and diced to tell all kinds of stories.
3. Few can look at data and know what it doesn’t answer, or what questions should be asked but aren’t being.
4. Correlation is not causation, but that escapes almost all of us.
5. The people who generally know the field the best are poor communicators generally or at least to the general public. The people who can (or do) communicate with the public are subject to a game of telephone and don’t understand the science, and don’t know how to properly communicate uncertainty or the boundaries of knowledge.
6. Ordinary people will get ordinary answers, but due to cognitive biases will few exceptional in their ability to go against the grain.
1. The general public are not scientists, yet they distrust institutions so now they want to interpret data themselves but have no training.
2. Data can be sliced and diced to tell all kinds of stories.
3. Few can look at data and know what it doesn’t answer, or what questions should be asked but aren’t being.
4. Correlation is not causation, but that escapes almost all of us.
5. The people who generally know the field the best are poor communicators generally or at least to the general public. The people who can (or do) communicate with the public are subject to a game of telephone and don’t understand the science, and don’t know how to properly communicate uncertainty or the boundaries of knowledge.
6. Ordinary people will get ordinary answers, but due to cognitive biases will few exceptional in their ability to go against the grain.
7. Social media (including HN) rewards lower-effort first posts over greater-effort informational ones.
It takes significantly more time to sort though an article like this one, figure out what it's talking about and why it's just been published, pick up corroborating and/or refuting sources and articles, and turn it all into a digestible comment. Someone else can post a hot take in 5 minutes that develops into a Sierpinski Comment Tree by the time something more measured shows up.
It takes significantly more time to sort though an article like this one, figure out what it's talking about and why it's just been published, pick up corroborating and/or refuting sources and articles, and turn it all into a digestible comment. Someone else can post a hot take in 5 minutes that develops into a Sierpinski Comment Tree by the time something more measured shows up.
Ironically, elsewhere I'm also advocating that people go through dozens of studies and actually look at the numbers, then evaluate mainstream media coverage against that actual data.
And my point is few have the skills to be able to do well (and far, far fewer ever would).
> The general public are not scientists, yet they distrust institutions
Of course. They'll lose trust the soonest when they see political statements coming out of the WHO, etc. And they should. An organization that can't stay neutral can't do good work in a politicized climate.
> Few can look at data and know what it doesn’t answer, or what questions should be asked but aren’t being
No, this is actually one of the easiest things to teach. "If you were paid to sneak in and ruin this team's research, what simple bias could you add? If it was the other way around, how would you protect against this?"
Teaching people to recognize a poorly controlled study is not difficult. But it's not PC these days because people are supposed to shut up when told that all scientists agree! We did this to ourselves a decade ago by tolerating the climate change debacle attacking dissent, now everything is fought through fake consensus.
> Correlation is not causation, but that escapes almost all of us
When it's not it almost always means there's an unseen factor though, so that wonderfully dismissive statement is usually just a red herring.
> The people who can (or do) communicate with the public are ...
Lying. They're lying. They're saying things they can't know as if they're fact. The WHO isn't saying that a lab leak seems less likely than other things, they're saying it didn't happen. Unless they can point to what did happen then logically they're not able to make that claim.
People might be scientifically illiterate, but luckily spotting lies is much easier and gets you mostly halfway there, able to spot when you're being manipulated even if you can't tell what the truth is. The real problem the media is having is that people aren't quite as dumb as expected.
Of course. They'll lose trust the soonest when they see political statements coming out of the WHO, etc. And they should. An organization that can't stay neutral can't do good work in a politicized climate.
> Few can look at data and know what it doesn’t answer, or what questions should be asked but aren’t being
No, this is actually one of the easiest things to teach. "If you were paid to sneak in and ruin this team's research, what simple bias could you add? If it was the other way around, how would you protect against this?"
Teaching people to recognize a poorly controlled study is not difficult. But it's not PC these days because people are supposed to shut up when told that all scientists agree! We did this to ourselves a decade ago by tolerating the climate change debacle attacking dissent, now everything is fought through fake consensus.
> Correlation is not causation, but that escapes almost all of us
When it's not it almost always means there's an unseen factor though, so that wonderfully dismissive statement is usually just a red herring.
> The people who can (or do) communicate with the public are ...
Lying. They're lying. They're saying things they can't know as if they're fact. The WHO isn't saying that a lab leak seems less likely than other things, they're saying it didn't happen. Unless they can point to what did happen then logically they're not able to make that claim.
People might be scientifically illiterate, but luckily spotting lies is much easier and gets you mostly halfway there, able to spot when you're being manipulated even if you can't tell what the truth is. The real problem the media is having is that people aren't quite as dumb as expected.
> The people who can (or do) communicate with the public are ...
Lying. They're lying. They're saying things they can't know as if they're fact. The WHO isn't saying that a lab leak seems less likely than other things, they're saying it didn't happen. Unless they can point to what did happen then logically they're not able to make that claim.
It's very funny that Dr. Fauci came out and said the virus wasn't produced in a lab because we don't have the computational resources to model it. Full stop. That eliminates one way it could have been produced in a lab, but not all of them. Gain of Function research is often conducted by inducing mutations, then seeing how that changed the virus' capabilities. In fact, Dr. Fauci himself signed off on gain of function research in the very lab in Wuhan!
Dr. Fauci basically admitted in public that he as good as lied to the public, saying that masks were not useful, because he wanted to keep them for health workers. I think the press should be asking a lot more questions around here.
The real problem the media is having is that people aren't quite as dumb as expected.
It's almost as if the media believed the bigoted nonsense they say about some segments of the populace, and were disconnected from reality. Of course, that wouldn't be the case. Otherwise, we'd start to see things like public opinion polls that are systematically inaccurate, political consultants making huge miscalculations, or media companies doing things completely contrary to what fans of their products want and what profitability would demand. We'd see media companies suppressing things like downvotes, or having difficulty getting traction with their channels on YouTube.
If that were the case, then you wouldn't see evidence of groupthink and enforced groupthink in leaked journalist mailing lists and forums. If that were the case, there would be leaks of higher-ups dictating news narratives on conference calls -- which would then be systematically suppressed by journalists across the board.
We don't see any of that now, do we?
Lying. They're lying. They're saying things they can't know as if they're fact. The WHO isn't saying that a lab leak seems less likely than other things, they're saying it didn't happen. Unless they can point to what did happen then logically they're not able to make that claim.
It's very funny that Dr. Fauci came out and said the virus wasn't produced in a lab because we don't have the computational resources to model it. Full stop. That eliminates one way it could have been produced in a lab, but not all of them. Gain of Function research is often conducted by inducing mutations, then seeing how that changed the virus' capabilities. In fact, Dr. Fauci himself signed off on gain of function research in the very lab in Wuhan!
Dr. Fauci basically admitted in public that he as good as lied to the public, saying that masks were not useful, because he wanted to keep them for health workers. I think the press should be asking a lot more questions around here.
The real problem the media is having is that people aren't quite as dumb as expected.
It's almost as if the media believed the bigoted nonsense they say about some segments of the populace, and were disconnected from reality. Of course, that wouldn't be the case. Otherwise, we'd start to see things like public opinion polls that are systematically inaccurate, political consultants making huge miscalculations, or media companies doing things completely contrary to what fans of their products want and what profitability would demand. We'd see media companies suppressing things like downvotes, or having difficulty getting traction with their channels on YouTube.
If that were the case, then you wouldn't see evidence of groupthink and enforced groupthink in leaked journalist mailing lists and forums. If that were the case, there would be leaks of higher-ups dictating news narratives on conference calls -- which would then be systematically suppressed by journalists across the board.
We don't see any of that now, do we?
However, the markers of government and media manipulation are largely commonsense.
How the authorities react to questions, and to what degree they will try to avoid them, are themselves valuable indicators!
It's very true that the average science consumer is a lot like the average driver. There are lots of very bad ones out there. But it's only in an open society, where questions are encouraged, and where asking questions is acknowledged as speaking truth to power, where the truth will come out.
Remember when the semantic equivalent of "shut up and go along" was the very opposite of virtuous intellectualism? (And not mislabeled as intellectualism!)
Remember when we were proud of our freedom, of our societies where open inquiry was allowed and not suppressed?
The dream of the philosophe remains alive, and shall not die.
- Is there good evidence for the other side?
- If so, how does the mainstream press react to that?
- Are people trying to get others to not even look?
How the authorities react to questions, and to what degree they will try to avoid them, are themselves valuable indicators!
It's very true that the average science consumer is a lot like the average driver. There are lots of very bad ones out there. But it's only in an open society, where questions are encouraged, and where asking questions is acknowledged as speaking truth to power, where the truth will come out.
Remember when the semantic equivalent of "shut up and go along" was the very opposite of virtuous intellectualism? (And not mislabeled as intellectualism!)
Remember when we were proud of our freedom, of our societies where open inquiry was allowed and not suppressed?
The dream of the philosophe remains alive, and shall not die.
Can you please stop this? In this thread, you're creating the very problem you're complaining about. You've posted a lot of assertions across several comments in this thread. You've raised government and media boogeymen and criticized everyone's emotional response and lack of focus on science, all without a single citation of your own. You're not even discussing the article at hand, just posting a lot of both-sides rhetoric and platitudes that will be popular because everyone that reads it will think you're talking about other people.
You've posted a lot of assertions across several comments in this thread. You've raised government and media boogeymen and criticized everyone's emotional response and lack of focus on science, all without a single citation of your own.
Sure. Now go and look up a dozen scientific journal articles on Hydroxychloroquine, then see if I'm pushing a false narrative about government and media pushing narratives, or if that's a pretty reasonable one. I'm fine with letting the numbers speak for themselves.
You're not even discussing the article at hand, just posting a lot of both-sides rhetoric and platitudes that will be popular because everyone that reads it will think you're talking about other people.
This both-sides stuff is actually true. Also, if everyone realizes I could just as well be talking about the other side, then they take that thinking a step further, then the philosophes win. Those who are so biased, that they can't see this, are probably unreachable anyways.
If just one person changes their mind because of actually looking at something they didn't see, or saw in a different way, we all win. I think that's very relevant.
In the long arc of history with regards to the truth, "sides" are irrelevant.
(Seriously, how is getting HN readers to ask some questions and do their own research a bad thing? That's kind of head scratchy.)
Sure. Now go and look up a dozen scientific journal articles on Hydroxychloroquine, then see if I'm pushing a false narrative about government and media pushing narratives, or if that's a pretty reasonable one. I'm fine with letting the numbers speak for themselves.
You're not even discussing the article at hand, just posting a lot of both-sides rhetoric and platitudes that will be popular because everyone that reads it will think you're talking about other people.
This both-sides stuff is actually true. Also, if everyone realizes I could just as well be talking about the other side, then they take that thinking a step further, then the philosophes win. Those who are so biased, that they can't see this, are probably unreachable anyways.
If just one person changes their mind because of actually looking at something they didn't see, or saw in a different way, we all win. I think that's very relevant.
In the long arc of history with regards to the truth, "sides" are irrelevant.
(Seriously, how is getting HN readers to ask some questions and do their own research a bad thing? That's kind of head scratchy.)
>contains exactly zero science
The way I read OP's comment was as a personal experience about what they've seen since joining HN 15 years ago. Are you suggesting that only "science based" comments should be top comments, and not personal experiences?
The way I read OP's comment was as a personal experience about what they've seen since joining HN 15 years ago. Are you suggesting that only "science based" comments should be top comments, and not personal experiences?
Science has been politicized for a long time, and fear is nothing new. What 2020 brought (really before) is that people became ok expressing their fears.
> This is not how it's supposed to work, if we are supposed to be reasoning, thinking beings. Ideas are supposed to be ideas not tokens of affiliation!
We are humans not Vulcans. There is a spectrum of ability in various skills and abilities, including reasoning.
Reminder: there are people who honestly believe the world is flat.
We are humans not Vulcans. There is a spectrum of ability in various skills and abilities, including reasoning.
Reminder: there are people who honestly believe the world is flat.
We can't be free, unless we're all free to be wrong. The only logical alternative to that, is where "right" is dictated to us all.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's just disappointing. I know the likelihood is seriously low, but I hope some sort of fix or preventative measure can be found, because the AZ vaccine has become such a major part of the world's vaccination drive (especially when the worlds' largest vaccine manufacturer is currently (to my belief) only manufacturing AZ). And the last thing anybody wants is vaccination falling back any further.
> He stresses, however, that clear, transparent communication about possible risks is crucial for maintaining public trust in all COVID-19 vaccines. “It is very important that we do not lose the war because we are too eager to win the short-term battle,” he says.
This guy gets it. You won’t win over sceptics by trying to brush seemingly real problems under the rug.
Hopefully the EMA will follow his example.
This guy gets it. You won’t win over sceptics by trying to brush seemingly real problems under the rug.
Hopefully the EMA will follow his example.
The question to me is: how much is the risk of the potential side effects of the AZ vaccine compared to the risks associated with COVID?
To me it strikes me that, even considering these rare side effects, the odds are still very much in favor for getting vaccinated.
Am I wrong here? If not, wouldn’t it then be irrational to be shutting down these vaccination programs?
To me it strikes me that, even considering these rare side effects, the odds are still very much in favor for getting vaccinated.
Am I wrong here? If not, wouldn’t it then be irrational to be shutting down these vaccination programs?
You're assuming that not taking this particular vaccine means getting COVID. There are alternatives, like waiting a bit more for an alternative vaccine.
> To me it strikes me that, even considering these rare side effects, the odds are still very much in favor for getting vaccinated.
The question isn’t is it better to get vaccinated with AZ or not vaccinated, but to get vaccinated with the AZ vaccine vs. a different vaccine with the delay that would be involved if AZ were pulled. That’s a tougher question that involves questions of relative risks and effectiveness and the logistical factors that dictate the timing differences.
The question isn’t is it better to get vaccinated with AZ or not vaccinated, but to get vaccinated with the AZ vaccine vs. a different vaccine with the delay that would be involved if AZ were pulled. That’s a tougher question that involves questions of relative risks and effectiveness and the logistical factors that dictate the timing differences.
Definitely for some age groups. For other age groups, it makes more sense to delay vaccination until an alternate vaccine can be used. That's why some countries are only allowing it for older people.
Show your work, please.
Not parent; just throwing this out there; but in Canada, the local provinces have been doing a relatively ok job of keeping track of covid statistics. In Alberta [0] we have a fairly diverse population, and should somewhat generalize to other regions.
It would certainly appear that if we assume the risk of vaccination is relatively constant, (The risk actually appears to be greater for younger, <55 y/o people), then it makes a lot of sense to prioritize the older populations.
https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm... -- scroll to the bottom for age distributions.
Edit: FWIW, I don't particularly support delaying vaccination for any age group, however it should be recognized that the risk is apparently non-zero. I for one will be getting mine as soon as it is available to me.
It would certainly appear that if we assume the risk of vaccination is relatively constant, (The risk actually appears to be greater for younger, <55 y/o people), then it makes a lot of sense to prioritize the older populations.
https://www.alberta.ca/stats/covid-19-alberta-statistics.htm... -- scroll to the bottom for age distributions.
Edit: FWIW, I don't particularly support delaying vaccination for any age group, however it should be recognized that the risk is apparently non-zero. I for one will be getting mine as soon as it is available to me.
Thanks. Agreed that vaccinating the elderly first is a reasonable strategy, though it would also be smart to hit the people that spread the most (the "hubs" in a graph of physical interactions).
I'm trying to go through the rough numbers of risk/reward: Consider the potentially affected group with the lowest COVID death rate - women 20-29 years old. If all get the AZ vaccine, ~10 per million would have a CVST , and 3 would die, using the German numbers, which are higher than other countries. [1] (double these numbers to assume the side effect only affects women, and doses have been evenly distributed. Double them again to assume that this side effect only affects <65 years old, and doses have been split between the elderly and younger medical workers [2]).
If the COVID IFR is for 20-29 year olds is 0.01% [3], that's 100 per million that would die if infected. Maybe the IFR is lower for women, and with some effective treatments (dexamethasone, early recombinant antibodies) becoming available, but maybe it will be ~50% higher with prevailing variants.
So this vaccine may kill 12 per million women but save 100 per million. But the 100 per million is an unfair comparison - presumably less than the entire population will be infected while waiting for a different vaccine. Assuming 1/4 of infections are detected, there are 1000 new infections per million in Germany each day. It would take 120 days to infect 12% of the population and kill as many with this side effect as would have been saved by the vaccine, so if it will be a delay of less than four months to switch vaccines for this group, stop giving AZ and wait for another vaccine!
Huh, I didn't really expect this result, and for older age groups, the crossover point will come much sooner. Germany has decided that it only makes sense to only for 60+ year-olds, and maybe that's the right call, but I really wish they would be transparent about the reasoning.
[1] https://www.pei.de/EN/newsroom/hp-news/2021/210319-covid-19-... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1195611/coronavirus-covi... [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33289900/
I'm trying to go through the rough numbers of risk/reward: Consider the potentially affected group with the lowest COVID death rate - women 20-29 years old. If all get the AZ vaccine, ~10 per million would have a CVST , and 3 would die, using the German numbers, which are higher than other countries. [1] (double these numbers to assume the side effect only affects women, and doses have been evenly distributed. Double them again to assume that this side effect only affects <65 years old, and doses have been split between the elderly and younger medical workers [2]).
If the COVID IFR is for 20-29 year olds is 0.01% [3], that's 100 per million that would die if infected. Maybe the IFR is lower for women, and with some effective treatments (dexamethasone, early recombinant antibodies) becoming available, but maybe it will be ~50% higher with prevailing variants.
So this vaccine may kill 12 per million women but save 100 per million. But the 100 per million is an unfair comparison - presumably less than the entire population will be infected while waiting for a different vaccine. Assuming 1/4 of infections are detected, there are 1000 new infections per million in Germany each day. It would take 120 days to infect 12% of the population and kill as many with this side effect as would have been saved by the vaccine, so if it will be a delay of less than four months to switch vaccines for this group, stop giving AZ and wait for another vaccine!
Huh, I didn't really expect this result, and for older age groups, the crossover point will come much sooner. Germany has decided that it only makes sense to only for 60+ year-olds, and maybe that's the right call, but I really wish they would be transparent about the reasoning.
[1] https://www.pei.de/EN/newsroom/hp-news/2021/210319-covid-19-... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1195611/coronavirus-covi... [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33289900/
I think the concern is that medical ethics say (roughly) you cannot give anyone a treatment which, based on odds, harms them.
If COVID rates in a country are low and the patient is young, then that patients personal risk from it is very low (low chance of catching it, low chance of harm if caught). If the vaccine has higher risks of harmful side effects, it would be unethical to administer it.
Medical ethics in general does not support harming one person to help another (eg. Giving one person a risky vaccine to help protect their grandmother who is vulnerable)
If COVID rates in a country are low and the patient is young, then that patients personal risk from it is very low (low chance of catching it, low chance of harm if caught). If the vaccine has higher risks of harmful side effects, it would be unethical to administer it.
Medical ethics in general does not support harming one person to help another (eg. Giving one person a risky vaccine to help protect their grandmother who is vulnerable)
Nonsense. There are risks with all interventions and the ethics are clear. There are known adverse affects to all immunizations ( no not autism ) and that the odds of it happening is low enough for any individual that it is considered that the general benefit to the community is higher than the cost to the rare poor sod who gets a bad roll of the dice. But that's just reality. No intervention is without risk and anybody telling you they have an intervention without risk is selling homeopathic water drops.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm
Maybe I misread your comment or the parent, but I don't think this has anything to do with what they said.
The comment I was replying to said.
> I think the concern is that medical ethics say (roughly) you cannot give anyone a treatment which, based on odds, harms them
This is clearly not true as we do medical interventions all the time that we know may harm the patient on the assumption that most people will gain a benefit. It's naive and dangerous to spread the idea that the good medical intervention is a 100 percent safe one. That's the pitch of the "alternative" medical industry and only possible for 100 percent ineffective medication.
There is no effect without side effects and no benefit without risk.
> I think the concern is that medical ethics say (roughly) you cannot give anyone a treatment which, based on odds, harms them
This is clearly not true as we do medical interventions all the time that we know may harm the patient on the assumption that most people will gain a benefit. It's naive and dangerous to spread the idea that the good medical intervention is a 100 percent safe one. That's the pitch of the "alternative" medical industry and only possible for 100 percent ineffective medication.
There is no effect without side effects and no benefit without risk.
What are these medical interventions we do with patients that provide them with outcomes that are statistically more unsafe than inaction?
While I am not qualified to answer the question, this question reminded me of the backstory of Jove Empire in EVE Online: https://eve.fandom.com/wiki/Jove_Empire#Jovian_Disease
I've seen numbers from germany that suggest across all vaccines manufactured the risk is roughly 1/8500 (~0.00011) for severe adverse events, while Ioannidis somewhat recently published a systematic review finding the global IFR roughly 0.0014 for covid - so it would seem the vaccine risk is about an order of magnitude lower than covid, but I do think it's a tough and important question to consider because many people are at much higher risk for covid (which mean others are much lower) and there are a great deal of asymptomatic people that may already have better immunity than these vaccines can provide.
Unfortunately I'm not expecting much calm rational debate on the nuances of getting the vaccine. This whole pandemic has felt like an emotional rollercoast void of logic.
(and please don't take my vaccine numbers as an authoritative risk assessment - there's a lot that goes into assessing such a number and I don't want to sound like I'm confident those numbers are correct)
Unfortunately I'm not expecting much calm rational debate on the nuances of getting the vaccine. This whole pandemic has felt like an emotional rollercoast void of logic.
(and please don't take my vaccine numbers as an authoritative risk assessment - there's a lot that goes into assessing such a number and I don't want to sound like I'm confident those numbers are correct)
> so it would seem the vaccine risk is about an order of magnitude lower than covid
If you get infected, or did you account for the risk of getting covid in the first place ?
And with all that COVID has easily identifiable risk factors that impact the probability of severe outcome by order of magnitude, do vaccine side effects have comparable risk predictors ?
So, from where I'm standing, if you're young, healthy and able to avoid high risk COVID areas you're much better off skipping vaccination till they figure out the risk factors or vaccinate enough higher risk groups that it's no longer an issue.
If you get infected, or did you account for the risk of getting covid in the first place ?
And with all that COVID has easily identifiable risk factors that impact the probability of severe outcome by order of magnitude, do vaccine side effects have comparable risk predictors ?
So, from where I'm standing, if you're young, healthy and able to avoid high risk COVID areas you're much better off skipping vaccination till they figure out the risk factors or vaccinate enough higher risk groups that it's no longer an issue.
I would advice to interpret the IFR reported by the Ioannidis paper with an extreme amount of caution. One of the authors criticized (which is quite an understatement) by Ioannidis went into a detailed rebuttal in [1]. A second thread [2] also gives a very detailed analysis of issues with the paper.
[1] https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1376304539897237508 [2] https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/137593538213983437...
[1] https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1376304539897237508 [2] https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/137593538213983437...
I'd personally be extremely cautious of a rebuttal in a twitter thread rather than a professional rebuttal which is how these sorts of things should be sorted out in the scientific world. A twitter thread to rebut a peer reviewed paper actually makes me sad that this is where scientists go during a period where we need their input more than any other time.
Also, fwiw I followed antibody testing studies for the better part of a year and anything over 0.004 IFR was rare. I was surprised to see it as low as 0.0014 from this review expecting close to 0.002-0.003 but 0.0068 is incredibly high.
Also, fwiw I followed antibody testing studies for the better part of a year and anything over 0.004 IFR was rare. I was surprised to see it as low as 0.0014 from this review expecting close to 0.002-0.003 but 0.0068 is incredibly high.
That's a valid, but still weird take to me. Academic publishing takes a very long time. Every paper I was involved in took many months from submission to eventual publishing (completely ignoring the time it takes to prepare a submission).
Ioannidis published something extremely controversial (if not even flawed) and one of the main authors he attacked responded with a lengthy explanation so that this manuscript would not remain unchallenged. I found that aspect way more important than the venue of response. Would you prefer to leave Ioannidis' work unchallenged for potentially months instead?
Ioannidis published something extremely controversial (if not even flawed) and one of the main authors he attacked responded with a lengthy explanation so that this manuscript would not remain unchallenged. I found that aspect way more important than the venue of response. Would you prefer to leave Ioannidis' work unchallenged for potentially months instead?
I've seen multiple published (not peer reviewed) rebuttals published in academic papers within a week or two during this pandemic. Not everything published needs to be peer reviewed before going before a wider audience - twitter simply isn't the platform for generating useful dialog - maybe for any context, but certainly not in an academic context.
edit: do you recall the paper that made waves in the U.S. claiming covid causes heart damage? That paper was published and editted prior to peer review based on criticism multiple times within a week or two IIRC - the appropriate way to handle conflict in science isn't by trying to get twitter to chime in and make things personal. Ioannidis "attacks" were unprofessional - in my mind, though, they were absolutely not on the level of trying to call out an author on twitter.
edit: do you recall the paper that made waves in the U.S. claiming covid causes heart damage? That paper was published and editted prior to peer review based on criticism multiple times within a week or two IIRC - the appropriate way to handle conflict in science isn't by trying to get twitter to chime in and make things personal. Ioannidis "attacks" were unprofessional - in my mind, though, they were absolutely not on the level of trying to call out an author on twitter.
I recommend the Meyerowitz-Katz and Merone survey of IFR [1] over Ioannidis. The tl;dr is an IFR estimate 0.68%. Consensus in the epidemiology community is that Ioannidis has become a politicized hack, consistently pushing lowball estimates.
Of course, your argument is still valid even with the lower estimate, I just think it becomes more complicated. Unfortunately, this case is quite a bit more complicated because COVID fatalities are heavily weighted to older ages, while this purported VIPIT is appearing largely in younger, otherwise healthy people.
[1]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v...
[2]: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-j...
Of course, your argument is still valid even with the lower estimate, I just think it becomes more complicated. Unfortunately, this case is quite a bit more complicated because COVID fatalities are heavily weighted to older ages, while this purported VIPIT is appearing largely in younger, otherwise healthy people.
[1]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089854v...
[2]: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-j...
Thank you. Very interesting read.
I have never understood some of the low IFR estimates.
If you look e.g. at numbers for New York State. They have had 50.905 covid related deaths (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/) and roughly 20.000.000 inhabitants.
That sets a pretty clear lower boundary on IFR of 0.0025.
And clearly not everyone in New York State has had covid.
picking one of the hardest hit areas in the world doesn't set a lower boundary on IFR.
> The tl;dr is an IFR estimate 0.68%
What's funny, not amusing is the Chinese said they thought the IFR was about 0.7% back in Feb 2020. Lots of people decided to not believe that for reasons. But here we are. And yet people still refuse. For 'reasons'
What's funny, not amusing is the Chinese said they thought the IFR was about 0.7% back in Feb 2020. Lots of people decided to not believe that for reasons. But here we are. And yet people still refuse. For 'reasons'
I've had the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine and had no side-effects at all. I did actually expect to, since I used to always react badly as a child to the flu vaccine we had at school.
Also, I've heard of friends and colleagues who felt pretty rough for a couple of days.
But one thing I don't hear enough of, is the comparison with all the long lists of potential side-effects stated on normal, over-the-counter medicines. Paracetamol, Aspirin etc.
Have you listened to the fast-talking voices at the end of medicine adverts, disclaiming a litany of possible side-effects? It's quite amazing. (Some disclaimers at the end of pharmaceutical ads on US TV particularly, have always shocked me.)
"Take this. It'll help your problem" (* warning: may cause ... )
Also, I've heard of friends and colleagues who felt pretty rough for a couple of days.
But one thing I don't hear enough of, is the comparison with all the long lists of potential side-effects stated on normal, over-the-counter medicines. Paracetamol, Aspirin etc.
Have you listened to the fast-talking voices at the end of medicine adverts, disclaiming a litany of possible side-effects? It's quite amazing. (Some disclaimers at the end of pharmaceutical ads on US TV particularly, have always shocked me.)
"Take this. It'll help your problem" (* warning: may cause ... )
This is reportedly a side-effect of FDA guidelines and how drug studies are conducted. FDA guidelines asked drug companies to list "all possible side effects", which meant that if a single study participant had a bad meal while taking the experimental drug, and suffered diarrhea as a result of the bad meal, then diarrhea became a possible side effect of taking the drug.
The FDA adjusted their guidelines in 2015 in response to this (https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-confusing-drug-ad...).
The FDA adjusted their guidelines in 2015 in response to this (https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-confusing-drug-ad...).
Vitamin D levels have been shown to be negatively correlated with the really bad effects of the Covid-19 disease. In one study, there was a stark difference between those who had less than 20 ng/mL serum levels, and those who had more. There are many studies which corroborate this, generally.
There was another study that showed that taking 5000 IU or 10000 IU would result in levels well below 210 ng/ml in average people, which is around the level where we'd expect side effects. This is not medical advice. I am not a doctor, just a random guy on the Internet. However, I take 5000 IU daily, and I intend to raise this to 10000 IU when I get vaccine doses. Again, this is not medical advice. Look up the studies yourself, and do your own research.
EDIT: negatively correlated
There was another study that showed that taking 5000 IU or 10000 IU would result in levels well below 210 ng/ml in average people, which is around the level where we'd expect side effects. This is not medical advice. I am not a doctor, just a random guy on the Internet. However, I take 5000 IU daily, and I intend to raise this to 10000 IU when I get vaccine doses. Again, this is not medical advice. Look up the studies yourself, and do your own research.
EDIT: negatively correlated
You mean this retracted one?
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/02/19/widely-shared-vitamin...
https://retractionwatch.com/2021/02/19/widely-shared-vitamin...
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/106/3/e1343/5934827
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.04.20188268v...
(Also, thanks. I didn't realize the one you cited as retracted, though there's some nuance there too.)
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.04.20188268v...
(Also, thanks. I didn't realize the one you cited as retracted, though there's some nuance there too.)
No, please! Have your blood checked for vitamin D levels, then ask a doctor what to do.
I am not a doctor. You are not a doctor. 'There was another study' is a terrible way to self-medicate. Consequently, 'look up the studies yourself' is bad advice for self-medication.
If you do not have a deficiency, you can severely damage your health by taking high doses, like destroying your kidneys. I guess that happens because those kidneys need to wash out all the crap you feed your body that it doesn't want nor need.
5000 IU is not a low dose and should only be taken if you have a diagnosed vitamin D deficiency.
I am not a doctor. You are not a doctor. 'There was another study' is a terrible way to self-medicate. Consequently, 'look up the studies yourself' is bad advice for self-medication.
If you do not have a deficiency, you can severely damage your health by taking high doses, like destroying your kidneys. I guess that happens because those kidneys need to wash out all the crap you feed your body that it doesn't want nor need.
5000 IU is not a low dose and should only be taken if you have a diagnosed vitamin D deficiency.
In the spirit of what I said in my 1st post, please take what the above commenter said into serious consideration!
I could ask my doctor friend again, but seems to me that Vitamin D is a marker for poor health where the chicken or the egg conundrum is heavily in play.
IIRC this was also brought up by Jonathan Van-Tam MBE, the UK Chief Medical Officer, a specialist in viral transmissions, antiviral drugs and pandemic preparedness.
[deleted]
Have the affected been taking precautionary medicine against clots, like the ones prescribed post covid?
It doesn't work like that alas - the AZ thrombosis is a pretty serious condition and the best theory we have right now suggests it can't be just treated with an aspirin.
Didn’t the numbers come out that the AZ thrombosis numbers were below average for the general population?
I believe it’s not a lot higher than for the population but it’s a lot higher than the expected risk is for the group that gets the side effects now: young women.
That, together with the fact that this group has minimal risk from the disease means it’s concerning. You don’t want to give someone a vaccine with risks of the same order as the disease.
Giving AZ to 60+ is still almost no concern even with this rate of adverse effects because they show a lower thrombosis risk and of course a massively higher risk of severe illness or death from the disease.
Countries with a mix of AZ and mRNA vaccines like many EU countries can probably use AZ for 60+ and since AZ underdelivers, the rest can take mRNA. Countries that have only or mostly AZ are in a more difficult situation.
That, together with the fact that this group has minimal risk from the disease means it’s concerning. You don’t want to give someone a vaccine with risks of the same order as the disease.
Giving AZ to 60+ is still almost no concern even with this rate of adverse effects because they show a lower thrombosis risk and of course a massively higher risk of severe illness or death from the disease.
Countries with a mix of AZ and mRNA vaccines like many EU countries can probably use AZ for 60+ and since AZ underdelivers, the rest can take mRNA. Countries that have only or mostly AZ are in a more difficult situation.
We're still in a very early part of this developing story, and it's hard to predict yet how things will turn out. Here are some of the main points:
- The recent development that might have spurred this sciencemag article is a proposed mechanism for the AZ vaccine to be causing blood clotting in some individuals. This was previously covered a couple of weeks ago. [1]
- The number of people who have suffered serious effects as a result of the AZ vaccine are still much lower than the number of people who could have suffered serious Covid symptoms in the same population. [1]
- However, the demographics don't line up perfectly. The blood clotting seems to be a greater risk for younger individuals, whereas serious Covid symptoms are more of a problem for older individuals, on average.
- It's entirely reasonable for people who are at low risk of Covid symptoms to have concerns at this point about taking the AZ vaccine.
- However, governments are facing the broader issue of stopping the pandemic as quickly as possible and reducing vaccine hesitancy, especially with the vast amounts of misinformation that have been washing through social media. For that reason, while research continues on this potential clotting issue, most governments have resumed AZ vaccinations [2].
- This is arguably not the most intersting AstraZeneca-related thing happening right now. They have also botched several other aspects of their vaccine development and roll-out [3] [4].
- Clotting issues have not been observed in the mRNA vaccines. Those vaccines use a different mechanism to trigger an immune response, and so far all of the indicators for these vaccines have been overwhelmingly positive. Almost one-third of Americans have received at least one dose of a vaccine so far and there are good reasons to be optimistic that the pandemic will soon start coming to an end for some of us.
- Vaccinating the rest of the world is still a large and very important problem. If we don't do that, then vaccine-resistant variants may develop in other countries. From that standpoint, the AZ vaccine, despite its flaws, is still better than no vaccine at all.
[1]: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...
[2] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/european-countries-r...
[3]: https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1374349620533411840?lang=e...
[4]: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2BR00Q
- The recent development that might have spurred this sciencemag article is a proposed mechanism for the AZ vaccine to be causing blood clotting in some individuals. This was previously covered a couple of weeks ago. [1]
- The number of people who have suffered serious effects as a result of the AZ vaccine are still much lower than the number of people who could have suffered serious Covid symptoms in the same population. [1]
- However, the demographics don't line up perfectly. The blood clotting seems to be a greater risk for younger individuals, whereas serious Covid symptoms are more of a problem for older individuals, on average.
- It's entirely reasonable for people who are at low risk of Covid symptoms to have concerns at this point about taking the AZ vaccine.
- However, governments are facing the broader issue of stopping the pandemic as quickly as possible and reducing vaccine hesitancy, especially with the vast amounts of misinformation that have been washing through social media. For that reason, while research continues on this potential clotting issue, most governments have resumed AZ vaccinations [2].
- This is arguably not the most intersting AstraZeneca-related thing happening right now. They have also botched several other aspects of their vaccine development and roll-out [3] [4].
- Clotting issues have not been observed in the mRNA vaccines. Those vaccines use a different mechanism to trigger an immune response, and so far all of the indicators for these vaccines have been overwhelmingly positive. Almost one-third of Americans have received at least one dose of a vaccine so far and there are good reasons to be optimistic that the pandemic will soon start coming to an end for some of us.
- Vaccinating the rest of the world is still a large and very important problem. If we don't do that, then vaccine-resistant variants may develop in other countries. From that standpoint, the AZ vaccine, despite its flaws, is still better than no vaccine at all.
[1]: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...
[2] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/european-countries-r...
[3]: https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/1374349620533411840?lang=e...
[4]: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2BR00Q
I would like to see:
* Estimates of death or serious complications of COVID, divided by age group.
* Estimates of death or serious complications of this vaccine, again by age group.
Then it should be easy for anyone to see that the benefits outweigh the risks (if they do!)
* Estimates of death or serious complications of COVID, divided by age group.
* Estimates of death or serious complications of this vaccine, again by age group.
Then it should be easy for anyone to see that the benefits outweigh the risks (if they do!)
Multiply the first one probability of getting infected with COVID.
I don't have the table but the conclusion of the relevant authorities in the EU is basically that the risk of the vaccine-induced mortality is at least comparable to the risk of COVID19-mortality for younger women under 60 specifically. Norway saw an incidence vaccine induced serious side effects of 1:25k in younger women. It's unclear if the gender bias is due to the bias in the vaccinated group of HC workers.
Your local version of the CDC should have lots of numbers. I just had a quick look (at the Danish health department) and the numbers of reported side effects (all, not just adverse side effects) are approx. 1/36 in Pfizer and moderna and 1/7 AstraZeneca. That's.... quite the difference. Note this doesn't look at which group gets which vaccine etc. but only the reported numbers!
We have to be careful when comparing the raw numbers. The AstraZeneca vaccine is a vector vaccine and part of it's expected mechanism of action is triggering an (unpleasant) immune response. I'm not sure where the official definition draws the line between side effect and just normal unpleasantness, but I've heard that most people experience symptoms like a mild flu, and pain at the injection site. OTOH I've heard anecdotically that the Pfizer/Biontech vaccine has much less reactions.
Anyway I think we should not lump the mild/expected side effects and the serious and life threatening ones together. Unfortunately it's quite difficult to find reliable numbers for probability of e.g. blood clots after vaccine compared to the general population.
As a physicist, I'd also like to see the probability in the general population, but this population reweighted to match the population that has been given the vaccine. (E.g. if 0.1% of the population are nurses and 2% of the vaccinated are, then multiply their frequency by 20). When I just see a number, I never know how much they take this kind of confounding factors into account.
Anyway I think we should not lump the mild/expected side effects and the serious and life threatening ones together. Unfortunately it's quite difficult to find reliable numbers for probability of e.g. blood clots after vaccine compared to the general population.
As a physicist, I'd also like to see the probability in the general population, but this population reweighted to match the population that has been given the vaccine. (E.g. if 0.1% of the population are nurses and 2% of the vaccinated are, then multiply their frequency by 20). When I just see a number, I never know how much they take this kind of confounding factors into account.
the title is clickbait. yes, there are side effects but there are a few orders of magnitude greater chances of the combo getting covid + dying than being affected by the vaccine and dying.
i am not saying we should not talk about them, but should we exercise caution with the way we formulate it. there are a lot of antivaxers out there and they don’t read beyond the title. if their number increases it will be bad for the entire society.
i am not saying we should not talk about them, but should we exercise caution with the way we formulate it. there are a lot of antivaxers out there and they don’t read beyond the title. if their number increases it will be bad for the entire society.
Every time an antivaxxer can point at science or a scientist and say “Look! They’re lying to you!” that’s a real loss of credibility it will take years to win back.
There might be problems with this one particular COVID-19 vaccine. Let’s not play that straight into the antivaxxers hands by being obviously dishonest about it.
If there’s causes for concern, we obviously need to investigate those concerns and be open about it.
There might be problems with this one particular COVID-19 vaccine. Let’s not play that straight into the antivaxxers hands by being obviously dishonest about it.
If there’s causes for concern, we obviously need to investigate those concerns and be open about it.
I don't think being apprehensive about these particular vaccines makes one an "anti-vaxxer". I know a few people who don't want them right now who are otherwise fully vaccinated.
Is that because they're well-informed on the topic and have reason to believe that these vaccines are especially dangerous, or is it that they usually don't know (and think) a lot about rare side-effects?
I wonder what the threshold is. You want people to make informed decisions, but you don't want them to panic about tiny risks, because otherwise you'll get a lot less vaccinations.
Anti-vaccination is reasonable if one says "any potential side effect means I won't take it". But that seems neither individually wise nor collectively desired, though we don't really talk about the individual's responsibility as a carrier/spreader of something like influenza. Maybe we will in the future, now that it has been on everyone's mind with Covid.
I wonder what the threshold is. You want people to make informed decisions, but you don't want them to panic about tiny risks, because otherwise you'll get a lot less vaccinations.
Anti-vaccination is reasonable if one says "any potential side effect means I won't take it". But that seems neither individually wise nor collectively desired, though we don't really talk about the individual's responsibility as a carrier/spreader of something like influenza. Maybe we will in the future, now that it has been on everyone's mind with Covid.
I can't speak for them but for me it boils down to my perception that I am not at significant risk of complications from having covid. The age-stratified data seemingly supports this view.
On the other hand, it's hard for me to quantify the risks of the vaccines. AFAIK the only trials were performed by the companies themselves who have less than stellar track records and have no liability exposure. And while mRNA technology has been around for some time, AIUI, it's never been used en masse for vaccination purposes and we aren't really sure what to expect on longer timescales. While I suspect it's probably fine, I don't currently assign a lot of trust to public health officials due to their behavior over the past year. They've reversed their opinions/prescriptions multiple times and have proven themselves to not be above mixing politics with their health advice. It's an unfortunate reality.
My plan is to wait and see how things progress and if we get more data about both the efficacy of the vaccines and possible side-effects from more objective channels.
On the other hand, it's hard for me to quantify the risks of the vaccines. AFAIK the only trials were performed by the companies themselves who have less than stellar track records and have no liability exposure. And while mRNA technology has been around for some time, AIUI, it's never been used en masse for vaccination purposes and we aren't really sure what to expect on longer timescales. While I suspect it's probably fine, I don't currently assign a lot of trust to public health officials due to their behavior over the past year. They've reversed their opinions/prescriptions multiple times and have proven themselves to not be above mixing politics with their health advice. It's an unfortunate reality.
My plan is to wait and see how things progress and if we get more data about both the efficacy of the vaccines and possible side-effects from more objective channels.
My odds of getting Covid-19 when I'm working from home and only "going out" to buy things by having them placed in my trunk is awfully low. Think it's still higher than my risks from this vaccine? I am not convinced.
I actually belive that, yes, because you and your entire family will not stay isolated for 24 hours per day.
> there are a lot of antivaxers out there and they don’t read beyond the title.
Is that what you meant to write?
Is that what you meant to write?
> “We do not have just one vaccine. We have several.”
I thought their problem was they didn't have access to vaccines over in Europe, not that they had a large stock to pick and choose from.
I thought their problem was they didn't have access to vaccines over in Europe, not that they had a large stock to pick and choose from.
Today? Yes.
Expected vaccine deliveries for Germany (pop. 80m):
Q1: Biontech 12.4m, Moderna 1.8m, AZ 5.7m
Q2: Biontech 40.2m, Moderna 6.4m, AZ 12.4-15.m, JJ: 10.1m, Curevac 1.4m
2021 (total): Biontech 100.7m, Moderna 78m, AZ: 56.3m, JJ: 36.7m, Curevac: 24.5m, Sanofi: 27.5
Source: https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/fileadmin/Dateie...
Expected vaccine deliveries for Germany (pop. 80m):
Q1: Biontech 12.4m, Moderna 1.8m, AZ 5.7m
Q2: Biontech 40.2m, Moderna 6.4m, AZ 12.4-15.m, JJ: 10.1m, Curevac 1.4m
2021 (total): Biontech 100.7m, Moderna 78m, AZ: 56.3m, JJ: 36.7m, Curevac: 24.5m, Sanofi: 27.5
Source: https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/fileadmin/Dateie...
I think in the first quarter, BioNTech/Pfizer delivered almost 2.5 to 3 times as many doses to the EU as AZ did. Temporarily not having AZ until it is clear how to proceed is bad but not a total disaster. Encountering problems with the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine would have been much, much worse. Moderna isn’t in widespread use here yet.
[deleted]
That was a temporary problem, they have started to arrive in big numbers this week. Hopefully it will keep increasing.
> That was a temporary problem
I guess it's a permanent problem if you're dead because of it.
I guess it's a permanent problem if you're dead because of it.
In Denmark the halt of the AstraZeneca will delay vaccinations by approximately two weeks.
That seems like a really long time to me. Did you post this comment thinking it sounds short?
We've been dealing with the pandemic for over a year (it was originally going to be a few weeks to "flatten the curve"). What's 2 more weeks?
> What's 2 more weeks?
A few thousand dead bodies at the current rate.
A few thousand dead bodies at the current rate.
Denmark has ~2500 deaths since the beginning of the pandemics. Your numbers are off.
Context is across the whole of Europe. Still a couple of thousand of people dying every week in Europe.
Yes your original reply was, but this specific childthread is talking about Denmark and how stopping the AZ vaccine pushes back their estimates by two weeks. This will likely cause preventable death in Denmark but those numbers are not in the thousands.
AZ is not suspended in all of Europe. Most countries continue to use it, some of them -- France and Germany among then -- limiting the vaccine to people beyond a certain age (France: 55, Germany: 60), who are at a greater risk from Covid and who are also the next large group to be vaccinated.
> limiting the vaccine to people beyond a certain age (France: 55
Wait - I thought France said AztraZeneca wasn't effective for people over 65? Are they just giving it to people 55-65 therefore? And shouldn't those people have already been vaccinated by now anyway?
Wait - I thought France said AztraZeneca wasn't effective for people over 65? Are they just giving it to people 55-65 therefore? And shouldn't those people have already been vaccinated by now anyway?
Presumably you're being intentionally obtuse, but whatever. France (and Germany) initially said the recommendation for those groups was pending additional data on efficacy in those age groups, which was lacking in the phase 3 trials. This data has since been submitted and the recommendation extended to elderly people.
> initially said the recommendation for those groups was pending additional data on efficacy in those age groups
Hang on that’s not not actually what the French said is it? They actually said there was data and that the data said it was ineffective.
Hang on that’s not not actually what the French said is it? They actually said there was data and that the data said it was ineffective.
"Last month France approved use of the vaccine for under-65s only, citing lack of data for older people."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56242617
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56242617
For what it is worth, I read it as a neutral statement: it is literally just the official estimate of the impact in terms of time.
All the mRNA vaccines being deployed in the U.S. appear to also have an increased risk:
https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/saved/D8/D137F981
I think it would be better to be honest about the risks, rather than hide them. Sure, less people may take the vaccine, but covid19 is an easily transmissible airborne illness (per the cdc and who). Given that, herd immunity is unlikely to be achieved and regular vaccines would be suggested (like the flu). Of course, that means we need to trust the vaccines... lying about risks isn’t a good start.
https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/saved/D8/D137F981
I think it would be better to be honest about the risks, rather than hide them. Sure, less people may take the vaccine, but covid19 is an easily transmissible airborne illness (per the cdc and who). Given that, herd immunity is unlikely to be achieved and regular vaccines would be suggested (like the flu). Of course, that means we need to trust the vaccines... lying about risks isn’t a good start.
Making a big deal about a one in a million risk isn’t helpful either (and borderline dishonest). Most people suck at dealing with small probabilities (otherwise lotteries would be out of business).
I'm not sure how to interpret the results that returns. Can anyone summarize?
Also, I have heard rumors that the only things recorded as adverse reactions to the vaccine are things that begin in the 15/30 minutes before the person leaves the vaccine facility. Can anyone confirm or refute that?
Also, I have heard rumors that the only things recorded as adverse reactions to the vaccine are things that begin in the 15/30 minutes before the person leaves the vaccine facility. Can anyone confirm or refute that?
We were already lied to at least about masks and required threshold for herd immunity. I feel like our public health officials have done serious damage to their credibility. Perhaps irreversibly so as far as many are concerned.
You were not lied to. The CDC and WHO originally said that masks were not needed. That advice was wrong. That doesn't mean the people giving that advice were being malicious. They just got it badly wrong and eventually they corrected it and changed their position.
A leader who can say they screwed up and then try and fix it is better than one who won't admit they are wrong and keeps to the wrong position just to save face. Bolsanaro in Brazil comes to mind.
A leader who can say they screwed up and then try and fix it is better than one who won't admit they are wrong and keeps to the wrong position just to save face. Bolsanaro in Brazil comes to mind.
> [someone] originally said that masks were not needed. That advice was wrong. That doesn't mean the people giving that advice were being malicious. They just got it badly wrong and eventually they corrected it and changed their position.
It shouldn't be that hard to not say things you can't support. Fauci should have told the truth, which is that however effective masks are they were in short supply and would do more good for doctors/etc.
At some point, being more concerned with controlling people than educating them is maliciousness. He wanted masks for doctors but was willing to give bad advice to citizens to make it happen.
We deserve honest scientists, not politicians, making policy.
It shouldn't be that hard to not say things you can't support. Fauci should have told the truth, which is that however effective masks are they were in short supply and would do more good for doctors/etc.
At some point, being more concerned with controlling people than educating them is maliciousness. He wanted masks for doctors but was willing to give bad advice to citizens to make it happen.
We deserve honest scientists, not politicians, making policy.
You are looking at this with hindsight. At the time they believed (wrongly) that masks were important to prevent yourself being infected and there was a shortage of N95 masks. Under that assumption it did not make sense for a healthy population to panic buy all the masks and leave the health care workers exposed. It was an incorrect decision based on incorrect science but not malicious.
Later on aerosole scientists made the correct analysis that the more important path was to prevent the small droplets from infected people spreading over shirt distances and then any old mask is better than none. Once this was realised the messaging changed.
Was it an error not to know this up front? Yes! Was it malicious? Unlikely. The malicious activity came from the trump administration who till the end kept ridiculing the scientists and telling its supporters all is fine just to win votes. Fauci and the CDC and the scientists are not the fall guy here.
Later on aerosole scientists made the correct analysis that the more important path was to prevent the small droplets from infected people spreading over shirt distances and then any old mask is better than none. Once this was realised the messaging changed.
Was it an error not to know this up front? Yes! Was it malicious? Unlikely. The malicious activity came from the trump administration who till the end kept ridiculing the scientists and telling its supporters all is fine just to win votes. Fauci and the CDC and the scientists are not the fall guy here.
> You are looking at this with hindsight.
I wasn't when I criticized it the day I heard it. It was obviously not right.
> Later on aerosole scientists made the correct analysis that the more important path was to prevent the small droplets from infected people spreading over shirt distances
(I quoted this just because I laughed at 'shirt distances' in this context.)
> Was it malicious? Unlikely.
Was using his authority to say something absolutely unproven and implausible malicious? Or just extremely obviously going to have negative consequences which he ignored?
> the trump administration [...] Fauci and the CDC and the scientists are not the fall guy here.
Fauci and the WHO both go out of their way to say things that they can't know. Sure, Trump is also awful, but that's not relevant to our "scientists" overstepping. At this point Fauci is a politician. Better than some, but still.
I wasn't when I criticized it the day I heard it. It was obviously not right.
> Later on aerosole scientists made the correct analysis that the more important path was to prevent the small droplets from infected people spreading over shirt distances
(I quoted this just because I laughed at 'shirt distances' in this context.)
> Was it malicious? Unlikely.
Was using his authority to say something absolutely unproven and implausible malicious? Or just extremely obviously going to have negative consequences which he ignored?
> the trump administration [...] Fauci and the CDC and the scientists are not the fall guy here.
Fauci and the WHO both go out of their way to say things that they can't know. Sure, Trump is also awful, but that's not relevant to our "scientists" overstepping. At this point Fauci is a politician. Better than some, but still.
You are missing the point. The CDC and WHO believed (incorrectly) that N95 masks did not provide any benefit to a healthy population when the number of infections were concentrated in healthcare facilities. You can't pick and choose only part of the message and claim maliciousness. The whole perspective is important.
I also was arguing with people on Facebook weeks before the CDC and who changed their position and I predicted masks would become mandatory. But that was my personal opinion and not proof that Fauci acted in bad faith. You and are I anecdotal data points with no responsibility to anybody . Nobody got it "right" but the scientists were at least putting the effort in the right direction instead of right wing politicians.
Typing on a mobile without my glasses so autocorrect will have its day!
I also was arguing with people on Facebook weeks before the CDC and who changed their position and I predicted masks would become mandatory. But that was my personal opinion and not proof that Fauci acted in bad faith. You and are I anecdotal data points with no responsibility to anybody . Nobody got it "right" but the scientists were at least putting the effort in the right direction instead of right wing politicians.
Typing on a mobile without my glasses so autocorrect will have its day!
> claim maliciousness.
To be fair, malicious was someone else's word. It's close enough I ran with it, but perfidy and incompetence might be better. We're trusting the guy to be a chief scientist and he's making political statements.
> You can't pick and choose only part of the message and
I'm not. I'm picking on the whole message as being something he could not have known and thus was damaging to claim.
> But that was my personal opinion and not proof that Fauci acted in bad faith.
His job is to not say unsupportable things so that we can base policy off of his words. What is it other than bad faith to conflate your politics and your job?
> You and are I anecdotal data points with no responsibility to anybody
Speak for yourself. I've got family.
> Nobody got it "right" but the scientists were at least putting the effort in the right direction instead of right wing politicians.
Nobody made him fight the lab leak hypothesis, etc. He's borrowing partisan fights. The WHO hasn't officially investigated so it can't know, and if it doesn't know, he doesn't know.
Also, just fyi, there's no such thing as right wing anymore. The term means royalist. Left means communist, which there sadly is no lack of. Perhaps breaking free of these antiquated labels will give some clarity.
To be fair, malicious was someone else's word. It's close enough I ran with it, but perfidy and incompetence might be better. We're trusting the guy to be a chief scientist and he's making political statements.
> You can't pick and choose only part of the message and
I'm not. I'm picking on the whole message as being something he could not have known and thus was damaging to claim.
> But that was my personal opinion and not proof that Fauci acted in bad faith.
His job is to not say unsupportable things so that we can base policy off of his words. What is it other than bad faith to conflate your politics and your job?
> You and are I anecdotal data points with no responsibility to anybody
Speak for yourself. I've got family.
> Nobody got it "right" but the scientists were at least putting the effort in the right direction instead of right wing politicians.
Nobody made him fight the lab leak hypothesis, etc. He's borrowing partisan fights. The WHO hasn't officially investigated so it can't know, and if it doesn't know, he doesn't know.
Also, just fyi, there's no such thing as right wing anymore. The term means royalist. Left means communist, which there sadly is no lack of. Perhaps breaking free of these antiquated labels will give some clarity.