Chinese "Devil Virus" - anyone worried?
- Thread starter manwithnoname
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Dantes will never think an issue cannot be explained with graphs.
Or it might be that the vaccines are shit and leave you in a worse position to deal with the newer strains
With mathematics. The graphs are just a way for you to interpret the mathematics a pair of variables at a time. The alternative way would destroy your brain.
I'm disappointed you didn't find a way to graph your reply.
What's the risk of dying from the blood clot?
I misquoted - you're twice as likely to die from a blood clot caused by the vaccine than die of covid.
A new modelling study published in the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control’s (ECDC) medical journal has concluded that the dangers presented to younger people by the AstraZeneca vaccine are greater than the benefits.
The study, published in the weekly edition of the Eurosurveillance journal, models four months of a vaccine distribution strategy in France involving Vaxzevria (commonly called AstraZeneca) from May 2021, and concludes that using the vaccine on the entire adult population there would avert 10 deaths from Covid among 18-39-year-olds, but would be associated with 21 deaths from blood clotting in the same age grouping over the same time period.
That wasn't a science update. That was a rosco update. I.e. you are regurgitating the twitter gloss that quoted the news gloss than glanced at a abstract than was part of a modelling study looking at one country at one point in time.
It was saying, this is what we think could happen in future, stretching from may, in France. I'm not saying it doesn't have any validity, but it's validity is conditional for that set of parameters, it in no way supports your innacurate statement.
But you don't give a shit if you go around spreading shit and misleading information about a vaccine during a pandemic. Bravo.
The lower the r0 at the starting point, the higher the risks would be. I.e. if you assume a totally unvaccinated world, the risk of taking the vaccine would be way lower relative to side effect, and if you assume that 99 percent of the world is vaccinated, guess what, that last person logically shouldn't take the vaccine if they are young and healthy.
Do you not see the issue with this? A vaccine isn't chiefly a personal prophylactic, it's a societal cure. The data could well indicate that each vaccine type has a better tolerated demographic, and when covid is a distant memory, we will have even better data on these correlations. But r0 as a starting point is fluid. I.e. any escaping variant would change this risk calculation. So would them starting modeling as rates were increasing rapidly. Remind me why r0 for the disease is reducing in countries? Oh, remarkably effective vaccines.
Your entitled to your own unscientific opinion, that runs contrary to what the professionals are advising.
You're entitled to spread misleading information without context. It just makes you part of the problem.
Its not misleading. Its just facts.
Its clear you don't like facts that run counter to the position you adopted long ago, so just stay in your little ignorant bubble and pretend everything is fine.
Australia hasn’t been allowing anyone under 60 to get the AZ vaccine - which is great up to the bit about not buying enough Pfizer or other vaccines.
I think you can get the AZ if you’re under 60 and promise not to sue anyone if you die.
I think you can get the AZ if you’re under 60 and promise not to sue anyone if you die.
Yeah, I have a long held and incredible narrow world view when it comes to studies of french death rates projected from may and covid-19.
I was just raised this way. My dad beat all my covid 19 beliefs into me as a young boy.
Those idiots fell for the misinformation too.
Like all of the European countries that have done the same
To be fair - I wouldn’t have gotten jabbed if I wasn’t certain I was getting the Pfizer.
I even discussed it with my GP - and her advice was - it’s better to wait longer and get Pfizer than get AZ if you can.
Mind you... they could have injected me with water for all I know.
I did the same and once it became clear AZ wasn't being used in my age group I went ahead and got my Pfizer jabs.
Although - again, despite our love of a lockdown, Australia is closing the borders and not allowing it in.
They’re (the government - not sure if it state or federal - I have little interest in Australian politics) building a COVID concentration camp or whatever they’re calling it in the suburb I live in - sure that’ll do wonder for the value of the new house.
I mean, we lockdown if we get double figures of new infections in a population thecsize of Ireland - so if it was a rampant in the community as some European countries- then yeah... I’d probably be more inclined to risk the AZ.
Should a 30 year old take the AstraZeneca vaccine? This is a scientific question, it's not even that hard, it's a yes or no question. I would say if this was my area of research, and it took me more than six weeks to answer it, I'd be utterly and completely ashamed of myself, at what a complete failure and fuck up I'd made of such simple stuff. It'd be like you not being able to answer 5 + 32 inside a second. It's been six months. All the scientists have done is take some data and plot it on a graph. Here look, look at my graph, pay me. Uh sure, but should a 30 year old take it or not? Don't know, hard to say, future work, sorry. Pay me.
You're all being scammed worse than a care home resident on the phone to a nigerian prince. Then you proceed to worship these scientists who are scamming the living fuck out of you, costing you your lives in many cases. When will you take up arms and kill them? That's the question I'd like an answer to.
You're all being scammed worse than a care home resident on the phone to a nigerian prince. Then you proceed to worship these scientists who are scamming the living fuck out of you, costing you your lives in many cases. When will you take up arms and kill them? That's the question I'd like an answer to.
Not being arsey, genuine question - the "double the risk of dying from a blood clot", is that based on you developing a blood clot as a result of the vaccine? What I mean is:
I've had both vaccines btw and it was AZ. I did see some reports that there was a greater number of AZ vaccines given to the North than the South, which is a whole other kettle of fish, if true obvs.
- is it double the chance of developing a blood clot and dying, than dying of Covid
- or double the chance of dying of a blood clot if you develop one, than dying of Covid
I've had both vaccines btw and it was AZ. I did see some reports that there was a greater number of AZ vaccines given to the North than the South, which is a whole other kettle of fish, if true obvs.
That’s interesting.
Wonder how they worked that out?
Currently according to gov stats, there have been around 650~ covid deaths in 19-39 age group since week 27.
Are they only counting since 19-39 have been eligible for the jab or something.
I wasn't offering an opinion on the az vaccine or the findings of the study, which you would know if you read my post. I was offering an opinion about the study that you were misrepresenting, which you would know, it you had read the study.
Anyone who can pick a vaccine is in a very privileged position. I took Pfizer and would have been dubious about az, if it were available. If it was the only vaccine available though, I would have taken it, because the study you are misquoting wouldn't have the same findings, in March. Or in another country, or at a lower existing uptake. Etc. If you told everyone vaccines caused blood clots 100%, and no one took them, the risk factors of taking them according to that model would actually decrease, relative to covid morbidity, because community spread would increase with fewer vaccinated.
It is the total risk of dying from a blood clot. Not the conditional risk of dying from a blood given you have the blood clot. However, the data they use will contain some artefacts of the unwanted conditional risk because of various biases and sampling restrictions, none of which they could care less about as long as they get paid.
[article]
For each Vaxzevria distribution strategy, we computed (i) the number of admissions to an intensive care unit (ICU) and deaths averted in the different age groups compared with a scenario where Vaxzevria is no longer distributed and (ii) the expected number of ICU admissions and deaths from TTS based on risks estimated by the EMA (Supplementary Table S1) [12]. The latter assessment was performed assuming that 100% of TTS cases will be admitted to the ICU and 30% will die [13,14].
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.26.2100533
[/article]
TTS is the acronym for blood clot. The assumption in bold they make, with zero fucks, they just throw it out there, make that assumption, and then do a whole bunch of taxpayer funded research based off it. Do you think that assumption is correct? Lol my fucking balls is it correct. So it's a bunch of bullshit. But they're scientists so it's apparently not bullshit, because magic. Science magic. Fuck me.
There are a lot of articles out stating that AZ is more likely to give young people a clot than COVID is to kill them. Both are very unlikely but it was previously restricted to older and more vulnerable people for a reason. COVID is not dangerous to the vast majority of young people. I think young people should be encouraged to get MRNA vaccine for the greater good essentially but I don't think young people should have to get AZ now which is slightly riskier to protect the tiny minority of vaccinated old people who may still end up getting seriously ill from COVID. I suppose the good thing in Ireland is it's now opt in for AZ or wait for Pfizer if you are 18-34.
It says 21 people will die from blood clots as a result of the AZ vaccine, whereas the vaccine will save 10 lives.
Last edited: