It wasn't, by the way. I actually googled "trail data". lol

There was a website about national parks. — frank

Oops! My apologies for my sloppy spell-checking in that case.

It's ok.

Thanks, I'll edit the post

The people who have died from the syndrome so far probably would have done well with a COVID19 infection. They were young, healthy women.

You're basically saying you're fine with those women sacrificing their lives without even knowing they were taking that risk. — frank

Well I think one would need to look at it from a population perspective, if you took 80 people of that demographic, 40 contracted covid naturally and 40 vaccinated - from the data now you would expect there to be more thrombotic complications in the COVID group than the vaccinated group. The clotting prevalence is low in non-ICU admitted COVID adults, ~5% for clotting events in veins and ~1% for clotting events in arteries. But this is still significantly higher than the prevalence we are talking about for these VIPIT events. There may be increased risk, but the prevalence is still very low and not higher than one would expect from natural COVID infection.

So far, so good. I like my chances of holding out until the end of 2021 without succumbing. — 180 Proof

Sure, go for it if that's your decision; you have good odds for not getting severe form of infection. I appreciate your masking and distancing.

I like my chances of holding out until the end of 2021 without succumbing. — 180 Proof

Despite sharing many of your health considerations, and there being no local cases, I had the AstraZeneca yesterday. I was simply not willing to increase risk to those around me.

I find your approach puzzling.

Well I think one would need to look at it from a population perspective, if you took 80 people of that demographic, 40 contracted covid naturally and 40 vaccinated - from the data now you would expect there to be more thrombotic complications in the COVID group than the vaccinated group. — aporiap

So you're saying these women were more likely to die of this weird syndrome without the vaccine than with.

I don't have the figures in front of me, but I don't believe that. Why do you believe it?

We fear death, the medical industry offers us a way to postpone it, we fear rejecting them. — Isaac

Which would be a rational fear. There have been numerous cases reported in America of individuals who have spurned medical advice or refused vaccination re COVID and have died as a consequence.

I was saying they’d have more risk of clotting generally, not specifically VIPIT. I mean there are low platelet clotting conditions associated with natural covid infection, eg. most cases of disseminated intravascular coagulation. I don’t have stats in front of me for that

I mean there are low platelet clotting conditions associated with natural covid infection, e — aporiap

I've seen a lot of COVID patients throw clots into the lungs, heart, and brain. I've never seen one do that with thrombocytopenia.

In fact I've never seen a case of prothrombic thrombocytopenia. Have you?

I've seen a lot of COVID patients throw clots into the lungs, heart, and brain. I've never seen one do that with thrombocytopenia.

In fact I've never seen a case of prothrombic thrombocytopenia. Have you? — frank

Yes those are more common, but systemic coagulopathy involving lower platelets is associated with COVID. The coagulopathic state most associated with COVID is very similar to DIC but characterized by milder thrombocytopenia and elevated D-Dimer and Fibrinogen. D-dimer is a breakdown product of clots, fibrinogen is a component of clots. You can read more about it here: https://www.hematology.org/covid-19/covid-19-and-coagulopathy

I think it's pretty clear that the patients who died from the vaccine didn't go into a DIC-like state. If your point is that COVID19 is related to coagulation issues of a different etiology, then, yes, sure.

I'll leave it at this:. for some reason you're making an assumption about the safety of the AZ vaccine that is truly not supported by data. Your approach to this issue is of a kind that undermines the confidence we'd like to see in the population.

— frank

I'll leave it at this:. for some reason you're making an assumption about the safety of the AZ vaccine that is truly not supported by data. Your approach to this issue is of a kind that undermines the confidence we'd like to see in the population.

I've just been going by EMA's conclusions thus far after their review of evidence obtained on over 11 million AZ vaccinations in the EU. They conclude benefits of vaccination still outweigh risk considering this and other metrics they utilize in determining public health recommendations; the last public statement was the 31st. These recommendations are made on best available evidence, and so far are still standing. They are still investigating the causal link between vaccinations and these events, but as mentioned before because the prevalence of these thrombotic events is so low, it is unlikely to change their recommendation.

:up: I have a feeling the prevalence numbers will rise now that we know about the link. AZ is probably re-analyzing their data with the link in mind.

Going forward, they could at least explain who is at greatest risk for this kind of reaction and how to identify the signs of it so people who have it will go ahead and get life-saving treatment.

EMA's new statement. They hit at your worries and explain who seems to be at risk - women under 60. As previously, the prevalence is extremely low and according to evidence, benefits still outweigh the risk.

"UK authorities also concluded the benefits outweighed the risks in most age groups, but presented data that showed the benefits to people under 30 only slightly outweighed the risks in scenarios where exposure to the virus is limited."
--. CNN

The UK is advising people under 30 to use a different vaccine. Plus they're making sure everyone knows the signs of this syndrome

I'm going with the UK over the EMU over this.

^I agree on this, AZ is also not as effective as some of the other vaccines.

I agree on this, AZ is also not as effective as some of the other vaccines. — aporiap

They're having to make a really tough decision in a short amount of time with limited data. If 1/million people die from this vaccine (which happens to be the risk associated with the small pox vaccine), then we know that when we vaccinate 300 million people, 300 will die. In the midst of rising death tolls from a pandemic, that makes sense. As soon as the pandemic ends, though, we'll have to stop the AZ vaccine and reassess. It might still be safe for people over 60, but not under.

I think the AZ vaccine is effective enough at reducing the risk if severe illness or death. That's what's important. Whether it actually limits the spread of the disease is still unknown.

I live alone. Don't eat out at restaurants, go to shops; I walk alone through large empty parks early in the morning. Double masked whenever I leave my apartment. I'm being as careful and responsible as I can be (while I wait for an FDA Approved vaccine), much more so than many vaccinated folks walking around without masks, not distancing, etc and who are spreading the virus in bars, restaurants, gyms, music festivals, house parties, etc. If the Pfizer vaccine is Approved in September as the FDA press releases now forecast, then I'll be fully vaccinated within the next 60 days or so. I was infected over four months ago (still have lingering symptoms) and probably some lingering antibody protection. Yeah, the Delta variant scars me, especially I living here in the southeastern US (Atlanta, Georgia) where the rate of hospitalizations, especially among children and teens, has been spiking in the last six weeks. I'm confident, given the tradeoffs, I've made a fairly responsible decision. :mask:

I am surprised to hear that you are waiting. The FDA will approve the vaccine. At this point it is a matter of bureaucracy rather than safety or efficacy, which have been amply demonstrated.

I've made a fairly responsible decision — 180 Proof

You've chosen masks over the vaccine, which probably wasn't the best choice. The science on the effectiveness of masking isn't great, especially with the variations in types of masks and the consistency of compliance. The science of the vaccine is very strong, and there is no good reason not to get vaccinated other than general distrust of government. I think it's good to be skeptical of government sometimes, just not this time. In fact, in this instance, it's a maladaptive protective instinct that was forged under very different circumstances.

Whether it makes sense to have waited for the FDA seal of approval can be debated, but since it's right around the corner it's not worth the debate. Whether you vaccinate because of the science, the FDA, or whatever, doing the right thing is the right thing, regardless of reason. It's the right for any reason standard.

The FDA will approve the vaccine. At this point it is a matter of bureaucracy rather than safety or efficacy...
— Fooloso4

Why would you think that?

You've chosen masks over the vaccine, which probably wasn't the best choice. — Hanover

We have two ways of stopping this virus: One is hygienic measures — face masks, social distancing, handwashing — and the other is the vaccine... if you had to pick which is the stronger of the two, I would go with hygienic measures. — Dr Paul Offit CDC Advisory Committe on Immunization Practices

So do you have a source for your assertion with more authority that the CDC's own advisor on immunization?

I think it's good to be skeptical of government sometimes, just not this time. — Hanover

Why not? What is it about this time that gives the government a free pass?

The Delta is a different situation. We're headed into another surge just because it's so transmissable. As somebody mentioned, we're noticing younger people with no medical history dying from it, so get vaccinated or get covid and roll the dice. That's the choice.

Why would you think that? — Isaac

Because it has been shown to be safe and effective.

Because it has been shown to be safe and effective. — Fooloso4

That doesn't make sense. It's not a binomial. There's a threshold of proof that a EUA requires and a higher threshold that full approval requires. If the work done to meet the lower threshold wasn't just bureaucracy, then I don't see the justification for saying that the additional work of exactly the same form to meet the higher threshold is 'just bureaucracy'.

The role of the FDA is to verify that products are safe and effective. There is ample evidence that the vaccine is safe and effective. They are still required to do a thorough review of the data, but if there are problems serious enough to prevent approval they would have become evident by now. See what happened with emergency approval of hydroxychloroquine and a coronavirus antibodies test. An EUA may be issued without the clinical trials necessary for approval, but the millions of vaccines already given is far more than what is given in any clinical trial, far more than is necessary for approval.

There is ample evidence that the vaccine is safe and effective. — Fooloso4

Then what are the FDA looking for when they...

do a thorough review of the data — Fooloso4

...? Are the FDA just wasting time and money looking through data which cannot yield any useful information. Why do you think they would do that?

the millions of vaccines already given is far more than what is given in any clinical trial — Fooloso4

Clinical trials don't just hand out the product and then stand back and wait to see if anyone calls them.

Edit - also, you've not yet addressed the main point.

There is ample evidence that the vaccine is safe and effective. — Fooloso4

'Safe and effective' is not a binomial status. Nothing is without risk. The vaccine is safe enough and effective enough for the purposes to which it is put. That threshold, for emergencies, is lower than for general use.

Why not? What is it about this time that gives the government a free pass? — Isaac

It's not a free pass. It's all the available evidence that has been published by any source, with no source suggesting otherwise. https://time.com/5942076/proof-covid-19-vaccines-work/ Unless we buy into a vast conspiracy, involving every medical journal, every major research university, every nation on the planet, and various independent research organizations, we have to conclude the vaccine works. There is no study to say otherwise, just general cynicism towards governments and pharmaceutical companies that cause people to make invalid objections.

You can sit on the fence of neutrality and calmly say that each side has the right to their opinion and we shouldn't be so critical of those not in our camp, but you're wrong, just plain wrong. The vaccine works and fear of it is irrational. You can go on and on and about this having to do with there being two sides to every issue, but I don't live in a post-truth world. The truth is what is and there's nothing particularly woke about embracing everyone's views, regardless of how poorly informed they are.

Whether we need to cater to irrationality to maintain harmony is a political question, but not a scientific one. The vaccine works. Stop suggesting otherwise. You do no one any good to spread falsity.

The FDA will approve the vaccine. At this point it is a matter of bureaucracy rather than safety or efficacy...
— Fooloso4

Why would you think that? — Isaac

It was reported in the NY Times approval is expected by September. https://news.yahoo.com/fda-expected-approve-pfizer-biontechs-000907206.html

It's all the available evidence that has been published by any source, with no source suggesting otherwise. https://time.com/5942076/proof-covid-19-vaccines-work/ Unless we buy into a vast conspiracy, involving every medical journal, every major research university, every nation on the planet, and various independent research organizations, we have to conclude the vaccine works. — Hanover

Again, you've not answered the question of what you mean by 'works'. What does a vaccine need to do to 'work'? Answer that question, and then see if every institution in the world agrees. Then take that answer and see if it applies equally to every person in the world.

It was reported in the NY Times approval is expected by September. — Hanover

It's not the optimism I was questioning. It was the relegation of important investigations by dedicated scientists to 'bureaucracy'.