30 blood clot cases attributed to AZ vaccine in the UK. Out of 18 million doses given. No reports yet of clots associated with the Pfizer.
Been here before. Out of that number of vaccinations 30 would represent normally expected prevalence of thromboembolic events.
That is why I put the number of doses. However, it is impossible to say yet that these cases were not a direct result of the vaccine, no matter how much you or I might wish otherwise.
But as it’s been said, there is no importance or significance in that statistic. None.
Unless you or a loved one are one of those involved in the statistics.
Nope. That's the same thinking that got people worked up when that imbecile Wakefield - aided and abetted ably by the media - deliberately falsified results that linked autism to vaccines (indelibly, in the case of some people), and set scientific progress against diseases like measles back by decades.
Statistics are statistics. They don't care about your feelings - and you shouldn't care about your feelings when looking at them, either. The term 'not statistically significant' indicates precisely that there is nothing worry about, as the number of incidences is exactly the same as it would be if there were no vaccine.
Thanks for telling me how I should or shouldn’t feel, Not saying vaccine shouldn’t be administered just saying some people are heartless in this situation.
How is anyone being “heartless” ? The incidence of thromboembolic events is the same in the vaccinated and non vaccinated population. That’s a fact. I’m really not sure what you don’t understand.
30 blood clot cases attributed to AZ vaccine in the UK. Out of 18 million doses given. No reports yet of clots associated with the Pfizer.
Been here before. Out of that number of vaccinations 30 would represent normally expected prevalence of thromboembolic events.
That is why I put the number of doses. However, it is impossible to say yet that these cases were not a direct result of the vaccine, no matter how much you or I might wish otherwise.
But as it’s been said, there is no importance or significance in that statistic. None.
Unless you or a loved one are one of those involved in the statistics.
Nope. That's the same thinking that got people worked up when that imbecile Wakefield - aided and abetted ably by the media - deliberately falsified results that linked autism to vaccines (indelibly, in the case of some people), and set scientific progress against diseases like measles back by decades.
Statistics are statistics. They don't care about your feelings - and you shouldn't care about your feelings when looking at them, either. The term 'not statistically significant' indicates precisely that there is nothing worry about, as the number of incidences is exactly the same as it would be if there were no vaccine.
Thanks for telling me how I should or shouldn’t feel, Not saying vaccine shouldn’t be administered just saying some people are heartless in this situation.
How is anyone being “heartless” ? The incidence of thromboembolic events is the same in the vaccinated and non vaccinated population. That’s a fact. I’m really not sure what you don’t understand.
That moment u get a text from NHS and open it thinking its a n early appointment for 2nd jab..... annnnd its matt hancock telling you to stick to the rules and protect the nhs 🙈😂
30 blood clot cases attributed to AZ vaccine in the UK. Out of 18 million doses given. No reports yet of clots associated with the Pfizer.
Been here before. Out of that number of vaccinations 30 would represent normally expected prevalence of thromboembolic events.
That is why I put the number of doses. However, it is impossible to say yet that these cases were not a direct result of the vaccine, no matter how much you or I might wish otherwise.
But as it’s been said, there is no importance or significance in that statistic. None.
Unless you or a loved one are one of those involved in the statistics.
Nope. That's the same thinking that got people worked up when that imbecile Wakefield - aided and abetted ably by the media - deliberately falsified results that linked autism to vaccines (indelibly, in the case of some people), and set scientific progress against diseases like measles back by decades.
Statistics are statistics. They don't care about your feelings - and you shouldn't care about your feelings when looking at them, either. The term 'not statistically significant' indicates precisely that there is nothing worry about, as the number of incidences is exactly the same as it would be if there were no vaccine.
I am awaiting my second AZ jab and will have it without a moment's hesitation because I understand the extreme remoteness of the likelihood of any side effect. What I don't understand is your lack of interest in the topic. "Not statistically significant", doesn't, it seems to me, negate some interesting features about this.
From the BBC News website:
"Investigations are under way to determine if the AstraZeneca vaccine is causing the very rare blood clots. Earlier this week the European Medicines Agency said it was "not proven, but is possible"
Two issues are raising suspicions. The first is the unusual nature of the clots which, including low levels of platelets and rare antibodies in the blood that have been linked to other clotting disorders.
"This raises the possibility that the vaccine could be a causal factor in these rare and unusual cases of CVST, though we don't know this yet, so more research is urgently needed," said Prof David Werring, from the UCL Institute of Neurology.
The other issue is the difference between the Oxford-AstraZeneca and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
There have been two cases of CVSTs after Pfizer in the UK, out of more than 10 million vaccinated, but these did not have the low platelet levels.
However, there remains uncertainty around how common these clots normally are. Estimates range from two cases per million people every year to nearly 16 in every million in normal times and the coronavirus has been linked to abnormal clotting, which may be making these clots more common.
Germany has reported 31 CVSTs and nine deaths out of the 2.7 million people vaccinated there, with most cases in young or middle-aged women.
Similar data on who has been affected in the UK has not been published in the UK, but a wider mix of people are thought to have been affected."
If Prof David Werring can't yet dismiss the possibility of a link, I'm not quite sure why you can dismiss as "a fallacious argument" my earlier suggestion that we don't know for sure that these particular "unusual" clots are not caused by the vaccine. There are a number of interesting features about what is happening including that it seems to be more prevalent in younger women, for example.
30 blood clot cases attributed to AZ vaccine in the UK. Out of 18 million doses given. No reports yet of clots associated with the Pfizer.
Been here before. Out of that number of vaccinations 30 would represent normally expected prevalence of thromboembolic events.
That is why I put the number of doses. However, it is impossible to say yet that these cases were not a direct result of the vaccine, no matter how much you or I might wish otherwise.
But as it’s been said, there is no importance or significance in that statistic. None.
Unless you or a loved one are one of those involved in the statistics.
Nope. That's the same thinking that got people worked up when that imbecile Wakefield - aided and abetted ably by the media - deliberately falsified results that linked autism to vaccines (indelibly, in the case of some people), and set scientific progress against diseases like measles back by decades.
Statistics are statistics. They don't care about your feelings - and you shouldn't care about your feelings when looking at them, either. The term 'not statistically significant' indicates precisely that there is nothing worry about, as the number of incidences is exactly the same as it would be if there were no vaccine.
I am awaiting my second AZ jab and will have it without a moment's hesitation because I understand the extreme remoteness of the likelihood of any side effect. What I don't understand is your lack of interest in the topic. "Not statistically significant", doesn't, it seems to me, negate some interesting features about this.
From the BBC News website:
"Investigations are under way to determine if the AstraZeneca vaccine is causing the very rare blood clots. Earlier this week the European Medicines Agency said it was "not proven, but is possible"
Two issues are raising suspicions. The first is the unusual nature of the clots which, including low levels of platelets and rare antibodies in the blood that have been linked to other clotting disorders.
"This raises the possibility that the vaccine could be a causal factor in these rare and unusual cases of CVST, though we don't know this yet, so more research is urgently needed," said Prof David Werring, from the UCL Institute of Neurology.
The other issue is the difference between the Oxford-AstraZeneca and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
There have been two cases of CVSTs after Pfizer in the UK, out of more than 10 million vaccinated, but these did not have the low platelet levels.
However, there remains uncertainty around how common these clots normally are. Estimates range from two cases per million people every year to nearly 16 in every million in normal times and the coronavirus has been linked to abnormal clotting, which may be making these clots more common.
Germany has reported 31 CVSTs and nine deaths out of the 2.7 million people vaccinated there, with most cases in young or middle-aged women.
Similar data on who has been affected in the UK has not been published in the UK, but a wider mix of people are thought to have been affected."
If Prof David Werring can't yet dismiss the possibility of a link, I'm not quite sure why you can dismiss as "a fallacious argument" my earlier suggestion that we don't know for sure that these particular "unusual" clots are not caused by the vaccine. There are a number of interesting features about what is happening including that it seems to be more prevalent in younger women, for example.
Nothing. Absolutely nothing can be dismissed as a possible side effect. However it still is statistically not significant. You won’t find any research that claims that a link to anything is not possible. The problem I have is that during a pandemic it is not very helpful for the media to keep pushing a scaremongering agenda in order to sell their rags. Is it possible that there is a link between vaccine and thromboembolic events ? Yes it is. Should we be worried about the numbers in the greater scheme of things. Absolutely not. More people will die as a consequence of this nonsense being a reason to not either take or give the vaccine than any that die from rare thromboembolic events.
Stats show that about 1 in 2.5m people could die from blood clotting after having the AZ vacinne. If 2.5m people over 65 caught covid then the rate of death would be in the region of 50000. If 2.5m people under 45 caught covid then the death rate would be in the region of 2500. A risk worth taking.
I'd much rather take my chances with the vaccine than getting Covid.
Me too, or dying from the extremely rare possibility of getting a rare brain thrombus.
As I have stated above on a number of occasions, me too. I don't understand your "for god's sake look at this with some perspective". How am I not looking at it with perspective?
Yes, I did read The Lancet report and was struck by "We are, however, aware that although a substantial fraction of the thromboembolisms seem to be venous, reports are emerging of rare types of multiple thrombosis, bleeding, and thrombocytopenia, apparently similar to disseminated intravascular coagulation, occurring in otherwise healthy individuals shortly after receiving the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.
13 These outcomes are not included in the present analysis."
30 blood clot cases attributed to AZ vaccine in the UK. Out of 18 million doses given. No reports yet of clots associated with the Pfizer.
Been here before. Out of that number of vaccinations 30 would represent normally expected prevalence of thromboembolic events.
That is why I put the number of doses. However, it is impossible to say yet that these cases were not a direct result of the vaccine, no matter how much you or I might wish otherwise.
But as it’s been said, there is no importance or significance in that statistic. None.
Unless you or a loved one are one of those involved in the statistics.
Nope. That's the same thinking that got people worked up when that imbecile Wakefield - aided and abetted ably by the media - deliberately falsified results that linked autism to vaccines (indelibly, in the case of some people), and set scientific progress against diseases like measles back by decades.
Statistics are statistics. They don't care about your feelings - and you shouldn't care about your feelings when looking at them, either. The term 'not statistically significant' indicates precisely that there is nothing worry about, as the number of incidences is exactly the same as it would be if there were no vaccine.
Thanks for telling me how I should or shouldn’t feel, Not saying vaccine shouldn’t be administered just saying some people are heartless in this situation.
How is anyone being “heartless” ? The incidence of thromboembolic events is the same in the vaccinated and non vaccinated population. That’s a fact. I’m really not sure what you don’t understand.
I can understand your attitude.
Very grown up.
Says the man who kept lolling his very well constructed posts that explained exactly what statistical significance meant. What did you think was going to happen? Would he keep banging his head against a wall trying to explain reality to someone with seemingly no interest in learning or would he finally give up and post a graphic representation of how your childish lolling made him feel?
Anything like this must be investigated and see if any causal link can be teased out the data. It appears more in young or middle aged women according to the report above. Worth seeing if they have anything else in common (contraceptive perhaps?). Different drugs can can different effects on different patient groups, maybe suggest a different vaccine for those groups, if a causal effect is shown. At the moment it just seems like statistical noise.
Yes, I did read The Lancet report and was struck by "We are, however, aware that although a substantial fraction of the thromboembolisms seem to be venous, reports are emerging of rare types of multiple thrombosis, bleeding, and thrombocytopenia, apparently similar to disseminated intravascular coagulation, occurring in otherwise healthy individuals shortly after receiving the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.
13 These outcomes are not included in the present analysis."
Did you read that section @s@ShootersHillGuru? And if so, what did you make of it? The presence of unusual events seems to marry up with the section of BBC News that I posted above. Straightforward DVTs and Pulmonary Embolisms found in some post- Vaccine recipients might well be statistically insignificant and fit the pattern of normal expectation but rare types might be more significant, no? Even if the risk is still well worth getting vaccinated versus getting Covid.
2nd Pfizer jab completed at Dartford football club, great service in and complete in 20 mins including 15 minute wait, you really got to admire the organisation.
Yes, I did read The Lancet report and was struck by "We are, however, aware that although a substantial fraction of the thromboembolisms seem to be venous, reports are emerging of rare types of multiple thrombosis, bleeding, and thrombocytopenia, apparently similar to disseminated intravascular coagulation, occurring in otherwise healthy individuals shortly after receiving the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.
13 These outcomes are not included in the present analysis."
Did you read that section @s@ShootersHillGuru? And if so, what did you make of it? The presence of unusual events seems to marry up with the section of BBC News that I posted above. Straightforward DVTs and Pulmonary Embolisms found in some post- Vaccine recipients might well be statistically insignificant and fit the pattern of normal expectation but rare types might be more significant, no? Even if the risk is still well worth getting vaccinated versus getting Covid.
I think it’s obvious to say that there are going to be reported effects that require research and for any reported side effect that is the due process whether it’s statistically rare cranial thromboembolic events or muscle aches. That’s how the process for any medication works. I think where we are at crossed purposes is that even if it’s proven that there is a spike in an already very rare type of thrombus caused by a vaccine then unless the numbers are truly cause for concern then it’s right and proper that a vaccine that will save thousands of lives and prevent serious illness and prevent transmission in the middle of a pandemic must continue to be used and although it’s been said before, even some reported deaths as a consequence of vaccination will be far outweighed by the hundred of thousands of lives saved. That’s always the trade off in medicine. A cost / benefit analysis.
Yes, I did read The Lancet report and was struck by "We are, however, aware that although a substantial fraction of the thromboembolisms seem to be venous, reports are emerging of rare types of multiple thrombosis, bleeding, and thrombocytopenia, apparently similar to disseminated intravascular coagulation, occurring in otherwise healthy individuals shortly after receiving the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.
13 These outcomes are not included in the present analysis."
Did you read that section @s@ShootersHillGuru? And if so, what did you make of it? The presence of unusual events seems to marry up with the section of BBC News that I posted above. Straightforward DVTs and Pulmonary Embolisms found in some post- Vaccine recipients might well be statistically insignificant and fit the pattern of normal expectation but rare types might be more significant, no? Even if the risk is still well worth getting vaccinated versus getting Covid.
I think it’s obvious to say that there are going to be reported effects that require research and for any reported side effect that is the due process whether it’s statistically rare cranial thromboembolic events or muscle aches. That’s how the process for any medication works. I think where we are at crossed purposes is that even if it’s proven that there is a spike in an already very rare type of thrombus caused by a vaccine then unless the numbers are truly cause for concern then it’s right and proper that a vaccine that will save thousands of lives and prevent serious illness and prevent transmission in the middle of a pandemic must continue to be used and although it’s been said before, even some reported deaths as a consequence of vaccination will be far outweighed by the hundred of thousands of lives saved. That’s always the trade off in medicine. A cost / benefit analysis.
I don't think we are at cross-purposes at all. I have never dismissed the possibility of side effects with any medicine, nor have I ever denied the rarity of the events in the case of the AZ vaccine nor the fact that any current risks are far outweighed by the benefits. I am merely interested in any developments in the pandemic and our responses to it with vaccines, which I think are a magnificent achievement. I just think you have misinterpreted my interest and curiosity and questioning as a sign of someone who is a vaccine sceptic and incapable of understanding statistics and you have consequently been rather dismissive.
Wife and myself had the Oxford AZ first dose in Eltham this afternoon. All very well organised. Feeling OK so far. Just a small prick according to the wife.
Wife and myself had the Oxford AZ first dose in Eltham this afternoon. All very well organised. Feeling OK so far. Just a small prick according to the wife.
Comments
I am awaiting my second AZ jab and will have it without a moment's hesitation because I understand the extreme remoteness of the likelihood of any side effect. What I don't understand is your lack of interest in the topic. "Not statistically significant", doesn't, it seems to me, negate some interesting features about this.
From the BBC News website:
"Investigations are under way to determine if the AstraZeneca vaccine is causing the very rare blood clots. Earlier this week the European Medicines Agency said it was "not proven, but is possible"
Two issues are raising suspicions. The first is the unusual nature of the clots which, including low levels of platelets and rare antibodies in the blood that have been linked to other clotting disorders.
"This raises the possibility that the vaccine could be a causal factor in these rare and unusual cases of CVST, though we don't know this yet, so more research is urgently needed," said Prof David Werring, from the UCL Institute of Neurology.
The other issue is the difference between the Oxford-AstraZeneca and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
There have been two cases of CVSTs after Pfizer in the UK, out of more than 10 million vaccinated, but these did not have the low platelet levels.
However, there remains uncertainty around how common these clots normally are. Estimates range from two cases per million people every year to nearly 16 in every million in normal times and the coronavirus has been linked to abnormal clotting, which may be making these clots more common.
Germany has reported 31 CVSTs and nine deaths out of the 2.7 million people vaccinated there, with most cases in young or middle-aged women.
Similar data on who has been affected in the UK has not been published in the UK, but a wider mix of people are thought to have been affected."
If Prof David Werring can't yet dismiss the possibility of a link, I'm not quite sure why you can dismiss as "a fallacious argument" my earlier suggestion that we don't know for sure that these particular "unusual" clots are not caused by the vaccine. There are a number of interesting features about what is happening including that it seems to be more prevalent in younger women, for example.
Says the man who kept lolling his very well constructed posts that explained exactly what statistical significance meant. What did you think was going to happen? Would he keep banging his head against a wall trying to explain reality to someone with seemingly no interest in learning or would he finally give up and post a graphic representation of how your childish lolling made him feel?
More than 5m people have had second dose
More than five million people have received both doses of a Covid-19 vaccine in the UK, the latest figures show.
There were 107,402 first doses given on Good Friday, taking the total number of people who have received one jab to 31,425,682.
Nearly 250,000 second jabs were given, taking the number of people who have received both vaccinations to 5,205,505.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-56623314
Just a small prick according to the wife.