Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Options

Vaccine

1434446484995

Comments

  • Options
    Nadou said:
    Nadou said:
    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.
    Help me dear Lord
    To keep if I can
    A piece of the heart
    Of the boy in the man.
  • Options
    I'm basically waiting for the vaccine so I can make the 'little prick' joke. I'm gutted seeing 20 other people on here make it so far and not to have had the chance yet myself.... 

    You could say you had a big prick.
    But that would be a lie. A dirty great lie. 
  • Options
    I'm basically waiting for the vaccine so I can make the 'little prick' joke. I'm gutted seeing 20 other people on here make it so far and not to have had the chance yet myself.... 
    20.....more like 120!
  • Options
    Nadou said:
    I'd give up if I were you SHG, there's only so many ways and times that you can explain.
    Can you explain what I have not understood?
    No.
    I see. So it was just an arrogant, condescending barb rather than a real point. 
  • Options
    It seems to me that @Nadou brings up points when fresh news about the vaccine(s) emerges on a daily basis. Not the same things, but stuff related to the developing and ever changing news releases about the vaccines.
    One earlier example about news related to the vaccine(s) was the original information that said a second dose should happen within four weeks of the first, that was added to by later stories saying for Astra Zenica it is OK to have the second dose as late as twelve weeks after the first, then more news emerged saying that actually the longer time between injections the better.
    As the information changes, the type of enquiry from posters on here changes slightly along with it, I can't for the life of me understand what's wrong with that, or why a poster should be put down for it.
  • Options
    seth plum said:
    It seems to me that @Nadou brings up points when fresh news about the vaccine(s) emerges on a daily basis. Not the same things, but stuff related to the developing and ever changing news releases about the vaccines.
    One earlier example about news related to the vaccine(s) was the original information that said a second dose should happen within four weeks of the first, that was added to by later stories saying for Astra Zenica it is OK to have the second dose as late as twelve weeks after the first, then more news emerged saying that actually the longer time between injections the better.
    As the information changes, the type of enquiry from posters on here changes slightly along with it, I can't for the life of me understand what's wrong with that, or why a poster should be put down for it.
    This may well be true, but has no relevance to this discussion.
    If you read the thread Nadou has been asking about blood clots for the last couple of days.
    It's nothing to do with waiting times between 1st and 2nd doses.
  • Options
    edited April 2021
    Nadou said:
    Nadou said:
    I'd give up if I were you SHG, there's only so many ways and times that you can explain.
    Can you explain what I have not understood?
    No.
    I see. So it was just an arrogant, condescending barb rather than a real point. 
    How do you expect me to explain what you have not understood?

    You have been asking the same question/similar question repeatedly for the last couple of days.

    You have had the answers that all vaccines may have side effects and it is possible that there is a side effect of blood clots.
    However, the people responding to your repeated questions have offered their opinion, that the odd blood clot case is preferable to thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people getting Covid.
    So statistically the blood clot cases are not significant.
    You appear to accept this and then repeat the question again.

    So no I'm terribly sorry but I don't see how I can explain what you have not understood, because I can't understand what you haven't understood and why you continue to ask the same people the same questions for days on end.

    I now expect you to ask the same question again.
    I’m led to believe that even if you have been jabbed you can still get the Covid virus but the vaccine reduces the chances quite considerably of it killing you or requiring hospitalisation. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    seth plum said:
    It seems to me that @Nadou brings up points when fresh news about the vaccine(s) emerges on a daily basis. Not the same things, but stuff related to the developing and ever changing news releases about the vaccines.
    One earlier example about news related to the vaccine(s) was the original information that said a second dose should happen within four weeks of the first, that was added to by later stories saying for Astra Zenica it is OK to have the second dose as late as twelve weeks after the first, then more news emerged saying that actually the longer time between injections the better.
    As the information changes, the type of enquiry from posters on here changes slightly along with it, I can't for the life of me understand what's wrong with that, or why a poster should be put down for it.
    This may well be true, but has no relevance to this discussion.
    If you read the thread Nadou has been asking about blood clots for the last couple of days.
    It's nothing to do with waiting times between 1st and 2nd doses.
    I know it has been about blood clots, but the blood clot story has ebbed and flowed and changed in the news over the last few days. My point is there is legitimacy in a post that is in tune with the developing story, as the vaccine story has developed in the past. I don't see any justification in putting a poster down for being interested in the latest developments.
  • Options
    Solidgone said:
    Nadou said:
    Nadou said:
    I'd give up if I were you SHG, there's only so many ways and times that you can explain.
    Can you explain what I have not understood?
    No.
    I see. So it was just an arrogant, condescending barb rather than a real point. 
    How do you expect me to explain what you have not understood?

    You have been asking the same question/similar question repeatedly for the last couple of days.

    You have had the answers that all vaccines may have side effects and it is possible that there is a side effect of blood clots.
    However, the people responding to your repeated questions have offered their opinion, that the odd blood clot case is preferable to thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people getting Covid.
    So statistically the blood clot cases are not significant.
    You appear to accept this and then repeat the question again.

    So no I'm terribly sorry but I don't see how I can explain what you have not understood, because I can't understand what you haven't understood and why you continue to ask the same people the same questions for days on end.

    I now expect you to ask the same question again.
    I’m led to believe that even if you have been jabbed you can still get the Covid virus but the vaccine reduces the chances quite considerably of it killing you or requiring hospitalisation. 
    Correct.
  • Options
    I am not referring only to data, but to the developing stories and interest in the blood clot topic.
    This story is from 31st March:

    https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-review-very-rare-cases-unusual-blood-clots-continues

    This story is from yesterday:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/covid-coronavirus-astrazeneca-blood-clots-b927606.html

    This story is from today:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56620646

    From memory there have been other stories from different European countries in recent days too.

    Personally I believe any risks are far outweighed by the benefits of the vaccine(s), but the blood clot story, notwithstanding specific data, is still a live and current one, and a poster alluding to the issue seems to be perfectly reasonable.
  • Options
    seth plum said:
    I am not referring only to data, but to the developing stories and interest in the blood clot topic.
    This story is from 31st March:

    https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-review-very-rare-cases-unusual-blood-clots-continues

    This story is from yesterday:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/covid-coronavirus-astrazeneca-blood-clots-b927606.html

    This story is from today:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56620646

    From memory there have been other stories from different European countries in recent days too.

    Personally I believe any risks are far outweighed by the benefits of the vaccine(s), but the blood clot story, notwithstanding specific data, is still a live and current one, and a poster alluding to the issue seems to be perfectly reasonable.
    Seth. It’s the same story being regurgitated. There is no new data. No new research published. It’s what news outlets do.
  • Options
    Preliminary data out of the US also showing that the vaccine dramatically reduces the chances of transmitting COVID.

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/04/cdc-data-suggests-vaccinated-dont-carry-cant-spread-virus.html

    Not a huge shock really given the collapse of cases in the UK, the US and Israel.
    Interesting. If I have it right, you can still get it, but not pass it on as you will not be ill?

  • Options
    Redrobo said:
    Preliminary data out of the US also showing that the vaccine dramatically reduces the chances of transmitting COVID.

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/04/cdc-data-suggests-vaccinated-dont-carry-cant-spread-virus.html

    Not a huge shock really given the collapse of cases in the UK, the US and Israel.
    Interesting. If I have it right, you can still get it, but not pass it on as you will not be ill?

    I think the data shows you can still get the virus, still get ill, still die and still pass it on... But the virus significantly and dramatically reduces the probability of any of those things happening. No vaccine is 100% effective, and rather depends on lots.of factors such as when the vaccine was taken and an individual's immune responsd
  • Options
    edited April 2021
    Redrobo said:
    Preliminary data out of the US also showing that the vaccine dramatically reduces the chances of transmitting COVID.

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/04/cdc-data-suggests-vaccinated-dont-carry-cant-spread-virus.html

    Not a huge shock really given the collapse of cases in the UK, the US and Israel.
    Interesting. If I have it right, you can still get it, but not pass it on as you will not be ill?

    Nothing can stop you catching a virus. It’s from that moment of infection, just how your immune system deals with the antigen. That will range from A to Z depending on the host. For clarity. Even pre vaccine some individuals would become infected and not show symptoms but still be perfectly able to spread the disease. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    And it's all gone AZ over there
    It's all gone AZ over there
  • Options
    Redrobo said:
    Preliminary data out of the US also showing that the vaccine dramatically reduces the chances of transmitting COVID.

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/04/cdc-data-suggests-vaccinated-dont-carry-cant-spread-virus.html

    Not a huge shock really given the collapse of cases in the UK, the US and Israel.
    Interesting. If I have it right, you can still get it, but not pass it on as you will not be ill?

    Nothing can stop you catching a virus. It’s from that moment of infection, just how your immune system deals with the antigen. That will range from A to Z depending on the host. For clarity. Even pre vaccine some individuals would become infected and not show symptoms but still be perfectly able to spread the disease. 
    To reinforce that last point, my partner has to have physiotherapy every week. A few months back, her physio got infected. He contacted her to cancel her appointment and recommended she get tested. We both did a test, and were both positive. Neither of us showed any symptoms at any time from infection until the end of our quarantine. 
  • Options
    edited April 2021
    Channel 4 News reporting that UK Regulator is looking again at whether Oxford AZ should be given to under 30 year olds (particularly females). Announcement explected in next few days.

    Bit concerning.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-astrazenec-idUSKBN2BS1QE
  • Options
    edited April 2021
    Little concerned as an under 30 that's due their second dose at the end of the month , but on the other hand it's reassuring that it's being looked at.

    If they do make the decision that there's enough of a concern , where would that leave me as someone in the CEV category?
  • Options
    Chaz Hill said:
    Channel 4 News reporting that UK Regulator is looking again at whether Oxford AZ should be given to under 30 year olds (particularly females). Announcement explected in next few days.

    Bit concerning.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-astrazenec-idUSKBN2BS1QE
    They're looking into it as they should look into all reported side effects. 

    I'd be concerned if they weren't looking into it.

    No bad can come of this. If there is even the slightest risk then it won't be given to that group and they will get a different one. If there isn't a risk then all good. 

    To make it clear the only reason there is doubt about the under 30s is because so few have been given the vaccine outside testing. There is no doubt/concern for the over 30s because we have a massive sample.
    I'm sure you are right and with plenty of alternatives becoming available it shouldn't be a problem to switch to something else for this age group. The single shot one (can't remember the name) might be better anyway to speed up the vacinaction process as a whole.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!