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.
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.
That's a fallacious argument. There are literally thousands of potential side effects. You might as well say that because one person who died of flesh eating streptococcus after taking the vaccine, you can't rule out the vaccine as having caused it - despite that number being absolutely average for the number of incidences in the general population. There is no increase in the statistical average rate of these blood clots since the vaccines started. The increase in number is entirely in line with the normal increase since vaccines began. The increase is what's known as 'not statistically significant'
I ask my questions in a spirit of enquiry. I have had the AZ vaccine so I am interested in the figures. What do you make of the fact that no blood clots have been reported to be associated with the Pfizer vaccine? Is that not statistically significant either?
I ask my questions in a spirit of enquiry. I have had the AZ vaccine so I am interested in the figures. What do you make of the fact that no blood clots have been reported to be associated with the Pfizer vaccine? Is that not statistically significant either?
I ask my questions in a spirit of enquiry. I have had the AZ vaccine so I am interested in the figures. What do you make of the fact that no blood clots have been reported to be associated with the Pfizer vaccine? Is that not statistically significant either?
That can't be right can it? The types of blood clot being reported seem to be particularly affecting young woman.
It seems that somewhere between 3 to 9 woman in 10,000 are at risk each year. By those odds alone, some women who have been given the Pfizer vaccine must have had blood clots. Pfizer cannot be getting 0% - that makes no sense.
Presumably you could argue that taking some form of anti-coagulant like aspirin would cut the risk when you have the vaccine. But then you increase the risk of getting a stroke caused by a burst blood vessel stroke. So....
I ask my questions in a spirit of enquiry. I have had the AZ vaccine so I am interested in the figures. What do you make of the fact that no blood clots have been reported to be associated with the Pfizer vaccine? Is that not statistically significant either?
That can't be right can it? The types of blood clot being reported seem to be particularly affecting young woman.
It seems that somewhere between 3 to 9 woman in 10,000 are at risk each year. By those odds alone, some women who have been given the Pfizer vaccine must have had blood clots. Pfizer cannot be getting 0% - that makes no sense.
Presumably you could argue that taking some form of anti-coagulant like aspirin would cut the risk when you have the vaccine. But then you increase the risk of getting a stroke caused by a burst blood vessel stroke. So....
As posted above, slightly MORE people have had blood clots after taking Pfizer than AZ. But both are still within the realms of 'normal' incidence, and are not statistically significant
This from the BBC news site: "Meanwhile, the MHRA said there had been no reports of blood clots following use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
As of 21 March, an estimated 10.8 million first doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech jab had been administered in the UK, the regulator said. It added that around 2.2 million second doses, mostly the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, had been administered.
Is it wrong to feel excited about getting your 2nd jab (Pfizer) today and hoping that dome normality will return soon? Brilliant effort by all that’s taking part in the vaccination efforts.
Is it wrong to feel excited about getting your 2nd jab (Pfizer) today and hoping that dome normality will return soon? Brilliant effort by all that’s taking part in the vaccination efforts.
I'm not so much excited as relieved to get it done. I'm off to my early morning 2nd jab in Swanley shortly.
Is it wrong to feel excited about getting your 2nd jab (Pfizer) today and hoping that dome normality will return soon? Brilliant effort by all that’s taking part in the vaccination efforts.
I'm not so much excited as relieved to get it done. I'm off to my early morning 2nd jab in Swanley shortly.
Ribably a better way of describing it, I blame the early posting time
Is it wrong to feel excited about getting your 2nd jab (Pfizer) today and hoping that dome normality will return soon? Brilliant effort by all that’s taking part in the vaccination efforts.
I'm not so much excited as relieved to get it done. I'm off to my early morning 2nd jab in Swanley shortly.
That's it. All done. Only a short queue. I had no reaction to the 1st Pfizer jab. Let's see what the 2nd jab does.
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.
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.
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.
Is it wrong to feel excited about getting your 2nd jab (Pfizer) today and hoping that dome normality will return soon? Brilliant effort by all that’s taking part in the vaccination efforts.
No, every 1st and 2nd vaccine jab is a major win for us all pop the champagne.
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.
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.
It's not about being heartless, it's about being objective. It's precisely that mindset that allows you to examine the statistics and conclude that there is nothing to worry about. Nobody is saying that people dying of something completely unrelated to the vaccine isn't a tragedy. It's the 'completely unrelated to the vaccine' part that needs to be focused on.
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.
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.
Comments
Correlation does not equal causation.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9366963/Coronavirus-Pfizers-Covid-vaccine-linked-blood-clots-AstraZenecas-UK.html
Apologies for the reprehensible link to the Daily Mail and the EU bashing contained in it 😬
Now, it also seems that the birth control pill increases a woman's chance of suffering from blood clots by about 3 or 4 times. https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/risk-of-blood-clots/106257/
It seems that somewhere between 3 to 9 woman in 10,000 are at risk each year. By those odds alone, some women who have been given the Pfizer vaccine must have had blood clots. Pfizer cannot be getting 0% - that makes no sense.
Presumably you could argue that taking some form of anti-coagulant like aspirin would cut the risk when you have the vaccine. But then you increase the risk of getting a stroke caused by a burst blood vessel stroke. So....
This from the BBC news site: "Meanwhile, the MHRA said there had been no reports of blood clots following use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
As of 21 March, an estimated 10.8 million first doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech jab had been administered in the UK, the regulator said. It added that around 2.2 million second doses, mostly the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, had been administered.
Oh absolutely, me too. But it doesn't stop me being interested in what's going on.
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.