Forum menu
Brexit thread giving me the same problem
TheotherJonV: thanks
And yeah “massive backtracking”!? No – just scientific method… 🙄
No, I meant backtracking by the people on here who have been so aggressive in accusing any doubters of being selfish conspiracy theorists but are now thinking maybe they or their family would rather not have the AZ vaccine themselves now that it might not be as safe as the science showed.
And this isn’t an “I told you so” so much as a big “**** you” to those who had a go on this and other threads, right through from “show us the evidence for your common sense or shut up” to “shut up troll” and “your wife is a dumb ****”.
Brexit thread giving me the same problem
I've reported a couple of others too. Basically, the page numbering is wrong.
Ed, I think plenty of people gave the weapons inspectors credit, such is why the anti war protest at the time of Tony's 'adventure' was iirc the largest of all time. Tbh having traveled and worked in much of Europe over the last 20 years I'm happy to accept information from foreign sources but it's a shame you so infrequently post links. In God we trust. Everyone else brings data. 😉
Just out of interest, and forgive me asking a personal question, but did Madame make use of oral contraceptive earlier on in life?
Chrispo, see my comment above about data. If you've got it, show it.
I think the media have again let themselves and us down on this. They've jumped on the European's concerns gladly almost but have failed to represent the numbers adequately and compared these to the risks we have routinely taken for years. This is the science in action. Learn from the data and adjust your course of action where you're able to and appropriate.
Anyone younger than 50 but older than 30 shouldn't over egg it IMO. This isn't just about the here and now. This jab is building your immunity for next year and the year after etc.
What the numbers really illustrate is how exceedingly low the risk of dying from covid is if you are under 30 so when balancing too exceedingly unlikely events, taking the vaccine comes off slightly worse. This balance changes markedly as you get older.
Another useful perspective is that taking the contraceptive pill has a far higher blood clotting risk than the AZ vaccine, albeit not a risk faced by many on here.
I’m teetering, at 38 I’m unsure whether I’d ask for a vaccine other than Az or just accept it.
Sky news have a really good comparison scenarios on their website. Basically your about 1000 time more likely to get a blot clot if you get on a plane. Media reporting has just blown this so far out of proportion that under the circumstances it’s scary the way it’ll put people off. A chance of a blot clot is less than 1 in 200,000 taking AZ if you’re in your 40’s, 1 in 2000 if your on the pill, 1 in 1000 being on a plane
The holiday you’re waiting for has a lot more chance of killing you via a blood clot than the AZ vaccine does but will increase your chance of dying from c19 exponentially.
What the numbers really illustrate is how exceedingly low the risk of dying from covid is if you are under 30 so when balancing too exceedingly unlikely events, taking the vaccine comes off slightly worse.
That's true. But the threat is not limited to your death; it's someone else's, or your long term illness, or someone else's long term illness.......and the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of the vaccine still. Just not as much as they were, or quite so favourable compared to other vaccines.
Yes, your scepticism seems to have had justification, albeit it's nowhere near as cut and dried as now calling AZ as unsafe. I still disagree that it's the common sense position to reject the AZ, the evidence is still overwhelmingly in favour of the vaccine, just not as much as it was. And as Del says, you got the right answer but still haven't really shown your working out (or explained why your ex-wife should be such a trusted source), so I'm still not 100% sure it wasn't 'a guess', and there's still a bit of me that wonders if you weren't taking that position just for the argument.
But yes - by whatever means you got to the conclusion, you were right, the AZ was not as safe as was initially thought.
That’s true. But the threat is not limited to your death; it’s someone else’s, or your long term illness, or someone else’s long term illness
The good for society doesn't come into an individual medical decision.
That's Dr J's question answered.
Edit: in response to jonv:
I'd take issue with that. 24 million in the UK have had az and there have been 79 serious adverse effects. Az was/is as safe for the majority of the target audience as we thought. We were right to roll it out at speed. We act on new information though. We're fortunate enough to have options and we're exercising them though in many respects we're being over cautious but we have alternatives we can target at different age groups - brilliant! What was the alternative? A year ago we didn't even know if we'd have one vaccine that would be even 50% effective. Here we are about 4 months after various vaccine have received approval and over half the population have received a very good level of protection already - it's a triumph!
Another useful perspective is that taking the contraceptive pill has a far higher blood clotting risk than the AZ vaccine, albeit not a risk faced by many on here.
in 2000 if your on the pill
3000000 women on the pill in UK, so 15000 blood clots a year or lifetime risk?
BETA: A private place for our full members to chat.
Erm.. anyone else getting this on the main forum page...?
Yes I just had that too.
Is that lifetime risk or every time someone takes the pill?
I didn't put a number on it, but the Sky number quoted is per annum.
Add me in for the AZ complication lottery, had scan on Monday along with raft of blood tests and inflammatory marker tests. Seems like my headaches/weird right eye twitches/hellish joint pain and being laid up in bed for a week with soul destroying lethargy were more than likely caused by the AZ vaccine playing havoc with my immune system, it’s kinda complicated as I also have spms which can cause similar issues but the scan showed showed irregularities close to a bit of my brain that’s been previously rendered “mush” by ms lesions - it looked like the usual black blob of dead brain matter that I’ve seen before in scans but the consultant pointed out a new area of concern...bugger. The inflammatory markers in my blood are all raised quite significantly especially cpr and whilst my platelet count is down at under 200,000 it’s not of great concern at moment, I’ll get weekly blood tests to make sure it is on the rise.
Oh well........... got a bollocking for not raising my health issues immediately after receiving the vaccine back in mid February (I’m 48 btw) so that’s me suitably chastised as it was actually quite serious, we talked of iv steroids to quell my immune system back down but I’ve had enough of them previously and decided that as I’m slowly getting over it then weekly check ups will do for the time being.
At least I no longer need a 2nd vaccine shot as my over eager immune system has been churning out COVID antibodies like they’re going out of fashion, I’ve got loads to spare (apparently) so I’ll list bundles of them of the classifieds (joke btw.....they’re mine......all mine my precious.)
well done for keeping the humour going. sounds like a shitter mate. trite as it sounds i hope you're on the mend as far as you can be soon.
balancing too exceedingly unlikely events, taking the vaccine comes off slightly worse.
The stats are still very much in favour for the az vaccine tbf. 1 in a million odds of dying with a clot apparently. 30 year olds may have minimal risk of covid but I'd be staggered if it's 1 in a million.
As for chrispo blethering on about how he was right all along etc etc. No you weren't.. the odds are miniscule, in Fact I had assumed from the outset they'd be far higher than they are. Media are blowing this massively out of proportion.
I would happily have the az vaccine. My issue is I think it's absolutely wrong that they have said only certain age groups will get an option. Should be same rules for everyone.
we're not in disagreement - I still think the AZ is very safe, even with the new numbers; it's marginally not as very safe as previously thought. And as there are alternatives, then we should use them where appropriate / to most effect to make it even safer.
It has been a fantastic science response, I'm not criticising that at all. Nor am I criticising the new info, amend the approach response. That's how progress really gets made, not by blindly sticking to a plan just because it's the plan.
agreed jon
I’d be staggered if it’s 1 in a million.
It has been when known that the risk is tiny, but Van Tam's slide showed a slightly higher risk for the vaccine so be staggered.
Should be same rules for everyone.
No it shouldn't because the risk profile is completely different - risks of clots goes down as you get older, risk of covid death goes up.
As DrJ posed earlier, if risk in children is even higher for clots, more so than their risk from serious covid, then what point do regulators decide wider benefit to society of them being vaccinated justifies its use?
Not a decision id want to take, but then I have young kids, so ill worry
And sou ds tough for you somafunk, hope you're feeling better soon
Ah I’m fine, really I am. On the mend and quite chirpy as I can now function pretty much without help 80% of the time which is a vast improvement over 6 weeks previous when I was an immobile lump of useless fat & gristle, I can still wipe my own arse.
Van Tam’s slide showed a slightly higher risk for the vaccine so be staggered.
Van Tam's slide was ICU admittance rather than death - both around one in 100,000
As DrJ posed earlier, if risk in children is even higher for clots, more so than their risk from serious covid, then what point do regulators decide wider benefit to society of them being vaccinated justifies its use?
They have decided wrt az. Trials will continue. It's not just about benefits to society either, but children don't remain children, they'll need protection in later life too.
And protection gained via vaccine rather than exposure is protection gained without an opportunity for a new variant to start its journey. I really hope we will be vaccinating teens later this year. It doubt it’ll be AZ though. We’re entering a very dangerous part of this pandemic now, with high enough vaccination levels in the UK to foster an attitude of “it’s over”, but with a large proportion of the population mixing in close contact, unvaccinated, and offering up hundreds of thousands of chances for a new vaccine resistant variant to develop and spread before we are prepared for it. Or a variant that has a new unwanted effect on the unvaccinated young.
Isn’t comparing the clotting risk a bit like comparing apples and oranges? I know quite a few people who have had DVT and have been fixed pretty easily; not sure if this is spin or not but the media makes out this type of clot associated with the az vaccine is more dangerous?
I also worry that with a 4-14 day lag between getting the vaccine and getting complications, as there is an age related component the numbers of those affected might ramp up quickly given the speed of roll-out and strategy of starting with the oldest. Maybe it’s a happy co-incidence that rate if first vaccine is going to slow as they give second jabs, so more time can be spent looking at the issue.
Some really great news out this morning. UCL study shows that through a combination of vaccination acquired immunity and prior virus exposure immunity, the UK has now reached, or will have by this Monday, the 74% threshold required for Herd Immunity.
Woohoo, from Monday we can get back to normality!
I think the media have again let themselves and us down on this. They’ve jumped on the European’s concerns gladly almost but have failed to represent the numbers adequately and compared these to the risks we have routinely taken for years.
This is my big bug bear about this. BBC news last night was all about the risk of clots in the headlines, but in the actual head to head with the health correspondent he pointed out that someone aged 20-30 was much more likely to die in a car accident, but no one was suggesting they stop driving. I got the impression their "expert" was getting fed up of editorial headline grabbing.
Woohoo, from Monday we can get back to normality!
And
not as very safe as previously thought
There’s your media headlines, leading to the bleedin obvious after people’s behaviour determines it’s ok to mix socially and and refusal of the AZ.
It’s downright dangerous in the circumstances and as much as I wouldnt propose state controlled media it needs to stop for the benefit of all. it’s currently more dangerous not to wear flight socks than have the AZ, but that kind of comparison is not being made clear.
Some really great news out this morning. UCL study shows that through a combination of vaccination acquired immunity and prior virus exposure immunity, the UK has now reached, or will have by this Monday, the 74% threshold required for Herd Immunity.
Not seen the report but sounds dubious given vaccines aren’t 100% effective in stopping transmission (I recall a figure of 60% but not sure). I though based on this it had been deemed herd immunity was a pipe dream even with 100% vaccine uptake.
Also any mathematical calculations on herd immunity would assume an even distribution of immunity in the population as people mix more in their own cohorts, so you might have herd immunity in a care home but not amongst a group of 30 year olds who are yet to have a jab.
I see there being three issues though with 'that kind of comparison is not being made clear'
1/ The general public do not in general understand risk. 1/47,000 have had clots with the AZ - so 46,999/47,000 haven't? And then there's the '5x increase in risk' - has to be bad, it's an increase! But when that's from miniscule to incredibly tiny.....
2/ The general public do not in general understand risk-benefit. A lot of what we do is 'risky', but we do it because we want or need to. MTBing, DIY, Gardening, driving.....so we accept almost without thought (I can tell you the 1/47,000 stat above but what's the risk of me seriously injuring myself on a ride? I reckon it's low enough and I enjoy riding, so where's my plastic hat.....)
Exacerbated when the risk is to us but the benefit is to others. What's really in it for the youngsters? (Devil's advocate, not my opinion) - Vaccine passports will be squashed eventually, we don't live in that kind of state and herd immunity will enable opening anyway. Or, we can refuse to have the vaccine and keep the country locked down and held to ransom until they open up. Especially when the benefit is to sections of society that are perceived, rightly or wrongly (ans: it's a grey area) to have polluted the planet and left us to deal with it, soaked up all the affordable houses, voted us out of freedom of movement. Or businesses, being bolstered by Gov cash but desperate to reopen so they can employ us on min wage / zero hours contracts under new non-EU employment laws.... but pretty please roll your sleeve up so we can get on with life. (Oh, and while you're waiting do you mind if I have 2 weeks on Mallorca?)
3/ It's actually relatively easy to distill the data and science down into bite sized and digestible nuggets of info that the general public could understand. Three word slogans, even, or words on a bus work well. But (and on balance I think this is a good thing) - we still live in a country where freedom of thought and libertarian values are high. The downside is that in this information war, there's a guerilla enemy. One that can cut down any properly produced and reviewed data and opinion, whether as a paper or a short instruction, by dismissing it as propaganda or conspiracy. And given this and previous Gov's appalling record on truth, who can blame there being scepticism. Meanwhile - the other side don't have to worry about such annoyances as peer review or scrutiny. They don't even have to show their working; "I can't say who but I have a mate who really knows her stuff, and she's extensively researched this and I trust her when she says it's all down to space lizards" - retweeted a few thousand times to people inclined to believe that - how do you counter it?
There will be a significant drop off in uptake in the over 30s age group now I assume. Folks that were swithering whether to get it will think it's not worth it.
I'm assuming every one over 30 will be getting the az version now that they need to keep stocks of the others for the under 30s. Cant see how that doesn't impact the timeline of end of July
I was hoping to get one of the others purely as I thought they were more effective against the other strains but that hope has gone out the window
There will be a significant drop off in uptake in the over 30s age group now I assume. Folks that were swithering whether to get it will think it’s not worth it.
But does that even matter if herd immunity has been reached?
But does that even matter if herd immunity has been reached?
Why do you think heard immunity will have been reached? The whole concept of it has already been disproved has it not? (due to the nature of the virus.)
Why do you think heard immunity will have been reached? The whole concept of it has already been disproved has it not? (due to the nature of the virus.)
Sorry not me saying that, the scientists at UCL.
There will be a significant drop off in uptake in the over 30s age group now I assume. Folks that were swithering whether to get it will think it’s not worth it.
I’m assuming every one over 30 will be getting the az version now that they need to keep stocks of the others for the under 30s. Cant see how that doesn’t impact the timeline of end of July
I was hoping to get one of the others purely as I thought they were more effective against the other strains but that hope has gone out the window
Which will have knock on effects on the Covid Passport policy or the music/events/nightlife industry.
Which will have knock on effects on the Covid Passport policy or the music/events/nightlife industry.
Indeed, has not the USA just ruled out any vaccine passport or certificate, on the grounds of privacy, human rights, discrimination and all the potential pitfalls that could come with having a two tier society?
Meanwhile – the other side don’t have to worry about such annoyances as peer review or scrutiny. They don’t even have to show their working; “I can’t say who but I have a mate who really knows her stuff, and she’s extensively researched this and I trust her when she says it’s all down to space lizards” – retweeted a few thousand times to people inclined to believe that – how do you counter it?
But unless you yourself have personally read, understood and analysed all the underlying science, and I mean all of it, you too are leaping to conclusions based on blind faith.
So when you’re married to that person, and they do have workings, and they don’t blame it on something patently silly like Bill Gates or lizards, what do you do?
Well, ask STW, obvs.
Are there any figures for how many people offered the vaccine have turned it down?
What's your alternative approach chrispo?
If you're rejecting vaccination how do you as an individual carry on with life? How should wider society approach this?
Are there any figures for how many people offered the vaccine have turned it down?
There's an uptake number I believe. Probably best you go look that up. That will tell you what percentage of offers were not, err, taken up.
But unless you yourself have personally read, understood and analysed all the underlying science, and I mean all of it, you too are leaping to conclusions based on blind faith.
Trusting the credibility of sources and hence the reliability of their evidence is not 'blind faith', it's the whole purpose of peer review and examination that the people giving the information can be trusted. Failure to do that is the beginnings of conspiracy....
You might trust your wife completely (didn't you say ex wife before?) and so trust her evidence but I not knowing who you are talking about, I can't give her the same credibility as Prof Whitty, or JVT, or the EMA or MHRA. But bring the data/evidence and I'll happily look at it.
A particularly well constructed presentation on the risk/reward of AZ, used as the basis of last night's briefing
https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/news/communicating-potential-benefits-and-harms-astra-zeneca-covid-19-vaccine/
A particularly well constructed presentation on the risk/reward of AZ, used as the basis of last night’s briefing> https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/news/communicating-potential-benefits-and-harms-astra-zeneca-covid-19-vaccine/
Alright jab it in me, that's pretty compelling when you look at it like that.
Thread reader not working for me too.
Assume that the risk of thrombolytic events is fixed at about 4/million, irrespective of age, and that is presumably what the data shows across the 79 cases (plus a further 80 in EMA dataset). The risk of mortality is perhaps 1% in the 80+ group, that's 10,000/million, so a ratio of 2500:1 in favour. If the mortality risk halves about every five years, so 70's is 600:1, 60's 300:1, 50's is 150:1, 40's is 75:1, 30's is 30:1 20's is 15:1. In fact the halving every half-decade my be an under-estimate for younger age groups, but one can see that the benefit risk falls such that a cut-off is reasonable. Where that cut off falls is a clinical judgement.
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3259 is a nice accessible read on risk of death from David Spiegelhalter
Identification of such a risk is a triumph of pharmacovigilence. the rigor to which COVID has been studied is hugely greater than many other diseases. My wife is allergic to paracetamol. A drug so widely used that most medical professionals simply do not accept this as an effect. But very rare events are just that. Acetominophen is the US name for paracetamol.
The latest I've seen on uptake is this Uptake in over 70s. 90% uptake. Of course that's only over 70s and predates the concerns over blood clots.
What’s your alternative approach chrispo? If you’re rejecting vaccination how do you as an individual carry on with life? How should wider society approach this?
I'm not rejecting vaccination. I have already taken one for the team. I was originally questioning the blind faith in the official line on here, and now I'm just calling out the bullies for what they are. Yes, I know it's pointless, but it has given me a certain satisfaction.
There’s an uptake number I believe. Probably best you go look that up. That will tell you what percentage of offers were not, err, taken up
I mean specifically for people who have actively refused the vaccine, not including people who haven't taken it due to other conditions or just didn't turn up for some reason. I mean the heaving masses of anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists who were set to bring about the imminent demise of mankind not too long ago. It's making some people here look a little silly now.
You might trust your wife completely (didn’t you say ex wife before?) and so trust her evidence but I not knowing who you are talking about, I can’t give her the same credibility as Prof Whitty, or JVT, or the EMA or MHRA
I don't and I didn't, which is why I sought other opinions, and she wasn't but now she is. The government and the NHS and the drug companies have just as much of an axe to grind as the anti-vaxxers. They're all very capable of using the same data to support very different positions. So it probably pays to remain sceptical about all of them. Which is where this all started.
Oh. Right. I'm out. Again.
BBC news last night was all about the risk of clots in the headlines, but in the actual head to head with the health correspondent he pointed out that someone aged 20-30 was much more likely to die in a car accident, but no one was suggesting they stop driving. I got the impression their “expert” was getting fed up of editorial headline grabbing.
Well, the news was about a policy change in regard to AZ for under 30s, so that is the story, the hard part is learning to communicate the nature of risk to the layperson. The public has spent decades throwing their hard-earned at the lottery, when there is more chance of getting struck by lightning than winning.
The human focus is always hardwired on the individual big loser/winner rather than the millions who did not win or lose.
Which will have knock on effects on the Covid Passport policy or the music/events/nightlife industry.
As a bit of a cynic, I suspect the proposal of a covid passport for nightclubs etc is more to drive uptake in the under 30s before July. 'Get your jab, you'll need it to go out later in the summer'.
I do wonder if it will ever actually see light of day.
Anecdotal, but out of the people I know who've had the jab, (AZ I think but can't confirm 100%), three have suffered flu like symptoms such that they have had to go to bed for 2-3 days. One, since having the jab over a month ago has been left with constant and severe headaches and has been unable to work since having it. Many to be fair have also had no symptoms.
Read into that what you will but it is clear that there are some more common but less serious side effects out there than the rare instances of clotting.
I am pro-vax but after this I am undecided whether I'll have it now. The government propaganda and threats of vaccine passports (coercion) makes me suspicious and is starting to turn me off. Yes it is probably very safe, but at 41 and fit and healthy I don't feel I'm at any great risk from Covid-19 either. I therefore have the luxury, not being vulnerable to make my own risk assessment. The other factor is that I am pretty certain that my wife and I had Covid early last year after returning back from our ski trip to Italy. We couldn't get a test at the time however the symptoms were mild, but as described.
One, since having the jab over a month ago has been left with constant and severe headaches and has been unable to work since having it.
Hopefully he/she has gone to be checked out to exclude thrombosis.
Hopefully he/she has gone to be checked out to exclude thrombosis.
I don't know to be honest. It's the dad of one of my best friends. I think it's a bit of a struggle convince a GP to see you face to face these days in my experience.
I am pro-vax but after this I am undecided whether I’ll have it now. The government propaganda and threats of vaccine passports (coercion) makes me suspicious and is starting to turn me off. Yes it is probably very safe, but at 41 and fit and healthy I don’t feel I’m at any great risk from Covid-19 either.
You may not be, but all the people you might effect could be. If you decide not have the vaccination I hope you're considering others and ensuring you undertake hardcore social distancing relevant to your classification as a "Spreader". What you gamble with your own life is your business, but you need to realise the impact of this decision upon others, not just yourself.
Yes it is probably very safe, but at 41 and fit and healthy I don’t feel I’m at any great risk from Covid-19 either.
You're not at risk from dying from it (well, very very low risk), but you are at risk of scratching "fit and healthy" from the way you describe yourself. Anyone who enjoys cycling should be careful not to take their health for granted. I'll be taking the vaccine as soon as it's available to me. Any version. My teens I hope will get the Pfizer one.
It’s making some people here look a little silly now
What's making people look silly? All the evidence suggests a miniscule chance of adverse affects leading to death. This is to be expected with any vaccine or drug, nothing has changed in that regard. No-one has tried to hide that fact since the vaccine's launch.
The fact that you are coming on here gleefully saying ' I told you so' after they discover a 1 in a million risk of taking the vaccine, simply marks you out as someone that didnt really understand the risks in the first place
Re people having an axe to grind. My brother is on the UK vaccine safety panel. I'm pretty sure if he thought there was a risk he would not have had it himself, nor his wife, nor his mum and dad. And I'm pretty sure hed tell me there is an issue before I get my dose.
And I imagine he knows a little more about the risks than your wife..
A particularly well constructed presentation on the risk/reward of AZ, used as the basis of last night’s briefing
https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/news/communicating-potential-benefits-and-harms-astra-zeneca-covid-19-vaccine/Alright jab it in me, that’s pretty compelling when you look at it like that.
I agree, totally compelling to me.
But it takes a certain level of commitment and ability to read and understand that. My wife's far from the bottom of the intelligence pile but I don't think she would....
So we distil it to a simple headline type statement that can be read and understood, and then people dismiss it as propaganda and/or axe to grind.
The only axe being ground is that some very very smart people who both understand this completely, and want absolutely the best for the country want people to have the vaccine, for their and the societal good.
As a scientist, I trust other scientists and the peer review process. If I don't then I no longer have no solid foundation of belief. Blind faith...I don't think so but YMMV.
You may not be, but all the people you might effect could be. If you decide not have the vaccination I hope you’re considering others and ensuring you undertake hardcore social distancing relevant to your classification as a “Spreader”.
THIS is exactly the sort of comment that is helping to put me off taking it. Social pressure to conform, peer pressure and judgement from others (coercion) to do the right thing (as defined by them) if you like.
Up to you pal. This isn't going away. Will you reject it in the autumn too? What about next year? You know roughly what the risks are now - what happens if a new variant gets really nasty?
Your choice of course.
Edit: but you seem to be saying 'I'm not taking it because you all want me to'.
You're not being pushed by mates in to snorting coke here. Society is trying to look after you AND itself.
you are at risk of scratching “fit and healthy” from the way you describe yourself. Anyone who enjoys cycling should be careful not to take their health for granted
This. Remember that benefit risk is evaluated for the observable endpoint benefits. For COVID19 those endpoints have been symptomatic infection, hospital admission, ICU admission and death. The last two are pretty firm numbers. Hospital admissions is confounded by NHS burden and symptomatic infection confounded by testing practices. Long COVID does not feature in amy evaluations since the epidemic is still early and studies are only starting.
Evidence suggests a significant proportion of moderately infected patients (perhaps 10% or more) take significant time to recover. Morbidity is a significant factor and the vaccines are all most definitely protective against this. Having had moderate COVID, I would not wish it on anyone. I have also had the Ox/AZ vaccine. COVID was a lot worse!
Risk is poorly understood in the general population. If you are old enough, you may recall the contraception clotting scare that led to an unintended epidemic of pregnancy. Airlines were disproportionately affected.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9368943/
Hopefully he/she has gone to be checked out to exclude thrombosis.
Unfortunately, not knowing what those symptoms actually signified meant that my partner didn’t bother, but then decided she ought to call 111 the next morning. That was the morning I found her in the throes of a cerebral venus thrombosis, which meant she was dying in front of me. It’s far too late now, but the knowledge, and the statement from Thrombosis UK on the BBC this morning that anyone exhibiting symptoms should get help, as treatment can be given has taken my fragile recovery and smashed it into fragments.
I’m heartbroken, I just don’t know how to get past this.
My beautiful Joey, nothing can replace what you brought into my life.
Yes it is probably very safe, but at 41 and fit and healthy I don’t feel I’m at any great risk from Covid-19 either.
You are not but this risk is still something like 10 times greater than your risk of having an seriously adverse reaction to the vaccine.
THIS is exactly the sort of comment that is helping to put me off taking it.
Unsurprisingly, it is an individual decision but the above ratio puts it into perspective.
CZ - so sorry to hear that.
Unfortunately, not knowing what those symptoms actually signified meant that my partner didn’t bother, but then decided she ought to call 111 the next morning. That was the morning I found her in the throes of a cerebral venus thrombosis, which meant she was dying in front of me. It’s far too late now, but the knowledge, and the statement from Thrombosis UK on the BBC this morning that anyone exhibiting symptoms should get help, as treatment can be given has taken my fragile recovery and smashed it into fragments.
I’m heartbroken, I just don’t know how to get past this.
My beautiful Joey, nothing can replace what you brought into my life.
Internet hugs from me, pal.
Thoughts with you and yours CountZero.
no words CZ
but the knowledge, and the statement from Thrombosis UK on the BBC this morning that anyone exhibiting symptoms should get help, as treatment can be given has taken my fragile recovery and smashed it into fragments.
There's no way to know whether you could have changed anything or not, incredibly hard for you to see that now, but you did the best anyone could at the time.
Up to you pal. This isn’t going away. Will you reject it in the autumn too? What about next year? You know roughly what the risks are now – what happens if a new variant gets really nasty?
Your choice of course.
Edit: but you seem to be saying ‘I’m not taking it because you all want me to’.
You’re not being pushed by mates in to snorting coke here. Society is trying to look after you AND itself.
Having just looked up the variants thing, from the quick internet search I just did (never the best I know), the furthest variant would seem to be just 0.3% difference from the original strain detected, nowhere near enough of a difference to make any of the existing vaccines ineffective. And don't variants usually get less dangerous as the virus mutates? After all a variant that does not make its host very ill will spread much more easily? Please correct me if what I have assumed is wrong here though.
I haven't decided whether or not I will take it. I may still do but I haven't been offered it yet in any case. What I object to is having others implying that I am somehow not a person who cares about others if I do not submit to an experimental vaccine, however safe it is. It feels that in most instances the hidden motive of these people is probably that they want ME to take something, possibly against my will or judgement (to be confirmed), to keep THEM safe.
The data is out there on the risks of Coronavirus and I am at very low risk from it, an almost negligible risk compared to the many other things that I can't take a vaccine for. Others may feel different in which case I am very pleased that there is a vaccine on offer that will protect them pretty damn well and help them to feel safe, whether others have been vaccinated or not. Meanwhile my neighbour who is a consultant oncologist at our local main hospital has told me that the uptake of the vaccine amongst her colleagues is around 50/50. In the NHS! I am wondering why?
Anyway it all feels like a moot point in any case now since on Monday according to ULC scientists we will have reached herd immunity. Therefore it seems immoral to keep throwing money at Covid vaccinations, testing (and at Matt Handcock's mates) if that is the case, when there are so many people waiting for NHS treatment that has been delayed due to our prioritisation of Covid above all else over the last 12 months. And as for people suggesting we give an experimental vaccination to young children who are unable to consent, and who are at practically zero risk from Covid in any case. Risking the kids to make the adults feel safer! What planet are they on!
Countzero I am sorry for your loss and agreed, very useful and important to know the warning signs. Thanks for sharing.
And don’t variants usually get less dangerous as the virus mutates? After all a variant that does not make its host very ill will spread much more easily? Please correct me if what I have assumed is wrong here though.
Not wrong. As a generalisation. But this virus can already be spread asymptomatically, so already spreads easily, irrespective of symptoms that come later on in the infection.
Therefore it seems immoral to keep throwing money at Covid vaccinations, testing (and at Matt Handcock’s mates) if that is the case, when there are so many people waiting for NHS treatment that has been delayed due to our prioritisation of Covid above all else over the last 12 months.
This feels like I've strayed onto the wrong Facebook post. I'm out.
Yes it is probably very safe, but at 41 and fit and healthy I don’t feel I’m at any great risk from Covid-19 either. I therefore have the luxury, not being vulnerable to make my own risk assessment.
You sure about that? As CZ pointed out currently your risk from being ICU'd because of COVID is 10 times greater than having a blood clot due to the vaccine. However if we have another wave and infection rate goes up to January rates then your risk from COVID is 100 times more than vaccine harm and even if you don't get hospitalized the effects of the Kent variant are supposed to me more severe than the original variant you think you had.
As for not doing something just because everyone is telling you to. Well sometimes if everyone is telling you to do something it actually is the right thing to do.
Therefore it seems immoral to keep throwing money at Covid vaccinations,
when there are so many people waiting for NHS treatment that has been delayed due to our prioritisation of Covid above all else over the last 12 months.
And as for people suggesting we give an experimental vaccination to young children who are unable to consent, and who are at practically zero risk from Covid in any case. Risking the kids to make the adults feel safer
curlywhirly
Joined April 6, 2021
Again?
Anyway it all feels like a moot point in any case now since on Monday according to ULC scientists we will have reached herd immunity.
Unfortunately as the Kent variant is 50% more transmissible we need to get the % of population with antibodies up to more like 80-90% to achieve herd immunity rather than the 60-70% we have now.
Anyway I'm starting to think your mind is closed to reason.
But this virus can already be spread asymptomatically
Is there new evidence for that? I thought that had been largely debunked as a main driver of transmission?
the furthest variant would seem to be just 0.3% difference from the original strain detected,
That is in no way scientifically legit
This is the same guy coming back time and again with different logins 🙄
THIS is exactly the sort of comment that is helping to put me off taking it. Social pressure to conform, peer pressure and judgement from others (coercion) to do the right thing (as defined by them) if you like.
Yeah, you stick it to The Man just to prove a point to yourself.
It feels that in most instances the hidden motive of these people is probably that they want ME to take something, possibly against my will or judgement (to be confirmed), to keep THEM safe.
I don't want people to be forced to take a vaccine against their will. I would like everyone who can get a vaccine to do so, including those at low risk of COVID related complications, to help protect the population as a whole. I don't think this is a controversial opinion.
This is the same guy coming back time and again with different logins
Sorry but whatever your beef is with someone, that someone is not me. I have signed up on Tuesday yes, but if I am not supposed to comment on this thread as a new joiner then please let me know and I will stick to the other threads instead. Cheers 🙂
Yeah, you stick it to The Man just to prove a point to yourself.
I think you have missed my point entirely. Nothing to do with sticking it to anyone. But if people feel pushed or coerced into something by others, rather than letting them decide what is best for themselves based on an open and honest appraisal of the data, and taking into account their personal circumstances, then I think we have a problem.
@ CountZero
I've only been dipping a toe into the thread recently as I'm "content" with the info I have from here for a bit, until I need more info/guidance.
Hence I've only just read the dreadful news. Genuine and heart felt condolences CZ.
Sorry but whatever your beef is with someone, that someone is not me.
Welcome to the forum and the debate. Your comment about 0.3% mutation is sadly not really relevant. The spike protein, which is subject to significant immune (and now vaccine) selection pressure, has recorded mutations at more than 500 sites thus far (GISAID database). That some of those confer additional transmissibility has been noted (N501Y), and perhaps additional morbidity (E484K) is interesting. Vaccine studies against the latter strain has shown a degree of escape with low protection against symptoms (better against more serious disease). It's still VERY early to see evolution to benign viral strains.
As for herd immunity - well I am afraid that there are four other endemic coronaviruses that would refute the notion of population protection. Waning immunity and seasonality drives annual outbreaks of these (two account for about 18% of common colds). SARS-CoV-2 is unlikely to be very different. It's not going to go away.
I share your sentiment on providing NHS treatment, but when half of beds have been taken by COVID patients (who have immediate hypoxic needs), the NHS will struggle with routine care provision. That is why we have had three months of Stay At Home provision. Whether one agrees with this policy or not, the outcome (together with rising immunity and vaccination) has been a 95% reduction in COVID transmission pressure. Vaccination is the means of preventing the resurgence. At the moment the evidence (mainly from Israel) suggests that this is a prudent approach. We will see.
but did Madame make use of oral contraceptive earlier on in life?
That's a very good example of risk assesment. When young and in a low risk category she did, however at age 32 we reverted to condoms. I should have bought shares in the LRC at that point. When young the risks associated with (perhaps unwanted) pregnancy are higher than taking the pill, as women get older the balance tips to using condoms with a slightly higher risk of unwanted pregnancy but lower risk of thrombosis or other side effects, so we did.
rather than letting them decide what is best for themselves based on an open and honest appraisal of the data, and taking into account their personal circumstances, then I think we have a problem
As long as your individual assessment takes into account the people around you and your responsibilities towards the greater community, then I've got no problem with your statement.
@CountZero , like others on this thread I've just stumbled across your terrible news. I don't know how to express myself other than to say you have my deepest condolences & sympathies.