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.
I should have bought shares in the LRC at that point.
Humblebrag.
My major concern at that time was them going out of date......
@CountZero There are no words that I can say that can ease what you must be feeling. My deepest condolences.
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.
Its not a controversial opinion. But I guess the question is if you yourself are at a lower or no risk what so ever, you can't bemoan those who are at a higher for not wanting to take that risk. As a fit 35 yr old am I concerned about the oxford jab, yes especially when some countries are saying anyone under 55 or something shouldn't take the Oxford jab. I really hope when my turn to get a jab finally comes I get offered something else I don't particularly want the oxford one now given recent news.
Ed, risk of thrombosis from oral contraceptive was put at 'between 600 and 1400 per million' last night by an interviewee on PM Vs 4 per million for AZ.
Madame's choice of course.
Sorry CountZero.
Funny how they bump up the numbers for the contraceptive pill when it suits them. I don't know where the interviewee got their numbers from but that range is much higher than quoted elsewhere, for example:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3626808/
That's on a per year basis. Madame is calculating on having to wait a few weeks for an alternative vaccine, maybe, all the current dates in our area are Pfizer and Moderna. The risk of waiting an extra three weeks for someone who has no risk factors for Covid and we think got through it March 2020 with a sore throat, shivers, tiredness, conjunctivitis and Covid toes seems more acceptable than AZ aged under 60.
As a fit 35 yr old am I concerned about the oxford jab, yes
Concern is perfectly valid.
But hopefully you are more concerned about being badly hurt or killed in a car accident, or struck by lightning*, or any of the other unpleasant things more likely to happen to you than to have a blood clot after having the vaccine.
*I've not double checked the lightning data, may not be accurate comparison
500-1000 per million then?
Am I reading that incorrectly?
CountZero - really sad to read about your loss, deepest condolences.
What’s making people look silly?
Their arrogance.
Those who saw fit to belittle anyone who had doubts or questions about whether the vaccine’s short test period was enough to pick up possible side-effects are looking a little silly now that this new side-effect is emerging.
Others who were more measured will continue to attract respect.
You were talking about someone who refused all vaccines, yes? Were they passing on that risk to children as well? Remind us…
Kelvin, that’s either a straw man or a red herring.
Is it not what you were talking about when others replied in a way that you say was not measured enough?
@Del - is that supposed to be a link? It’s just coming up as a number on my phone
The link is just your phone being clever and turning it into a dialling link. It’s not a URL in the post.
I am not disputing that you expressed concern that turns out to have been correct. I'm still not sure it wasn't a guess, or even taking an opposite view for the purposes of argument, but that's something I have to wrestle with, I don't have data to justify it so it is not an accusation.
If the virus hadn't been rolled out as widely as it has been, these side effects would not have been seen. In the meantime, many lives have been saved / are being saved by it. A normal sized trial only picks up common side effects, and would have left us months behind where we are now.
It's normal that things come to light as the population usage increases, that's exactly why there is the 'yellow card' scheme for reporting previously unknown side effects. That new side effects are coming to light is no evidence of anything being rushed / corners cut / some marvellous pharma conspiracy. Now we know they exist, we replot the course. That's how it works.
Am I reading that incorrectly?
Same way as me, essentially the same order of magnitude.
same as me I think
"5-10 per 10,000 womanyears
so that means if 10,000 women took the pill for a year there would be 5-10 clots.
I suppose you could say that's 10,000 x 365 exposure = 3.65 million so (top end) 10/3.65M is 1/365,000 so the chance of getting a thrombosis on any particular exposure is substantially less than the chance of getting a clot due to the (one) exposure to the vaccine.
But if a woman's on the pill for 10 years, that increases the number by 3650x
Or - on a yearly basis (hypothesis, annual vaccination needed) - 365x higher
Been taking a break from the thread as the az stuff is getting to me.
But CZ my heart goes out to you. So sorry for your loss.
You could not have done anymore than you did, hindsight is always one of those things, i just hope that others will now be saved from knowing what to do. None of that eases your loss. As ever the forum will be here for you
Yes, 500-1000 overall, Del and theotherjonv.
However in younger women it's 400-500, that's the at risk age group with AZ and a low risk category for Covid itself. As TiRed alluded, at some age the increased risk from vaccination and decreasing risk from the disease itself makes vaccination questionable ethically - especially when alternative lower risk vaccines exist, and they do.
I think the Germans have it right, AZ for the over 60s. And I'm over 60, and male so I'll play the statistical game if I'm offered AZ - with the local equivalent of a do not resucitate letter valid for a month after being vaccinated. No smiley.
Incidentally I was on the phone with my Doc recently, he's been getting feedback/results on AZ. Apparently the immune system response to AZ is ****ing enormous with remarkable antibody production - he has no doubt about the efficacity. The response is also fast, within a couple of weeks.
oh, I absolutely agree that if there's an alternative then we should use it. But if there was no alternative, and the choice was AZ vs Covid - comes back to what I said this morning, that the general public does not have a good grasp of risk and risk-benefit.
was enough to pick up possible side-effects are looking a little silly now that this new side-effect is emerging
They aren't really though are they. Everyone with an ounce of common sense knows that some serious side effects may happen, but they would be very very rare. Which they are.
If this vaccine had been tested over the usual period would they have picked it up given they would need 1m test vaccinations for every 4 clotting cases? It seems highly unlikely.
Fact remains this vaccine is safe for practically every one who takes it. It's maybe not quite as safe as the pfizor vaccine but don't try and make out that only enlightend people like yourself called out that this incredibly rare issue might occur.
That said being exceptionally rare doesn't make it any less tragic for those people it does happen to. Thoughts are with CZ at this time.
Comparisons with the contraceptive pill become unfairer the deeper I dig:
https://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c927
don’t try and make out that only enlightend people like yourself called out that this incredibly rare issue might occur.
Absolutely not. Sarcasm noted though. That has been my problem all along. I'm a scientist* and you're not, so I will play the man not the ball.
*Not all the scientists on here, I hasten to add.
Theothertjonv: I agree entirely. It's always been the behaviour on here from some that I have a problem with, not the vaccine. I had some doubts about the vaccine, yes, but did some research, listened to people who seemed worth listening to*, and decided I should have it to do my bit, especially after the virus killed my best friend. I wasn't able to convince the ex, but that was always a long shot.
*Including a couple on here. Thank you.
CountZero: I'm sorry for your loss.