Astra Zeneca vaccine death in Tenerife. article copied from Canarian Weekly newspaper

zzzzz said:
Eh? It's still a drug whether it's self administered or not.
Those numbers include people that did not OD.
And don't forget that the AZ numbers are taken from the oldest 3rd of the population, generally the weakest.

The point I'm making, again, is that the numbers badly affected by the AZ jab are so tiny they shouldn't make a jot of difference to whether people take the jab or not and people should refrain from scaremongering by raising doubt about it's safety........ a link to a fat woman popping her clogs in the Canaries is a great example.
Click to expand...
I am not sure a doctor would agree and your description of a woman losing her life is reprehensible.
 
Laughing said:
Almost certainly the hippocratic oath would stop a doctor administering a vaccine where it could potentially kill someone and that danger is know. Firstly do no harm.
Click to expand...
To carry out a heart bypass requires and incision first, that is harm.
Putting someone under GA, in order to carry out an operation is harmful.
Taking blood does the donor zero good whatsoever, although it's good for the greater good so we do it.
There's thousands of examples where a small risk is taken, to prevent a greater risk.

Ultimately, for all of them, the juice is worth the squeeze. People are at a greater risk every single day, by just getting into their cars.

4 people getting covid, of any random age, is worth more than any vaccine risk to anyone, every day of the week.
The additional "doubt" could result in a million people not getting vaccinated, then what? That damage has already been done by the way. It's a lot further from herd immunity, more chances of lockdowns, more chance of further actual covid spread.
 
Andy_W said:
To carry out a heart bypass requires and incision first, that is harm.
Putting someone under GA, in order to carry out an operation is harmful.
Taking blood does the donor zero good whatsoever, although it's good for the greater good so we do it.
There's thousands of examples where a small risk is taken, to prevent a greater risk.

Ultimately, for all of them, the juice is worth the squeeze. People are at a greater risk every single day, by just getting into their cars.

4 people getting covid, of any random age, is worth more than any vaccine risk to anyone, every day of the week.
The additional "doubt" could result in a million people not getting vaccinated, then what? That damage has already been done by the way. It's a lot further from herd immunity, more chances of lockdowns, more chance of further actual covid spread.
Click to expand...
Group safety doesn't come into the hippocratic oath. The doctors only concern is his patient. Any treatment given is for an existing condition not a possible future infection.

Your entitled to your opinion Andy but I am not sure a doctor would agree with you.
 
bear66 said:
We seem to be running out of all vaccines with the report yesterday that it will be July before first dose vaccinations begin again!

This is going to be a long haul with current vaccines being the base for re-vaccinations so it's important to get the safety case right for next few years. AZ is going to become a go-to vaccination in the future with a low cost base and, if similar to annual flu vaccinations being primarily for the vulnerable, it's going to be safe for the vast majority of people.
Click to expand...
I've not seen the report yesterday, do you have a link? I thought we were all still due to be done by 31 July?
All the more reason to approve the ones we can get though, and so they're being used in the most resourceful way. Likely a boatload of them going as second jabs, as there are probably 25m of those to do.

If we've run out fine, but if they're going in the fridge/ or putting unequal doubts in peoples minds it's bad news and extremely bad risk mitigation for the whole population, and future. The knock-on risk of not using up vaccines is the even bigger problem, then the long covid and then actually dying from covid, and all of those are more risk than any vaccine blood clot.
 
Laughing said:
Group safety doesn't come into the hippocratic oath. The doctors only concern is his patient. Any treatment given is for an existing condition not a possible future infection.

Your entitled to your opinion Andy but I am not sure a doctor would agree with you.
Click to expand...
A doctors concern should be to do what he's told, which for the NHS and Government should be to prioritise saving the lives of many, rather than one.

Ok, forget the group if you want (but mathematically this does not stand up), what about the individual?

What about taking blood?
What about cutting someone's chest open?
What about breaking someone's ribs to carry out CPR?
What about amputation to save an infection?
What about turning off life support, so that organs can go to others?

All 100% necessary for the greater good, and all probably much larger risk than any vaccine would ever be. None of those cause a risk to others either, but not taking a vaccine does.

"first, do no harm" is a myth, it's like people swearing on the bible, in most circumstances, it's not worth the paper it's written on.

Extremely low risk of harm is worth it, if it prevents more harm to the individual and also prevents more harm to 4 others.

A doctor should agree with it, they would probably prefer it, to not have ICU overrun with covid I expect.
 
Wilf said:
medical officers announcement at 15:00 today.

under 50s vaccine roll out may be halted.

looks like there are concerns around clotting. brain clots perhaps.
Click to expand...
The vaccine roll out problems are probably more to do with a lack of vaccine than health concerns with only second jabs till July.
 
zzzzz said:
Eh? It's still a drug whether it's self administered or not.
Those numbers include people that did not OD.
And don't forget that the AZ numbers are taken from the oldest 3rd of the population, generally the weakest.

The point I'm making, again, is that the numbers badly affected by the AZ jab are so tiny they shouldn't make a jot of difference to whether people take the jab or not and people should refrain from scaremongering by raising doubt about it's safety........ a link to a fat woman popping her clogs in the Canaries is a great example.
Click to expand...
A lot of similarities to 10 people out of 67 million passing away with covid on the certificate but we're still locked up 😏
 
bear66 said:
The vaccine roll out problems are probably more to do with a lack of vaccine than health concerns with only second jabs till July.
Click to expand...
Did you have a link to the article that said we would be pausing 1st doses until July? I'm not doubting you, just want to read it (not had mine yet).
 
Andy_W said:
Did you have a link to the article that said we would be pausing 1st doses until July? I'm not doubting you, just want to read it (not had mine yet).
Click to expand...
1st doses aren't being paused just 2nd doses now have priority. In the last few weeks 2/3 of vaccines have been 2nd doses.
 
Mendieta420 said:
1st doses aren't being paused just 2nd doses now have priority. In the last few weeks 2/3 of vaccines have been 2nd doses.
Click to expand...
It looks like the loss of the Indian supply has been a big problem. Six weeks ago it looked like 40-50s would be from mid-April, then that figure slipped a month, now it's slipping further.
 
It seems that some have a problem with any caution being taken, we blamed the EU a fortnight ago despite the fact that the original findings of the vaccine possibly causing clots in the younger generation were made by scientists in a nation outside the EU. Would you believe, this scaremongering tactic, politically based to do harm to the UK, is now being followed by UK scientists.

Now some are looking at the amount of vaccines given to the older generation and using it as evidence that there will be little effect on the younger generation. Not only that, they're using the total of all vaccines given as evidence that one particular vaccine needs further investigation.

Weird science.
 
Andy_W said:
A doctors concern should be to do what he's told, which for the NHS and Government should be to prioritise saving the lives of many, rather than one.

Ok, forget the group if you want (but mathematically this does not stand up), what about the individual?

What about taking blood?
What about cutting someone's chest open?
What about breaking someone's ribs to carry out CPR?
What about amputation to save an infection?
What about turning off life support, so that organs can go to others?

All 100% necessary for the greater good, and all probably much larger risk than any vaccine would ever be. None of those cause a risk to others either, but not taking a vaccine does.

"first, do no harm" is a myth, it's like people swearing on the bible, in most circumstances, it's not worth the paper it's written on.

Extremely low risk of harm is worth it, if it prevents more harm to the individual and also prevents more harm to 4 others.

A doctor should agree with it, they would probably prefer it, to not have ICU overrun with covid I expect.
Click to expand...
You're not really reading my replies are you Andy. All those instances except taking blood, which isn;t done by a doctor, are to treat an immeadiate risk to the patient. Giving a vaccination is to treat a possible future infection. The two are in no way equivellant.

Doctors don't do as they are told. They, first and foremost advocate for their patient to the exclusion of everyone else, even if that doesn't stack up mathematically for you. Doctors no longer take the hippocratic oath, though some medical schools still get graduates to recite the original, Greek I think, oath. It is largely ceremonial. Doctors are bound by the principles and ethics laid down by the General Medical Council. These guidelines state a few things, as you would expect but the first principle is "Make the care of your patient your first concern". The third guideline is "Take prompt action if patient safety is being compromised."

Note the use of the possessive pronound your in the first guiding principle. A doctors first duty is to the care of his patient, not someone elses patient or someone who may later contract a disease.

The reason this is a guiding principle is to take the grey out of the area you are talking about. It's unequivocal and avoid a conflict of interest for a doctor.
 
Laughing said:
You're not really reading my replies are you Andy. All those instances except taking blood, which isn;t done by a doctor, are to treat an immeadiate risk to the patient. Giving a vaccination is to treat a possible future infection. The two are in no way equivellant.

Doctors don't do as they are told. They, first and foremost advocate for their patient to the exclusion of everyone else, even if that doesn't stack up mathematically for you. Doctors no longer take the hippocratic oath, though some medical schools still get graduates to recite the original, Greek I think, oath. It is largely ceremonial. Doctors are bound by the principles and ethics laid down by the General Medical Council. These guidelines state a few things, as you would expect but the first principle is "Make the care of your patient your first concern". The third guideline is "Take prompt action if patient safety is being compromised."

Note the use of the possessive pronound your in the first guiding principle. A doctors first duty is to the care of his patient, not someone elses patient or someone who may later contract a disease.

The reason this is a guiding principle is to take the grey out of the area you are talking about. It's unequivocal and avoid a conflict of interest for a doctor.
Click to expand...
I think the point you are making is obvious and doesn’t need explanation.

Apart from that, you might catch Covid and survive, statistically the vast vast majority of people will.

You play Russian roulette with a potentially dodgy vaccine and kill people.

There is a major difference, I’m surprised we are even debating it, I think people sometimes confuse the risk assessment by comparing the consequences of a virus you catch naturally, or being unlucky with a car accident, with a medical professional deliberately injecting something into someone’s bloodstream.
 
Is this the Trolley problem in motion? Do you risk 1 person if you can save 4?

Or one person vs one million?

Similar discussions were had about lockdown- how many deaths is acceptable with a condition before a society acts on it as a collective?

It is completely sensible and safe to investigate this further. If this vaccine isn't safe for a small subgroup of people then it will rightly be understood and other options can be provided. People have to Trust in science and the process and rigor involved.
 
Cambsred said:
Is this the Trolley problem in motion? Do you risk 1 person if you can save 4?

Or one person vs one million?

Similar discussions were had about lockdown- how many deaths is acceptable with a condition before a society acts on it as a collective?

It is completely sensible and safe to investigate this further. If this vaccine isn't safe for a small subgroup of people then it will rightly be understood and other options can be provided. People have to Trust in science and the process and rigor involved.
Click to expand...

You don't need to risk any, use other vaccines while the research continues into AZ.
 
No bother then, most Under 30s won't have received a vaccine yet anyway, so it's a fair precaution.

Plenty of alternate options in this country, though I'd still happily receive the AstraZeneca one myself when under 30s are called up.

It's more of an issue for the developing world, as it could impede the vaccination process in countries much less far along.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top