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

Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
You don't need to risk any, use other vaccines while the research continues into AZ.
Click to expand...
Surely we all want everyone to get vaccinated - it is in everyone's interests not to slow this process down at all. Only then can we open up again. The risks are really small, compared to the very significant risks without a vaccine.
 
rob_fmttm said:
Surely we all want everyone to get vaccinated - it is in everyone's interests not to slow this process down at all. Only then can we open up again. The risks are really small, compared to the very significant risks without a vaccine.
Click to expand...
I thought Van Tam gave a rounded presentation, admitting a change of direction, but giving confidence for continued use of AZ.
 
Cheers mate.

So if we stick to the red line below for April/ May/ June, we would have enough to give everyone their second who still needs it, and have spare for others, roughly the green hatched area plus probbaly 15% for those that have already had second doses.

There should be enough room there to give another 10m 1st doses or so, over the next three months, whilst keeping up with second doses. Then in all likelihood July would then go back to giving more first doses than second, then the problem is solved.

I can't see that red line dipping down to 2m, per week, unless that's all we actually require, which by then it may be.

1617806890585.png
 
Andy_W said:
Cheers mate.

So if we stick to the red line below for April/ May/ June, we would have enough to give everyone their second who still needs it, and have spare for others, roughly the green hatched area plus probbaly 15% for those that have already had second doses.

There should be enough room there to give another 10m 1st doses or so, over the next three months, whilst keeping up with second doses. Then in all likelihood July would then go back to giving more first doses than second, then the problem is solved.

I can't see that red line dipping down to 2m, per week, unless that's all we actually require, which by then it may be.

View attachment 16568
Click to expand...
I think simplistically at 2.7 million a week and 26 million second doses required and still some 50-60s to do, that takes us to beyond mid-June. There may be residual 1-9 cohorts left to do as well.
 
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...
Yes, I am, and I know what you're saying, but maths and probability dictate everything. I think they're taking this course as there's no stock vaccines for under 30's, and doesn't seem to be for a long time anyway, and AZ will be used up as second doses. But had it been available in stock it would be going in peoples arms, no doubt about it. They will now probably use the J&J vaccines on younger folk, as a one-shot problem solver to shortens the vaccine timeline.

Blood taking not by a doctor, come on, you know exactly what my point is. A doctor isn't sticking the vaccine in either but the looks of it, it's being mostly done by nurses?

There is an immediate risk to the patient, they could get covid any day, which is more likely than the blood clot, just like long covid, or passing it onto some 49 year old. Heck it could even mean another lock down, and with that comes less chance of having/ retaining a job etc, it's all risk, and risk that a doctor can't account for, so he shouldn't be accounting for it, the decision should be out of his hands.

A doctor abides by the rules given to him, they're not a free entity, doing whatever they like. If the rules change, the doctors actions change, effectively medical guidelines change all the time.

"Compromised safety" is debatable, to say the least, when something is less than a 1 in 100,000 risk, then it effectively ceases to be a genuine risk.

If a doctor only looked after his patient, without a care to other patients or without any guidance then the entire medical system would collapse, as it would fail to be a system. It has to work cohesively, as a whole unit, like how all the younger folk locked down so save the older folk, it's the same thing.
 
bear66 said:
I think simplistically at 2.7 million a week and 26 million second doses required and still some 50-60s to do, that takes us to beyond mid-June. There may be residual 1-9 cohorts left to do as well.
Click to expand...
Yeah, fair point. 10 weeks I suppose, which is 3rd week in June, so maybe gives a week before July of 1st doses, not a lot, maybe more like 2.5m.

Just realised that graph is missing two weeks which has taken 5m of my doses away :ROFLMAO:
 
Went to Riverside for my jab this morning - loads of staff but very few patients
Apparently they've had loads of no-shows due to scare mongering from the media
Vaccine roll-out could be a long drawn out affair if this continues
 
row_7 said:
Went to Riverside for my jab this morning - loads of staff but very few patients
Apparently they've had loads of no-shows due to scare mongering from the media
Vaccine roll-out could be a long drawn out affair if this continues
Click to expand...
This is my point these things do have an impact and it’s not good. AZ Is almost dead now across Europe thanks to the smear campaigns but once it’s out there it’s very hard to come back from it.

Look at the MMR jab
 
rob_fmttm said:
Surely we all want everyone to get vaccinated - it is in everyone's interests not to slow this process down at all. Only then can we open up again. The risks are really small, compared to the very significant risks without a vaccine.
Click to expand...
The risks are still being assessed aren't they, while other vaccines are available.

The AZ vaccines can still be used for the older age groups across the globe.
 
row_7 said:
Went to Riverside for my jab this morning - loads of staff but very few patients
Apparently they've had loads of no-shows due to scare mongering from the media
Vaccine roll-out could be a long drawn out affair if this continues
Click to expand...
Had mine at North Tees last week and it was full.
 
HolgateCorner said:
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.
Click to expand...
It does, as the risk doesn't appear in any way high, or even confirmed. I'll bet my hat that the only reason they're not giving it to U-30's is that they don't have any for under 30's. If they did have plenty of it, they wouldn't be stopping it. It's hypothetical now, as I was under the impression that supply wasn't going to drop, and it was going to increase (but yesterdays release says otherwise). So the argument is now invalid to be honest.

You've no idea what the long term implications of covid are though (other than they're not going to be good), or the damage long covid does or the additional risk to the other 4 people that end up infected by one person, and that chain, or the likely additional lock downs and closures etc. The risk of those is probably 100 times worse than that of the blood clot, albeit this risk is shared by others, not just the individual. It's all back to doing what is for the greater good of humanity though. If I was under 30 I would gladly take on this minute risk, if there was a lot more risk to reduce elsewhere. It's the least selfish thing to do, which is best for all.
 
Andy_W said:
Yes, I am, and I know what you're saying, but maths and probability dictate everything. I think they're taking this course as there's no stock vaccines for under 30's, and doesn't seem to be for a long time anyway, and AZ will be used up as second doses. But had it been available in stock it would be going in peoples arms, no doubt about it. They will now probably use the J&J vaccines on younger folk, as a one-shot problem solver to shortens the vaccine timeline.

Blood taking not by a doctor, come on, you know exactly what my point is. A doctor isn't sticking the vaccine in either but the looks of it, it's being mostly done by nurses?

There is an immediate risk to the patient, they could get covid any day, which is more likely than the blood clot, just like long covid, or passing it onto some 49 year old. Heck it could even mean another lock down, and with that comes less chance of having/ retaining a job etc, it's all risk, and risk that a doctor can't account for, so he shouldn't be accounting for it, the decision should be out of his hands.

A doctor abides by the rules given to him, they're not a free entity, doing whatever they like. If the rules change, the doctors actions change, effectively medical guidelines change all the time.

"Compromised safety" is debatable, to say the least, when something is less than a 1 in 100,000 risk, then it effectively ceases to be a genuine risk.

If a doctor only looked after his patient, without a care to other patients or without any guidance then the entire medical system would collapse, as it would fail to be a system. It has to work cohesively, as a whole unit, like how all the younger folk locked down so save the older folk, it's the same thing.
Click to expand...
I have answered all these points already Andy were going round in circles now.

You are entitled to your opinion but about doctors you're wrong. I know this because I worked with the BMA for 3 years.
 
Unusual blood clots should be listed as "very rare" side effects of the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine, Europe’s main drug regulator said Wednesday.

Emer Cooke, the executive director of the European Medicines Agency, said that the "benefits of the AstraZeneca overall outweigh the risks of side effects."


The vaccine has "proved to be highly effective," she said at a news briefing, adding that it prevented "severe disease and hospitalization and it is saving lives."
However, Cooke added that after a "very in-depth analysis," the regulator had "concluded that the reported cases of unusual blood clotting following vaccination with the AstraZeneca vaccine should be listed as possible side effects of the vaccine."
Nbc

so that is factual and fair and not the scaremongering doom laden propaganda as we have seen from some EU countries.


PARIS — French President Emmanual Macron said Friday the AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine appeared to be “quasi-ineffective” on people older than 65 — just hours before the EU’s drugs regulator approved it for use on all adults.

“The real problem on AstraZeneca is that it doesn’t work the way we were expecting it to,” Macron told a group of reporters, including POLITICO, in Paris. “We’re waiting for the EMA [European Medicines Agency] results, but today everything points to thinking it is quasi-ineffective on people older than 65, some say those 60 years or older.”

Which was also rubbish.
 
I do think today's press conference was a bad idea, it's created a panic about an absolutely miniscule risk, even if it is does turn out to be directly linked.

The media don't help with their deliberately dramatic headlines and misrepresentation of the facts they're given by scientists.
 
Andy_W said:
It does, as the risk doesn't appear in any way high, or even confirmed. I'll bet my hat that the only reason they're not giving it to U-30's is that they don't have any for under 30's. If they did have plenty of it, they wouldn't be stopping it. It's hypothetical now, as I was under the impression that supply wasn't going to drop, and it was going to increase (but yesterdays release says otherwise). So the argument is now invalid to be honest.

You've no idea what the long term implications of covid are though (other than they're not going to be good), or the damage long covid does or the additional risk to the other 4 people that end up infected by one person, and that chain, or the likely additional lock downs and closures etc. The risk of those is probably 100 times worse than that of the blood clot, albeit this risk is shared by others, not just the individual. It's all back to doing what is for the greater good of humanity though. If I was under 30 I would gladly take on this minute risk, if there was a lot more risk to reduce elsewhere. It's the least selfish thing to do, which is best for all.
Click to expand...
I understand your argument but my own view is that we must not be reckless with a vaccine if there is a doubt about its side effects on otherwise healthy people on the basis that we are desperate to get unlocked.

It is ok talking about the greater good etc until it is you or one of your family meeting an early death when the likelihood is that they would not have had any problems if they had caught the virus anyway.

Should we be using a vaccine on the basis it has a death rate, but a lower one than an already very low virus death rate?

Need to be careful with that one I think.
 
Laughing said:
I have answered all these points already Andy were going round in circles now.

You are entitled to your opinion but about doctors you're wrong. I know this because I worked with the BMA for 3 years.
Click to expand...
Fair enough (y)

Doctors don't make up their own rules though, especially not the ones who are employees of the NHS, taking a wage from the NHS and the taxpayer, just like the nurses jabbing people. The NHS is ultimately at the disposal of the government, the law and the greater good of the people, and all of those are playing second fiddle to maths, modelling, the economy and covid. If any of the latter shift, it trickles down and the doctor gets told the rules he's abiding to.

The doctors hypothetical patient, wouldn't even get to be a patient if the hospital was rammed with covid, as he would be away likely treating a covid patient, rather than making a decision on someone's vaccine.

Like I said though, it's irrelevant, as the basis of my point doesn't currently exist, as we don't have any vaccines to give to the 30 year olds, so we can pen it as "a cautious choice" now, albeit if it was January and we had a massive stock of AZ vaccines, and we had vaccinated everyone over 30 then the left over AZ's would then be going into the under 30's as fast as was physically possible, as it would be less risk.

What you will find is that as soon as we get to the under 30's, if we end up with a stockpile of AZ, and no others, or run out of others, then AZ will be back on the menu.

Anything is better than nothing, always has been and always will be, but at the minute, for the under 30's we currently have nothing and won't before July, so there's time to look into AZ's blood clots, albeit doing it publicly is absolutely stupid.
 
HolgateCorner said:
I understand your argument but my own view is that we must not be reckless with a vaccine if there is a doubt about its side effects on otherwise healthy people on the basis that we are desperate to get unlocked.

It is ok talking about the greater good etc until it is you or one of your family meeting an early death when the likelihood is that they would not have had any problems if they had caught the virus anyway.

Should we be using a vaccine on the basis it has a death rate, but a lower one than an already very low virus death rate?

Need to be careful with that one I think.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's reckless if we had them in stock, as they would do more good in the arms of the under 30's than in the fridge, providing there were no others available. It's the under 30's parents, grandparents and other family they would be doing it for, not necessarily themselves unless they actually want to chance covid or long covid etc.

But if we don't have any stock to give to the under 30's, then "looking into it" until we do get stock is totally fine, and certainly the right choice. Providing that once we get stock back (July) and the analysis is carried out, that under 30's get offered AZ, if there's some available, all those more at risk are covered, no other safer vaccine choices are available (are any others more proven on the same scale?), and if this does not hold up overall rollout and the path to herd immunity.

Also, I could call it reckless to prioritise a lesser tested vaccine (Moderna, Novovax, J&J etc), until it was known that it was a lesser risk than AZ (which is a known extremely low risk). I won't though, as anything is better than nothing, no matter what.
 
Andy_W said:
I don't think it's reckless if we had them in stock, as they would do more good in the arms of the under 30's than in the fridge, providing there were no others available. It's the under 30's parents, grandparents and other family they would be doing it for, not necessarily themselves unless they actually want to chance covid or long covid etc.

But if we don't have any stock to give to the under 30's, then "looking into it" until we do get stock is totally fine, and certainly the right choice. Providing that once we get stock back (July) and the analysis is carried out, that under 30's get offered AZ, if there's some available, all those more at risk are covered, no other safer vaccine choices are available (are any others more proven on the same scale?), and if this does not hold up overall rollout and the path to herd immunity.

Also, I could call it reckless to prioritise a lesser tested vaccine (Moderna, Novovax, J&J etc), until it was known that it was a lesser risk than AZ (which is a known extremely low risk). I won't though, as anything is better than nothing, no matter what.
Click to expand...
I think we are guessing though aren’t we?

I‘m not anti vax, I’ve had the first dose myself, my 21 year old daughter has been on the clinical trial for the Novavax.

All I‘m saying is that if problems are apparent, and this AZ blood clotting has been an ‘emerging’ problem for a few weeks now with the numbers gradually getting dripped out and increased day by day in the UK (never mind the concerns expressed elsewhere) then we shouldn’t brush it under the carpet in our impatience to get unlocked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top