Betting opens for the May 6th locals on the BBC’s Projected National Shares for CON and LAB – politi
Comments
-
I find that so funny and the way Sky is even plausibleTOPPING said:Tinfoil hat on:
Govt leaked or hinted or wanted the info to go to Sky that the roadmap will be put back and hence now that it doesn't appear it will be, we all feel a surge of relief and happiness.
I certainly do/did.0 -
I am sure the numbers in the particular figure are correct but the spotlight is not focusing on the relevant information. At younger age groups, the worry is not that you are going to end up in ICU it's that you might get long Covid, effectively fucking your life for who knows how long.williamglenn said:
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.tlg86 said:
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.williamglenn said:I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
1 -
It has always been a personal choice, hasn't it? There is no compulsion.Leon said:Now they're saying if you're 30 or 31 decide for yourself..... if you want the jab...
The messaging is all over the place. This is the problem. in the light of that incoherence, all that most people will take away is AZ CAN KILL YOU WITH A BLOODCLOT
I fear you are over-reacting to this, just a touch. There was very little effect on take-up of all the shenanigans and fake news from the continent.1 -
Depends on access to other vaccines, doesn't it?williamglenn said:
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.tlg86 said:
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.williamglenn said:I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
0 -
The choice isn't AZ or Covid though.GideonWise said:
I am sure the numbers in the particular figure are correct but the spotlight is not focusing on the relevant information. At younger age groups, the worry is not that you are going to end up in ICU it's that you might get long Covid, effectively fucking your life for who knows how long.williamglenn said:
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.tlg86 said:
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.williamglenn said:I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
It is AZ or Novavax (or J&J, if that doesn't turn out to have the same risks as AZ)0 -
Yet the EMA has NOT made this recommendationFF43 said:I see this as an ethical issue: everyone injected should have better than evens chance of having their life saved by it compared with being killed by it. That there is very chance of either happening in young healthy adults doesn't remove the equation.
The reason for vaccinating young people is to stop community spread. But that isn't enough on its own. Each person inoculated needs to have an individual potential benefit - we can't ask them to take one for the community.
AIUI.
??
0 -
Slightly self-fulfilling. The more morons who say things like that, the more the general belief will be that it is true.Leon said:Now they're saying if you're 30 or 31 decide for yourself..... if you want the jab...
The messaging is all over the place. This is the problem. in the light of that incoherence, all that most people will take away is AZ CAN KILL YOU WITH A BLOODCLOT0 -
It does seem like GB news has swallowed up the quality end of journalism, and while it doesnt look like theyll be an echo chamber style Fox, they do seem to be positioning as a counter to Channel 4 News type of journalism. These established hitters wont have been lured over without big numbers. God knows how they expect it to all add up.tlg86 said:
They're shitting it over GB News.RobD said:JVT: No effect on the timing of the program. What were sky talking about?
4 -
I can verify anecdotally this is already happening in the mere half an hour since this broke. The people at the regulator might be well meaning but they are fools. Much like Witty, Van Tam and Valance. Well meaning but their words and actions end up being completely counterproductive because they have no comprehension of how casual observers interpret what they say. Media don’t help matters.Leon said:
It was a prediction of how people will react. Many will refuse their 2nd dose of AZ, many middle aged people will also refuse first doses of AZ. Vaccine hesitancy will explode in the UK.RobD said:JVT: No effect on the timing of the program. What were sky talking about?
I fear they are right1 -
Completely disagreed. It isn't misrepresented since Covid is going away, we won't all be exposed to Covid at some point - we'll be able to get an alternative vaccine at some point, or simply not be exposed to the virus ourselves. Yes the virus will still be there, but it won't get everyone, like HIV or other viruses.williamglenn said:
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.tlg86 said:
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.williamglenn said:I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
0 -
Did anyone say why AZ is causing problems or do they still have no idea?0
-
Over-reacting???????????????????? ME???????????RobD said:
It has always been a personal choice, hasn't it? There is no compulsion.Leon said:Now they're saying if you're 30 or 31 decide for yourself..... if you want the jab...
The messaging is all over the place. This is the problem. in the light of that incoherence, all that most people will take away is AZ CAN KILL YOU WITH A BLOODCLOT
I fear you are over-reacting to this, just a touch. There was very little effect on take-up of all the shenanigans and fake news from the continent.
In all seriousness, this *feels* bad, to me. It feels like the day they announced the Kentish Variant
I do hope I am wrong and I will happily pour curry sauce over my testicles if I am1 -
Well we don't really know that yet do we? If this slows things down, then for some, it might be AZ versus Covid.Flatlander said:
The choice isn't AZ or Covid though.GideonWise said:
I am sure the numbers in the particular figure are correct but the spotlight is not focusing on the relevant information. At younger age groups, the worry is not that you are going to end up in ICU it's that you might get long Covid, effectively fucking your life for who knows how long.williamglenn said:
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.tlg86 said:
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.williamglenn said:I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
It is AZ or Novavax (or J&J, if that doesn't turn out to have the same risks as AZ)0 -
You see this a lot in cancer studies, where crazy levels of consumption of X makes the risk of cancer Y FOUR TIMES greater. Number of implied extra deaths per year: 0.5TOPPING said:
The danger is that the risks, relatively, are so tiny but we magnify the whole issue.MaxPB said:
As expected. It's going to make no real world difference because by the time the programme reaches the group's in question we won't be using AZ anyway. This is for under 30s in groups 2, 4 and 6. Not under 30s in phase 2. I also wonder whether it's actually only group 2 where the recommendation will apply becuase in group 4 and 6 the risk differential will not be as unfavorable given their risk of death from COVID being so much higher.TOPPING said:Effect on timing of vaccine programme: zero - JVT
Risk, say, of four in a million vs eight in a million has everyone running around saying "it's twice the risk".4 -
I'm not saying it on Twitter, I am saying it on PB. Where everyone is measured and thoughtfulGideonWise said:
Slightly self-fulfilling. The more morons who say things like that, the more the general belief will be that it is true.Leon said:Now they're saying if you're 30 or 31 decide for yourself..... if you want the jab...
The messaging is all over the place. This is the problem. in the light of that incoherence, all that most people will take away is AZ CAN KILL YOU WITH A BLOODCLOT0 -
Because Europe has extremely high Covid rates at the minute, the UK doesn't.Leon said:
Yet the EMA has NOT made this recommendationFF43 said:I see this as an ethical issue: everyone injected should have better than evens chance of having their life saved by it compared with being killed by it. That there is very chance of either happening in young healthy adults doesn't remove the equation.
The reason for vaccinating young people is to stop community spread. But that isn't enough on its own. Each person inoculated needs to have an individual potential benefit - we can't ask them to take one for the community.
AIUI.
??
Across Europe as a whole the daily excess deaths is over 3,500.
In the UK the daily excess deaths is 0.0 -
My daughter (49) was yesterday and to be honest the MHRA are recommending everyone has the second dose and is only moving to Pfizer and Moderna for the under 30sAlistair said:Well as a 41 year jabbed with AZ at the weekend I'm a little put out by this press conference.
0 -
What the morons in charge fail to understand is it doesn’t mean AZ or J&J. It means people will just think: “fuck it. I’m not getting vaxxed at all by these charlatans because the whole thing is rushed and covid is not really a personal risk to me anyway.”GideonWise said:
Well we don't really know that yet do we? If this slows things down, then for some, it might be AZ versus Covid.Flatlander said:
The choice isn't AZ or Covid though.GideonWise said:
I am sure the numbers in the particular figure are correct but the spotlight is not focusing on the relevant information. At younger age groups, the worry is not that you are going to end up in ICU it's that you might get long Covid, effectively fucking your life for who knows how long.williamglenn said:
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.tlg86 said:
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.williamglenn said:I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
It is AZ or Novavax (or J&J, if that doesn't turn out to have the same risks as AZ)
0 -
So from today at least under 30s don't nave to worry about AZ clots
In other less good news
From today:
• Council Tax rise by £351
• Energy Bill Cap up £96
• Prescription charges rise by 20p
• TV Licence up £90 -
Do the math. You were more at risk driving to the vaccination centre.2
-
We are now a nerdocracy. We are governed by geek scientists who know nothing about human nature and psychology because they are borderline Aspergersmoonshine said:
I can verify anecdotally this is already happening in the mere half an hour since this broke. The people at the regulator might be well meaning but they are fools. Much like Witty, Van Tam and Valance. Well meaning but their words and actions end up being completely counterproductive because they have no comprehension of how casual observers interpret what they say. Media don’t help matters.Leon said:
It was a prediction of how people will react. Many will refuse their 2nd dose of AZ, many middle aged people will also refuse first doses of AZ. Vaccine hesitancy will explode in the UK.RobD said:JVT: No effect on the timing of the program. What were sky talking about?
I fear they are right
This whole press conference should have been done by professional politicians - with the odd bit of strictly limited input from scientists, showing the slides etc0 -
Yes, there may be something to that, but we also included health and social care workers in group 2, and they are overwhelmingly young and female.Philip_Thompson said:
We started vaccinating the vulnerable.Foxy said:
One thing that stands out is how poor our own medicines surveillance was at picking this up. Other countries picked it up at far fewer doses, Germany at just 2.5 million for example. I wonder why.Leon said:
30 cases of blood clot in 18 million dosesPhilip_Thompson said:
The risks of Covid in the UK are a lot, lot lower than the risk of Covid in Europe. I trust the MHRA, if they've made a decision they'll have done so for the right reasons, if they haven't fair enough too.Leon said:
Of course it is, so why the UK move (if true)?eek said:
Nope because the risk is lower than the risk of covid.Leon said:This is going to destroy vaccine acceptance in the EU, and maybe harm it badly in the UK
What if they find the same in Pfizer, J&J, Novavax? Very rare side effects? Do we stop all vaccines, because 1 in 600,000 keel over?
A very rare side effect is no reason to cease delivering an excellent vaccine DURING A TERRIBLE PLAGUE
The odds of a healthy under-30 catching Covid and dying from it now in the UK must be very, very low.
If you get Covid age 18-29 the chances of death are higher, the chances of disease/hospitalisation are much higher, the chances of passing the disease on are obviously higher
Nuts
The other point is that there is a difference between giving a drug to a sick person with a rare side effect, and giving it to a healthy person.
The Germans started out vaccinating the young and healthy. 🤦♂️
The odds for the young are very, very different compared to the old.
The expansion into those with underlying conditions must also have included a lot of younger women.
Norway spotted it on 13th March for example, at which time they had vaccinated 8.32% of a population of 5.4 million so about 430 000 people, not all of whom would be young and female.0 -
Yep. For once I have some sympathy with your hysteria.Leon said:Now they're saying if you're 30 or 31 decide for yourself..... if you want the jab...
The messaging is all over the place. This is the problem. in the light of that incoherence, all that most people will take away is AZ CAN KILL YOU WITH A BLOODCLOT
Folk won't be listening to this conference in full. Nor discussing it with experts in vaccines and stats on here.
They'll be hearing a one sentence summary.1 -
Do you think? I'm not sure - there will be apathy but for the most part young people believe themselves to be immortal so that will work in favour of getting them jabbed.moonshine said:
What the morons in charge fail to understand is it doesn’t mean AZ or J&J. It means people will just think: “fuck it. I’m not getting vaxxed at all by these charlatans because the whole thing is rushed and covid is not really a personal risk to me anyway.”GideonWise said:
Well we don't really know that yet do we? If this slows things down, then for some, it might be AZ versus Covid.Flatlander said:
The choice isn't AZ or Covid though.GideonWise said:
I am sure the numbers in the particular figure are correct but the spotlight is not focusing on the relevant information. At younger age groups, the worry is not that you are going to end up in ICU it's that you might get long Covid, effectively fucking your life for who knows how long.williamglenn said:
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.tlg86 said:
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.williamglenn said:I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
It is AZ or Novavax (or J&J, if that doesn't turn out to have the same risks as AZ)
Add in £50 a pop to get jabbed if you're worried. What's a billion here or there?0 -
You are normally far more balanced then today, and of course the more people who catastrophise this the more damage is done to the vaccine programme.Leon said:Now they're saying if you're 30 or 31 decide for yourself..... if you want the jab...
The messaging is all over the place. This is the problem. in the light of that incoherence, all that most people will take away is AZ CAN KILL YOU WITH A BLOODCLOT
1 -
Because the risks change according to the prevalence of COVID.Leon said:
Yet the EMA has NOT made this recommendationFF43 said:I see this as an ethical issue: everyone injected should have better than evens chance of having their life saved by it compared with being killed by it. That there is very chance of either happening in young healthy adults doesn't remove the equation.
The reason for vaccinating young people is to stop community spread. But that isn't enough on its own. Each person inoculated needs to have an individual potential benefit - we can't ask them to take one for the community.
AIUI.
??
If you are uptown your ears in COVID cases, then there is far less risk taking AZN than risking COVID
If there is no COVID, then the risk of taking AZN predominates.0 -
This you a couple of days back ?moonshine said:
What the morons in charge fail to understand is it doesn’t mean AZ or J&J. It means people will just think: “fuck it. I’m not getting vaxxed at all by these charlatans because the whole thing is rushed and covid is not really a personal risk to me anyway.”moonshine said:
This is nonsense. See my message above. I know so many people in their 30s who have been added to Cat 6 in just the last few weeks it’s become more a case of “what sucker left on this whatsapp group still hasn’t been jabbed”.0 -
I’ll predict as well that in a few years you’ll be able to trace a statistically significant spike in measles deaths to this press conference.Leon said:
We are now a nerdocracy. We are governed by geek scientists who know nothing about human nature and psychology because they are borderline Aspergersmoonshine said:
I can verify anecdotally this is already happening in the mere half an hour since this broke. The people at the regulator might be well meaning but they are fools. Much like Witty, Van Tam and Valance. Well meaning but their words and actions end up being completely counterproductive because they have no comprehension of how casual observers interpret what they say. Media don’t help matters.Leon said:
It was a prediction of how people will react. Many will refuse their 2nd dose of AZ, many middle aged people will also refuse first doses of AZ. Vaccine hesitancy will explode in the UK.RobD said:JVT: No effect on the timing of the program. What were sky talking about?
I fear they are right
This whole press conference should have been done by professional politicians - with the odd bit of strictly limited input from scientists, showing the slides etc0 -
Scott was meant to post this surely
https://twitter.com/MoriartyProfJ3/status/1379804054067499013
Methinks Dr Moriarty may be blind1 -
Blimey, some in the government are shocked to find out an independent regulator is erm independent.
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/13798023312529858610 -
The dangers of google there - I just googled for something like "chance of being struck by lightning", and the first hit that gave a usable number suggested 1 in 500k PA. I think possibly my error was to assume that was a comparable UK number - I think it may have been a US number, where its possible the risks of being struck by lightning are rather higher (different climatic conditions). Or possibly the number I found was just bunk.AlwaysSinging said:
Where on earth did you get a figure of 2 per million per year?theProle said:
I can't easily find accurate numbers to completely answer this, but I think actually they are probably of a similar order of magnitude.Andy_Cooke said:rural_voter said:
Madcap conspirary theories abounded a year ago and I didn't believe a word they said. Now less sure because so far the hypothesis fits the observations ...Cyclefree said:
If the government were genuinely worried about a mutant strain of the virus impervious to existing vaccines, it would have taken effective action to limit who can enter the country and imposed strict and effective quarantine arrangements on those few let in.kinabalu said:
I'd say this statement is flat out wrong. It's a rewrite of history unless you and I have been living through different pandemics. Again and again during this whole wretched episode the virus has been underestimated and that worry is the one which has consistently been proved right. The worry about the government imposing lockdowns too early or without justification has tended to be proved wrong. And the current outbreak of worry about the roadmap being reneged on, or vaccine passports coming in, or long term compulsory masks and distancing etc, all of that remains at this point just that - people worrying. I don't criticize people for this (unless they succumb to silly conspiracy theory type stuff about the Surveillance State, and even then only gently, since it can be healthy to worry about such things), but as of now the evidence is not imo there to justify it.Stocky said:
The worrying has proved time and time again to not be irrational.Maffew said:
Thanks, I appreciate your kind words.TOPPING said:
As I said your mail last night was powerful and typical of many on here - well done for coming out and saying it.
And all I can say is that I really do think we are coming to the end of this. Any post-June 21st restrictions will be self-implemented (eg. Nick Palmer need not go to the no vaxport pub and choose one where the landlord has decided to use them: eg none). Same with masks and social distancing.
With the bulk of at risk groups vaccinated we can begin to resume normality. And if the PM decides otherwise because caution then he will have an almighty fight on his hands with his own party and, god help us I hope, with the opposition.
Rationally I know you're probably right. I've got two parallel thought processes going on in my head - the rational one where I can look at the numbers and come to the same conclusions as you and the irrational one where I feel utterly powerless and threatened by every media pronouncement or model. I pride myself on being able to think rationally and logically (it's pretty important for my job), but this irrational worrying is another symptom of lockdown.
It has done neither of these things and continues not to. Instead all of its efforts are focused on controlling what vaccinated people can do here. It is nonsense on stilts.
So either the government consists of utter morons. Or it has another agenda.
Or both.
https://architectsforsocialhousing.co.uk/2021/03/04/brave-new-world-expanding-the-uk-biosecurity-state-through-the-winter-of-2020-2021/
75-80 years on from unspeakable medical experiments and why are we vaccinating children with a product whose safety testing only ends in 2023 or -24? Healthy children don't die of this virus any more often than they die from lightning strikes.
Children are being submitted for experiments by parents who themselves are not well informed enough to know that the products are unlicensed. They have *emergency use authorisation* ... which they wouldn't have got without corruption at WHO and CDC level. See Dr Pierre Kory's testimony. One only has to look to find medics. speaking out and suggesting that some of their colleagues would do so but fear for their jobs.
The risks of hospitalisation and long covid especially are far far higher than of a lightning strike.
Deaths in 5-10 year olds who have tested positive for Covid inside 28 days run at about 3 per million over the last year, google suggests lighting strikes run at about 2 per million PA, so it seems that Rural Voters claim "Healthy children don't die of this virus any more often than they die from lightning strikes." isn't actually that far off.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/220157056.pdf
58 people died in the UK by lightning strikes in the 30 years 1987-2016.
rural_voter was, as always, full of it.
--AS
Working from the UK numbers, that's about 600 strikes (90% survival rate) in 30 years, or 20 a year. With a population that's averaged 61 million over that time, it looks like one has about a 1 in 3 million annual chance of being struck by lightning, to about 10x less likely than a 5-10 year old dying of covid.
That said, I'm not sure that "have a vaccine against something only 10x as likely as being struck by lightning" is a particularly strong sales pitch...0 -
No need to go that farLeon said:
Over-reacting???????????????????? ME???????????RobD said:
It has always been a personal choice, hasn't it? There is no compulsion.Leon said:Now they're saying if you're 30 or 31 decide for yourself..... if you want the jab...
The messaging is all over the place. This is the problem. in the light of that incoherence, all that most people will take away is AZ CAN KILL YOU WITH A BLOODCLOT
I fear you are over-reacting to this, just a touch. There was very little effect on take-up of all the shenanigans and fake news from the continent.
In all seriousness, this *feels* bad, to me. It feels like the day they announced the Kentish Variant
I do hope I am wrong and I will happily pour curry sauce over my testicles if I am0 -
Tho the effect will be the same anyway. All people under 94 across the world will now refuse AZ and instead take nux vomica while drinking their own urineTheScreamingEagles said:Blimey, some in the government are shocked to find out an independent regulator is erm independent.
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/13798023312529858610 -
I’m not sure I understand your pointPulpstar said:
This you a couple of days back ?moonshine said:
What the morons in charge fail to understand is it doesn’t mean AZ or J&J. It means people will just think: “fuck it. I’m not getting vaxxed at all by these charlatans because the whole thing is rushed and covid is not really a personal risk to me anyway.”moonshine said:
This is nonsense. See my message above. I know so many people in their 30s who have been added to Cat 6 in just the last few weeks it’s become more a case of “what sucker left on this whatsapp group still hasn’t been jabbed”.0 -
A rather simplistic analysis. Did he not watch the briefing?bigjohnowls said:Scott was meant to post this surely
https://twitter.com/MoriartyProfJ3/status/13798040540674990130 -
I honestly don't know if this is a good decision or not. I don't have the knowledge, and if I did, I suspect it would be a marginal, nuanced decision that could go a number of ways. The general comments I would make, having dealt with regulators:Leon said:
Yet the EMA has NOT made this recommendationFF43 said:I see this as an ethical issue: everyone injected should have better than evens chance of having their life saved by it compared with being killed by it. That there is very chance of either happening in young healthy adults doesn't remove the equation.
The reason for vaccinating young people is to stop community spread. But that isn't enough on its own. Each person inoculated needs to have an individual potential benefit - we can't ask them to take one for the community.
AIUI.
??- You want regulators to make the calls. Otherwise you give the job to politicians or the mob.
- Regulators can quite reasonably come to different views, based on the evidence and circumstances that they operate in. It's frustrating to anyone looking for one objective truth.
- The pressure on regulators is always to ease off; there is never pressure to be stricter. On the other hand they will always be in more trouble for allowing something they shouldn't than disallowing something they should. Regulators are human. Some handle this necessary tension better than others.
0 - You want regulators to make the calls. Otherwise you give the job to politicians or the mob.
-
4 in a million? BBC:
"She says that up to 31 March, 20m doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine were given and 79 cases of rare blood clots were reported.
All 79 cases occured after the first dose and 19 people sadly died, Raine says.
Of the cases, 51 were women and 28 men aged 18 to 79 years old.
She said the risk of this kind of side effect was about four in one million to those who receive the vaccine."
19 out of 20m I make just under 1 in a million deaths or roughly 5 deaths in Scotland where there are currently 7,614 registered Covid deaths.
When did we earn the right to live in a world without risk? The world has genuinely gone potty. Do people have no concept of risk assessment? I am going for my jab on Monday. If its AZ that will be absolutely fine. Of course if I do turn out to be one of the 5 I will be disappointed.6 -
"Moriarty" is an idiot.bigjohnowls said:Scott was meant to post this surely
https://twitter.com/MoriartyProfJ3/status/1379804054067499013
Methinks Dr Moriarty may not be blind
Doesn't surprise me to see you sharing such stupidity.
The risk profile for under 30s is wildly different to the risk profile for others.3 -
So logically if we have another wave the JCVI is going to say "jab the under 30s" again.Malmesbury said:
Because the risks change according to the prevalence of COVID.Leon said:
Yet the EMA has NOT made this recommendationFF43 said:I see this as an ethical issue: everyone injected should have better than evens chance of having their life saved by it compared with being killed by it. That there is very chance of either happening in young healthy adults doesn't remove the equation.
The reason for vaccinating young people is to stop community spread. But that isn't enough on its own. Each person inoculated needs to have an individual potential benefit - we can't ask them to take one for the community.
AIUI.
??
If you are uptown your ears in COVID cases, then there is far less risk taking AZN than risking COVID
If there is no COVID, then the risk of taking AZN predominates.0 -
This is the slide I'm talking about. It implies that the risk from the vaccination is greater than the risk from covid for 20-29 year olds, but it's based on them having a low risk of being exposed to it. This is disastrous messaging because it will encourage people not to get vaccinated at all.Philip_Thompson said:
Completely disagreed. It isn't misrepresented since Covid is going away, we won't all be exposed to Covid at some point - we'll be able to get an alternative vaccine at some point, or simply not be exposed to the virus ourselves. Yes the virus will still be there, but it won't get everyone, like HIV or other viruses.williamglenn said:
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.tlg86 said:
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.williamglenn said:I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
0 -
So will all the posters who swore that the blood clots were a fabrication of "the EU" in order to smear the plucky Brits take a moment to see how their fanaticism tends to make them lose touch with reality?
Probably not.4 -
Gove’s insistence on the vaccine passport starts to come into focus now I think. It’s the best stick they can think of to get the under 40s to take up the vaccine in sufficient numbers to get to an R of <= 1 with no interventions.TOPPING said:
Do you think? I'm not sure - there will be apathy but for the most part young people believe themselves to be immortal so that will work in favour of getting them jabbed.moonshine said:
What the morons in charge fail to understand is it doesn’t mean AZ or J&J. It means people will just think: “fuck it. I’m not getting vaxxed at all by these charlatans because the whole thing is rushed and covid is not really a personal risk to me anyway.”GideonWise said:
Well we don't really know that yet do we? If this slows things down, then for some, it might be AZ versus Covid.Flatlander said:
The choice isn't AZ or Covid though.GideonWise said:
I am sure the numbers in the particular figure are correct but the spotlight is not focusing on the relevant information. At younger age groups, the worry is not that you are going to end up in ICU it's that you might get long Covid, effectively fucking your life for who knows how long.williamglenn said:
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.tlg86 said:
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.williamglenn said:I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
It is AZ or Novavax (or J&J, if that doesn't turn out to have the same risks as AZ)
Add in £50 a pop to get jabbed if you're worried. What's a billion here or there?0 -
Had we really failed to 'spot' the possible issue or were the regulators rightly sitting and waiting to get a better handle on it, given the vaccine is clearly advantageous for the vulnerable and over 50s by a massive margin?Foxy said:
Yes, there may be something to that, but we also included health and social care workers in group 2, and they are overwhelmingly young and female.Philip_Thompson said:
We started vaccinating the vulnerable.Foxy said:
One thing that stands out is how poor our own medicines surveillance was at picking this up. Other countries picked it up at far fewer doses, Germany at just 2.5 million for example. I wonder why.Leon said:
30 cases of blood clot in 18 million dosesPhilip_Thompson said:
The risks of Covid in the UK are a lot, lot lower than the risk of Covid in Europe. I trust the MHRA, if they've made a decision they'll have done so for the right reasons, if they haven't fair enough too.Leon said:
Of course it is, so why the UK move (if true)?eek said:
Nope because the risk is lower than the risk of covid.Leon said:This is going to destroy vaccine acceptance in the EU, and maybe harm it badly in the UK
What if they find the same in Pfizer, J&J, Novavax? Very rare side effects? Do we stop all vaccines, because 1 in 600,000 keel over?
A very rare side effect is no reason to cease delivering an excellent vaccine DURING A TERRIBLE PLAGUE
The odds of a healthy under-30 catching Covid and dying from it now in the UK must be very, very low.
If you get Covid age 18-29 the chances of death are higher, the chances of disease/hospitalisation are much higher, the chances of passing the disease on are obviously higher
Nuts
The other point is that there is a difference between giving a drug to a sick person with a rare side effect, and giving it to a healthy person.
The Germans started out vaccinating the young and healthy. 🤦♂️
The odds for the young are very, very different compared to the old.
The expansion into those with underlying conditions must also have included a lot of younger women.
Norway spotted it on 13th March for example, at which time they had vaccinated 8.32% of a population of 5.4 million so about 430 000 people, not all of whom would be young and female.
At about 5 deaths per billion vehicle miles, you only have to drive about 200 miles to get the same risk as an AZ jab (roughly 1/million).0 -
The MHRA have done their jobs well David. The risk assessment shows that at low transmission rates the risk of the vaccine for under 30s is more risk than the risk from Covid.DavidL said:4 in a million? BBC:
"She says that up to 31 March, 20m doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine were given and 79 cases of rare blood clots were reported.
All 79 cases occured after the first dose and 19 people sadly died, Raine says.
Of the cases, 51 were women and 28 men aged 18 to 79 years old.
She said the risk of this kind of side effect was about four in one million to those who receive the vaccine."
19 out of 20m I make just under 1 in a million deaths or roughly 5 deaths in Scotland where there are currently 7,614 registered Covid deaths.
When did we earn the right to live in a world without risk? The world has genuinely gone potty. Do people have no concept of risk assessment? I am going for my jab on Monday. If its AZ that will be absolutely fine. Of course if I do turn out to be one of the 5 I will be disappointed.
At high transmission rates or for over 30s the profile is different.0 -
Well they are particularly stupid because part of the rationale behind the MHRA's decision is that we're doing rather better than Europe.TheScreamingEagles said:Blimey, some in the government are shocked to find out an independent regulator is erm independent.
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/13798023312529858610 -
Yes, it's batshit once you factor in the extra downside of booming anti-vaxxery, it makes no sense on a risk-benefit analysis. I've taken multiple medicines that must have had a 1 in 100,000 risk of death or higherDavidL said:4 in a million? BBC:
"She says that up to 31 March, 20m doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine were given and 79 cases of rare blood clots were reported.
All 79 cases occured after the first dose and 19 people sadly died, Raine says.
Of the cases, 51 were women and 28 men aged 18 to 79 years old.
She said the risk of this kind of side effect was about four in one million to those who receive the vaccine."
19 out of 20m I make just under 1 in a million deaths or roughly 5 deaths in Scotland where there are currently 7,614 registered Covid deaths.
When did we earn the right to live in a world without risk? The world has genuinely gone potty. Do people have no concept of risk assessment? I am going for my jab on Monday. If its AZ that will be absolutely fine. Of course if I do turn out to be one of the 5 I will be disappointed.
So, either they know something and they're not telling us, OR they have gone mad.
Ergo, this decision is so silly it is tempting me into mad anti-vax beliefs (I shall resist, but you see the point)
Twats1 -
Yes and its an appropriate chart.williamglenn said:
This is the slide I'm talking about. It implies that the risk from the vaccination is greater than the risk from covid for 20-29 year olds, but it's based on them having a low risk of being exposed to it. This is disastrous messaging because it will encourage people not to get vaccinated at all.Philip_Thompson said:
Completely disagreed. It isn't misrepresented since Covid is going away, we won't all be exposed to Covid at some point - we'll be able to get an alternative vaccine at some point, or simply not be exposed to the virus ourselves. Yes the virus will still be there, but it won't get everyone, like HIV or other viruses.williamglenn said:
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.tlg86 said:
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.williamglenn said:I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
The risk is different at low exposure rates, its only because we have low exposure rates this applies.1 -
Stick the 40-49s into phase 1 and don’t bother with phase 2. Then open up.williamglenn said:
This is the slide I'm talking about. It implies that the risk from the vaccination is greater than the risk from covid for 20-29 year olds, but it's based on them having a low risk of being exposed to it. This is disastrous messaging because it will encourage people not to get vaccinated at all.Philip_Thompson said:
Completely disagreed. It isn't misrepresented since Covid is going away, we won't all be exposed to Covid at some point - we'll be able to get an alternative vaccine at some point, or simply not be exposed to the virus ourselves. Yes the virus will still be there, but it won't get everyone, like HIV or other viruses.williamglenn said:
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.tlg86 said:
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.williamglenn said:I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
0 -
This is the time for the media to step up and accurately report the very low risk and the benefits of the vaccineDavidL said:4 in a million? BBC:
"She says that up to 31 March, 20m doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine were given and 79 cases of rare blood clots were reported.
All 79 cases occured after the first dose and 19 people sadly died, Raine says.
Of the cases, 51 were women and 28 men aged 18 to 79 years old.
She said the risk of this kind of side effect was about four in one million to those who receive the vaccine."
19 out of 20m I make just under 1 in a million deaths or roughly 5 deaths in Scotland where there are currently 7,614 registered Covid deaths.
When did we earn the right to live in a world without risk? The world has genuinely gone potty. Do people have no concept of risk assessment? I am going for my jab on Monday. If its AZ that will be absolutely fine. Of course if I do turn out to be one of the 5 I will be disappointed.0 -
Lol, you're morons originally ruled that it should only be used for younger people.kamski said:So will all the posters who swore that the blood clots were a fabrication of "the EU" in order to smear the plucky Brits take a moment to see how their fanaticism tends to make them lose touch with reality?
Probably not.2 -
Now I remember what that MHRA chap's hair reminded me of.
https://twitter.com/Lowfeller/status/13798141768440913920 -
To some extent it has yes. It's basically a function of social media allowing 'alternative narratives' of reality to be presented, including on here. In previous periods, the guy ranting down the pub would just be ignored. Nowadays they get 100s of retweets/likes.DavidL said:4 in a million? BBC:
"She says that up to 31 March, 20m doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine were given and 79 cases of rare blood clots were reported.
All 79 cases occured after the first dose and 19 people sadly died, Raine says.
Of the cases, 51 were women and 28 men aged 18 to 79 years old.
She said the risk of this kind of side effect was about four in one million to those who receive the vaccine."
19 out of 20m I make just under 1 in a million deaths or roughly 5 deaths in Scotland where there are currently 7,614 registered Covid deaths.
When did we earn the right to live in a world without risk? The world has genuinely gone potty. Do people have no concept of risk assessment? I am going for my jab on Monday. If its AZ that will be absolutely fine. Of course if I do turn out to be one of the 5 I will be disappointed.2 -
But the objective is to open up and get back to normal. The 25 year old who might have a low risk of being exposed to covid in the next 16 weeks isn't going to have the same risk when they start going to pubs and travelling to Ibiza.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes and its an appropriate chart.williamglenn said:
This is the slide I'm talking about. It implies that the risk from the vaccination is greater than the risk from covid for 20-29 year olds, but it's based on them having a low risk of being exposed to it. This is disastrous messaging because it will encourage people not to get vaccinated at all.Philip_Thompson said:
Completely disagreed. It isn't misrepresented since Covid is going away, we won't all be exposed to Covid at some point - we'll be able to get an alternative vaccine at some point, or simply not be exposed to the virus ourselves. Yes the virus will still be there, but it won't get everyone, like HIV or other viruses.williamglenn said:
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.tlg86 said:
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.williamglenn said:I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
The risk is different at low exposure rates, its only because we have low exposure rates this applies.1 -
What is the risk of death from mdma, ket or street coke? Put it in terms that millennials will understand.Leon said:
Yes, it's batshit once you factor in the extra downside of booming anti-vaxxery, it makes no sense on a risk-benefit analysis. I've taken multiple medicines that must have had a 1 in 100,000 risk of death or higherDavidL said:4 in a million? BBC:
"She says that up to 31 March, 20m doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine were given and 79 cases of rare blood clots were reported.
All 79 cases occured after the first dose and 19 people sadly died, Raine says.
Of the cases, 51 were women and 28 men aged 18 to 79 years old.
She said the risk of this kind of side effect was about four in one million to those who receive the vaccine."
19 out of 20m I make just under 1 in a million deaths or roughly 5 deaths in Scotland where there are currently 7,614 registered Covid deaths.
When did we earn the right to live in a world without risk? The world has genuinely gone potty. Do people have no concept of risk assessment? I am going for my jab on Monday. If its AZ that will be absolutely fine. Of course if I do turn out to be one of the 5 I will be disappointed.
So, either they know something and they're not telling us, OR they have gone mad.
Ergo, this decision is so silly it is tempting me into mad anti-vax beliefs (I shall resist, but you see the point)
Twats0 -
The answer to that question has been answered many, many times. Yes, people have very good risk assessment mechanisms - it's just that they are designed for when we were hunter gatherers, not city folk, and are mainly of the automatic, subconscious type.DavidL said:4 in a million? BBC:
"She says that up to 31 March, 20m doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine were given and 79 cases of rare blood clots were reported.
All 79 cases occured after the first dose and 19 people sadly died, Raine says.
Of the cases, 51 were women and 28 men aged 18 to 79 years old.
She said the risk of this kind of side effect was about four in one million to those who receive the vaccine."
19 out of 20m I make just under 1 in a million deaths or roughly 5 deaths in Scotland where there are currently 7,614 registered Covid deaths.
When did we earn the right to live in a world without risk? The world has genuinely gone potty. Do people have no concept of risk assessment? I am going for my jab on Monday. If its AZ that will be absolutely fine. Of course if I do turn out to be one of the 5 I will be disappointed.
We really are not at all good at quantitative risk assessment. Many studies have identified fear factors (13 so far) that distort risk perceptions; and it is pretty clear that human risk perceptions are non-Bayesian.0 -
.
Or you can't do maths or science.Leon said:
Yes, it's batshit once you factor in the extra downside of booming anti-vaxxery, it makes no sense on a risk-benefit analysis. I've taken multiple medicines that must have had a 1 in 100,000 risk of death or higherDavidL said:4 in a million? BBC:
"She says that up to 31 March, 20m doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine were given and 79 cases of rare blood clots were reported.
All 79 cases occured after the first dose and 19 people sadly died, Raine says.
Of the cases, 51 were women and 28 men aged 18 to 79 years old.
She said the risk of this kind of side effect was about four in one million to those who receive the vaccine."
19 out of 20m I make just under 1 in a million deaths or roughly 5 deaths in Scotland where there are currently 7,614 registered Covid deaths.
When did we earn the right to live in a world without risk? The world has genuinely gone potty. Do people have no concept of risk assessment? I am going for my jab on Monday. If its AZ that will be absolutely fine. Of course if I do turn out to be one of the 5 I will be disappointed.
So, either they know something and they're not telling us, OR they have gone mad.
Ergo, this decision is so silly it is tempting me into mad anti-vax beliefs (I shall resist, but you see the point)
Twats
If a vaccine at low prevalence gives you a 1/100,000 risk of death - and being unvaccinated gives you a 1% higher of getting infected and a 1/2,500 chance of dying if you are, then should you be vaccinated?0 -
No one said that (and if they did they were cretins). We said all the evidence shows that, if the clotting happens, then the risks are tiny, and totally outweighed by the benefits - which they are, and which, incidentally, is why your regulator the EMA has not suggested withdrawing AZ from anyone, todaykamski said:So will all the posters who swore that the blood clots were a fabrication of "the EU" in order to smear the plucky Brits take a moment to see how their fanaticism tends to make them lose touch with reality?
Probably not.
And if you want to see PB balanced, I will now happily pile on my own nation's regulators, who have just done something so stupid - to my mind - it ranks with Macron's remarks about "quasi ineffective" and the German health "minister" who leaked that AZ was 8% effective in the old0 -
Yes, although it could be tricky if they try to reverse ferret at a later stage. We'd understand the rationale, the media almost certainly wouldn't!Philip_Thompson said:
Yes and its an appropriate chart.williamglenn said:
This is the slide I'm talking about. It implies that the risk from the vaccination is greater than the risk from covid for 20-29 year olds, but it's based on them having a low risk of being exposed to it. This is disastrous messaging because it will encourage people not to get vaccinated at all.Philip_Thompson said:
Completely disagreed. It isn't misrepresented since Covid is going away, we won't all be exposed to Covid at some point - we'll be able to get an alternative vaccine at some point, or simply not be exposed to the virus ourselves. Yes the virus will still be there, but it won't get everyone, like HIV or other viruses.williamglenn said:
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.tlg86 said:
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.williamglenn said:I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
The risk is different at low exposure rates, its only because we have low exposure rates this applies.1 -
Hang on, the "every 16 weeks" disclaimer means they aren't exactly comparing like with like...williamglenn said:
This is the slide I'm talking about. It implies that the risk from the vaccination is greater than the risk from covid for 20-29 year olds, but it's based on them having a low risk of being exposed to it. This is disastrous messaging because it will encourage people not to get vaccinated at all.Philip_Thompson said:
Completely disagreed. It isn't misrepresented since Covid is going away, we won't all be exposed to Covid at some point - we'll be able to get an alternative vaccine at some point, or simply not be exposed to the virus ourselves. Yes the virus will still be there, but it won't get everyone, like HIV or other viruses.williamglenn said:
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.tlg86 said:
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.williamglenn said:I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
It is going to be a 'low exposure risk' for a lot longer than that, surely.1 -
As a comparison, I wonder what the risks are associated with ibuprofen or paracetamol? People are happy to take them even when entirely unnecessary, eg to treat the common cold.1
-
It's tricky. They are trying to present the absolute risks in a way understandable. But the absolute risk is a function of the baseline risk in the population which in turn is a function of the prevalence of vaccination. Given that the decision for under-30s is now conditional on baseline risk, it is a correct representation of the decision. But it is misleading because the risk from Covid is not just about ICU.williamglenn said:
This is the slide I'm talking about. It implies that the risk from the vaccination is greater than the risk from covid for 20-29 year olds, but it's based on them having a low risk of being exposed to it. This is disastrous messaging because it will encourage people not to get vaccinated at all.Philip_Thompson said:
Completely disagreed. It isn't misrepresented since Covid is going away, we won't all be exposed to Covid at some point - we'll be able to get an alternative vaccine at some point, or simply not be exposed to the virus ourselves. Yes the virus will still be there, but it won't get everyone, like HIV or other viruses.williamglenn said:
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.tlg86 said:
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.williamglenn said:I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
1 -
absolute cobblers. there were many posters who said precisely that the clots were a politically motivated invention of the EU. you were probably one of the cretins tho i can't be bothered to checkLeon said:
No one said that (and if they did they were cretins). We said all the evidence shows that, if the clotting happens, then the risks are tiny, and totally outweighed by the benefits - which they are, and which, incidentally, is why your regulator the EMA has not suggested withdrawing AZ from anyone, todaykamski said:So will all the posters who swore that the blood clots were a fabrication of "the EU" in order to smear the plucky Brits take a moment to see how their fanaticism tends to make them lose touch with reality?
Probably not.
And if you want to see PB balanced, I will now happily pile on my own nation's regulators, who have just done something so stupid - to my mind - it ranks with Macron's remarks about "quasi ineffective" and the German health "minister" who leaked that AZ was 8% effective in the old0 -
It's really very simple. Given a choice of vaccines AZ isn't the best for Under 30s as other vaccines are available.tlg86 said:
Well they are particularly stupid because part of the rationale behind the MHRA's decision is that we're doing rather better than Europe.TheScreamingEagles said:Blimey, some in the government are shocked to find out an independent regulator is erm independent.
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1379802331252985861
Were no other vaccines available I suspect the advice would be different but there is little point taking a risk when it's not necessary.1 -
This is key. It comes down to personal risk. So, we know that we need to get a large % of people vaccinated for this to be all over, but for any given under 30 year old, it's possible that the risks from the AZN vaccine are higher than the risk from not being vaccinated assuming that we don't let infection rates go up again greatly, which in effect means that enough other people get vaccinated. So we need under 30s as a whole to get vaccinated, but for any given under 30 year old it might be rational for them to hold back and let everyone else get vaccinated to lower their personal risk.Philip_Thompson said:
The MHRA have done their jobs well David. The risk assessment shows that at low transmission rates the risk of the vaccine for under 30s is more risk than the risk from Covid.DavidL said:4 in a million? BBC:
"She says that up to 31 March, 20m doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine were given and 79 cases of rare blood clots were reported.
All 79 cases occured after the first dose and 19 people sadly died, Raine says.
Of the cases, 51 were women and 28 men aged 18 to 79 years old.
She said the risk of this kind of side effect was about four in one million to those who receive the vaccine."
19 out of 20m I make just under 1 in a million deaths or roughly 5 deaths in Scotland where there are currently 7,614 registered Covid deaths.
When did we earn the right to live in a world without risk? The world has genuinely gone potty. Do people have no concept of risk assessment? I am going for my jab on Monday. If its AZ that will be absolutely fine. Of course if I do turn out to be one of the 5 I will be disappointed.
At high transmission rates or for over 30s the profile is different.
In the absence of other vaccinations, that's a problem as everyone waits for everyone else.* But with other vaccines that are not yet* associated with this risk, there's an obvious course of action, which has been taken.
*It may be that the other vaccines have this or other risks, of course. In that case, while unfortunate, the situation is somewhat self correcting - insufficient vaccination coverage combined with unlocking would push up infections and the risk to any given under 30 year old from Covid would increase while the risk from the vaccine would be unchanged and at that point it would be clearly rational for any given under 30 year old to get any vaccine, including AZN.
0 -
Meanwhile the USA is becoming demand limited
https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/13795212662735462400 -
Well JVTs slide said in 30-40s with low exposure riskPhilip_Thompson said:
"Moriarty" is an idiot.bigjohnowls said:Scott was meant to post this surely
https://twitter.com/MoriartyProfJ3/status/1379804054067499013
Methinks Dr Moriarty may not be blind
Doesn't surprise me to see you sharing such stupidity.
The risk profile for under 30s is wildly different to the risk profile for others.
Risk of serious harm AZ is 0.8 per 100k
Covid risk of ICU admission is 2.7 per 100k0 -
williamglenn is right. The presumption of low exposure in the UK is crap, as well. What if Covid comes back, then we are all high exposure again. And suddenly not giving AZ to the yoof is idiotic, even by the mathsPhilip_Thompson said:.
Or you can't do maths or science.Leon said:
Yes, it's batshit once you factor in the extra downside of booming anti-vaxxery, it makes no sense on a risk-benefit analysis. I've taken multiple medicines that must have had a 1 in 100,000 risk of death or higherDavidL said:4 in a million? BBC:
"She says that up to 31 March, 20m doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine were given and 79 cases of rare blood clots were reported.
All 79 cases occured after the first dose and 19 people sadly died, Raine says.
Of the cases, 51 were women and 28 men aged 18 to 79 years old.
She said the risk of this kind of side effect was about four in one million to those who receive the vaccine."
19 out of 20m I make just under 1 in a million deaths or roughly 5 deaths in Scotland where there are currently 7,614 registered Covid deaths.
When did we earn the right to live in a world without risk? The world has genuinely gone potty. Do people have no concept of risk assessment? I am going for my jab on Monday. If its AZ that will be absolutely fine. Of course if I do turn out to be one of the 5 I will be disappointed.
So, either they know something and they're not telling us, OR they have gone mad.
Ergo, this decision is so silly it is tempting me into mad anti-vax beliefs (I shall resist, but you see the point)
Twats
If a vaccine at low prevalence gives you a 1/100,000 risk of death - and being unvaccinated gives you a 1% higher of getting infected and a 1/2,500 chance of dying if you are, then should you be vaccinated?
This is a pile of pants decision made by a scientific cabal which is crapping itself about some future inquiry and doesn't understand how most people think. Or, to use the parlance, they are exercising an overabundance of caution0 -
Hmmm someone who takes his Twatter handle from a fictional Professor of Mathematics, not medicine, who happened to be a mass murder......RobD said:
A rather simplistic analysis. Did he not watch the briefing?bigjohnowls said:Scott was meant to post this surely
https://twitter.com/MoriartyProfJ3/status/1379804054067499013
1 -
The poor bloke will get the blame by some for every death from it...TheScreamingEagles said:
Boris Johnson's logic will be well since we've got so many people unvaccinated then there's a potential for a new wave.tlg86 said:
Why? If anything, this goes against it. Arguably, under 30s should be exempt from any passport scheme.TheScreamingEagles said:I guess this explains why the PM is pushing for vaccine passports.
He's scared of another wave.0 -
No because everyone ought to be able to get access to an alternative vaccine within 16 weeks.Flatlander said:
Hang on, the "every 16 weeks" disclaimer means they aren't exactly comparing like with like...williamglenn said:
This is the slide I'm talking about. It implies that the risk from the vaccination is greater than the risk from covid for 20-29 year olds, but it's based on them having a low risk of being exposed to it. This is disastrous messaging because it will encourage people not to get vaccinated at all.Philip_Thompson said:
Completely disagreed. It isn't misrepresented since Covid is going away, we won't all be exposed to Covid at some point - we'll be able to get an alternative vaccine at some point, or simply not be exposed to the virus ourselves. Yes the virus will still be there, but it won't get everyone, like HIV or other viruses.williamglenn said:
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.tlg86 said:
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.williamglenn said:I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
It is going to be a 'low exposure risk' for a lot longer than that, surely.0 -
Now that supply outstrips demand, they should start exporting.Pulpstar said:Meanwhile the USA is becoming demand limited
0 -
nice whataboutery. i have nothing to do with anyone who said it should only be used for younger people, and criticised the decision at the time.tlg86 said:
Lol, you're morons originally ruled that it should only be used for younger people.kamski said:So will all the posters who swore that the blood clots were a fabrication of "the EU" in order to smear the plucky Brits take a moment to see how their fanaticism tends to make them lose touch with reality?
Probably not.
what I am saying now is this:
those who said the EU invented the blood clots were, as was obvious all along, themselves the ones inventing stuff for political reasons0 -
-
I have a 1 in 15,300 chance of being struck by lightning in my lifetime: https://www.erieinsurance.com/blog/struck-by-lightning#:~:text=Folk wisdom says the odds of a lightning,most recent data from the National Weather Service.
That is therefore 16.7x more likely than me suffering an adverse effect to AZ. Clearly I will never go out in the rain again. Its much too dangerous.3 -
Actually I think what most people said was that the medical regulators like the EMA and MHRA should be allowed to do their job - and politicians like Macron shouldn't be second guessing them.kamski said:
absolute cobblers. there were many posters who said precisely that the clots were a politically motivated invention of the EU. you were probably one of the cretins tho i can't be bothered to checkLeon said:
No one said that (and if they did they were cretins). We said all the evidence shows that, if the clotting happens, then the risks are tiny, and totally outweighed by the benefits - which they are, and which, incidentally, is why your regulator the EMA has not suggested withdrawing AZ from anyone, todaykamski said:So will all the posters who swore that the blood clots were a fabrication of "the EU" in order to smear the plucky Brits take a moment to see how their fanaticism tends to make them lose touch with reality?
Probably not.
And if you want to see PB balanced, I will now happily pile on my own nation's regulators, who have just done something so stupid - to my mind - it ranks with Macron's remarks about "quasi ineffective" and the German health "minister" who leaked that AZ was 8% effective in the old
If the EMA says its not an issue, then its not an issue and Macron shouldn't second guess it.
If the MHRA say its an issue then its an issue and Johnson shouldn't second guess that.3 -
This is a valid point, but there's no need to present information in a way that will make people think they don't need to get vaccinated.Philip_Thompson said:
No because everyone ought to be able to get access to an alternative vaccine within 16 weeks.Flatlander said:
Hang on, the "every 16 weeks" disclaimer means they aren't exactly comparing like with like...williamglenn said:
This is the slide I'm talking about. It implies that the risk from the vaccination is greater than the risk from covid for 20-29 year olds, but it's based on them having a low risk of being exposed to it. This is disastrous messaging because it will encourage people not to get vaccinated at all.Philip_Thompson said:
Completely disagreed. It isn't misrepresented since Covid is going away, we won't all be exposed to Covid at some point - we'll be able to get an alternative vaccine at some point, or simply not be exposed to the virus ourselves. Yes the virus will still be there, but it won't get everyone, like HIV or other viruses.williamglenn said:
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.tlg86 said:
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.williamglenn said:I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
It is going to be a 'low exposure risk' for a lot longer than that, surely.0 -
So, based on past experience, welcome the new chair of the MHRA, Paul Dacre.TheScreamingEagles said:Blimey, some in the government are shocked to find out an independent regulator is erm independent.
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1379802331252985861
He has experience of telling people about cancer risks, after all.3 -
SighLeon said:
williamglenn is right. The presumption of low exposure in the UK is crap, as well. What if Covid comes back, then we are all high exposure again. And suddenly not giving AZ to the yoof is idiotic, even by the mathsPhilip_Thompson said:.
Or you can't do maths or science.Leon said:
Yes, it's batshit once you factor in the extra downside of booming anti-vaxxery, it makes no sense on a risk-benefit analysis. I've taken multiple medicines that must have had a 1 in 100,000 risk of death or higherDavidL said:4 in a million? BBC:
"She says that up to 31 March, 20m doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine were given and 79 cases of rare blood clots were reported.
All 79 cases occured after the first dose and 19 people sadly died, Raine says.
Of the cases, 51 were women and 28 men aged 18 to 79 years old.
She said the risk of this kind of side effect was about four in one million to those who receive the vaccine."
19 out of 20m I make just under 1 in a million deaths or roughly 5 deaths in Scotland where there are currently 7,614 registered Covid deaths.
When did we earn the right to live in a world without risk? The world has genuinely gone potty. Do people have no concept of risk assessment? I am going for my jab on Monday. If its AZ that will be absolutely fine. Of course if I do turn out to be one of the 5 I will be disappointed.
So, either they know something and they're not telling us, OR they have gone mad.
Ergo, this decision is so silly it is tempting me into mad anti-vax beliefs (I shall resist, but you see the point)
Twats
If a vaccine at low prevalence gives you a 1/100,000 risk of death - and being unvaccinated gives you a 1% higher of getting infected and a 1/2,500 chance of dying if you are, then should you be vaccinated?
This is a pile of pants decision made by a scientific cabal which is crapping itself about some future inquiry and doesn't understand how most people think. Or, to use the parlance, they are exercising an overabundance of caution
Almost no-one (statistically) in the 29-18 group is getting jabbed at the moment. The numbers that are, can easily be handled with another vaccine.
By the time we get to 29- groups, we will have, almost certainly, large quantities of other vaccines.0 -
One wonders if they factored in the risk of people becoming more vaccine sceptic and catching covid because they're now worried about getting a jab. Of course Im sure a future enquiry is at the back of their minds so given the rollout shouldn't be at risk and we'll have alternatives I can understand why the decision was made.
The last thing you want is under 30s turning up and then walking away because they haven't got a choice of vaccines. By letting them only have Pfizer or Moderna you can put their minds at complete ease.0 -
Theres something about MhraTheScreamingEagles said:Now I remember what that MHRA chap's hair reminded me of.
https://twitter.com/Lowfeller/status/13798141768440913923 -
Go shit on a weird toilet with a ledge for you to examine your own faeces. I know Germans enjoy thatkamski said:
absolute cobblers. there were many posters who said precisely that the clots were a politically motivated invention of the EU. you were probably one of the cretins tho i can't be bothered to checkLeon said:
No one said that (and if they did they were cretins). We said all the evidence shows that, if the clotting happens, then the risks are tiny, and totally outweighed by the benefits - which they are, and which, incidentally, is why your regulator the EMA has not suggested withdrawing AZ from anyone, todaykamski said:So will all the posters who swore that the blood clots were a fabrication of "the EU" in order to smear the plucky Brits take a moment to see how their fanaticism tends to make them lose touch with reality?
Probably not.
And if you want to see PB balanced, I will now happily pile on my own nation's regulators, who have just done something so stupid - to my mind - it ranks with Macron's remarks about "quasi ineffective" and the German health "minister" who leaked that AZ was 8% effective in the old-1 -
Yes, anyone who said that looks foolish. But your media and politicians have caused far more damage with their lies about effectiveness than anyone on this board.kamski said:
nice whataboutery. i have nothing to do with anyone who said it should only be used for younger people, and criticised the decision at the time.tlg86 said:
Lol, you're morons originally ruled that it should only be used for younger people.kamski said:So will all the posters who swore that the blood clots were a fabrication of "the EU" in order to smear the plucky Brits take a moment to see how their fanaticism tends to make them lose touch with reality?
Probably not.
what I am saying now is this:
those who said the EU invented the blood clots were, as was obvious all along, themselves the ones inventing stuff for political reasons2 -
Glad to know I’m not the only one catching up on the news of the last couple of hours, and wishing they’d all simply shut up.tlg86 said:
Yes, although it could be tricky if they try to reverse ferret at a later stage. We'd understand the rationale, the media almost certainly wouldn't!Philip_Thompson said:
Yes and its an appropriate chart.williamglenn said:
This is the slide I'm talking about. It implies that the risk from the vaccination is greater than the risk from covid for 20-29 year olds, but it's based on them having a low risk of being exposed to it. This is disastrous messaging because it will encourage people not to get vaccinated at all.Philip_Thompson said:
Completely disagreed. It isn't misrepresented since Covid is going away, we won't all be exposed to Covid at some point - we'll be able to get an alternative vaccine at some point, or simply not be exposed to the virus ourselves. Yes the virus will still be there, but it won't get everyone, like HIV or other viruses.williamglenn said:
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.tlg86 said:
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.williamglenn said:I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
The risk is different at low exposure rates, its only because we have low exposure rates this applies.
Big mistake that press conference - not because of what was actually said, but because of how it’s going to be reported.0 -
and yet you yourself invented a load of bollocks about how the German government had persuaded the German regulators to diss AZ for political reasons.Philip_Thompson said:
Actually I think what most people said was that the medical regulators like the EMA and MHRA should be allowed to do their job - and politicians like Macron shouldn't be second guessing them.kamski said:
absolute cobblers. there were many posters who said precisely that the clots were a politically motivated invention of the EU. you were probably one of the cretins tho i can't be bothered to checkLeon said:
No one said that (and if they did they were cretins). We said all the evidence shows that, if the clotting happens, then the risks are tiny, and totally outweighed by the benefits - which they are, and which, incidentally, is why your regulator the EMA has not suggested withdrawing AZ from anyone, todaykamski said:So will all the posters who swore that the blood clots were a fabrication of "the EU" in order to smear the plucky Brits take a moment to see how their fanaticism tends to make them lose touch with reality?
Probably not.
And if you want to see PB balanced, I will now happily pile on my own nation's regulators, who have just done something so stupid - to my mind - it ranks with Macron's remarks about "quasi ineffective" and the German health "minister" who leaked that AZ was 8% effective in the old
If the EMA says its not an issue, then its not an issue and Macron shouldn't second guess it.
If the MHRA say its an issue then its an issue and Johnson shouldn't second guess that.0 -
BTW, back on an envelope, I think the UK needs to put another 60M jabs in arms to get to 90% of the adult population having had both doses.Malmesbury said:
SighLeon said:
williamglenn is right. The presumption of low exposure in the UK is crap, as well. What if Covid comes back, then we are all high exposure again. And suddenly not giving AZ to the yoof is idiotic, even by the mathsPhilip_Thompson said:.
Or you can't do maths or science.Leon said:
Yes, it's batshit once you factor in the extra downside of booming anti-vaxxery, it makes no sense on a risk-benefit analysis. I've taken multiple medicines that must have had a 1 in 100,000 risk of death or higherDavidL said:4 in a million? BBC:
"She says that up to 31 March, 20m doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine were given and 79 cases of rare blood clots were reported.
All 79 cases occured after the first dose and 19 people sadly died, Raine says.
Of the cases, 51 were women and 28 men aged 18 to 79 years old.
She said the risk of this kind of side effect was about four in one million to those who receive the vaccine."
19 out of 20m I make just under 1 in a million deaths or roughly 5 deaths in Scotland where there are currently 7,614 registered Covid deaths.
When did we earn the right to live in a world without risk? The world has genuinely gone potty. Do people have no concept of risk assessment? I am going for my jab on Monday. If its AZ that will be absolutely fine. Of course if I do turn out to be one of the 5 I will be disappointed.
So, either they know something and they're not telling us, OR they have gone mad.
Ergo, this decision is so silly it is tempting me into mad anti-vax beliefs (I shall resist, but you see the point)
Twats
If a vaccine at low prevalence gives you a 1/100,000 risk of death - and being unvaccinated gives you a 1% higher of getting infected and a 1/2,500 chance of dying if you are, then should you be vaccinated?
This is a pile of pants decision made by a scientific cabal which is crapping itself about some future inquiry and doesn't understand how most people think. Or, to use the parlance, they are exercising an overabundance of caution
Almost no-one (statistically) in the 29-18 group is getting jabbed at the moment. The numbers that are, can easily be handled with another vaccine.
By the time we get to 29- groups, we will have, almost certainly, large quantities of other vaccines.
Do we know which vaccines are intended to make up that 60M? Presumably we are close to using up all our Pfizer order.
0 -
Yes of course, it seems like this could easily have been done quietly in the auto-provisioning system given that the people in question aren't really going to get the vaccine for months anyway.TOPPING said:
The danger is that the risks, relatively, are so tiny but we magnify the whole issue.MaxPB said:
As expected. It's going to make no real world difference because by the time the programme reaches the group's in question we won't be using AZ anyway. This is for under 30s in groups 2, 4 and 6. Not under 30s in phase 2. I also wonder whether it's actually only group 2 where the recommendation will apply becuase in group 4 and 6 the risk differential will not be as unfavorable given their risk of death from COVID being so much higher.TOPPING said:Effect on timing of vaccine programme: zero - JVT
Risk, say, of four in a million vs eight in a million has everyone running around saying "it's twice the risk".1 -
Ah, true, assuming this doesn't put people off completely. Does that mean they are assuming a 16 week delay, then? I do hope not.Philip_Thompson said:
No because everyone ought to be able to get access to an alternative vaccine within 16 weeks.Flatlander said:
Hang on, the "every 16 weeks" disclaimer means they aren't exactly comparing like with like...williamglenn said:
This is the slide I'm talking about. It implies that the risk from the vaccination is greater than the risk from covid for 20-29 year olds, but it's based on them having a low risk of being exposed to it. This is disastrous messaging because it will encourage people not to get vaccinated at all.Philip_Thompson said:
Completely disagreed. It isn't misrepresented since Covid is going away, we won't all be exposed to Covid at some point - we'll be able to get an alternative vaccine at some point, or simply not be exposed to the virus ourselves. Yes the virus will still be there, but it won't get everyone, like HIV or other viruses.williamglenn said:
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.tlg86 said:
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.williamglenn said:I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
It is going to be a 'low exposure risk' for a lot longer than that, surely.
I also hope the alternative vaccine doesn't turn out to have the same issues. Then what?0 -
If 1 in a million is that latest updated odds of death, then what I posted earlier is spot on. You could fully vaccinate everyone in Brazil with AZ for a tenth of the current daily death rate there.DavidL said:4 in a million? BBC:
"She says that up to 31 March, 20m doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine were given and 79 cases of rare blood clots were reported.
All 79 cases occured after the first dose and 19 people sadly died, Raine says.
Of the cases, 51 were women and 28 men aged 18 to 79 years old.
She said the risk of this kind of side effect was about four in one million to those who receive the vaccine."
19 out of 20m I make just under 1 in a million deaths or roughly 5 deaths in Scotland where there are currently 7,614 registered Covid deaths.
When did we earn the right to live in a world without risk? The world has genuinely gone potty. Do people have no concept of risk assessment? I am going for my jab on Monday. If its AZ that will be absolutely fine. Of course if I do turn out to be one of the 5 I will be disappointed.0 -
No, I think transparency is something that we should value. The media might be full of morons, but most people will just carry on as they were. One thing people very much understand is the age profile of COVID. They'll take this in their stride.Sandpit said:
Glad to know I’m not the only one catching up on the news of the last couple of hours, and wishing they’d all simply shut up.tlg86 said:
Yes, although it could be tricky if they try to reverse ferret at a later stage. We'd understand the rationale, the media almost certainly wouldn't!Philip_Thompson said:
Yes and its an appropriate chart.williamglenn said:
This is the slide I'm talking about. It implies that the risk from the vaccination is greater than the risk from covid for 20-29 year olds, but it's based on them having a low risk of being exposed to it. This is disastrous messaging because it will encourage people not to get vaccinated at all.Philip_Thompson said:
Completely disagreed. It isn't misrepresented since Covid is going away, we won't all be exposed to Covid at some point - we'll be able to get an alternative vaccine at some point, or simply not be exposed to the virus ourselves. Yes the virus will still be there, but it won't get everyone, like HIV or other viruses.williamglenn said:
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.tlg86 said:
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.williamglenn said:I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
The risk is different at low exposure rates, its only because we have low exposure rates this applies.
Big mistake that press conference - not because of what was actually said, but because of how it’s going to be reported.0 -
god knows why anyone on here thinks I am German. I don't think any Germans come on here any more, far too toxic.0
-
They haven't. The MRHA has suggested a different vaccination in that sub-group.williamglenn said:
This is a valid point, but there's no need to present information in a way that will make people think they don't need to get vaccinated.Philip_Thompson said:
No because everyone ought to be able to get access to an alternative vaccine within 16 weeks.Flatlander said:
Hang on, the "every 16 weeks" disclaimer means they aren't exactly comparing like with like...williamglenn said:
This is the slide I'm talking about. It implies that the risk from the vaccination is greater than the risk from covid for 20-29 year olds, but it's based on them having a low risk of being exposed to it. This is disastrous messaging because it will encourage people not to get vaccinated at all.Philip_Thompson said:
Completely disagreed. It isn't misrepresented since Covid is going away, we won't all be exposed to Covid at some point - we'll be able to get an alternative vaccine at some point, or simply not be exposed to the virus ourselves. Yes the virus will still be there, but it won't get everyone, like HIV or other viruses.williamglenn said:
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.tlg86 said:
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.williamglenn said:I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
It is going to be a 'low exposure risk' for a lot longer than that, surely.
0 -
No I didn't.kamski said:
and yet you yourself invented a load of bollocks about how the German government had persuaded the German regulators to diss AZ for political reasons.Philip_Thompson said:
Actually I think what most people said was that the medical regulators like the EMA and MHRA should be allowed to do their job - and politicians like Macron shouldn't be second guessing them.kamski said:
absolute cobblers. there were many posters who said precisely that the clots were a politically motivated invention of the EU. you were probably one of the cretins tho i can't be bothered to checkLeon said:
No one said that (and if they did they were cretins). We said all the evidence shows that, if the clotting happens, then the risks are tiny, and totally outweighed by the benefits - which they are, and which, incidentally, is why your regulator the EMA has not suggested withdrawing AZ from anyone, todaykamski said:So will all the posters who swore that the blood clots were a fabrication of "the EU" in order to smear the plucky Brits take a moment to see how their fanaticism tends to make them lose touch with reality?
Probably not.
And if you want to see PB balanced, I will now happily pile on my own nation's regulators, who have just done something so stupid - to my mind - it ranks with Macron's remarks about "quasi ineffective" and the German health "minister" who leaked that AZ was 8% effective in the old
If the EMA says its not an issue, then its not an issue and Macron shouldn't second guess it.
If the MHRA say its an issue then its an issue and Johnson shouldn't second guess that.
What I said was that if the job of authorising or not the vaccine is given to the EMA then it should be left to the EMA.
What I said that, like in the UK, if it is given to the national regulator then that is fair enough.
The German institute wasn't planning to authorise the vaccine early like the MHRA did because they were leaving the job to the EMA. That's the difference between the two I pointed to.0 -
The great thing about this place is we have intelligent people who can analyse what's going on dispassionately. Okay, I perhaps shouldn't have reacted, but you only came on here to score a point.kamski said:god knows why anyone on here thinks I am German. I don't think any Germans come on here any more, far too toxic.
So to go all Sean T. Just fuck off.0 -
Most of it is Astra still I think.TimT said:
BTW, back on an envelope, I think the UK needs to put another 60M jabs in arms to get to 90% of the adult population having had both doses.Malmesbury said:
SighLeon said:
williamglenn is right. The presumption of low exposure in the UK is crap, as well. What if Covid comes back, then we are all high exposure again. And suddenly not giving AZ to the yoof is idiotic, even by the mathsPhilip_Thompson said:.
Or you can't do maths or science.Leon said:
Yes, it's batshit once you factor in the extra downside of booming anti-vaxxery, it makes no sense on a risk-benefit analysis. I've taken multiple medicines that must have had a 1 in 100,000 risk of death or higherDavidL said:4 in a million? BBC:
"She says that up to 31 March, 20m doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine were given and 79 cases of rare blood clots were reported.
All 79 cases occured after the first dose and 19 people sadly died, Raine says.
Of the cases, 51 were women and 28 men aged 18 to 79 years old.
She said the risk of this kind of side effect was about four in one million to those who receive the vaccine."
19 out of 20m I make just under 1 in a million deaths or roughly 5 deaths in Scotland where there are currently 7,614 registered Covid deaths.
When did we earn the right to live in a world without risk? The world has genuinely gone potty. Do people have no concept of risk assessment? I am going for my jab on Monday. If its AZ that will be absolutely fine. Of course if I do turn out to be one of the 5 I will be disappointed.
So, either they know something and they're not telling us, OR they have gone mad.
Ergo, this decision is so silly it is tempting me into mad anti-vax beliefs (I shall resist, but you see the point)
Twats
If a vaccine at low prevalence gives you a 1/100,000 risk of death - and being unvaccinated gives you a 1% higher of getting infected and a 1/2,500 chance of dying if you are, then should you be vaccinated?
This is a pile of pants decision made by a scientific cabal which is crapping itself about some future inquiry and doesn't understand how most people think. Or, to use the parlance, they are exercising an overabundance of caution
Almost no-one (statistically) in the 29-18 group is getting jabbed at the moment. The numbers that are, can easily be handled with another vaccine.
By the time we get to 29- groups, we will have, almost certainly, large quantities of other vaccines.
Do we know which vaccines are intended to make up that 60M? Presumably we are close to using up all our Pfizer order.0 -
yes you did say exactly thatPhilip_Thompson said:
No I didn't.kamski said:
and yet you yourself invented a load of bollocks about how the German government had persuaded the German regulators to diss AZ for political reasons.Philip_Thompson said:
Actually I think what most people said was that the medical regulators like the EMA and MHRA should be allowed to do their job - and politicians like Macron shouldn't be second guessing them.kamski said:
absolute cobblers. there were many posters who said precisely that the clots were a politically motivated invention of the EU. you were probably one of the cretins tho i can't be bothered to checkLeon said:
No one said that (and if they did they were cretins). We said all the evidence shows that, if the clotting happens, then the risks are tiny, and totally outweighed by the benefits - which they are, and which, incidentally, is why your regulator the EMA has not suggested withdrawing AZ from anyone, todaykamski said:So will all the posters who swore that the blood clots were a fabrication of "the EU" in order to smear the plucky Brits take a moment to see how their fanaticism tends to make them lose touch with reality?
Probably not.
And if you want to see PB balanced, I will now happily pile on my own nation's regulators, who have just done something so stupid - to my mind - it ranks with Macron's remarks about "quasi ineffective" and the German health "minister" who leaked that AZ was 8% effective in the old
If the EMA says its not an issue, then its not an issue and Macron shouldn't second guess it.
If the MHRA say its an issue then its an issue and Johnson shouldn't second guess that.
What I said was that if the job of authorising or not the vaccine is given to the EMA then it should be left to the EMA.
What I said that, like in the UK, if it is given to the national regulator then that is fair enough.
The German institute wasn't planning to authorise the vaccine early like the MHRA did because they were leaving the job to the EMA. That's the difference between the two I pointed to.0
? 
