Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021?

[armaghniac]

Anti-vax is being used as a pejorative term it seems for people who value their health and are right to do so.

It is being used as a pejorative term for people who do not value other people's health and who have inflated sense of their own self importance.

[Louther]

True story.

Man fell of a roof and sadly died. He'd just got the Vaccine a week before hand but they are recording the death as caused by the vaccine.

It's on Facebook, so must be true.

Maybe you should ring up all the European countries and tell them there's nothing to worry about.

Maybe tell that to the two families that are grieving a loved one that their death had nothing to do with a vaccine.

You need to ask yourself why are you so quick to absolve the vaccine of having anything to do with the deaths? What's your play here. Do you think the families would appreciate some Man Utd diehard on a GAA forum telling them that the vaccine had nothing to do with their deaths?

I was merely pointing out some of the ridiculous stories that was doing the rounds when Covid was been blamed for any random deaths and turning it round.

But while you at it. Read what you've said and apply it to yourself and all you've said about Covid deaths.

Is that a backtrack?

You are one of a number of posters who are completely unwilling to countenance the fact that vaccines may have had anything to do with a death.

The vaccine is suspended across most European countries at the minute.

The same guys who will dogmatically shame and insult anyone who voices concerns on the vaccine, who voice reservations about its safety are the first to dismiss any link or correlation between the vaccine and serious illness or death.

Anti-vax is being used as a pejorative term it seems for people who value their health and are right to do so.

One of the posters? I've hardly commented on it but would be happy to take any of them.

You also seem happy to lump all vaccines into one pot with what is suspended across Europe. It's just one and not in all parts of Europe. And we will know very shortly if this precautionary suspension wil continue with all data at present saying it shouldn't be a permanent suspension. I'll leave that to the experts to decide on the course of action.

Others will take a very small uncertainty round it to justify their position on the grounds of health but are willing to risk the uncertainty of getting the virus and the risks that come with that in regards their health, now and in the future. Which is?

[Jeepers Creepers]

Reading a quote online:

After 10 million doses Astra zeneca had reported 28 cases of blood clots

After 11 million doses of Pfizer had reports 25 cases of blood clots.

[J70]

Reading a quote online:

After 10 million doses Astra zeneca had reported 28 cases of blood clots

After 11 million doses of Pfizer had reports 25 cases of blood clots.

Statistically pretty much identical.

How many cases per 10 million who did not receive a vaccine?

[armaghniac]

I don't think there is fundamental problem with the AZ vaccine. It is possible that there was a batch with inadequate quality control and I expect the investigation will clarify this.

[J70]

Given the extremely low numbers, most likely a statistical anomaly. Clusters happen.

We'll see what they come up with.

[Evil Genius]

From yesterday's Guardian (my emphasis throughout):


While governments are pulling the plug [on the AZ vaccine], most scientists are rolling their eyes. The EMA and WHO are investigating the incidents, but so far there is no evidence that any were caused by the vaccine.

Experts say that the numbers of blood clots and thrombocytopenia cases in people who have been vaccinated is no higher than in the population that has not received the jab. The International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, representing medical experts around the world, said on Friday that "the small number of reported thrombotic events relative to the millions of administered Covid-19 vaccinations does not suggest a direct link".

Blood clots are common, they said, but not more common in people who have had a Covid jab, from evidence so far. They recommended that even people with a history of blood clots or taking blood-thinning drugs should go and get their vaccination.

In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), which advises the government, have both been robust. "The UK has administered 11m doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine and there has been no demonstrable difference in the number of blood clots since the vaccine was introduced," said Prof Anthony Harden, the JCVI deputy chair. The MHRA said it was working closely with its international counterparts and reviewing the cases, but "the evidence available does not suggest the vaccine is the cause".

AstraZeneca itself says there have been 15 deep vein thrombosis (DVT) events and 22 pulmonary embolisms (blood clots in the lungs) across the whole of the EU and UK up to 8 March. "This is much lower than would be expected to occur naturally in a general population of this size and is similar across other licensed Covid-19 vaccines," it said in a statement.


The article then goes on to consider "other [i.e. non-medical] factors" which may be influencing European governments, which you can read for yourself:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/15/europes-caution-over-oxford-vaccine-about-more-than-the-science

[Angelo]

From yesterday's Guardian (my emphasis throughout):

While governments are pulling the plug [on the AZ vaccine], most scientists are rolling their eyes. The EMA and WHO are investigating the incidents, but so far there is no evidence that any were caused by the vaccine.

Experts say that the numbers of blood clots and thrombocytopenia cases in people who have been vaccinated is no higher than in the population that has not received the jab. The International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, representing medical experts around the world, said on Friday that "the small number of reported thrombotic events relative to the millions of administered Covid-19 vaccinations does not suggest a direct link".

Blood clots are common, they said, but not more common in people who have had a Covid jab, from evidence so far. They recommended that even people with a history of blood clots or taking blood-thinning drugs should go and get their vaccination.

In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), which advises the government, have both been robust. "The UK has administered 11m doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine and there has been no demonstrable difference in the number of blood clots since the vaccine was introduced," said Prof Anthony Harden, the JCVI deputy chair. The MHRA said it was working closely with its international counterparts and reviewing the cases, but "the evidence available does not suggest the vaccine is the cause".

AstraZeneca itself says there have been 15 deep vein thrombosis (DVT) events and 22 pulmonary embolisms (blood clots in the lungs) across the whole of the EU and UK up to 8 March. "This is much lower than would be expected to occur naturally in a general population of this size and is similar across other licensed Covid-19 vaccines," it said in a statement.

The article then goes on to consider "other [i.e. non-medical] factors" which may be influencing European governments, which you can read for yourself:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/15/europes-caution-over-oxford-vaccine-about-more-than-the-science

Oh yes scientists have no vested interest in this at all sure.

[armaghniac]

Astrazeneca have proven to be liars in relation to delivering these vaccines, so people are inevitably suspicious of them.

[Evil Genius]

From yesterday's Guardian (my emphasis throughout):

While governments are pulling the plug [on the AZ vaccine], most scientists are rolling their eyes. The EMA and WHO are investigating the incidents, but so far there is no evidence that any were caused by the vaccine.

Experts say that the numbers of blood clots and thrombocytopenia cases in people who have been vaccinated is no higher than in the population that has not received the jab. The International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, representing medical experts around the world, said on Friday that "the small number of reported thrombotic events relative to the millions of administered Covid-19 vaccinations does not suggest a direct link".

Blood clots are common, they said, but not more common in people who have had a Covid jab, from evidence so far. They recommended that even people with a history of blood clots or taking blood-thinning drugs should go and get their vaccination.

In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), which advises the government, have both been robust. "The UK has administered 11m doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine and there has been no demonstrable difference in the number of blood clots since the vaccine was introduced," said Prof Anthony Harden, the JCVI deputy chair. The MHRA said it was working closely with its international counterparts and reviewing the cases, but "the evidence available does not suggest the vaccine is the cause".

AstraZeneca itself says there have been 15 deep vein thrombosis (DVT) events and 22 pulmonary embolisms (blood clots in the lungs) across the whole of the EU and UK up to 8 March. "This is much lower than would be expected to occur naturally in a general population of this size and is similar across other licensed Covid-19 vaccines," it said in a statement.

The article then goes on to consider "other [i.e. non-medical] factors" which may be influencing European governments, which you can read for yourself:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/15/europes-caution-over-oxford-vaccine-about-more-than-the-science

Oh yes scientists have no vested interest in this at all sure.

I'd trust the scientists' views over that of an unscientific observer* who has by now established a clear interest in defending his earlier claims, even when they've been demonstrated to be unsubstantiated (at best), or false (at worst).

But hey, you go on playing the man instead of the ball.


* - That's you, btw, just in case you're in any doubt.

[J70]

The International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis

https://www.isth.org/page/History

I'm far from an expert on blood clots, but this sounds like exactly the sort of organization you would be expecting to hear from on this type of concern.

Not sure what vested interest such a body would have in the vaccine issue, beyond the same one we all have in combatting this disease.

[Evil Genius]

Astrazeneca have proven to be liars in relation to delivering these vaccines, so people are inevitably suspicious of them.

While politicians never lie...

[Angelo]

From yesterday's Guardian (my emphasis throughout):

While governments are pulling the plug [on the AZ vaccine], most scientists are rolling their eyes. The EMA and WHO are investigating the incidents, but so far there is no evidence that any were caused by the vaccine.

Experts say that the numbers of blood clots and thrombocytopenia cases in people who have been vaccinated is no higher than in the population that has not received the jab. The International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, representing medical experts around the world, said on Friday that "the small number of reported thrombotic events relative to the millions of administered Covid-19 vaccinations does not suggest a direct link".

Blood clots are common, they said, but not more common in people who have had a Covid jab, from evidence so far. They recommended that even people with a history of blood clots or taking blood-thinning drugs should go and get their vaccination.

In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), which advises the government, have both been robust. "The UK has administered 11m doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine and there has been no demonstrable difference in the number of blood clots since the vaccine was introduced," said Prof Anthony Harden, the JCVI deputy chair. The MHRA said it was working closely with its international counterparts and reviewing the cases, but "the evidence available does not suggest the vaccine is the cause".

AstraZeneca itself says there have been 15 deep vein thrombosis (DVT) events and 22 pulmonary embolisms (blood clots in the lungs) across the whole of the EU and UK up to 8 March. "This is much lower than would be expected to occur naturally in a general population of this size and is similar across other licensed Covid-19 vaccines," it said in a statement.

The article then goes on to consider "other [i.e. non-medical] factors" which may be influencing European governments, which you can read for yourself:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/15/europes-caution-over-oxford-vaccine-about-more-than-the-science

Oh yes scientists have no vested interest in this at all sure.

I'd trust the scientists' views over that of an unscientific observer* who has by now established a clear interest in defending his earlier claims, even when they've been demonstrated to be unsubstantiated (at best), or false (at worst).

But hey, you go on playing the man instead of the ball.


* - That's you, btw, just in case you're in any doubt.

I'm not playing the man.

I'm merely pointing out that the scientists have a vested interest. You obviously don't like that being pointed out.

What do you think about Big Pharma having no liability if any deaths are connected to the vaccine?

[Evil Genius]

I'm not playing the man.

I'm merely pointing out that the scientists have a vested interest. You obviously don't like that being pointed out.

Questioning the motives of "the scientists" [sic] (all of them?) and/or at least claiming without proof that their supposed vested interests are causing them to falsify their findings etc, is precisely the definition of "playing the man".

Whereas addressing their findings - which you conspicuously fail to do - is playing the ball.

And that's what I don't like.

What do you think about Big Pharma having no liability if any deaths are connected to the vaccine?

Who do you mean by 'Big Pharma'? All of the vaccine manufacturers, including those who developed and distributed them on a non-profit basis? You know, like (ahem) these people:
"A key element of Oxford's partnership with AstraZeneca is the joint commitment to provide the vaccine on a not-for-profit basis for the duration of the pandemic across the world, and in perpetuity to low- and middle-income countries"
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/nov/23/oxford-astrazeneca-results-covid-vaccine-developing-countries

And how do you know they'll have "no liability"?

Or even that any of these vaccines have directly caused otherwise avoidable deaths*?

Fact is, it is easy to throw out generalisations designed to scare us all of The Bogeyman.

While being far harder than proving that The Bogeyman actually exists.



* - I used that construction since it is so much clearer than your own loose and entirely unscientific "connected with".

[Angelo]

I'm not playing the man.

I'm merely pointing out that the scientists have a vested interest. You obviously don't like that being pointed out.

Questioning the motives of "the scientists" [sic] (all of them?) and/or at least claiming without proof that their supposed vested interests are causing them to falsify their findings etc, is precisely the definition of "playing the man".

Whereas addressing their findings - which you conspicuously fail to do - is playing the ball.

And that's what I don't like.

What do you think about Big Pharma having no liability if any deaths are connected to the vaccine?

Who do you mean by 'Big Pharma'? All of the vaccine manufacturers, including those who developed and distributed them on a non-profit basis? You know, like (ahem) these people:
"A key element of Oxford's partnership with AstraZeneca is the joint commitment to provide the vaccine on a not-for-profit basis for the duration of the pandemic across the world, and in perpetuity to low- and middle-income countries"
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/nov/23/oxford-astrazeneca-results-covid-vaccine-developing-countries

And how do you know they'll have "no liability"?

Or even that any of these vaccines have directly caused otherwise avoidable deaths*?

Fact is, it is easy to throw out generalisations designed to scare us all of The Bogeyman.

While being far harder than proving that The Bogeyman actually exists.



* - I used that construction since it is so much clearer than your own loose and entirely unscientific "connected with".

Without doubt scientists have vested interests. If you are denying that then you might as well keep your head in the sand.

I know they have no liability.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html

It seems you are being very economical with the truth, why is that?