> It is generally advisable to get Moderna/Pfizer if they're available and you're a young woman but the chance of mortal thrombosis is around 5 per one million.
No, the risk for anyone to develop a lethal thrombosis is roughly 5 per million. The chances are much higher for younger women, to the point where it exceeds the risk to die of COVID.
I said within a certain demographic... For old people, the vaccine is obviously worth it. Boys/men from age 10-30, probably not. Hell, a bunch of EU countries literally stopped giving young people the Moderna vaccine:
> I liken it to how the AstraZeneca vaccine was dissed in the media. A small chance of clots was heralded as a major issue, which lead to a extremely slow uptake of a vaccine that is for the most part perfectly fine.
It's less safe, there were some deaths, and also it protects less than alternatives like Pfizer and Moderna. So there is no point in that vaccine, in my country they first banned it for people under 60, and now they are no longer using it, choosing only to use Pfizer and Moderna vaccines (that uses the better mRNA technology).
The first sentence of the article is a lot better (emphasis mine):
"France's public health authority has recommended people under 30 be given Pfizer's Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine when available instead of Moderna Inc's Spikevax jab, which carried comparatively higher risks of heart-related problems."
> Authorities were told from the top to not prescribe it
They were also told not to prescribe Metamizole, because it kills people. there is no controversy there (well apart from spain who still have it on license.)
> How about the fact it killed some people within minutes?
> The dictionary even changed the definition of "vaccine"
Which dictionary? Also, bear in mind that the dictionary isn't static. Its updated to reflect how english is spoken now, by the public.
> In the years since the vaccine came out, many young people have suspiciously dropped dead or at least lost consciousness on live TV
Do you have data for that? what does it corrolate to? also depending on the country, some places its the younger that have less uptake.
Do you know how hard it is to run a project with 10 people?
Do you know how exponentially harder it is to run it for 1000 people? How on earth, looking at how shit the US government is at functioning, can they organise something like that?
Moreover, if its the "MSM", who are holding the secrets, do you know how fucking chatty those pricks are? (I used to work for a finance newspaper) All you have to do is take them to the pub and you can find out who's doing what illegal shit. or whos flogging synthetic opioids to the rust belt
That is a good point, I should have defined the category more broadly as 'pharmacological interventions,' of which vaccines make up the biggest and best-studied subcategory (to date).
> That's ... not been shown. The Israeli study I linked to above (a report of it) says this assertion might be wrong for Pfizer for the sizable group of 16-30 ; The British think that's not true for AZ under age 30 ; many countries in the EU think that's not true for AZ under the age of 50 ; Norway thinks that's not true for frail elderly.
Yes and no.
Yes, E.g. for AZ there will be a threshold (say 30) at where Covid risk equals vaccine risk. At that point, both risks are very small, to the point that it's more dangerous to drive to the appointment by car.
No, when EMA says no AZ under 50 (in Germany it's 60) that's because for that age group we have other vaccines available. Still, even for a 40 year old female it is safer to get AZ than Covid.
For that reason current vaccines are safer for most people but not all. Even when they are not safer than Covid, data suggests they are still very safe.
> And basically, we only have short term safety data (pfizer: less than a year for 20K people, less than 6 months for the rest) [...]
I believe you do know that Pfizer/Biontech, Moderna, AZ all started in 04/2020, so we have data for 12m+. As a comparison safety data for Covid is only 6m older.
> I linked a BMJ+Science article that showed for a similarly EUAd vaccine, "Pandemrix" in 2009 that it took over a year to figure out that it was causing narcolepsy and worse than the flu it was supposed to stop.
Yes, Pandemrix is still remembered, especially in Northern Euope, and one reason why regulators are have been super careful, to the point where it didn't make sense to halt vaccination campaigns, see e.g. AZ blood clots. In general we expect side effects of vaccines to have an onset shortly after vaccination, and that has been also true for Pandemrix. However to detect two rare events, say narcolepsy and 5x narcolepsy, you need a lot of data. In the context of H1N1 and narcolepsy, this paper is super interesting [1] https://med.stanford.edu/content/dam/sm/narcolepsy/documents...
> It could be that for those 80%, that response would be enough to stop the virus before it can get systemic traction, [...]
That's not the conclusion of the paper and hopeful speculation. If you mean by 'systemic reaction' the replication of the virus in the host, it's demonstrably false.
I totally get the concern about 'unknown unknowns' but looking at the safety data you are currently engaging in lifestyle choices or are taking medication that are way riskier than current Covid vaccines.
> It's a redundant renewal of the existing Pfizer under the exact same EUA
No, its a full approval of the existing Pfizer vaccine for those 16+. The EUA remains in place for younger people 12+.
> It "pre-approves" a new future Pfizer vaccine
It doesn't, I guess this is a misreading of the fact that the approval of the existing Pfizer vaccine includes, as such approvals do, the marketing name of the vaccine (“Comirnaty”), but this isn't a new vaccine, just the brand name for marketing the existing one.
I'm not a medical expert, but can someone in the know comment on this? Can I volunteer to get the Oxford vaccine in the US? Can I volunteer to fly to UK and get the vaccine immediately upon arrival?
> At the risk of sounding cold...they seriously suspended it because four people showed issues? Out of more than 100k doses?
No, not even that. Ireland has given over 100k doses and had zero reported issues. They are suspending it over 4 reported issues across the entire EU that don't even have a clear link to being caused by the vaccine.
The UK has given millions and millions of doses of this vaccine and there is no clotting epidemic there.
> AstraZeneca’s vaccine remains in use in Australia, but official health advice is to opt for Pfizer or Moderna if you’re under 60. But AstraZeneca continues to be distributed, particularly in low-income countries.
Interesting thing of note here: I keep reading this. Even the Wikipedia page on AstraZeneca suggests that it’s still used in many European countries. In Austria (where I live) while if’s technically possible to vaccinate with it, you absolutely will not be able to get it. It hasn’t been stocked for more than a year and a half. It has been effectively suspended since and everyone who got it, was boosted with one of the MRNA vaccines instead.
I would like to understand why the reporting on in (including the Wikipedia page) is so reluctant to mention the effective suspension of it.
I’m not familiar with the situation in Australia but I would be quite surprised if it’s still in use.
> There are concerning trends on blood clots and low platelets, not that the authorities will tell you.
CDC: "However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths."[0]
> I just don't understand how come the same reaction hasn't been seen in the millions of people vaccinated with AZ outside Norway.
Dude, it has been seen outside Norway, and the observations are exactly the same, at least here in Germany. A certain group of people, maybe in combination with a certain type of drug they are taking, seem to be at risk for a very specific thrombosis in combination with a very low blood platelet count. There is some detective work necessary now to identify this group, so they can be excluded from AZ vaccinations, and then go on with the vaccination. That's what needs to be done now, and as fast as possible.
> IIRC they said AstraZeneca vaccine is not very effective.
I don't know if this is what the OP was referring to, as this is not the EU themselves:
- French president Emmanuel Macron claimed that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was "quasi-ineffective" for over-65s, hours before it was approved by regulators for use on all adults in the EU.
- The German newspaper Handelsblatt that suggested the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was 8% effective among over 65s, which was a misunderstanding and the German health ministry challenged it.
I suspect both of the above had an impact on public perception, especially in France, but neither were actually the EU saying it. One was silly and the other a mistake.
Ursula von der Leyen did, however, suggest the UK had compromised safety by approving the AZ so early (even though the MHRA who approved it are generally reckoned to be one of the best medical regulators in the world).
> refusing to get the vaccine if they hear it's Astra-Zeneca, because of all the overblown nightmarish news around it
Here is a small problem with this that makes me also consider if I want to take a shot with AZ even if I registered for it months ago waiting for my place:
Before EU started discussing the issue with statistical signifiant number of cases of blood clots in vaccinated population UK Reported 5 cases of blot clots in vaccinated population.
After EU talked second time to suspend vaccination with AZ lo and behold UK discovered that it missed in previous months to report 25 more cases.
Now should I trust any of these agencies that they are telling the truth? I am starting not.
But I had a mild COVID and I am sure after experiencing those symptoms that I really want a vaccine. I am not willing to experience a reinfection.
Key data not getting a lot of/(any?) airtime in the mainstream:
And worst of all, all-cause non-Covid mortality is running well above normal in country after country.
And the whole paragraph:
Something is wrong. The promises that the health authorities have made over the last 12 months about the vaccines are not coming true. Despite near-complete levels of adult vaccination in Europe, many countries are seeing skyrocketing Covid cases and deaths. And worst of all, all-cause non-Covid mortality is running well above normal in country after country.
> nobody in Germany or France has been vaccinated as there are no approved vaccines
Which creates a force field around the warehouses in which it sits? Come on.
I guess I’ll revise to I know of people with substantial resources, hundreds of millions and billions at their disposal, who have been injected with something they believe to be the Pfizer vaccine.
Also AstraZeneca keeps getting suspended due to blood clots. I think we're up to 7 or 8 countries now? Canada was the most recent I remember, but I think most have resumed now.
The running theory appears to be that in rare cases, that vaccine results in antibodies that attack platelets, causing a weird reaction that results in clotting.
It isn't false, though the blanket "it was banned" statement lacks context:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford%E2%80%93AstraZeneca_COV...
> It is generally advisable to get Moderna/Pfizer if they're available and you're a young woman but the chance of mortal thrombosis is around 5 per one million.
No, the risk for anyone to develop a lethal thrombosis is roughly 5 per million. The chances are much higher for younger women, to the point where it exceeds the risk to die of COVID.
reply