The General Covid19 Thread

Funky

303abuser 1 in 800 according to that cardiologist could get adverse effects. People with conditions related to cardioapathy are the ones most at risk that could be across all ages. Covid now is same as the flu when it comes to the stats, if there was 1 in 800 risk of adverse effects the flu jab would be halted ASAP no doubt.

Use the bloody AZ vaccine until the investigations are done so you’re argument there is complete common sense out the fkn window.

303abuser

Funky I’ll say it again, the comparison isn’t between adverse reactions to the vaccine vs. not getting the vaccine, it’s getting the vaccine vs. getting covid. If it turns out the risks of the vaccine outweighs the risks from covid, then change the policy. Currently, that evidence doesn’t exist.

Funky Covid now is same as the flu when it comes to the stats

What does that mean? My province is averaging roughly 4 deaths per day from covid now, down from 7 per day about a month ago. The flu stats aren’t anywhere near that number. Or are you referring to something else?

Funky Use the bloody AZ vaccine until the investigations are done so you’re argument there is complete common sense out the fkn window.

I have no idea what you’re trying to say there.

Mad_Cyril

Nothing wrong with doing more analysis, as the conclusion to the stuff Dave posted says.

Plenty wrong with saying ‘Stop the Rollout’ based on a small slice of information, tin foil shite.

Be interesting to compare the stats Dave posted to that of other vaccines as opposed to placebos.

303abuser

bosstrabs From that link:

Discussion: The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets.

This basically supports my position, no? There could be risk of adverse outcomes from the vaccine and further research needs to be done to determine whether or not that risk outweighs the risks from covid infection.

It’s extremely unlikely, but if they came out with irrefutable evidence tomorrow that the vaccine is more harmful than the virus, I’d happily change my stance on this. I’m in full support of letting the evidence lead policy and the decision we make around this mess. It’s complicated. Our understanding of how the body works and medicine in general is so far beyond what we knew even 50 years ago and is likely light years behind what we’ll know 100 years from now. Combine that with dramatic individual variance and none of this is simple.

bosstrabs

303abuser but we currently have a vaccine that is infinitely safer than the virus it protects against.

It absolutely doesn’t support the position you set out here.

303abuser

bosstrabs Their conclusion is that there are adverse reactions from the vaccine in certain cases and that more research is needed. What am I missing? (Again, that’s an honest question, maybe I’m reading it wrong)

C_J

303abuser it reduces the number of infections which reduces the spread but it induces behaviours that have the opposite effect. So they reduce the spread of the virus all other things being equal. Maybe this is a trivial distinction, maybe it isn’t.

say you had a known risk of cardiomyopathy from the vax of 0.1% and the risk of death from covid was like ten times that. I still reckon people would rather avoid the vax there because a) folks are not strictly rational and b) they might feel they can move the odds in their favour. So it’s not necessarily only about the raw math of it, it’s also about the asymmetry of information and the conflict of interests involved.

Right?

303abuser

C_J Basically, yeah. There’s definitely a distinction to be made between vaccine efficacy and the behavioural impacts, but practically and from a policy perspective, behaviour should be considered. And people are shit at assessing risk, especially when significantly large numbers are involved, which is why we should have evidence -based policies instead of political decision making, but that’s another rabbit hole.

Funky

303abuser Are you on the spectrum? You’re obviously a smart guy but working to you’re detriment here. Simple solution not complex let people have the astra zenica vaccine until this has been investigated.

bosstrabs

303abuser Their conclusion is that there are adverse reactions from the vaccine in certain cases and that more research is needed. What am I missing? (Again, that’s an honest question, maybe I’m reading it wrong)

“The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials (2.3 and 6.4 per 10,000 participants, respectively).”

303abuser

bosstrabs I looked for a definition of “serious adverse events” and didn’t see it. Do you have it or is it in one of the links? Same deal with the placebo group in the Pfizer/Moderna trials, I wasn’t sure what that included without spending the next hour of my life on it.

bosstrabs

So, @303abuser , you’re wrong, and what’s more, YOU’RE A GROTESQUELY UGLY FREAK!

303abuser

bosstrabs Lol now you’ve just hurt my feelings.😿

bosstrabs

303abuser

Funky Do you see the problem with asking if I’m on the spectrum when I ask for clarification on a sentence that lacks punctuation and grammatical structure? If you’re not going to learn the language, at least be accepting that people sometimes won’t understand what you write.

bosstrabs

303abuser It’s a very standard and common definition, I believe:
https://www.fda.gov/safety/reporting-serious-problems-fda/what-serious-adverse-event

303abuser

bosstrabs So based on that definition, we’d be including every long-covid symptom. That’s a broad category and supports my argument pretty well because the impact of long-covid (in the early stages of research) is far beyond that of the vaccines.

bosstrabs

303abuser You’ve gone from telling Funky to read the science, to making unsubstantiated/unproven assertions.

bosstrabs

303abuser argument pretty well because the impact of long-covid (in the early stages of research) is far beyond that of the vaccines.

Do you not see that, particularly with hyperbolic statements such as this, you are doing exactly what you accuse Funky of doing?

303abuser

bosstrabs How so? The discussion section that I quoted literally says that there is a “need for formal harm-benefit analyses”.

We have current research that supports my stance and I’m open to changing that stance if new evidence presents itself. Why is that a problem?

303abuser

bosstrabs How is that hyperbolic? That’s exactly what the research to this point has indicated. If that changes, then so be it.

« Previous Page Next Page »