It wasn't, by the way. I actually googled "trail data". lol

There was a website about national parks. — frank

Oops! My apologies for my sloppy spell-checking in that case.

It's ok.

Thanks, I'll edit the post

The people who have died from the syndrome so far probably would have done well with a COVID19 infection. They were young, healthy women.

You're basically saying you're fine with those women sacrificing their lives without even knowing they were taking that risk. — frank

Well I think one would need to look at it from a population perspective, if you took 80 people of that demographic, 40 contracted covid naturally and 40 vaccinated - from the data now you would expect there to be more thrombotic complications in the COVID group than the vaccinated group. The clotting prevalence is low in non-ICU admitted COVID adults, ~5% for clotting events in veins and ~1% for clotting events in arteries. But this is still significantly higher than the prevalence we are talking about for these VIPIT events. There may be increased risk, but the prevalence is still very low and not higher than one would expect from natural COVID infection.

So far, so good. I like my chances of holding out until the end of 2021 without succumbing. — 180 Proof

Sure, go for it if that's your decision; you have good odds for not getting severe form of infection. I appreciate your masking and distancing.

I like my chances of holding out until the end of 2021 without succumbing. — 180 Proof

Despite sharing many of your health considerations, and there being no local cases, I had the AstraZeneca yesterday. I was simply not willing to increase risk to those around me.

I find your approach puzzling.

Well I think one would need to look at it from a population perspective, if you took 80 people of that demographic, 40 contracted covid naturally and 40 vaccinated - from the data now you would expect there to be more thrombotic complications in the COVID group than the vaccinated group. — aporiap

So you're saying these women were more likely to die of this weird syndrome without the vaccine than with.

I don't have the figures in front of me, but I don't believe that. Why do you believe it?

We fear death, the medical industry offers us a way to postpone it, we fear rejecting them. — Isaac

Which would be a rational fear. There have been numerous cases reported in America of individuals who have spurned medical advice or refused vaccination re COVID and have died as a consequence.

I was saying they’d have more risk of clotting generally, not specifically VIPIT. I mean there are low platelet clotting conditions associated with natural covid infection, eg. most cases of disseminated intravascular coagulation. I don’t have stats in front of me for that

I mean there are low platelet clotting conditions associated with natural covid infection, e — aporiap

I've seen a lot of COVID patients throw clots into the lungs, heart, and brain. I've never seen one do that with thrombocytopenia.

In fact I've never seen a case of prothrombic thrombocytopenia. Have you?

I've seen a lot of COVID patients throw clots into the lungs, heart, and brain. I've never seen one do that with thrombocytopenia.

In fact I've never seen a case of prothrombic thrombocytopenia. Have you? — frank

Yes those are more common, but systemic coagulopathy involving lower platelets is associated with COVID. The coagulopathic state most associated with COVID is very similar to DIC but characterized by milder thrombocytopenia and elevated D-Dimer and Fibrinogen. D-dimer is a breakdown product of clots, fibrinogen is a component of clots. You can read more about it here: https://www.hematology.org/covid-19/covid-19-and-coagulopathy

I think it's pretty clear that the patients who died from the vaccine didn't go into a DIC-like state. If your point is that COVID19 is related to coagulation issues of a different etiology, then, yes, sure.

I'll leave it at this:. for some reason you're making an assumption about the safety of the AZ vaccine that is truly not supported by data. Your approach to this issue is of a kind that undermines the confidence we'd like to see in the population.

— frank

I'll leave it at this:. for some reason you're making an assumption about the safety of the AZ vaccine that is truly not supported by data. Your approach to this issue is of a kind that undermines the confidence we'd like to see in the population.

I've just been going by EMA's conclusions thus far after their review of evidence obtained on over 11 million AZ vaccinations in the EU. They conclude benefits of vaccination still outweigh risk considering this and other metrics they utilize in determining public health recommendations; the last public statement was the 31st. These recommendations are made on best available evidence, and so far are still standing. They are still investigating the causal link between vaccinations and these events, but as mentioned before because the prevalence of these thrombotic events is so low, it is unlikely to change their recommendation.

:up: I have a feeling the prevalence numbers will rise now that we know about the link. AZ is probably re-analyzing their data with the link in mind.

Going forward, they could at least explain who is at greatest risk for this kind of reaction and how to identify the signs of it so people who have it will go ahead and get life-saving treatment.

EMA's new statement. They hit at your worries and explain who seems to be at risk - women under 60. As previously, the prevalence is extremely low and according to evidence, benefits still outweigh the risk.

"UK authorities also concluded the benefits outweighed the risks in most age groups, but presented data that showed the benefits to people under 30 only slightly outweighed the risks in scenarios where exposure to the virus is limited."
--. CNN

The UK is advising people under 30 to use a different vaccine. Plus they're making sure everyone knows the signs of this syndrome

I'm going with the UK over the EMU over this.

^I agree on this, AZ is also not as effective as some of the other vaccines.

I agree on this, AZ is also not as effective as some of the other vaccines. — aporiap

They're having to make a really tough decision in a short amount of time with limited data. If 1/million people die from this vaccine (which happens to be the risk associated with the small pox vaccine), then we know that when we vaccinate 300 million people, 300 will die. In the midst of rising death tolls from a pandemic, that makes sense. As soon as the pandemic ends, though, we'll have to stop the AZ vaccine and reassess. It might still be safe for people over 60, but not under.

I think the AZ vaccine is effective enough at reducing the risk if severe illness or death. That's what's important. Whether it actually limits the spread of the disease is still unknown.