Coronavirus: COVID-19

[clakclak]

So for those of you who got Astra Zeneca how did it feel for you?

I felt sick for a day, slept 12 hours and afterwards was back to my old cheerful self.

[Vertigo 7]

They are being disclosed.

They are? It sounds like AZ is denying there's a risk at all from their vaccine. Every drug I've ever taken has had a full disclosure of any associated risk, proven or otherwise. I'm not seeing any mention of the potential for blood clots listed on any of the popular drug info websites either.

[pjknibbs]

So for those of you who got Astra Zeneca how did it feel for you?

Sore shoulder for three or four days, but no other effects at all. My brother and his girlfriend were flat out for 24 hours after taking it, though.

[CBJ]

They are? It sounds like AZ is denying there's a risk at all from their vaccine. Every drug I've ever taken has had a full disclosure of any associated risk, proven or otherwise.

The results of large-scale surveys based on data "in the wild" are being presented to the public pretty much as soon as they come in. If the company didn't see any such results during their trials, which is very likely given the tiny numbers involved, then they couldn't have disclosed them any earlier, could they?

So for those of you who got Astra Zeneca how did it feel for you?

I had the sore shoulder thing for a couple of days, and I got the shivers for about 30 minutes about 12 hours after the vaccination. I didn't sleep well that night and was very tired the next day as a result, though I'm not sure how much of that was the vaccine and how much was just common or garden insomnia. Compared to the typhoid jab I once had (many years ago now), it was a breeze.

[Vertigo 7]

They are? It sounds like AZ is denying there's a risk at all from their vaccine. Every drug I've ever taken has had a full disclosure of any associated risk, proven or otherwise.

The results of large-scale surveys based on data "in the wild" are being presented to the public pretty much as soon as they come in. If the company didn't see any such results during their trials, which is very likely given the tiny numbers involved, then they couldn't have disclosed them any earlier, could they?

Soooo... what's their excuse for still denying it today? Scientists outside of AZ are saying there's a causal link but AZ is still saying there isn't one. Seems to me that AZ is the only organization still pretending it's not a thing. Who are we supposed to believe? I don't see what possible harm there could be by acknowledging the remote possibility of a patient developing a potentially fatal side effect. Again, that is not uncommon, and required in the states, for drug manufacturers to disclose. I mean, I see advertisements for headache meds on TV all the time where they run through a list of possible side effects including things like explosive diarrhea or death, even if highly unlikely to occur.

[CBJ]

I really don't understand what point you are trying to make. The data so far does not indicate any link between the vaccine and the blood clots, and in fact doesn't even give a clear indication that the level of those blood clots is above the background level. If a link is actually established, or even strongly suspected, then I'd expect them to make a statement accordingly. But even if they did so, it wouldn't (or shouldn't) make any difference to the use of the vaccine based on the numbers that have been published. As has been pointed out already, there are numerous other medical treatments and procedures with far higher risks associated with them that are used routinely across the world.

It seems to me that you are just trying really hard to find some kind of conspiracy here. I mean, if what you're looking for is a reason why so much fuss is being made over such small numbers, I'd say the EU governments trying to deflect the blame for their having made such a mess of ordering the vaccines they needed would be a much stronger candidate.

[red assassin]

Soooo... what's their excuse for still denying it today? Scientists outside of AZ are saying there's a causal link but AZ is still saying there isn't one. Seems to me that AZ is the only organization still pretending it's not a thing. Who are we supposed to believe? I don't see what possible harm there could be by acknowledging the remote possibility of a patient developing a potentially fatal side effect. Again, that is not uncommon, and required in the states, for drug manufacturers to disclose. I mean, I see advertisements for headache meds on TV all the time where they run through a list of possible side effects including things like explosive diarrhea or death, even if highly unlikely to occur.

[citation needed]
The only statements I can see from AZ just echo statements from medical regulators that there's no overall increased risk of blood clotting issues in general, and that investigation is ongoing into whether there is a link between the vaccine and specific combinations of particular clotting events and low platelet count. They pledge to continue working with medical authorities and, specifically, "will implement the recommendations of the PRAC, including the update of the product information, whilst continuing to understand the nature and relevance of these events to ensure the safe delivery of the vaccine continues". That doesn't look like a denial to me. Do you have any alternate statements from AZ?
Further, while a few scientists have suggested that the evidence is starting to point towards a causal link, and with my Bayesian hat on I don't think that's unlikely at this point, we do not yet have anything approaching a solid confirmation of this, either statistically or via a demonstrated mechanism of action.

This has been raised in this thread previously, but vaccine hesitancy is the single greatest threat to global recovery from the pandemic at this point and it's incredibly important that statements about the vaccines are precise, accurate, place risk levels in a realistic context, and don't casually cast unsubstantiated allegations of malpractice at companies and governments involved.

[Alan Phipps]

There is a further aspect to this, not just of risk but also of impact.

If there were indeed a remote possibility of a causal link between AZ vaccine and a minute risk of getting a clot then the only person per instance who would possibly suffer such an extremely rare potential side-effect of the AZ vaccine would be that single individual concerned.

If the only available alternatives to having the AZ vaccine were for that individual not to be vaccinated or have their vaccination seriously delayed, then for each instance the people put at far greater risk of contracting Covid (along with all the further risks, inconveniences and complications that entails) would be the individual, their family, their neighbours, their habitual contacts and anyone they happened to travel with. Further follow-on infection rates may not increase linearly. I think the balance of risk and of potential impact should be pretty obvious.

[Vertigo 7]

I really don't understand what point you are trying to make. The data so far does not indicate any link between the vaccine and the blood clots, and in fact doesn't even give a clear indication that the level of those blood clots is above the background level. If a link is actually established, or even strongly suspected, then I'd expect them to make a statement accordingly. But even if they did so, it wouldn't (or shouldn't) make any difference to the use of the vaccine based on the numbers that have been published. As has been pointed out already, there are numerous other medical treatments and procedures with far higher risks associated with them that are used routinely across the world.

It seems to me that you are just trying really hard to find some kind of conspiracy here. I mean, if what you're looking for is a reason why so much fuss is being made over such small numbers, I'd say the EU governments trying to deflect the blame for their having made such a mess of ordering the vaccines they needed would be a much stronger candidate.

I did not say at any point people shouldn't use the vaccine. I'm saying AZ should disclose the potential risks, no matter how small, instead of the governments deciding to do that for them.

You guys made this big deal about the rushed approvals being this great and wonderful thing because they cut out the bureaucratic stuff and all the testing was done properly even if everything was rushed. Well, now here we are after the fact and something has cropped up that the testing didn't catch, even being statistically insignificant, that seems to have a small chance to kill women on birth control. Why the tap dancing around this?

[red assassin]

I did not say at any point people shouldn't use the vaccine. I'm saying AZ should disclose the potential risks, no matter how small, instead of the governments deciding to do that for them.

You guys made this big deal about the rushed approvals being this great and wonderful thing because they cut out the bureaucratic stuff and all the testing was done properly even if everything was rushed. Well, now here we are after the fact and something has cropped up that the testing didn't catch, even being statistically insignificant, that seems to have a small chance to kill women on birth control. Why the tap dancing around this?

Please, please get a calculator out and think about the numbers a little before posting misinformation. We're talking about, at most, a rate of detectable incidents of, what, two in a million or so? How big a clinical trial would be necessary to detect that? Typical clinical trial participant numbers are tens of thousands, and that goes for Covid vaccines too. You'd need a "clinical trial" of, well, more than tens of millions of people to detect an effect this tiny. This is easy to determine because, having vaccinated tens of millions of people, these suspected incidents have now reached the level of "maybe something is going on here, but maybe not". The trials were not rushed and they didn't miss things: this would never have shown up in any clinical trial in the world. AZ have responded appropriately to concerns raised by regulators; they state no increased risk of issues appeared in their own data.

[Vertigo 7]

I did not say at any point people shouldn't use the vaccine. I'm saying AZ should disclose the potential risks, no matter how small, instead of the governments deciding to do that for them.

You guys made this big deal about the rushed approvals being this great and wonderful thing because they cut out the bureaucratic stuff and all the testing was done properly even if everything was rushed. Well, now here we are after the fact and something has cropped up that the testing didn't catch, even being statistically insignificant, that seems to have a small chance to kill women on birth control. Why the tap dancing around this?

Please, please get a calculator out and think about the numbers a little before posting misinformation. We're talking about, at most, a rate of detectable incidents of, what, two in a million or so? How big a clinical trial would be necessary to detect that? Typical clinical trial participant numbers are tens of thousands, and that goes for Covid vaccines too. You'd need a "clinical trial" of, well, more than tens of millions of people to detect an effect this tiny. This is easy to determine because, having vaccinated tens of millions of people, these suspected incidents have now reached the level of "maybe something is going on here, but maybe not". The trials were not rushed and they didn't miss things: this would never have shown up in any clinical trial in the world. AZ have responded appropriately to concerns raised by regulators; they state no increased risk of issues appeared in their own data.

You can't call these occurrences misinformation. It is happening, no matter how much you or I want it not to. I just don't get why there's such a refusal from some to acknowledge it.

[CBJ]

No, red assassin said you were posting misinformation, claiming that this had something to do with the length of the clinical trials. And he reminded you of the mathematics to prove his point.

I still don't understand what point you are trying to make, though. You seem to be hell-bent on finding something wrong. But to what purpose?

Let's assume for a moment the link is proven, and that there is a 1 in 2 million chance of someone dying. Does that mean we stop vaccinating people? No, you've already agreed that that would be silly. Does it mean we do longer clinical trials in case of a future pandemic, even if that means we all stay in lockdown for 5 years or so? Also no, because no clinical trial would ever have any reasonable chance of catching something with that low a chance.

So, what then? If all you're saying is that, if the link is proved, certain groups of people should be monitored after being vaccinated, then... um, yes, that's what would happen.

Or is this just an anti-"big pharma" crusade? I mean, that's not an entirely unreasonable starting point, but in this case it may be somewhat misdirected.

[Vertigo 7]

Yes, I admit I have an anti-big pharma bias but that's not what I'm getting at here. It's as simple as I've said over and over again. AZ needs to acknowledge it as a possible side effect, whether or not it can be conclusively proven, just like every other drug company does. Look at all the anti-anxiety meds out there with "suicidal thoughts" being listed as a potential side effect. That can't be conclusively proven either, but they include it as a warning for patients and doctors to make informed decisions. That's my beef with what AZ is doing (or rather not), and if I'm not mistaken, that's Felter's beef as well.

[Observe]

Since we are getting all controversial, I might as well throw this one out here:

Viruses considered to have originated from human production and consumption of animals and birds:

SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) - from Chinese live meat markets. Ebola Virus - from hunting and eating 'bush meat' (primates and other wild animals). COVID-19 (Corona Virus SARS-CoV-2) - Chinese live meat markets. HIV-1 and HIV-2 (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) - bush meat (eating Chimpanzees and other monkeys). Avian Influenza Virus - domestic birds (meat production). Swine Influenza Virus - Chinese pig farming.

With the millions of deaths and trillions of dollars being spent worldwide to combat this latest pandemic, I think it might be a good idea to take a serious look at which human behaviors we could alter, so as to discourage the emergence of future viral epidemics.

The Causal Relationship between Eating Animals and Viral Epidemics

[Vertigo 7]

With the millions of deaths and trillions of dollars being spent worldwide to combat this latest pandemic, I think it might be a good idea to take a serious look at which human behaviors we could alter, so as to discourage the emergence of future viral epidemics.

Agreed but it's not just consumption that's a causal factor. Natural food chains and wildlife habitats being destroyed by human expansion play a big part. Lyme disease, leprosy, and other often overlooked infections can be directly traced to simply clearing trees from an area to build a town.

[Teladi CEO]

With the millions of deaths and trillions of dollars being spent worldwide to combat this latest pandemic, I think it might be a good idea to take a serious look at which human behaviors we could alter, so as to discourage the emergence of future viral epidemics.

Agreed but it's not just consumption that's a causal factor. Natural food chains and wildlife habitats being destroyed by human expansion play a big part. Lyme disease, leprosy, and other often overlooked infections can be directly traced to simply clearing trees from an area to build a town.

Not always, I have Lyme disease and I didn’t get it from a tick located on a clear cut field. I was deep in the woods, while scrublands and fields are perfect for ticks they are also very prevalent in not human affected areas.

Especially in the natural scrublands and pine barrens of the Northeastern US there are plenty of ticks that are in no way dependent on human development.

[Vertigo 7]

With the millions of deaths and trillions of dollars being spent worldwide to combat this latest pandemic, I think it might be a good idea to take a serious look at which human behaviors we could alter, so as to discourage the emergence of future viral epidemics.

Agreed but it's not just consumption that's a causal factor. Natural food chains and wildlife habitats being destroyed by human expansion play a big part. Lyme disease, leprosy, and other often overlooked infections can be directly traced to simply clearing trees from an area to build a town.

Not always, I have Lyme disease and I didn’t get it from a tick located on a clear cut field. I was deep in the woods, while scrublands and fields are perfect for ticks they are also very prevalent in not human affected areas.

Especially in the natural scrublands and pine barrens of the Northeastern US there are plenty of ticks that are in no way dependent on human development.

That kind of proves the point. You encroached in an area where Lyme disease carriers naturally run wild. Most animals natural to those habitats don't have any kind of adverse reaction to it and it's not until people come in contact that the possibility of catching and spreading the disease increases.

But it's also not just ticks that carry Lyme disease. It's fairly prevalent among rodent populations, so much so that they've started vaccinating mice and releasing them to try to spread immunity around in hopes of keeping it from spreading to humans. In areas where Lyme disease is fairly prevalent, it's the rodent population that's primarily responsible for infecting people and they're breeding out of control without their natural predators to kill them off.

[BaronVerde]

... Most animals natural to those habitats don't have any kind of adverse reaction to it and it's not until people come in contact that the possibility of catching and spreading the disease increases.

But it's also not just ticks that carry Lyme disease. It's fairly prevalent among rodent populations, so much so that they've started vaccinating mice and releasing them to try to spread immunity around in hopes of keeping it from spreading to humans. In areas where Lyme disease is fairly prevalent, it's the rodent population that's primarily responsible for infecting people and they're breeding out of control without their natural predators to kill them off.

Hm, would it be possible to source in a sciency way (Wikipedia not acceptable) the possibility that rodents don't just carry but also spread Lyme disease, with a quantification how high the possibility is, maybe a geographical hint where that may happen ? Do they actively spread/transmit it or carry the ticks whose bite transmit it ?

Not that I reject it, just to be sure ...

[red assassin]

Yes, I admit I have an anti-big pharma bias but that's not what I'm getting at here. It's as simple as I've said over and over again. AZ needs to acknowledge it as a possible side effect, whether or not it can be conclusively proven, just like every other drug company does. Look at all the anti-anxiety meds out there with "suicidal thoughts" being listed as a potential side effect. That can't be conclusively proven either, but they include it as a warning for patients and doctors to make informed decisions. That's my beef with what AZ is doing (or rather not), and if I'm not mistaken, that's Felter's beef as well.

I literally quoted their statement where they do exactly that. Once again:

However, the PRAC also concluded that, for very rare cases of serious thromboembolic events with thrombocytopenia, a causal link with the vaccine is not proven, but is possible and deserves further analysis. (...)

AstraZeneca will continue to work closely with health authorities to ensure the appropriate use of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca. The Company recognises and will implement the recommendations of the PRAC, including the update of the product information, whilst continuing to understand the nature and relevance of these events to ensure the safe delivery of the vaccine continues during this public health crisis.

So I still don't understand what you're looking for here.

[BaronVerde]

Quite in general, the notion of "they know something and don't tell it to us" isn't exactly useful. No word in there has a definition and everybody can build their own fantasies around it. Typical technique to spread division and doubt, and principally unfounded and unproveable. I think it even has a name, but have forgotten it.

@Vertigo7: It would be your task to source the claim that AstraZeneca knew about the clotting and concealed it because that's being insinuated. It is not at us to disprove an unproven claim, which isn't possible at all. It takes us into the post-factual world.