[Info-vax] [Totally OT] Covid-19 vaccine situation

[Dave Froble]

Why is it I seem to have issues with some/all of Phillip's posts?

On 3/31/2021 9:55 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <s41s2j$5ul$1 at dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley
> <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>
>> My question is this: What the hell is going on with the vaccine authorisation
>> decision makers in Europe (and elsewhere, such as Canada) at the moment ?
>>
>> I'm reacting to the various decisions made to restrict or even stop the
>> use of the AstraZeneca vaccine just because of a few possible cases of
>> nasty blood clotting side effects out of many millions of doses given.
>> And at the moment, it's not even clear if the AZ vaccine is even
>> responsible for those cases because there are so few of them.
>
> Yes, there are few, but none with other vaccines, so it is pretty clear
> that it is a side effect.  It seems that the cause has also been found
> (an auto-immune reaction).

Some of the vaccines are rather similar.  Perhaps it's "the luck of the 
draw"?  Or perhaps it's who is getting which vaccine?

> Yes, a low risk.  However, most people don't have a good understanding
> of relative risk, and playing it safe avoids more people becoming
> sceptical about vaccinations in general.  Also, the thromboses are
> relatively recent; there might be more to come.
>
> In any case, it's better than Donald's handling of the "China virus".

How could it be worse, since Donald did nothing?

>> I really can't get my head around some of the decisions being made
>> in the rest of Europe at the moment and I am hoping that some people
>> who actually live in those countries might be able to provide some
>> insights that I am clearly missing.
>
> See above.
>
>> Medicines in general are not safe. They are instead "mostly safe" and
>> they all come with risks as a reading of the safety information leaflet
>> for the medicine will reveal.
>
> Of course, but such side effects have been seen by only one vaccine.

Then why is the EU making such a big stink over the availability of the 
Astra Zenica (spelling) vaccine, if the EU doesn't like that vaccine? 
Couldn't be their rather poor and tardy procurement procedures, could it?

>> Some medicines have risks of very nasty side effects at the level of
>> 1 in 10000 people taking them. Yet people take those medicines because
>> the benefits to most people outweigh the risks to a very small number
>> of people.
>
> Right, and most of those have years or decades of data to base a
> decision on.

So you want to wait years before doing something about Covid-19?  Then 
where would the data come from?  For that matter, where did those 
"decades of data" you mention come from?

>> The number of people who may be affected by blood clots as a result of
>> having the AZ vaccine is far fewer than even 1 in 10000, but the same
>> people who want to ban the AZ vaccine in parts of Europe are the same
>> people who have no problems with other medicines which have nasty
>> side effects at the 1 in 10000 people level remaining on sale.
>>
>> Why for goodness sake ?
>
> The main reason is that with other medicines, if you choose not to use
> them, you hurt essentially only yourself, whereas with vaccines there is
> also the protection of others, hence public pressure to get vaccinated.
> Different ballgame, right tool for the job, etc.
>
>> Are some people really so risk-adverse that they are looking for medicines
>> without _any_ side effects and are unwilling to accept a low level of risk ?
>
> No.
>
>> Are these same people actually really playing politics with the lives of
>> their citizens for some screwed-up reason ? I really hope this one isn't
>> the answer to be honest.
>
> No.  There are other vaccines.

Then why is the EU making such an issue of the number of doses of AZ 
available to them?

>> The longer that some people play stupid games and slow down the vaccine
>> effort, the more opportunities the virus has to mutate into something
>> that the current vaccines will not work against. It also means that more
>> people end up dying than would otherwise have died.
>
> The risk of not doing anything and widespread vaccination scepticism
> coming up as a result is much greater.  Much greater.
>
>> The only decision that makes sense to me is to go all-out with the
>> vaccines that _are_ currently available in order to get the death
>> rate (and serious long-term problems from the virus for some survivors)
>> down to a much lower level and hence end up saving a lot of lives.
>
> That's what's happening.  AstraZenica is no longer recommended for
> people, especially women, under 60 (almost all of the thrombosis cases
> have been in women, some quite young), but it is mostly older people
> getting vaccinated now.  No waste.
>
>> Oh, and I had my first AZ dose a couple of weeks ago and was very happy
>> to have it at the time because the benefits dramatically outweigh the
>> risks.
>
> Sure.  But that is not an automatic answer to all the points above.
>

Maybe not "automatic", but perhaps a "good answer".

-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef at tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486