AstraZeneca vaccine

[12gauge82]

9 hours ago, Scully said:

Daughter is 24 and just had her first. She says she wants to go clubbing again when they reopen, and without having the vaccine she won’t be able to unless she tests each time and can show proof it was negative. 

Son is 21 and has both his booked. They want to have them. 

Totally get that, it's an individuals choice at the end of the day 👍

[serrac]

On 28/06/2021 at 23:07, Gordon R said:

I challenge the poster to point out the errors or logical fallacies in your post, Mungler.

Challenge accepted.

It is not sound logic to try to determine whether a given death rate for a vaccine is acceptable simply by comparing the number of deaths with the number of doses given.

If I whacked 1 million people over the head with a baseball bat and only two died from a brain haemorrhage those deaths would not be acceptable would they?

The proper metric is the number of deaths caused by the vaccine versus the number of deaths prevented (or more precisely the number of life-years lost to, versus preserved by the vaccine).

The vaccine was given emergency use authorisation on the basis of the rather meagre benefit of reducing the possibility of developing mild to moderate symptoms by <1% in absolute terms.

It is hoped and assumed this will translate into a reduction in severe illness and deaths, however at present there is no unequivocal data that the vaccine has prevented any deaths whatsoever.

There are also indications the desired outcome may be achieved simply by maintaining Vitamin D levels at the optimum level which carries zero risk of death.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-77093-z

 

Conclusion

Vitamin D deficiency markedly increases the chance of having severe disease after infection with SARS Cov-2. The intensity of inflammatory response is also higher in vitamin D deficient COVID-19 patients. This all translates to increase morbidity and mortality in COVID-19 patients who are deficient in vitamin D. Keeping the current COVID-19 pandemic in view authors recommend administration of vitamin D supplements to population at risk for COVID-19.

 

NO deaths from the covid vaccine are acceptable until and unless it can be shown the net reduction in deaths is higher than alternative approaches such as Vitamin D supplementation.

[ordnance]

10 hours ago, serrac said:

Challenge accepted.

It is not sound logic to try to determine whether a given death rate for a vaccine is acceptable simply by comparing the number of deaths with the number of doses given.

If I whacked 1 million people over the head with a baseball bat and only two died from a brain haemorrhage those deaths would not be acceptable would they?

The proper metric is the number of deaths caused by the vaccine versus the number of deaths prevented (or more precisely the number of life-years lost to, versus preserved by the vaccine).

The vaccine was given emergency use authorisation on the basis of the rather meagre benefit of reducing the possibility of developing mild to moderate symptoms by <1% in absolute terms.

It is hoped and assumed this will translate into a reduction in severe illness and deaths, however at present there is no unequivocal data that the vaccine has prevented any deaths whatsoever.

There are also indications the desired outcome may be achieved simply by maintaining Vitamin D levels at the optimum level which carries zero risk of death.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-77093-z

 

Conclusion

Vitamin D deficiency markedly increases the chance of having severe disease after infection with SARS Cov-2. The intensity of inflammatory response is also higher in vitamin D deficient COVID-19 patients. This all translates to increase morbidity and mortality in COVID-19 patients who are deficient in vitamin D. Keeping the current COVID-19 pandemic in view authors recommend administration of vitamin D supplements to population at risk for COVID-19.

 

NO deaths from the covid vaccine are acceptable until and unless it can be shown the net reduction in deaths is higher than alternative approaches such as Vitamin D supplementation.

Quote

A rapid review from Oxford University’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine found “no clinical evidence” that vitamin D could prevent or treat COVID-19.

 

[Jim Neal]

15 hours ago, serrac said:

there is no unequivocal data that the vaccine has prevented any deaths whatsoever.

I used to have an Auntie who I thought was a bit crackers.  But she never came up with anything as daft as your above statement.

Compare the two graphs below, and read over a few times the definition of the word "unequivocal"

 

 

Quote

 

Adjective

unequivocal (comparative more unequivocal, superlative most unequivocal)

1. Unambiguous; without equivocation or ambiguity; singularly clear, unmistakable, or unquestionable

Edited July 2, 2021 by Jim Neal

[Gordon R]

Having read what appears to be cut and paste at its worst, I couldn't help but notice the similarity between the letters in "serrac" and "crackers". Got to love "hoped and assumed", plus "to" - they added some gravitas to the rambling.

[serrac]

10 hours ago, Jim Neal said:

 Compare the two graphs below, and read over a few times the definition of the word "unequivocal"

Did you notice in your graphs how the trend of reduction in deaths from around Feb 2021 almost exactly mirrors that from April 2020 when there was no vaccine in play?  It is absolutely ambiguous whether any part of the downward trend in deaths in 2021 was due to the vaccine.

The same trends are evident in the cases graph but the scale is distorted by the ramp-up in testing.

[Gordon R]

I find your "logic" quite bizarre.

[Smokersmith]

4 minutes ago, serrac said:

Did you notice in your graphs how the trend of reduction in deaths from around Feb 2021 almost exactly mirrors that from April 2020 when there was no vaccine in play?  It is absolutely ambiguous whether any part of the downward trend in deaths in 2021 was due to the vaccine.

The same trends are evident in the cases graph but the scale is distorted by the ramp-up in testing.

Let me help .. it's not the downward trend you need to look at, but the fact it doesn't go up in June mirroring the rise in cases.

[fse10]

1 minute ago, Gordon R said:

I find your "logic" quite bizarre.

I find it bizarre that this member may have/ has a SGC/FAC. Maybe he put zombie attack down as his good reason.

 

[serrac]

8 minutes ago, Smokersmith said:

Let me help .. it's not the downward trend you need to look at, but the fact it doesn't go up in June mirroring the rise in cases.

The vaccine is supposed to reduce transmission which implies the rise in cases should mostly affect the unvaccinated.  So how did the vaccine prevent a rise in deaths among the unvaccinated?

[serrac]

1 hour ago, fse10 said:

I find it bizarre that this member may have/ has a SGC/FAC. Maybe he put zombie attack down as his good reason.

 

I don't recall my FEO asking about my views on the covid vaccine.

I suspect they'd be more concerned about the passive aggression shown by people who go directly to personal insults when they come across a point of view they don't agree with.

[serrac]

17 hours ago, ordnance said:

A rapid review from Oxford University’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine found “no clinical evidence” that vitamin D could prevent or treat COVID-19.

"Evidence Based Medicine" implies only double blind placebo controlled trials would be considered and I'm not aware of any currently completed so I guess their statement will  remain true at least until the currently ongoing clinical trials are completed.  It does not however prove there is no benefit to Vitamin D.

Since the cost and risk associated with Vitamin-D is so low it seems negligent to not promote it as a precautionary measure.

Fortunately there are moves in that direction though the content of the article is more cautious than the title implies:  https://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2020/dec/vulnerable-and-elderly-to-receive-free-vitamin-d-to-help-fight-covid-19.html

[Smokersmith]

1 hour ago, serrac said:

The vaccine is supposed to reduce transmission which implies the rise in cases should mostly affect the unvaccinated.  So how did the vaccine prevent a rise in deaths among the unvaccinated?

I took the vaccine to reduce the chances of me from dying if I got Covid.

[Gordon R]

Quote

I suspect they'd be more concerned about the passive aggression shown by people who go directly to personal insults when they come across a point of view they don't agree with.

Can I suggest you cut down then. 

[serrac]

9 hours ago, Smokersmith said:

I took the vaccine to reduce the chances of me from dying if I got Covid.

And I hope you never catch Covid or suffer any side affects from the vaccine

[serrac]

16 hours ago, Gordon R said:

Can I suggest you cut down then. 

Not something you can reasonably accuse me of...

[fse10]

22 hours ago, serrac said:

I don't recall my FEO asking about my views on the covid vaccine.

I suspect they'd be more concerned about the passive aggression shown by people who go directly to personal insults when they come across a point of view they don't agree with.

Get over yourself son.

[12gauge82]

I do find it concerning although rare, some of the adverse side effects from these vaccines and if they could cause issues for people in years to come, it could be 30 years later for all I or anyone else knows. The biggest give away for me is how the government have removed the right for people to claim compensation if the vaccine causes anyone a problem. If they were definitely as safe as they say (and I'm not saying they're not generally safe, just that it's not guaranteed),then they wouldn't need to remove that protection. 

 

To sum up, in my opinion Covid is almost certainly more risky than getting the vaccine, particularly the older you are. But that's not 100% guaranteed.

[daveboy]

36 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I do find it concerning although rare, some of the adverse side effects from these vaccines and if they could cause issues for people in years to come, it could be 30 years later for all I or anyone else knows. The biggest give away for me is how the government have removed the right for people to claim compensation if the vaccine causes anyone a problem. If they were definitely as safe as they say (and I'm not saying they're not generally safe, just that it's not guaranteed),then they wouldn't need to remove that protection. 

 

To sum up, in my opinion Covid is almost certainly more risky than getting the vaccine, particularly the older you are. But that's not 100% guaranteed.

They haven't removed the right to claim. The government have taken over responsibility for it. Vaccine Damage Payment - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

[Dougy]

Regarding vaccine, to have or not to have debate, in fact probably either of the vaccine's, lets say all those that have had the A/Z or any of the other's and we all pop our clogs. From what i see of those against either, and having had the pleasure of speaking to one nice gent last Monday at Bakewell, the chance of the human race surviving much longer is pretty grim. 

A senior gent was just putting on his mask before entering a shop, (as per notice) and a comment was made by another chap waiting outside for the Go Lightly Gang to waddle out. There he was wearing tracky bottoms, baggy tee-shirt and trainers, and commented on the jab. 

He asked me if i knew what was in it, i told him i had no idea, and neither did i have any idea what was in the MMR jab. And then he went on to tracking people. What a complete numpty, he was there with his mobile (probably the latest model of whatever) and he had also driven, (I just had to ask) I told him he was being tracked every day for every hour and every minute. 

God help the human race if its left to these 1/2 wits. 

[mel b3]

On 03/07/2021 at 11:57, serrac said:

The vaccine is supposed to reduce transmission which implies the rise in cases should mostly affect the unvaccinated.  So how did the vaccine prevent a rise in deaths among the unvaccinated?

Please excuse the question serrac,  but do you have a medical background? .

I'm not joining the bun fight , I'm just genuinely interested. 

[ditchman]

18 hours ago, serrac said:

And I hope you never catch Covid or suffer any side affects from the vaccine

my top lip went numb the first dose.............the 2nd dose i had no effects at all 

[12gauge82]

5 hours ago, daveboy said:

They haven't removed the right to claim. The government have taken over responsibility for it. Vaccine Damage Payment - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Not quite, the government scheme is very different and all the bar for proof is set extremely high, there are previous cases with people left fighting for years. Under the current climate, they would say they acted in best faith due to a pandemic and it would be almost impossible to make a claim. 

[Gordon R]

Quote

Please excuse the question serrac,  but do you have a medical background? .

If he does, we are in trouble.

Quote

Not something you can reasonably accuse me of...

I do not consider you to be a reasonable person, but I see you require others to be more reasonable than you. Not sure how that works.

[mel b3]

8 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

If he does, we are in trouble.

 

I was just puzzled by his posts .

He seems to be extremely knowledgeable , yet wrong .

I thought that maybe I was getting the wrong end of the stick.