Kopstar no need to be antagonistic on my behalf. I encourage opposing views, and we all make miscalculations. When weighing up human lives, we are talking in shades of grey, and partial information.
There is much misinformation and parroting by the media. That has brought a certain level of opaqueness to the subject. I don’t agree with GoneKloppo on AZ, but do believe the argument is made in good faith, and he is entitled to his view.
Lets leave it there
What happens next in European countries (be u-turns, pushing AZ for deliveries, preventing exports, or perhaps association with clotting) will be interesting.
I get you. From a purely logic perspective, I guess those dots can be connected, but it’s just extremely unlikely in term of how the vaccine works. We know that if you get it at that age it’s a big problem, and we know that it can still take about 2 weeks to reach full immunity after the second dose. Sure, it’s a low odds scenario to catch it that close to such a visible and important event like the second dose of a vaccine, but you vaccinate an entire continent and you get LOTS of low odds scenarios playing out.
I think this is a bad take that is actually adding to the confusion that he is complaining the WHO has caused.
The big issue here is that “Airborne” transmission means something different to infectious disease scientists than it is reasonably understood to mean by a layperson. In this context, airborne doesnt just mean something that is in the air, but something that can stay suspended in the air long after it has been expelled. Respiratory droplets on the other hand though fall to the ground in a predictable Newtonian fashion, like a cannon ball being shot out of a cannon. The difference between these two is why maintaining a distance of 6ft from people in public is considered appropriate for COVID, but not for a genuinely airborne virus like measles.
The other issue is that it describes the general characteristics of transmission and does not preclude there being circumstances that can change the characteristics and behavior.
So, IF the WHO had simply made a statement that this isnt Airborne and then done nothing else and let people act on their understanding of what this means, then this guy would have a point. But they didn’t. They also provided guidance on what people should do to protect themselves that encompassed the lay person’s understanding of what airborne means and included circumstances that can make it behave like an airborne virus.
This guy is getting into a semantic argument and ignoring that their guidance already covering the things he wants them to be honest about wrt the virus’ behaviour.
Support for AstraZeneca was also provided yesterday by Kate Bingham, who led the UK Vaccine Taskforce. In a Financial Times interview , she called the company “heroes” for picking up Oxford University’s experimental vaccine and turning it into a low-cost jab that could be administered globally.
“I do feel sorry for AstraZeneca. They’ve been caught up in geopolitics,” she added.
Oh do fuck off. Health bodies from multiple countries, many not even in the EU, have decided there is a risk that requires limiting inoculations to a certain age group. The only one making this political is you.
Well I am just agreeing with WHO, EMA, MHRA and numerous other experts.
Given some of those bodies have gone from defer to EMA, to flip flopping on under 65s, to suspended for everyone, to only over 65s does not inspire confidence.
In light of the UK reducing thousands of deaths to near zero in a few weeks it is the best argument for AstraZeneca vaccine roll out quickly to a wide population. Given third wave hitting other countries debate should be had.
There are really bad quotes from doctors (like Canadian link above ) saying risk of clotting from vaccine to a 30 year old is worse than the effects of the virus. Statements not based in reality.
With threads on other subjects (clue, this is one of them). You may be indifferent to false information being posted but I hate it, particularly over such a serious subject.
Interestingly the Danish have a different technique to injecting vaccines to the UK.
This has come under the spotlight given criticism by danish doctors. Various danish medical bodies recommending one approach given it could potentially lead to clotting.
In short need to make sure vaccine goes into muscle. But given everyone’s anatomy is different there is a risk of injecting into vein. There is some debate if there should be an aspiration (suck needle before injecting to see if blood)
The UK I believe typically just injects. The Danes typically aspirate (but not always). Due to risk of clotting the Danes have sent out new guidelines how to inject all vaccines.
The differences we observe could potentially be technique.
A week long lockdown started today. Don’t know how much benefit it’s going to bring without a massive testing scheme to screen-out and isolate the infected persons. As it stands, the infected persons (unknowingly) will infect the persons in their household and all of these infected persons will mingle with others once the lockdown is lifted.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”
Looks like I gonna get the vaccine only in June. As of now its either Pfizer or Moderna for us. And we are on course to vaccinate the whole population by year end.
