advertisement


Coronavirus - the new strain XVII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seanm said:
I’m going to treat all this “highly unusual” symptoms stuff with a pinch of salt until I hear a scientist say it, with data. I’m old enough to remember when children’s wards were filling up in January as a result of the new strain.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The description by the Danish friend above sounds like disseminated intravascular clotting which is rare but can have many causes (cancers, sepsis, some snake bites...). Clinical trial experts will be aware of it though and will be all over it if it happens and seems to be drug-related.

If there are any in the UK, the MHRA will be making sure of the likelihood of risk and causality before going to press, unlike some other organisations or doctors by the look of things.
 
hc25036 said:
Indeed. The description by the Danish friend above sounds like disseminated intravascular clotting which is rare but can have many causes (cancers, sepsis, some snake bites...). Clinical trial experts will be aware of it though and will be all over it if it happens and seems to be drug-related.

If there are any in the UK, the MHRA will be making sure of the likelihood of risk and causality before going to press, unlike some other organisations or doctors by the look of things.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that. However, if it does emerge that this has been known about and has been concealed in someway it will be hugely damaging.

Are people in the UK being told to lookout for skin hemorrhages for example? I had Pfizer so I don't know. I was told to call the doctor if I felt unwell beyond a few days.
 
gavreid said:
I'd agree with that. However, if it does emerge that this has been known about and has been concealed in someway it will be hugely damaging.
Click to expand...

Absolutely - but the border between ‘concealed’ and ‘properly assessed before possibly causing unnecessary panic’ is a tough one if you are making the call. Even if this is a genuine issue, the risk:benefit calculation is still heavily in favour of being vaccinated.
 
hc25036 said:
Absolutely - but the border between ‘concealed’ and ‘properly assessed before possibly causing unnecessary panic’ is a tough one if you are making the call. Even if this is a genuine issue, the risk:benefit calculation is still heavily in favour of being vaccinated.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that too, but people do need to know what to look out for if it's 'a thing'. Transparency is fundamental to public confidence in my opinion.
 
DIC is not something the public need to look out for as it will be a straight 999 call. Medics will recognise and report immediately if there is a possible drug link. It is one of those things that they know about.
 
15 DVT, 22 Pulmonary Embolisms out of 17 million patients exposed to the AZ vaccine in U.K.+EU where reporting will be good. I’m happy to take my chances! I suppose the caveat is n is huge, t is small
 
Seanm said:
I’m going to treat all this “highly unusual” symptoms stuff with a pinch of salt until I hear a scientist say it, with data. I’m old enough to remember when children’s wards were filling up in January as a result of the new strain.
Click to expand...
We have long Covid, there will no doubt be some people who ‘were never right again’ after receiving the vaccine.
 
hc25036 said:
DIC is not something the public need to look out for as it will be a straight 999 call. Medics will recognise and report immediately if there is a possible drug link. It is one of those things that they know about.
Click to expand...

In Norway the advice is now explicit...

“People under the age of 50 who have received the AstraZeneca vaccine and feel increasingly unwell more than three days after vaccination, and who notice larger or smaller blue spots in the skin (skin haemorrhages) must consult a doctor or out-of-hours medical service as soon as possible.
 
I had an interesting covid-stat related example relayed to me yesterday. An older friend of a relative died last week (age 82). He had ongoing health issues; was admitted to the local hospital; and sadly passed away whilst in hospital.

The hospital contacted his relatives and asked if they could record covid on the death certificate, because it would avoid the need for a post-mortem.

On the surface, this sounds like a case of covid over-reporting, but it's unverified at the moment.

Has anyone heard of similar?
 
gavreid said:
In Norway the advice is now explicit...

“People under the age of 50 who have received the AstraZeneca vaccine and feel increasingly unwell more than three days after vaccination, and who notice larger or smaller blue spots in the skin (skin haemorrhages) must consult a doctor or out-of-hours medical service as soon as possible.
Click to expand...

Wow! They must either really be seeing something, or someone has made a bad call as they could be inundated with reports. I’m over 60 and vaccinated, and just counted 6 possible lesions on my arms, definitely all due to normal life. Skin haemorrhages are common since as you age capillaries bleed more easily. It’s a medical nightmare to have a rare and dangerous event that has a common symptom.
 
kabayiri said:
I had an interesting covid-stat related example relayed to me yesterday. An older friend of a relative died last week (age 82). He had ongoing health issues; was admitted to the local hospital; and sadly passed away whilst in hospital.

The hospital contacted his relatives and asked if they could record covid on the death certificate, because it would avoid the need for a post-mortem.

On the surface, this sounds like a case of covid over-reporting, but it's unverified at the moment.

Has anyone heard of similar?
Click to expand...
I was talking to someone who had been recalled to the army last year when covid levels were high, he said if there was cause of death doubt, death had been attributed to covid, it reduced paperwork.
 
From the Guardian:

Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter, professor of the public understanding of risk at Cambridge University, has backed AstraZeneca’s claim there is no evidence that the Oxford jab leads to an increased risk of a blood clot. (See 11.30am.) Speaking on the World at One, he said:

I’ve looked at the AstraZeneca reports and they’ve said that 17m jabs across the EU and the UK [had been administered] and they’ve had about 15 cases of deep vein thrombosis and 22 cases of pulmonary embolism reported.

Doing some some sums, deep vein thrombosis happens to one in 1,000 people per year of all ages.

So, out of those 17m jabs, we would expect at least 17,000 of those people to get a deep vein thrombosis some time in the year.

So that means that there will have been - and you can pretty well guarantee it - 350 people who have had an AstraZeneca jab then had a deep vein thrombosis in the week following that.

I think what’s surprising is that only 15 have been reported as a possible adverse effect.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ative-achievement-says-minister-politics-live
 
Yebbut, it's more about the UK / EU row about the vaccine that started with President Macron's statement about its efficacy in the over 60s.

Any excuse to pooh-pooh it. :)
 
I do wonder if there are vested commercial interests in disparaging the AZ vaccine, since the alternatives (Pfizer, Moderna, J&J) are a LOT more expensive (read profitable).
 
Hoopsontoast said:
From the Guardian:

Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter, professor of the public understanding of risk at Cambridge University, has backed AstraZeneca’s claim there is no evidence that the Oxford jab leads to an increased risk of a blood clot. (See 11.30am.) Speaking on the World at One, he said:

I’ve looked at the AstraZeneca reports and they’ve said that 17m jabs across the EU and the UK [had been administered] and they’ve had about 15 cases of deep vein thrombosis and 22 cases of pulmonary embolism reported.

Doing some some sums, deep vein thrombosis happens to one in 1,000 people per year of all ages.

So, out of those 17m jabs, we would expect at least 17,000 of those people to get a deep vein thrombosis some time in the year.

So that means that there will have been - and you can pretty well guarantee it - 350 people who have had an AstraZeneca jab then had a deep vein thrombosis in the week following that.

I think what’s surprising is that only 15 have been reported as a possible adverse effect.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ative-achievement-says-minister-politics-live
Click to expand...

At the risk of falling foul of the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, my first thought was that he's talking about Deep Vein Thrombosis while we think the relevant events are Disseminated Intravascular Clotting.
 
mandryka said:
At the risk of falling foul of the adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, my first thought was that he's talking about Deep Vein Thrombosis while we think the relevant events are Disseminated Intravascular Clotting.
Click to expand...

Probably has no more information than we do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top