I wish this article reported the denominator. 25 out of how many doses administered? What is the baseline % of people who should have gotten thrombosis naturally in the last 3 months (since doses started being administered).
Perhaps the answer is that this is a real risk. But the public should be taught to think in relativistic ways. It's not that hard if every newspaper always did it as reinforcement.
"In Norway, health officials have reported at least 6 of Jab’s 120,000 recipients of such cases, four of whom died.
In Germany, 31 cases have been reported after 2.7 million vaccinations, 29 of which are women aged 20-63 and two men aged 36-57. Nine of them have died.
By March 24, MHRA had received 22 reports of CVST and 8 reports of other thrombotic events with low platelets out of a total of 18.1 million doses of AstraZeneca vaccine. This corresponds to approximately one case for every 600,000 recipients."
No seriously. The estimated prevalence of venous thrombosis in the United States is 1:1000. The reported numbers of VTE after the vaccine would be normal in the general population. I am an emergency physician and I diagnose and manage PE and DVT several times per week. To me this seems much ado about nothing.
It’s 8 incidents out of 18.1 million vaccinations according to the UK government’s own report. The prevalence generally is estimated to be between 2 and 5 per million per year [1] in a 2016 paper.
Given the population prevalence, you’d expect 36 to 100 incidents in the vaccinated population. Yet they found only 8. I’m not qualified to say whether that means anything.
When comparing to the baseline, we need to divde the per year stats to some shorter time period, because these AstraZeneca related cases happen pretty quickly after the jab, which means that the observation period isn't a full year.
It's also worth looking at the age distribution. The cases that are thought to be linked with AstraZeneca are with younger people. I wonder how that compares to the baseline thrombosis age distribution.
Reminiscent of that time that Apple/Foxconn got bad PR back in 2010 for 15 suicides at their manufacturing plants in a single year, however it was out of a worker population of 930,000, despite the suicide rate in China generally being 22+ per 100,000, well over 10x higher.
People still report the false narrative as fact, a decade on. I wonder about the long-term effects of these vaccine scare stores on our society's health.
Listen, generally the left excoriates "profit-driven" medicine, but now we're all instructed to have complete faith in capitalist mega-corps!
Also it's been maybe only 6 months since Kamala Harris argued she'd never take a vaccine at the instruction of Trump cause he was rushing the approval process.
Thrombosis affects mainly people under-55s. I wonder if now that younger people are getting the vaccine, it will increase the numbers.
Mostly seniors have been vaccinated in the UK, which might explain why they've seen way fewer cases than continental Europe.
20 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 54.3 ms ] threadPerhaps the answer is that this is a real risk. But the public should be taught to think in relativistic ways. It's not that hard if every newspaper always did it as reinforcement.
In Germany, 31 cases have been reported after 2.7 million vaccinations, 29 of which are women aged 20-63 and two men aged 36-57. Nine of them have died.
By March 24, MHRA had received 22 reports of CVST and 8 reports of other thrombotic events with low platelets out of a total of 18.1 million doses of AstraZeneca vaccine. This corresponds to approximately one case for every 600,000 recipients."
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/data.html
Given the population prevalence, you’d expect 36 to 100 incidents in the vaccinated population. Yet they found only 8. I’m not qualified to say whether that means anything.
[1] https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.0...
Also, this is a very specific and rare type of clotting event - don't compare it to clotting events in general.
It's also worth looking at the age distribution. The cases that are thought to be linked with AstraZeneca are with younger people. I wonder how that compares to the baseline thrombosis age distribution.
I don't have enough information about this sector to tell
It took millions of jabs to find a slightly elevated risk, and this I think has to be compared to some other commonly applied vaccine, not placebo.
If the risk is "very rare", like less than 1 in 10000, then it warrants a label and maybe precautionary dose of aspirin.
People still report the false narrative as fact, a decade on. I wonder about the long-term effects of these vaccine scare stores on our society's health.
Should we not be surprised with bugs in this vaccine deployment?
Also it's been maybe only 6 months since Kamala Harris argued she'd never take a vaccine at the instruction of Trump cause he was rushing the approval process.
https://www.ft.com/content/2e52a5b0-29b9-4c7e-8cfb-97bf8edea...
The actual press release is here, but the details of the new reports are buried far down the page:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid...