Covid Vaccine Poll

[corsechris]

1 hour ago, AdamR said:

Indeed, that is good news. And only 26% vaccination rate in SA, too.

 

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/south-africa

It really isn’t rigorous to be using data like this to inform our situation, the situation in SA is very different from ours in almost every way.

 

We need to wait for our own data to come out. Not me saying this, but virologists. 

[AdamR]

4 minutes ago, corsechris said:

I look at those personal factors and think ‘why not get a jab’ rather than ‘why get a jab’.

 

Me too, I think its important to look at it from both sides.

 

Re. SA - agreed, but I think it is fair to comment it is good news, encouraging, etc though.

 

[corsechris]

I was watching Hardtalk yesterday (purely by chance) and they had Neil deGrasse Tyson on.

 

He made a good point about science, education and curiosity/asking questions. At some point, when the body of evidence is overwhelming, it is time to accept something as an objective truth and move on. Continuing to question that fact is no longer fruitful, nor does it make the questioner a free-thinker as they may like to believe.  Flat earth being a prime example.

[corsechris]

Our best hope is that Covid19 goes the same way as most other viruses, more contagious, less virulent.

[Steve (sdh2903)]

1 hour ago, corsechris said:

Our best hope is that Covid19 goes the same way as most other viruses, more contagious, less virulent.

 

Which does seem to be the case with omicron from the early data. Much more virulent in airways rather than in the lung. Fingers crossed.

 

Can I ask, though. Hypothetically, If that's the case, and let's say theta or sigma or whichever one is next (why aren't they in order?) takes that progression another step further. Would you still be willing to take boosters every 6 months or so (if that's still the line the government take)?

[corsechris]

19 minutes ago, Steve (sdh2903) said:

 

Which does seem to be the case with omicron from the early data. Much more virulent in airways rather than in the lung. Fingers crossed.

 

Can I ask, though. Hypothetically, If that's the case, and let's say theta or sigma or whichever one is next (why aren't they in order?) takes that progression another step further. Would you still be willing to take boosters every 6 months or so (if that's still the line the government take)?

I’ve been getting flu jabs for about 5 or 6 years now IIRC, initially paid for myself as I didn’t qualify for a free one and yes, I’d be quite happy to get Covid boosters as and when they are offered, I don’t really see much difference between the two things tbh.
 

There is a well tested and safe (relatively) way for me to minimise the risks of suffering from various viruses so my view is why not take advantage.

[Blatman]

5 hours ago, AdamR said:

There is evidence to show that the Covid jabs may instigate an unrelated but potentially serious health issue. The data shows that risk is small, perhaps too small to be counted in a numerical sense even with the fractions we are talking about, but still real.

 

This statistic was trotted out earlier in the thread, or possibly another thread and I made a somewhat glib response, but lets have a more forensic look.

By your own admission, the risk from the jab may be so small as to be mathematically irrelevant, but it is still perceived as a very real risk by those who are hesitant.

I assume we all drive cars, go outside, cross the road, go to work (except for those who are retired), eat out or get takeaways and all the usual things which fundamentally ALL have a HUGELY greater risk of causing a serious recation or a persons demise. So what logic is used when risk assessing crossing the road (mathematically very relevant) to not getting a vaccine that has a risk that is so small as to be irrelevant? 

 

Some maths:

Quote

The lifetime risk of dying in a transport accident is remarkably high - with most of the risk coming from road traffic accidents. While the risk of dying in a road accident in any year in the UK approaches 1 in 20,000, the lifetime risk is 1 in 240.

from here - http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Risk/trasnsportpop.html

This research is not new, bit I doubt the numbers have changed substantially to alter the numbers in a significant way. If I find better stats, I'll edit the entry.

 

And then Covid - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/

Dated December 13 shows the risk of death from Covid 19 at a sniff over 1% and from other sources deaths or "life changing" side effects as a direct result of the vaccine many orders of magnitude lower than that. As discussed earlier in the pandemic, blood clot incidents in vaccine takers are LOWER than usually seen in the general population. I bet flying medium to long haul presents a greater blood clot risk, but we all conveniently ignore that... and I would too except I fly a lot so I think about it. I think about crashing too, but I still fly.

 

So why are people so hesitant of the vaccine yet quite happy to use the roads? The risk to life, which I assume is the measure being used, is FAR greater for us road users.

So a life lost or altered from a Covid vaccine shot is absolutley something to be properly concerned with but lives lost or altered on the roads generate no reason to re-evaluate or analyse or alter behavior to mitigate the risks of that activity? Why is that? It's a real question.

If the premise is risk to life and well proven, peer reviewed statistics are used to quantify the risk profile for these activities why are some road users so totally risk averse when discussing the vaccine? I don't see the logic when using the roads is, by ANY mathematical comparison,  many orders of magnitude more risky. I need that logic explained.

[Blatman]

ONS data on "yellow card" and death as a direct result of the vaccine:

 

Quote

What numbers are currently available?

The Yellow Card reporting scheme has reported that between 9 December 2020 and 8 September 2021 there were 1,645 deaths where the person died shortly after receiving one of the coronavirus vaccines. This is the number of deaths reported as possibly linked to a vaccine, however they will not have been fully investigated at the time of reporting and a report is not proof of causation. So, the numbers are likely to be a big overestimate. The MHRA follow up all such reports and use other sources of evidence such as the numbers of individuals who would be expected to experience different events irrespective of vaccination.

In contrast, the different statistical agencies have reported that to August 2021 (June 2021 in Northern Ireland) there were 4 deaths in England, 0 deaths in Wales, 4 deaths in Scotland and 1 in Northern Ireland. Of these, 4 in Scotland and 1 in Northern Ireland had the vaccine as the underlying cause of death. This meant that there were 9 deaths in the UK that involved the vaccine (meaning the vaccine contributed to the death), of which 5 had the vaccine as the underlying cause (meaning the vaccine initiated the chain of events directly leading to the death). For these deaths, there was evidence to suggest that the vaccine played a part in the chain of events that led to the death.

 

From here - https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2021/10/04/how-many-people-have-died-as-a-result-of-a-covid-19-vaccine/

 

Road deaths/injuries from 2019 - 2020 during lockdown which by definition reduced road usage by about a fifth:

Quote

an estimated 1,472 reported road deaths in 2020 which includes a total of 4 months of national lockdown (April to June and November)

an estimated 23,486 killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties in 2020, a decrease of 22% compared to the same period in 2019

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-provisional-results-2020/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-provisional-results-2020

 

If the vaccine was killing as many people as "going out in the car" then yeah, we should be a bit more concerned, but I'd still take it,'cos I still go out in the car...

[AdamR]

Firstly, these are really good questions Blatman, and definitely leave me questioning things - so thank you! I will take more time to reply in full later.

 

For now, I did some quick research into death rates due to the jabs and compared them with Covid.

 

The numbers I found for vaccine-caused deaths so far in the UK were a bit higher than your info (1817 total), but the data runs up until ~8th December instead of early September:

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1041484/COVID-19_vaccine_AstraZeneca_analysis_print.pdf

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1041483/Pfizer-_BioNTech_vaccine_analysis_print.pdf

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1040856/Vaccine_Analysis_Print_COVID_19_Vaccine_Moderna.pdf

 

Given a total of 119.5m jabs completed to 8th December (data from here: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations), that gives a death rate of 0.0015% - which is higher than the 0.0011% unjabbed death rate for my age group from Covid. This is also without taking into consideration health status, which appears to indicate a reduction in serious health conditions in patients with normal BMI, compared with those at 25+.

 

Maybe not statistically significant, but I think it shows there isn't much in it at least. I can well understand why others would choose to take the jabs if in higher risk groups.

[Kingster]

4 minutes ago, AdamR said:

death rate for my age group

Are both figures for the same age group Adam?

[AdamR]

I couldn't find any age-related data for adverse reactions, would be good to see some though - I think it would give different numbers.

[Onliest Smeg David]

1 hour ago, Blatman said:

So why are people so hesitant of the vaccine yet quite happy to use the roads?

Familiarity breeds contempt? 

[Kingster]

36 minutes ago, AdamR said:

I couldn't find any age-related data for adverse reactions, would be good to see some though - I think it would give different numbers.

Just wondering if the vaccine death rates were higher for your age group. 
 

Either way seems like a minuscule risk compared to some of our chosen pursuits - hence for my age group getting jabbed is a complete no brainier (imo) 

[Steve (sdh2903)]

Some interesting stats blatman. However you're arguing for getting the vaccine as it's safer than....... could also be used to argue the points to not take the vaccine too? As you say Its all a risk assessment.

 

1 hour ago, Blatman said:

So why are people so hesitant of the vaccine yet quite happy to use the roads?

 

This could be also flipped to say why are people so scared of covid yet quite happy to use the roads? As for someone my age getting covid is about as dangerous as a 250 mile drive. Again a huge function of age.

 

Also the 1% mortality rate is also too general. As it varies so much as a function of age/health. Which is why I feel very uneasy with vaccinating healthy children.

 

There's also one big detail you're missing. That figure relies on you actually catching covid. So needs to be a function of risk of infection x risk of serious illness/death. The numbers start to look a little different then. The risks involved with taking the vaccine don't have that additional variable. 

 

I had splinters in my A*** from sitting on the fence about this but eventually did come down on the side of getting the vaccine. But after a slightly worrying reaction to the second, that I stupidly just shrugged off and 'got on with it' rather than getting checked out, I dont think I'll be getting another booster.

 

 

[Kingster]

9 minutes ago, Steve (sdh2903) said:

So needs to be a function of risk of infection x risk of serious illness/death. The numbers start to look a little different then. The risks involved with taking the vaccine don't have that additional variable. 

I’d never thought of that one - good point.