The Lemon Fool

Dod101 wrote:Do you really see Canada, for instance, as in the 'vaccinated' zone'? My Canadian family certainly does not see things that way. They (or at least one of them) thinks their vaccine roll out has been catastrophically poor. I read the other day that the UK currently represents about 50% of those vaccinated in the world (counting only one vaccination of course) Not many in the 'vaccinated zone' and I do not fancy Israel very much.

Yes, looks like I was wrong there:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56035306

Canada has ordered a high number of vaccines but supply seems to be an issue. I guess the US is putting itself first for supplies, which you can't really blame them for. The US has probably administered more vaccines than anywhere else, although the focus there is on 2 jabs within 3 weeks, so the number vaccinated may be lower. It has given nearly 100 million jabs to date.

I am hoping to travel to Israel this summer, as both my wife and my youngest son want to go.

Lootman wrote:

Dod101 wrote:Do you really see Canada, for instance, as in the 'vaccinated' zone'? My Canadian family certainly does not see things that way. They (or at least one of them) thinks their vaccine roll out has been catastrophically poor. I read the other day that the UK currently represents about 50% of those vaccinated in the world (counting only one vaccination of course) Not many in the 'vaccinated zone' and I do not fancy Israel very much.

Yes, looks like I was wrong there:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56035306

Canada has ordered a high number of vaccines but supply seems to be an issue. I guess the US is putting itself first for supplies, which you can't really blame them for. The US has probably administered more vaccines than anywhere else, although the focus there is on 2 jabs within 3 weeks, so the number vaccinated may be lower. It has given nearly 100 million jabs to date.

I am hoping to travel to Israel this summer, as both my wife and my youngest son want to go.

Thanks.I do not think, in fact it is wrong to say that the UK represents about 50% of those vaccinated in the world. Of course it does not because the US for one seems to be catching up quite quickly. The messages that I am getting from Canada are that they seem to think that their government has been completely incompetent on the vaccine front. I gather that they have no domestic pharma companies so that may have something to do with it. In the UK we of course have a big pharma industry and a history of great research. Whatever else may be said about Boris' s press briefings I am impressed by the experts, the medics/scientists.

Dod

This is a bit concerning:

Denmark suspends use of AstraZeneca COVID vaccine

An unconfirmed number of patients have developed blood clots after receiving the shot, according to health authorities. Iceland and Norway have also stopped administering the shot.

https://www.dw.com/en/denmark-suspends- ... a-56835406

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56357760

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/11/denmark ... clots.html

richfool wrote:This is a bit concerning:

Denmark suspends use of AstraZeneca COVID vaccine

An unconfirmed number of patients have developed blood clots after receiving the shot, according to health authorities. Iceland and Norway have also stopped administering the shot.

https://www.dw.com/en/denmark-suspends- ... a-56835406

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56357760

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/11/denmark ... clots.html

Could it be lesser-skilled staff injecting into a vein rather than a muscle?

richfool wrote:This is a bit concerning:

Denmark suspends use of AstraZeneca COVID vaccine

An unconfirmed number of patients have developed blood clots after receiving the shot, according to health authorities. Iceland and Norway have also stopped administering the shot.

https://www.dw.com/en/denmark-suspends- ... a-56835406

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56357760

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/11/denmark ... clots.html

Maybe it’s due to my lack of knowledge but from what I’ve read on this I’m more confused than concerned. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is I assume still investigating but has already come out and said...

The number of thromboembolic events in vaccinated people is no higher than the number seen in the general population.

[ Source: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid ... s-benefits ]

What confuses me is that, if amongst the number of people who have had the AZ vaccine one would expect a reasonable number of potentially fatal blood clots to have arisen anyway in the same number of people in an unvaccinated population (which as I understand it is what the EMA is saying), then why aren’t we seeing a similar number of something-nasty-happened-shortly-after-being-vaccinated events being flagged up re the Pfizer vaccine (to pick on the one that I suspect has the best chance of competing with the AZ one as the most used vaccine world wide to date)? Is the number of doses administered actually a lot lower than the AZ vaccine? Is the Pfizer vaccine somehow actively protecting against all the various regular causes of severe illness or death amongst a large population? Is the monitoring of side effects somehow less rigorous and/or slower to report for Pfizer vs AZ? I can’t convince myself that any of those explanations are likely so why are we not seeing this sort of stuff with the Pfizer vaccine?

- Julian

richfool wrote:This is a bit concerning:

Not in the slightest.
The numbers are a single digit out of millions who have been jabbed with it.
The numbers (per capita) with blood clots after vaccination are no higher than those in the unvaccinated population.

It's the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
"After this, therefore because of this."

We were warned about this by Whitty (Dr Doom) et al:
Some people will die after the jab and their death is nothing to do with the jab.
Some people will fall ill/have some medical condition anyway and also happened to have also had the jab.
The media/Faecebook will latch onto it and make a big deal out of it. But it's nothing.

Also, the UK have jabbed 22 million people (most of those with the AZN jab).
If there was a blood clot risk, we would have noticed by now.

Nothing to see here.

absolutezero wrote:

richfool wrote:This is a bit concerning:

Not in the slightest.
Nothing to see here.

We don't know that yet. Research and feedback is continuing.

absolutezero wrote:

richfool wrote:This is a bit concerning:

Not in the slightest.
The numbers are a single digit out of millions who have been jabbed with it.

Are they single digits though?

The news report quoted by richfool states "An unconfirmed number of patients have developed blood clots..."

Whilst I agree with the rest of your post, do you (or anyone) know the numbers actually involved, please?

absolutezero wrote:

richfool wrote:This is a bit concerning:

Not in the slightest.
The numbers are a single digit out of millions who have been jabbed with it.
The numbers (per capita) with blood clots after vaccination are no higher than those in the unvaccinated population.

It's the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
"After this, therefore because of this."

We were warned about this by Whitty (Dr Doom) et al:
Some people will die after the jab and their death is nothing to do with the jab.
Some people will fall ill/have some medical condition anyway and also happened to have also had the jab.
The media/Faecebook will latch onto it and make a big deal out of it. But it's nothing.

Also, the UK have jabbed 22 million people (most of those with the AZN jab).
If there was a blood clot risk, we would have noticed by now.

Nothing to see here.

I still for the life of me can't understand why we're not hearing similar news stories and temporary halts pending investigation re the Pfizer vaccine though. Say that out of 10 million people in the general unvaccinated population one would expect 30 serious blood clots in any given 1 month period (a made up number for illustration). So, in 10 million people not yet vaccinated we saw about 30 serious blood clots (give or take a few) in the last month and in 10 million people who received the AZ vaccine we also saw about 30 serious blood clots in the last month. As you say, "nothing to see here". But in 10 million people who received the Pfizer vaccine? Nothing? Surely we would expect to see about 30 serious blood clots in that group too and if we did then why are so many countries pausing the AZ rollout but we hear of no such concerns or pauses with the Pfizer (or any other) vaccine that I'm aware of. I just don't get it.

- Julian

Julian wrote:

absolutezero wrote: Not in the slightest.
The numbers are a single digit out of millions who have been jabbed with it.
The numbers (per capita) with blood clots after vaccination are no higher than those in the unvaccinated population.

It's the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
"After this, therefore because of this."

We were warned about this by Whitty (Dr Doom) et al:
Some people will die after the jab and their death is nothing to do with the jab.
Some people will fall ill/have some medical condition anyway and also happened to have also had the jab.
The media/Faecebook will latch onto it and make a big deal out of it. But it's nothing.

Also, the UK have jabbed 22 million people (most of those with the AZN jab).
If there was a blood clot risk, we would have noticed by now.

Nothing to see here.

I still for the life of me can't understand why we're not hearing similar news stories and temporary halts pending investigation re the Pfizer vaccine though. Say that out of 10 million people in the general unvaccinated population one would expect 30 serious blood clots in any given 1 month period (a made up number for illustration). So, in 10 million people not yet vaccinated we saw about 30 serious blood clots (give or take a few) in the last month and in 10 million people who received the AZ vaccine we also saw about 30 serious blood clots in the last month. As you say, "nothing to see here". But in 10 million people who received the Pfizer vaccine? Nothing? Surely we would expect to see about 30 serious blood clots in that group too and if we did then why are so many countries pausing the AZ rollout but we hear of no such concerns or pauses with the Pfizer (or any other) vaccine that I'm aware of. I just don't get it.



- Julian

Perhaps nobody is looking...politics.

John

redsturgeon wrote:

Julian wrote: I still for the life of me can't understand why we're not hearing similar news stories and temporary halts pending investigation re the Pfizer vaccine though. Say that out of 10 million people in the general unvaccinated population one would expect 30 serious blood clots in any given 1 month period (a made up number for illustration). So, in 10 million people not yet vaccinated we saw about 30 serious blood clots (give or take a few) in the last month and in 10 million people who received the AZ vaccine we also saw about 30 serious blood clots in the last month. As you say, "nothing to see here". But in 10 million people who received the Pfizer vaccine? Nothing? Surely we would expect to see about 30 serious blood clots in that group too and if we did then why are so many countries pausing the AZ rollout but we hear of no such concerns or pauses with the Pfizer (or any other) vaccine that I'm aware of. I just don't get it.



- Julian

Perhaps nobody is looking...politics.

John

That is actually the most plausible explanation that I can come up with. I still find it hard to believe but following that famous Sherlock Holmes quote "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" it's pretty much where I'm ending up at.

If this really is the explanation then it's pretty scary that what should be totally rigorous and dispassionate pharmacovigilance can be so distorted by politics. Please say it isn't so!

- Julian

Dod101 wrote:

Lootman wrote: Yes, looks like I was wrong there:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56035306

Canada has ordered a high number of vaccines but supply seems to be an issue. I guess the US is putting itself first for supplies, which you can't really blame them for. The US has probably administered more vaccines than anywhere else, although the focus there is on 2 jabs within 3 weeks, so the number vaccinated may be lower. It has given nearly 100 million jabs to date.

I am hoping to travel to Israel this summer, as both my wife and my youngest son want to go.

Thanks.I do not think, in fact it is wrong to say that the UK represents about 50% of those vaccinated in the world. Of course it does not because the US for one seems to be catching up quite quickly. The messages that I am getting from Canada are that they seem to think that their government has been completely incompetent on the vaccine front. I gather that they have no domestic pharma companies so that may have something to do with it. In the UK we of course have a big pharma industry and a history of great research. Whatever else may be said about Boris' s press briefings I am impressed by the experts, the medics/scientists.

Dod

From what i've read on other forums the long standing Canadian and US pandemic plan was built on the assumption that they would have a combined response, when push came to shove the US closed the border and decided to go it alone hanging the Canadians out to dry somewhat.

redsturgeon wrote: Perhaps nobody is looking...politics.

John

I think this is it, but not just politics from the politicians. My reading of the unfolding of the whole vaccine story is that Pfizer have put as much effort into managing the marketing and presentation of their product as they put into developing it in the first place. Streetwise, savvy and probably utterly ruthless would be my guess if a few board and strategy meetings could have been eavesdropped into. They got their product approved just ahead of AstraZenica and had they not achieved that, I think their product would have been dead in the water. Had they been second to market, the question would have been why would anyone use a vaccine that needs storing at -70c when there was already one that worked at fridge temp? So them knew they had to be first and I suspect they moved mountains to achieve it, and sell it at ten times the price.

OTOH AstraZenica were laid back, did it all by the science and nothing else, bumbled along at their own pace, and their marketing was a fiasco. I bet there ARE cases of blood clotting with Pfizer vaccines but Pfizer are right on top of these cases, 'managing' and politcking any and all reports out of existence. OxAZ are doing nothing equivalent, I suspect.

Mike4 wrote:

redsturgeon wrote: Perhaps nobody is looking...politics.

John

OTOH AstraZenica were laid back, did it all by the science and nothing else, bumbled along at their own pace, and their marketing was a fiasco. I bet there ARE cases of blood clotting with Pfizer vaccines but Pfizer are right on top of these cases, 'managing' and politcking any and all reports out of existence. OxAZ are doing nothing equivalent, I suspect.

But Astrazeneca are not in it to market it since they have agreed to sell it at cost as long as the pandemic exists. It could be said to be not even in their interests to market it in these circumstances. You are very probably correct that Pfizer wanted to get theirs out first but that is because they seem to have been playing an entirely different game, treating their vaccine as a commercial venture in the usual way.

Dod

Mike4 wrote:

absolutezero wrote: Not in the slightest.
The numbers are a single digit out of millions who have been jabbed with it.

Are they single digits though?

The news report quoted by richfool states "An unconfirmed number of patients have developed blood clots..."

Whilst I agree with the rest of your post, do you (or anyone) know the numbers actually involved, please?

I read 5 somewhere.

Julian wrote:

redsturgeon wrote: Perhaps nobody is looking...politics.

John

That is actually the most plausible explanation that I can come up with. I still find it hard to believe but following that famous Sherlock Holmes quote "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" it's pretty much where I'm ending up at.

If this really is the explanation then it's pretty scary that what should be totally rigorous and dispassionate pharmacovigilance can be so distorted by politics. Please say it isn't so!

- Julian

Politics is one likely explanation. Anti-British is in fashion after all.
Another possibility is more failure of the cold chain (the awkward storage and preparation of the jab) than we know about, rendering the Pfizer jab useless.
Useless jab so no side effects, perhaps?

IMHO the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine gets criticised by America because it isn't American-made. It's the combination of "not made here" nationalism and the limited opportunities for graft in the American political and medical establishment from a foreign vaccine that's provided at cost.

The EU and member states are trying to deflect attention from their relative failure with the vaccination program. Britain's success really stands out against their failure so they lie about it.

There's some bashing Britain because of Brexit and how our success is largely attributed to our having left the EU's vaccine programme.

Merkel refusing to take the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine herself is yet another example of vaccine nationalism and slagging off the Brits.

Pfizer's vaccine won't get attacked in the European press because it was developed in Germany.

Macron also has to deal with a substantial percentage of the French population being strongly anti-vaccine. Bashing Les Rosbifs is popular and will boost his re-election chances.

absolutezero wrote:

Julian wrote: That is actually the most plausible explanation that I can come up with. I still find it hard to believe but following that famous Sherlock Holmes quote "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth" it's pretty much where I'm ending up at.

If this really is the explanation then it's pretty scary that what should be totally rigorous and dispassionate pharmacovigilance can be so distorted by politics. Please say it isn't so!

- Julian

Politics is one likely explanation. Anti-British is in fashion after all.
Another possibility is more failure of the cold chain (the awkward storage and preparation of the jab) than we know about, rendering the Pfizer jab useless.
Useless jab so no side effects, perhaps?

Yes, I wondered about widespread Pfizer “duds” being a (very unwelcome) possibility too but if that were so I would not expect to see such good efficacy data for both the AZ and crucially the Pfizer vaccines as shown in the recent data from Scotland and England if a lot of the Pfizer jabs had been “firing blanks”.

- Julian

Julian wrote:

absolutezero wrote: Politics is one likely explanation. Anti-British is in fashion after all.
Another possibility is more failure of the cold chain (the awkward storage and preparation of the jab) than we know about, rendering the Pfizer jab useless.
Useless jab so no side effects, perhaps?

Yes, I wondered about widespread Pfizer “duds” being a (very unwelcome) possibility too but if that were so I would not expect to see such good efficacy data for both the AZ and crucially the Pfizer vaccines as shown in the recent data from Scotland and England if a lot of the Pfizer jabs had been “firing blanks”.

- Julian

We don't actually know the split on how many have been jabbed with each one.
Just anecdotally, I know more (significantly) who have had AZN compared to Pfizer.

absolutezero wrote:We don't actually know the split on how many have been jabbed with each one.

We do have that information in Scotland:



From https://www.travellingtabby.com/scotlan ... s-tracker/

It doesn't seem to be in the UK version of that page https://www.travellingtabby.com/uk-coronavirus-tracker/

Scott.