Nothing unusual about waiting well over a year during a pandemic to utter any pronouncement or guidance to the people?

By default, the manufacturers of paracetomol/acetaminophen will have been raking in the profits meanwhile. Now the drugstore shelves have suddenly been rearranged here to display all three on an equal footing, since yesterday.

BA does not control how their crews are vaccinated, or not. Vaccination is not compulsory in the UK. Each crew member has made their own choice. But I would imagine as intelligent and responsible persons, all will have been offered the jab by our NHS, and the vast majority will have been fully vaccinated by now.

The 4 crew members dying shortly after a c19 jab report, is unsubstantiated anti-vaccination on-line rubbish.

The medical data on the blood clots risk is many magnitudes less than the risk of the Birth Control Pill. . Haven’t seen much evidence of that being banned worldwide.

Cessnapete,
Exactly Sir..

I had the Astra Zeneca vaccine and had about two hours of mild chills after the first dose, nothing after the second. The only lasting side- effect is that I now feel slightly smug, and my attitude toward border closures has reversed. I wonder if that will wear off?

Hmmm... the Pfizer did not give me any smugness. Nothing at all has changed. I still wear a mask in public and sanitize/wash my hands. The other day I walked into the car dealer and was surrounded by bowing staff. "Please use the sanitizer, sir." Suddenly I remembered that I was the only one not wearing a mask, so hurriedly I pulled it out and put it on. "Thank you," said the lady quietly, guiding me to to the waiting lounge. "'I've had both my shots!" I added hopefully, making a jabbing motion at my upper arm. She looked blankly at me.

The fact of the double-jab does however hold out hope that future border crossings will be rendered somehow easier.

I know right. I'm telling people that I'm vaccinated too in the hope that it gives them confidence but nobody trusts anyone these days. We need a universal proof on a drivers licence perhaps that states that you are either vaccinated or are medically exempt from being vaccinated. We have similar requirements for schools all the world over......even in Florida....Ron de Santis.

In NZ they give you a vaccination card that shows the dates and the batch number

One of the most publicised and nasty side effects of the AZ vaccine has been blood clots. There is now growing evidence that this may be due to the very occasional vaccination penetrating the blood directly. This can be avoided by aspirating the vaccination process by slightly withdrawing the plunger to check for evidence of blood. Apparently this is usually standard practice but it is deemed by the WHO and most national authorities to be unnecessary. The following link explains it far better than I can.


Perhaps we should be campaigning to include aspiration. It may save lives at negligible cost.

I’m in U.K. and have the same.

That doesn’t account for the fact that blood clots from the second dose of AstraZeneca are substantially less than the first, about 1/10th with (I believe) no recorded deaths anywhere in the world. If the aspiration theory had substance then there would be a similar number of adverse reactions as the first dose. There doesn’t seem to be concrete evidence that method is the reason for the clots, just a theory which one nation acted on, and no follow up studies to see it it made a difference.

Here is the UK data:

“Up to 23 June 2021, the MHRA had received Yellow Card reports of 395 cases of major thromboembolic events (blood clots) with concurrent thrombocytopenia (low platelet counts) in the UK following vaccination with COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca. Thirty four of the 395 reports have been reported after a second dose. Of the 395 reports, 206 occurred in women, and 186 occurred in men aged from 18 to 93 years. The overall case fatality rate was 18% with 70 deaths, five of which occurred after the second dose.”

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...card-reporting

A colleague just had the Pfizer first shot and was bed ridden for a week. I thought he might have actual Covid so I got tested after talking with him. But results of mine came back negative.

Selective copying of information again. Why not include the rest of the article?

"The MHRA has received 439 UK reports of suspected ADRs to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 936 reports for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, five for the COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna and 23 where the brand of vaccine was unspecified. The majority of these reports were in elderly people or people with underlying illness. Usage of the vaccines has increased rapidly and as such, so has reporting of fatal events with a temporal association with vaccination however, this does not indicate a link between vaccination and the fatalities reported. Review of individual reports and patterns of reporting does not suggest the vaccines played a role in the deaths."

You haven’t read carefully enough.

The 5 deaths reported in my quote were specifically thrombocytopenia, which has been directly linked to the AZ vaccine, and these 5 deaths were following a second dose.

Thrombocytopenia is normally such a rare condition that the spike in thrombocytopenia following AZ is now undisputedly linked to the vaccine.

The deaths in your quote are not all necessarily linked to a vaccine, as noted in the sentence prior to your bolded sentence.

I was specifically responding to dr dre who said he believed there had been zero thrombocytopenia deaths following a second AZ dose. I merely point out that there is data for such deaths, and the data indicates that slightly over 90% of the deaths occurred after a first dose (65), and slightly under 10% after a second dose (5).

If people want to conduct their own risk management, they need the data, or they need a trusted GP.

The UK data therefore indicates a risk of 5 in 20M, (or 1 in 4M), if you survived the first dose of AZ and are considering a second dose. Your risk may be higher if you are younger.

Added to that they recently found out that the spike protein used to stimulate the antibodies needed to fight the virus doesn't stay in the arm as most vaccines do. It travels around the body, crosses the brain-blood barrier and collects in the major organs and especially in the ovaries. That's all I'm saying. You can look the rest up and draw your own conclusions.

So based on the UK data of some 70 deaths from over 20 million administrations you can conclude that the AstraZeneca vaccine is 99.99965 percent safe with regards to fatalities arising from thrombocytopenia.

And when you say, 'if you survived the first dose of AZ', again based on the data, there is a 99.999675 percent chance that you would have 'survived' that first dose.

Correct, my friend.

Your GP or even your average specialist or surgeon doesn’t have to and isn’t required to, study data analysis or statistics as part of their qualifications. They can as a minor subject if they do choose but it’s not a focus subject.

As such they are not better placed to decide facts from the information available than you or me. I have done a minor statistics paper or 2 during my science degree but I despair at the deliberately confusing, misleading and erroneous manner in which Covid data has been disseminated. The media has been atrocious for making hysterical analysis for goodness knows what purpose.

I surmise that at this point, with the bone headed skewing of information by the internet search and social media organisations, and the manipulation of data, the man on the street has zero chance of coming to an informed decision about any Covid information or vaccine information either.

That’s why I’m bringing the UK data to our attention.

Our government hasn’t done so. If they did, at least those of us with some basic analysis ability would be able to determine the risk.

All we get from our government is phrases like “low” or “rare”. How the hell do we work with that?

That's not correct. Statistics is a compulsory unit for Medicine. Graduates, regardless of subsequent speciality, must be able to understand p-values, hazard ratios, median overall survival rates and the like.

However, it's not like we're trying to solve the Behrens-Fisher problem here. Frankly, you don't need much beyond year 12 maths to work your way through this stuff - it's all fairly basic.

Mmm ... I think that a far better understanding than most of the underlying bio-chemistry and physiology and the relationship between prior and current medical conditions and the predisposition to adverse outcomes probably makes them somewhat better placed. You can argue about how much better placed.

Their purpose is to sell papers, accumulate views, generate comments and the like. 'The sky is falling' tends to play better in that regard than 'Everything's fine'.

And it's not just the media - that little stunt by the Queensland CMO the other day was as shameful as you're likely to see.