health

Blood clot questions over AstraZeneca and J&J vaccine

20 Comments
By Paul RICARD

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2021 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.


20 Comments
Login to comment

Poor victims.

Where there are such risks there must be choice without penalty.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Where there are such risks there must be choice without penalty.

That is still an invalid argument for making irrational choices and expecting others to pay for the consequences instead of yourself.

Reading the article it is quite clear that the risks of trombosis are still much lower compared with the risk from not being vaccinated against COVID. And that is assuming the disease is not present normally in people independently of vaccination, which is obviously not true. This means that vaccinating is still the logical, rational choice, specially when you can even choose a vaccine without this suspicions. (Which is the whole point of developing as many options as possible from the beginning).

What you mischaracterize as "penalty" is actually just being in the same situation as now, being subjected to the full social distancing measures that are necessary to avoid the spreading. If the preliminary data that strongly indicates that vaccination makes transmission much less likely then that means some people can, at the same time, lower their own risk and the risk of others with a vaccine, and have relaxed requirements for them. Again, it is not that your choice brings a penalty, but that you are choosing not to lower the risk to others (and keeping higher risks for yourself) so you can't gain the benefits of doing it.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Fear mongering and I would not be surprised if politics is at play here. The risk of blood clots is higher after suffering from COVID than after taking the vaccine.

https://news.sky.com/story/risk-of-blood-clot-after-covid-is-eight-times-higher-than-after-astrazeneca-jab-study-12276088

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Where there are such risks there must be choice without penalty.

That is still an invalid argument for making irrational choices and expecting others to pay for the consequences instead of yourself.

Except that this is a very valid argument for making very rational choices about a rushed unapproved vaccine.

What consequences would vaccinated people be paying if I refuse the vaccine?

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Except that this is a very valid argument for making very rational choices about a rushed unapproved vaccine.

No it is not, because nothing was rushed about the safety trials, not the kind of approval makes it more or less safe.

It will be an invalid argument as long as the vaccine is safer than the infection, unless you have objective data to prove this the only thing you can do is accept the only logical choice is immunization.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

It will be an invalid argument as long as the vaccine is safer than the infection, unless you have objective data to prove this the only thing you can do is accept the only logical choice is immunization.

Nobody knows the long term effects of these unapproved vaccines. All you're looking at are the immediate effects, and even there it's not clear whether vaccines are helpful for healthy people and some vaccines are clearly not that helpful for older people.

If I am healthy, I have no need for any of them.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

I got my first dose of Astra Zeneca yesterday. Sore arm around where the needle went in, slight headache and body ache. I had worse reactions from vaccinations when I joined the Army. It has only been a day and these reported clots happen from four days to a week or so from getting the vaccine. I have been vaccinated for everything since childhood and never had an issue. That is no guarantee now but if a strategy has worked for me for decades I see no reason to alter my behavior now. With most medicines and vaccines there is always a tiny chance someone will have an adverse reaction that can lead to death. Why would this one be any different? The chances still remain much higher of death if I get covid so I take the path with the best chance for my survival.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Nobody knows the long term effects of these unapproved vaccines. All you're looking at are the immediate effects, 

And how many decades have COVID infected humans?

The argument is still illogical, you don't know the effects at a long term from COVID either, and since the infection already produces even permanent problems, that still means the vaccine is safer and the risk much higher for the infection.

Some people are convinced above reason they don't need things, from antibiotics to vegetables in their diet, that proves nothing but that they mistakenly believe so.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

And how many decades have COVID infected humans?

Corona viruses?

Many decades, centuries...

What's your point?

We need this vaccine like we need vegetables???

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Ahhhh What are you going to do about it?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

There is no point, until the numbers and data are accumulated over time. Lots of talk of risks, but it’s quite clear that after a year of the CV-19 virus in our midst, the demographic that is most impacted has been identified.

As for these “warp speed” vaccines; they haven’t been around as long as the virus. So long term data is yet to be gathered before risk assessments are made with such bravado.

Remember the H1N1 vaccines? The previous viral pandemic that threatened global health. Longer term data has been gathered on that. You can read about some of it.

https://www.contagionlive.com/view/high-rates-of-adverse-events-linked-with-2009-h1n1-pandemic-vaccine

So no one should lecture you on the logic of risk . Nor should they claim to experts on anything at this point.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

I am a bit of a numbers nerd, so here are some statistics about the vaccines from over here, in the States:

The odds of having died here in California since the pandemic started, from Covid-19? About one in every 660 people have died so far from the virus.

The odds of dying from a blood clot from any of the vaccines? About one in a million.

The odds of getting sick with Covid-19 after being fully vaccinated? (What they are now calling a "breakthrough" case) About one in a hundred thousand.

The odds of dying from Covid-19 after being fully vaccinated? About one in 2 million.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

On a related topic, why do women get the same dosage of the vaccines as men? In most cases women have a smaller body mass than men, so wouldn't they need a smaller dose of the vaccine? How about when the vaccines are approved for children; will they also get the same dosage as adult males?

Apparently all the people here in the US who have gotten these rare blood clots have been women, so the question about dosage amounts may be relevant.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Corona viruses?

Many decades, centuries...

Sorry but no inference can be done about the long term effects of COVID except by looking at COVID infection. Thinking other coronavirus will tell you how COVID will act in the long term is an even worse argument, that is like saying that since other vaccines prevent cancer then the COVID vaccines can be assumed also to help preventing cancer!

What's your point?

We need this vaccine like we need vegetables???

No, that just thinking you don't need something does not mean you are fine without it, for that you need objective evidence, otherwise you are just repeating something you are mistaken about.

As for these “warp speed” vaccines; they haven’t been around as long as the virus. So long term data is yet to be gathered before risk assessments are made with such bravado.

The technology for the vaccines has been around may years longer than the virus without causing problems to humans, and the only specific component is in literally millions times lower quantity than the virus produces during infection, those are really good arguments to say the vaccine is much safer than the infection.

So no one should lecture you on the logic of risk . Nor should they claim to experts on anything at this point.

That is an example that proves the opposite of what you think. The problems with narcolepsy from the vaccine were related to contamination with higher than normal amount of a nuclear protein in the vaccine. Now, do you know what has hugely higher levels of that protein? the H1N1 virus itself, that produced much higher number of cases than the vaccine precisely because of that reason.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4562845/

The recent study’s findings mean that H1N1 infection, as well as vaccination, can cause narcolepsy. Ahmed explained that the infection causes a greater immune response, and is a stronger trigger for narcolepsy, than the vaccine. This makes getting vaccinated even more important, because the wild disease is worse,

This means that even if the problematic lot of vaccine was not as safe as it should be it still meant a lower risk of problems than the natural infection. A person would be more likely to develop narcolepsy without the vaccine than with it.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

@virusrex

That is still an invalid argument for making irrational choices and expecting others to pay for the consequences instead of yourself.

If I agree to suffer legal consequences of my choice to not vaccinate, will you agree to pay the legal consequences (damages) for your choice to mandate others to get vaccines and suffer injury or death? Yes or no?

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

If I agree to suffer legal consequences of my choice to not vaccinate, will you agree to pay the legal consequences (damages) for your choice to mandate others to get vaccines and suffer injury or death? Yes or no?

You already said that was a terrible idea when you were told the equivalent would be for you to pay for everything that happens to anyone that is damaged by COVID because refusing vaccination, not just yourself but everybody that says people like you convinced them it was better when it can be easily demonstrated this is false.

Everybody decides, and suffer the consequences of their own actions. The vaccine is much safer than the disease by every available parameter, not only for the person vaccinated but also for the community in general, if the vaccine is confirmed to reduce the risk of transmission then that means some of the social distancing measures can be replaced by this immunity. Having an irrational fear made you choose not to do this exchange? fine, that is your decision to make, what is not fine is to choose not to do it (increasing the risk for yourself and others) and then still expect the rewards of the opposite option.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

@virusrex

You want vaccine refusers to pay consequences for injury or death caused to others by thier decisions, yet you refuse to pay consequences for those injured or killed by your decision to have them legally forced to vaccinate against thier will.

Respect for human rights is a two way street.

As I said to you before, the only fair solution is to let everyone make thier own decision without judgement or penalty.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

You want vaccine refusers to pay consequences for injury or death caused to others by thier decisions

Again, the consequenses they pay are not something put by others into their decision but an inherent part of it. Vaccine refusers are not interested in replacing social distancing measures with immunization? ok, then they can continue with them. That is not a human rights problem, it is imposing the logical consequences of their actions into others kind of problem.

Lets increase the severity of the decision so you can understand better.

Imagine some people believe the only sure way to fight infection is to use radioactive materials in lotions and unguents for the skin, it can be scientifically proved that doing that puts them, and anyone near, at a much higher risk, but they simply don't want to believe this and say they believe it is better and its their decision to make.

So, are you completely fine with letting them do this? riding a train next to you, with their kids sitting next to yours in the school, even if that would mean getting radiation exposure equivalent to a few hundred chest X ray every minute for anybody close? If they say it is only fair to let them do this without judgement or penalty would that settle it for you?

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Another reason why not to be the guinea pig for these shots. The vaccine are how safe?? I rather not get a jab and let my immune system learn to defeat covid instead

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The best blood clot disolving enzyme is Nattokinase which is natto beans and way more effective at disolving clots than Urokinase i heard.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites