UK: Benefits outweigh risks for AstraZeneca despite 7 deaths

Doesn't take much mathematical ability to work out which one is the most dangerous.

I don't think it's so straightforward. The deaths from Covid are largely among the elderly. The deaths from blood clots, from what I've read, are largely among female under-55s. I don't have exact figures for gender, but about 2300 under-60s have died from Covid in the UK. So if half of those were women, that's just over 1000. The data I can't find is the proportion of AstraZeneca doses given to under-55 women. It would be useful to know that.

At least they are finally acknowledging there is a risk.

I think the 7 victims and their families would probably disagree.

Human life is not a statistic

But not agreeing would not make them right. What about all the people that have the same problem but were not vaccinated? do their hugely more numerous opinions about their tragedies outvote the 7 cases after vaccination?

I don't have exact figures for gender, but about 2300 under-60s have died from Covid in the UK. So if half of those were women, that's just over 1000.

That is still much more than 7, if approximately half the population has been vaccinated that would mean that approximately the double number of victims of clots would be expected with universal vaccination, 15 chances of dying out of the total population of woman under 60 is still much less than the 1000 that have died from COVID. Obviously that assumes the vaccine have anything to do with the problems, something that is highly unlikely with these numbers.

Western people hate russia but they love to play Russian Roulette

People refusing vaccines for invalid reasons do, but fortunately they are a minority.

At least they are finally acknowledging there is a risk.

Everybody does that, the "zero risk vaccines" is only an strawman that antivaxxers like to use but that is not real. The real argument health care professionals use is that vaccines are much less risky than the diseases they prevent. Especially in cases like these, where the risk is the same as in the non-vaccinated population.

In this case, even if the clots only happened to vaccinated people (not true) that would still mean less risk than what comes from COVID-19

Virusrex, since you have this apparent confirmed scientific data, do tell...

What is the actual statistical risk for a healthy 30 year old female in Japan to die or suffer serious complications from Covid?

Where did I said I have so? I clearly refer to the professionals and experts. They are the ones that have that information and use them for public health decision.

You think they are wrong? based on what?

That is still much more than 7, if approximately half the population has been vaccinated that would mean that approximately the double number of victims of clots would be expected with universal vaccination, 15 chances of dying out of the total population of woman under 60 is still much less than the 1000 that have died from COVID.

Looking at data for England, only about 15% of people under 60 have been vaccinated so far (first dose only). And most of those are in the higher age bracket (i.e. 50-60).

I know it's very difficult to work out probabilities with very low frequency events, and perhaps there is no risk at all from the AZ vaccine. But I can understand countries pausing to see if there are any common characteristics among those who have had clotting issues in case there's a pattern that can be identified, and so those people can be excluded from the AZ rollout. It's even more understandable if there is an alternative vaccine for younger people - e.g. AZ for us oldies and Pfizer for the youngsters.

Looking at data for England, only about 15% of people under 60 have been vaccinated so far (first dose only).

I don't know what proportion of those received the AZ vaccine.

Looking at data for England, only about 15% of people under 60 have been vaccinated so far (first dose only). And most of those are in the higher age bracket (i.e. 50-60).

Assuming only 5% of young women have been vaccinated with the AZ vaccine (and again a perfect correlation of clots with the vaccine), that still means the number of fatalities expected is 140.

Pausing if fine as long as immunization can still continue without other options, but not so much if the alternatives are not available and the suspected risks are still much less than what COVID represents. Even assuming every case of clots was on a young woman in this case a pause doesn't seem justified except for an excess of precaution (and this can still mean an extra cost in lives).

Assuming only 5% of young women have been vaccinated with the AZ vaccine (and again a perfect correlation of clots with the vaccine), that still means the number of fatalities expected is 140.

And then we're faced with the morality questions:

Q1: Is it OK to kill one person in order to save the lives of 5 people (or 10 people, or 100 people, etc.)

Q2: Is it OK to allow one person to die in order to save the lives of 5 people (or 10 people, or 100 people, etc.)

And where does mass vaccination fit in the morality schema?

I don't have answers to these questions. But I'd like to know that experts are actively checking the details and won't be reluctant to show their results.

And I dream of a day in the future when they will look back and laugh at the idea of mass vaccinations, and each individual will get the treatment that best suits them. But that's probably a long time off.

And then we're faced with the morality questions:

The questions do not apply in this situation because you are not choosing a person to damage so others can benefit. For every person being vaccinated the risk of complications or death is (according to the numbers until now) lower after vaccination than before. So vaccinating is the morally acceptable option for anybody that is a target of immunization.

Morality would only need to be considered if you knew someone you are vaccinating is going to be subjected to a higher risk, but that is not the case. For anybody for which a complication can be predicted the person is considered a valid medical exception and will be protected by the rest of the population immunity.

New pathogens are being discovered and introduced continuously to the human world, so mass vaccinations are not likely to disappear on the foreseeable future, it is more likely that we will look back and laugh at the unnecessary anxiety and exaggerated care taken with the approved vaccines, at least in this case.

Seven deaths from 18,000,000 doses. This risk is exceedingly low.

Morality would only need to be considered if you knew someone you are vaccinating is going to be subjected to a higher risk, but that is not the case. For anybody for which a complication can be predicted the person is considered a valid medical exception and will be protected by the rest of the population immunity.

But what if it's not so much "if you knew" but that you had a concern? Concerns have been raised in various European countries about the blood clot issue. Is this not more of a "don't know but probably OK" situation?

it is more likely that we will look back and laugh at the unnecessary anxiety and exaggerated care taken with the approved vaccines

Those whose kids were on the wrong side of the "benefits outweigh the risks" argument might not agree.

But what if it's not so much "if you knew" but that you had a concern? Concerns have been raised in various European countries about the blood clot issue.

The concerns have never been even to the point of the risk by COVID, so even if they were completely true (and none have been to this point) those would still represent a lower risk for the vaccinated people. No moral problem with continuing vaccination.

Those whose kids were on the wrong side of the "benefits outweigh the risks" argument might not agree.

And they would be wrong, personal experiences do very little as arguments about what is more likely to happen in the future. Thinking that mass vaccinations are going to disappear in the foreseeable future has no merit, but thinking that the advances we make on the developing and testing of the vaccines can make something like the currently approved vaccines as safe as realistically possible is much more realistic.

What is the actual statistical risk for a healthy 30 year old female in Japan to die or suffer serious complications from Covid?

I would say extremely low.

In Japan, there have been a total of only 18 Covid deaths of people in their 30's; I suspect none of them were healthy though.

I would say extremely low.

In Japan, there have been a total of only 18 Covid deaths of people in their 30's; I suspect none of them were healthy though.

Of course this depends completely on the very taxing measures kept in place for this to be as low, something that cannot be sustained indefinitely. A safe and effective vaccine that can replace those measures while protecting people from all ages is obviously a much better measures.

In Japan, there have been a total of only 18 Covid deaths of people in their 30's; I suspect none of them were healthy though.

Of course this depends completely on the very taxing measures kept in place for this to be as low, something that cannot be sustained indefinitely.

Very taxing measures? In Japan? If you compare the measures and death rates with other countries, I don't think you can realistically make that connection.

A safe and effective vaccine that can replace those measures while protecting people from all ages is obviously a much better measures.

Well, not so safe, as the article demonstrates. And it's a good time to remind everyone that these vaccines have only been approved for emergency use, and we do not yet know the long term effects.

Very taxing measures? In Japan? If you compare the measures and death rates with other countries, I don't think you can realistically make that connection.

Do people have trouble living normally? are people losing their jobs or business? that is enough to prove your myopic opinion wrong. Japan is in the middle of taxing measures to interrupt the transmission of the virus which is why the situation has not degenerated further. It could be doing more, obviously. But it is not like it is doing nothing and people are living normally.

Well, not so safe, as the article demonstrates. 

Yes it is, compared with the COVID infection it is extremely safe, and even without knowing the long term effects we already know enough to consider the vaccines safer than the infection in the short, medium and long term, simply because COVID already has demonstrated negative consequences in all of them, and the vaccine don't so the risk is higher without the vaccine than with it.

Very taxing measures? In Japan? If you compare the measures and death rates with other countries, I don't think you can realistically make that connection.

Do people have trouble living normally? are people losing their jobs or business?

Much less taxing here than in many other countries that still have many cases.

The measures taken in Japan have little effect and can simply be removed, even without the vaccines. Just protect the vulnerable and let everyone else live as they please.

Much less taxing here than in many other countries that still have many cases.

Still a terribly bad option compared with general immunization that would also keep risk down to manageable levels for everybody. There is no comparison between which of the two things would be preferable.

The measures taken in Japan have little effect and can simply be removed, even without the vaccines. Just protect the vulnerable and let everyone else live as they please.

That is false, the general opinion of the health experts contradict your personal opinion and no professional organization in the world has ever said that social distancing measures could be removed or that the vulnerable population could be protected without reducing the transmission in the general population.

You would have to lower yourself to listening to known researchers that lie and do subpar articles for personal profit in order to find "support" for this mistaken opinion. Well respected scientists that care more about doing a proper job than to lose the respect of their peers for money contradict you completely.

You would have to lower yourself to listening to known researchers that lie and do subpar articles for personal profit in order to find "support" for this mistaken opinion.

What are talking about? Pfizer has been fined billions over the years for falsifying data and bribing officials. Many other big pharmas has similarly been fined. You can find several reports on how lucrative these new vaccines will be for them. Cochrane Library has documented well the big pharma bias in scientific publications.

Well respected scientists that care more about doing a proper job than to lose the respect of their peers for money contradict you completely.

The researchers that I often refer to (Didier Raoult and John P A Ioannidis) are very highly respected and are among the most highly cited researchers in the world. You can see for yourself here:

http://www.webometrics.info/en/hlargerthan100

Just because big pharma-linked people attack them with baseless accusations does not take away from the respect that most intelligent people have for them.

What are talking about? Pfizer has been fined billions over the years for falsifying data and bribing officials. Many other big pharmas has similarly been fined. 

That is irrelevant. The data proving the approved vaccines are safe and effective is not exclusively being produced and reviewed by any single company, in fact they are the most closely observed developed vaccines in the history of humanity, and no data has been subjected to any kind of doubt about falsification nor bribes, that is just imaginary.

Researchers that tried to "prove" that distancing measures are not necessary or that the population was already in herd immunity a few months after the beginning of the pandemic on the other hand have been clearly found receiving money from companies that benefit from opening the economy at the expense of the public health.

None of the two examples you bring are respected anymore, they put their personal benefits above their reputation and were found to produce terribly inadequate science just to "prove" something that the rest of the scientific community ended up demonstrating as false.

It may be surprising for people that think fame equals evidence, but people can actually drop from being respected into being considered failures as scientist when their action merits so, no amount of papers published in their "good" times can make their bad studies becoming adequate, for that retractions and corrections are necessary, like the one that Didier had to accept proving his unethical study on HCQ wrong and that the drug have no use for patients.

IT is not "big pharma" the one that judge bad scientist as such, is the scientific community with perfectly valid reasons (as valid as you have never been able to disprove any of them).