COVID-19: Vaccine and testing procedures Megathread Part 3 - Read OP

lbj666 wrote: »

Which in a way makes it a little more bothersome actualy , presuming there's a consistency in reporting. How can one area have 1 in 11 million and another area have 22 in 3 million or whatever.

That's the answer a pause should be looking to resolve. The cluster nature of the Norwegian reports warrants investigation.

Harry Palmr wrote: »

It could well be that sales of aspirin jump as it's recommended that it be taken after vaccination.

And if you have read about rare aspirin side effects.....

Bottom line is any medication carries some.extremely rare side effects.

By all means listen to what the Norwegians have found but the EMA and MHRA are currently still not advising any pause so it all depends on who you trust.

If there was a problem you would expect it to be be visible in UK data considering their huge sample size. It isn't.

Deleted User wrote: »

And still, still people will defend this useless shower of ****heads.

Who are you talking about?

Danzy wrote: »

Which is lower than the embolism rate per 100k in the normal population.

Just to call out that this data isn't known yet, and this is what's being investigated. The "hope" (if you could call it that) was that the very small clusters so far would have developed blood clots anyway independent of vaccination, but this is exactly why procedure should always be followed when data doesn't look right or isn't available (and less of the chest thumping "ignore everything, plow on ahead" needs to happen). Let science do it's thing, and we'll all be the better for it afterwards.

What will also likely happen is a re-examination of these events for those who got vaccinated in the UK.

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Radio station should really be pulled up on this by the regulator.

Unfortunate occurrence and unprofessional but one thing that has become quite clear in the last year is we have lots of health administrators and scientists who are getting lots of media exposure and really have little experience of it. Her interview on Newstalk and other ones I have seen from her on Primetime have shown this.

Not a slight on her at all as she is being thrust into this but I can't see any reason for her to be interviewed. A considered statement from NIAC is all that is required which can reviewed by multiple people within NIAC for any issues prior to release.

There is certainly a degree of drunk on publicity and suddenly feeling all important being factors in the amount of interviews being done when all that required is a statement. It's human nature but people have to understand we have a bunch of people not used to the limelight normally suddenly now being household figures and having smoke blown up them by the media 24 hours a day.

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

I think it's moreso the responsibility of the presenter to not make sweeping suggestions on what could be considered medical advice. I don't blame Karina, sounds like she was asked on the spot and didn't really think it through due to the way it was presented. Onus is on the presenter and editorial team to make sure general medical guidance is at least given with a caveat.

Yes I have sympathy with her but I think at this stage it's perfectly clear what angle and manipulation the media will use to try and extract maximum panic and fear out of everything. The media have been giving out of perspective and vox pop information on medical matters since the start of this thing so don't expect any balance or professional conduct.

If I were Karina I would be simply passing on a statement from NIAC and not doing interviews. There is nothing to be gained from them and an area of expertise she clearly hadn't got. Very much a case of sticking to her day job.

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Yes I have sympathy with her but I think at this stage it's perfectly clear what angle and manipulation the media will use to try and extract maximum panic and fear out of everything. The media have been giving out of perspective and vox pop information on medical matters since the start of this thing so don't expect any balance or professional conduct.

If I were Karina I would be simply passing on a statement from NIAC and not doing interviews. There is nothing to be gained from them and an area of expertise she clearly hadn't got. Very much a case of sticking to her day job.

Trouble is if Karina doesn't make an appearance someone else will fill that slot to discuss the very same issue and that's will be without her input. There's also the optics of "we invited members of NIAC and the HPRA for interview but all of them declined our requests instead we got the following statement".

astrofool wrote: »

What's funny is that everyone is giving out about scientists and health workers not giving interviews well, yet when the government has a team of people who's job is media relationships, everyone gives out about them (and yes, some politicians are awful even with spin doctors around, but this highlights that public speaking and answering questions needs coaching and speech writers).

With something as serious as the continued lockdown and restrictions it is all important to be professional. While I don't expect it from our media, senior scientists and health administrators need to be much more circumspect in the amount of interviews they give as they are being used by the media to push any concerns and fear. Human nature means some love the attention and this is clouding their professional judgement in my opinion.

If you look at the usual suspects trotted put be the media day in day out there is a clear pattern....come on say caution, concern and you get attention and it repeats. Self feeding beast.

Turtwig wrote: »

Trouble is if Karina doesn't make an appearance someone else will fill that slot to discuss the very same issue and that's will be without her input. There's also the optics of "we invited members of NIAC and the HPRA for interview but all of them declined our requests instead we got the following statement".

Understand but I would read the statement and jog on. Declining to be interviewed by Newstalk would make me more likely to give them credibility.

Leftwaffe wrote: »

https://twitter.com/martin_moder/status/1371033872046166025?s=21

UK stats:

13 cases of blood clots with AZ.

15 with Pfizer/BioNtech.

I recall a while back seeing a report that suggested the AZ vaccine had higher efficacy in the Scotland than Pfizer. Why was this?

Generally speaking comparing data on vaccinations where the dosages and demographics are different is not a wise thing to do unless you are absolutely sure you are comparing like with like.

People sharing this stuff on twitter who have medical backgrounds are being irresponsible imo. Let the regulators, including the UK's MHRA, do their jobs. People sharing these stats without contexts on twitter while not surprising is very disappointing.

Dressoutlet wrote: »

The cynic in me believes this is an anti AZ campaign by the EU so they can all point at this for vaccine shortage instead of owning up to their own fault.

A: Norway's not in the EU.
B: The EU are under massive pressure to open up by summer (many EU states have economies nearly entirely dependent on summer tourism). They're not going to sabotage their own vaccine program for some petty points scoring.

Layman's prediction:
Norway cases were healthcare workers. They've previously had COVID and didn't know. Antibodies into overdrive caused clot.

Deleted User wrote: »

Me ****in hole. Unless the precautionary principle now means never do anything just in case

No, it means when something looks odd that doesn't match existing data, investigate that oddness.

Your statement was hyperbole of the most stupendous kind! (see what I did there).