All Things COVID-19
- Thread starter Sotally Tober
- Start date
- Status
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
Denmark ditches J&J COVID-19 shots from vaccination programme
COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - Denmark on Monday became the first country to exclude Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 shots from its vaccination programme over a potential link to a rare but serious form of blood clot.
The move comes after the Nordic country last month stopped using AstraZeneca's vaccine altogether citing similar concerns.
The country's health authority said in a statement it had found that "the benefits of using the COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson & Johnson do not outweigh the risk of causing the possible adverse effect in those who receive the vaccine".
Denmark ditches J&J COVID-19 shots from vaccination programme
Denmark on Monday became the first country to exclude Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 shots from its vaccination programme over a potential link to a rare but serious form of blood clot. The move comes after the Nordic country last month stopped using AstraZeneca's vaccine altogether citing...
fish brain
Crew Member
At what point do the rights of the few supersede the rights of the many? At what point does your right to not wear a mask or get vaccinated supersede everyone else's right not to be killed by your decision not follow a provincial/ federal mandate. If you choose to not wear a mask or get vaccinated and infect other people who are trying not to to be infected by the Covid virus, is that not manslaughter? Masks and vaccines aren't about you , they are about everyone else. So for the sake of everyone else in the province just get the damn jab
Last edited:
tightlines
Well-Known Member
I know this may come as a shock to everyone but the first dose of the vaccine is currently not saving 80 plus year olds from dying from covid. It appears they are still able to die from it! I know right! Insane, I thought for certain they would be living their best life for at least another 30-40 years
globalnews.ca
1.3% of Canada’s COVID-19 cases had 1st vaccine: PHAC - National | Globalnews.ca
More than 6,000 Canadians have reported contracting COVID-19 and 53 people have died after receiving one vaccine dose, according to the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC).
globalnews.ca
This comes as a shock that you either didn’t read the article that YOU posted or you completely missed the point. Where in that article does it state that the first dose of doesn’t protect 80+ YO people? In fact, the report states something quiet the opposite.I know this may come as a shock to everyone but the first dose of the vaccine is currently not saving 80 plus year olds from dying from covid. It appears they are still able to die from it! I know right! Insane, I thought for certain they would be living their best life for at least another 30-40 years
1.3% of Canada’s COVID-19 cases had 1st vaccine: PHAC - National | Globalnews.ca
More than 6,000 Canadians have reported contracting COVID-19 and 53 people have died after receiving one vaccine dose, according to the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC).
“Two weeks after receiving one dose of a coronavirus vaccine, people received “significant protection” from hospitalization and death compared to people who were unvaccinated, PHAC said.
“Real world data has shown about an 80 per cent protection against hospitalization with the first dose of a two-dose series,” Canada’s health agency said.”
GLG
Well-Known Member
Brad Sorenson was at the Standing Committee on International Trade Monday, April 19, 2021
Good read if your interested in learning more about that story. IMHO we need this mRNA tech.
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/432/CIIT/Evidence/EV11249345/CIITEV24-E.PDF
GLG
Well-Known Member
Are you on a time table to get down to 50% so that you can get a vaccine and if so when can you expect first shot?
walleyes
Crew Member
Canadians should wait for Pfizer or Moderna vaccine if they can, federal advisory committee says
Canadians should wait for Pfizer or Moderna vaccine if they can, federal advisory committee says
However, 'In most places where the outbreak is ongoing in Canada, it would make sense to get the first vaccine possible,' one infectious disease expert counters
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Seems pretty clear what you posted from article.
Aces
Well-Known Member
Interesting updates coming out of Israel, where they’ve technically developed herd immunity through the mass vaccination of their 16+ population. If this is confirmed by peer-reviews, it could potentially re-open our tourism and travel sector by early fall.
“Pfizer Inc and BioNTech said on Wednesday that real-world data from Israel suggests their coronavirus vaccine is 94 percent effective in preventing asymptomatic infections, meaning it could significantly reduce transmission.
The companies also said the latest analysis of the Israeli data shows the vaccine was 97 per cent effective in preventing symptomatic disease, severe disease and death. coronavirus
cracked_ribs
Well-Known Member
Personally I think the right of the individual not to have medical procedures done against one's will, even if misinformed or unrealistic, exceeds the right of others to demand that everyone have a reduced level of contagiousness. Maybe that's unpopular, but to me there's a very fundamental idea at stake here: one's bodily integrity is not something governments should be able to forcibly override.
I don't think that extends to temporary stuff like masking - no fundamental right is being affected there, although if they started saying "you may not leave your home without being masked up" I might start to think differently. But to require masks inside buildings is, I think, the prerogative of the owner of whatever business etc is in that building.
But even though I am generally in favour of vaccination and not at all sympathetic to the "vaccines cause autism" set (and have argued at length in favour of vaccines against true anti-vaxxers on other forums) I think the idea that the state should be able to compel you to imprint your immune system with a particular image is really disturbing, actually. Particularly in the context of this vaccine, for which we have no long term data.
I would also caution that the vaccine efficacy reports are all using relative vs absolute risk numbers, which is fine if you understand what that means, but it makes it sound a lot better than it is.
When they say it's 97% effective at stopping symptomatic cases, that's true, but it doesn't mean that your personal risk level changes by a huge amount. In fact, the absolute risk reduction is around 0.8%, i.e. you previously had, say, a 15% chance of getting a symptomatic case, and now you have a 14.2% of getting a symptomatic case.
Granted your absolute risk numbers depend on a bunch of factors, so they could change and the virus could become more widespread and your absolute risk could increase. I'm not arguing that nobody should get vaccinated, but just that there's a ton of grey area here and IMO the information that shows how murky a lot of these decisions really are, is not being made widely available.
Here's a good graphic I pulled from PubMed that explains the concept of absolute vs relative risk. It was included on a paper discussing this exact topic, which is where I got the 0.8% figure from.
Again this is not to suggest that the vaccines don't work or anything, but just to give a frame of reference about exactly what people are insisting should happen here.
Personally, I prize individual freedom very highly so that's my bias. Collective rights are very low on my list of priorities and I understand that not everyone agrees, but that's my personal ethic and I prefer the costs associated with a bias towards individual liberty to the costs associated with collective control.
I don't think that extends to temporary stuff like masking - no fundamental right is being affected there, although if they started saying "you may not leave your home without being masked up" I might start to think differently. But to require masks inside buildings is, I think, the prerogative of the owner of whatever business etc is in that building.
But even though I am generally in favour of vaccination and not at all sympathetic to the "vaccines cause autism" set (and have argued at length in favour of vaccines against true anti-vaxxers on other forums) I think the idea that the state should be able to compel you to imprint your immune system with a particular image is really disturbing, actually. Particularly in the context of this vaccine, for which we have no long term data.
I would also caution that the vaccine efficacy reports are all using relative vs absolute risk numbers, which is fine if you understand what that means, but it makes it sound a lot better than it is.
When they say it's 97% effective at stopping symptomatic cases, that's true, but it doesn't mean that your personal risk level changes by a huge amount. In fact, the absolute risk reduction is around 0.8%, i.e. you previously had, say, a 15% chance of getting a symptomatic case, and now you have a 14.2% of getting a symptomatic case.
Granted your absolute risk numbers depend on a bunch of factors, so they could change and the virus could become more widespread and your absolute risk could increase. I'm not arguing that nobody should get vaccinated, but just that there's a ton of grey area here and IMO the information that shows how murky a lot of these decisions really are, is not being made widely available.
Here's a good graphic I pulled from PubMed that explains the concept of absolute vs relative risk. It was included on a paper discussing this exact topic, which is where I got the 0.8% figure from.
Again this is not to suggest that the vaccines don't work or anything, but just to give a frame of reference about exactly what people are insisting should happen here.
Personally, I prize individual freedom very highly so that's my bias. Collective rights are very low on my list of priorities and I understand that not everyone agrees, but that's my personal ethic and I prefer the costs associated with a bias towards individual liberty to the costs associated with collective control.
Thunder21
Well-Known Member
Give your head a shake. People need to be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want the vaccine . This isn’t ******* China pal. I’m not saying covid isn’t real or that it doesn't kill some people but forcing everyone to “get the damn jab” because a tiny percentage of the population is at risk of dying from covid is insane.
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
No timetable per-see.
They are waiting for the blood clot to be reduced by a minimum of 80% before they are willing to reduce the meds.
They initially thought that would take a little less than a year.
However at just over a year, the clot was only reduced by ~ 40% - they are not at all certain as to why.
So, stuck on these damn meds that I detest for now, and not able to get the vaccine as a consequence.
Next series of scans etc are scheduled for 18 months after initiation.
That will be August if all goes well.
Maybe, Hopefully the clot will have been reduced the required amount to allow me to go back to living...
Nog
cracked_ribs
Well-Known Member
Just thinking about the risk numbers I posted, about the math involved...one thing that occurs to me after a bit of thought is that 0.8/15% is an unlikely pairing.
I think if you had a 15% chance of getting symptomatic covid, you'd see a greater relative risk reduction, also. I'm just bringing it up so that nobody thinks I'm trying to downplay the vaccine effectiveness and I'm putting it in a separate post rather than editing the last one because I don't want it to look like I went back to correct something in a way people might not notice.
But if you figure the same way the diagram lays it out, if one vaccinated person per hundred gets a symptomatic case, and 5 unvaccinated people per hundred get it, that's an 80% relative risk reduction, and a 4% absolute risk reduction, if my mid-coffee-break math is holding up. Previously you had a 5% chance of developing symptomatic covid, now you have a 1% chance. Did your risk go down by a factor of five? Or did it just inch down a couple of percentage points?
The answer is both, it just depends on how you look at it.
Anyway I don't think there's a pairing that works out to 0.8 and 15%, I just wanted to clarify that because the 0.8% figure is a rough average of the two big mRNA vaccines but the 15 I just pulled out of the air as an example and I didn't want to mislead anyone that I knew 15% was the actual number or anything.
I think if you had a 15% chance of getting symptomatic covid, you'd see a greater relative risk reduction, also. I'm just bringing it up so that nobody thinks I'm trying to downplay the vaccine effectiveness and I'm putting it in a separate post rather than editing the last one because I don't want it to look like I went back to correct something in a way people might not notice.
But if you figure the same way the diagram lays it out, if one vaccinated person per hundred gets a symptomatic case, and 5 unvaccinated people per hundred get it, that's an 80% relative risk reduction, and a 4% absolute risk reduction, if my mid-coffee-break math is holding up. Previously you had a 5% chance of developing symptomatic covid, now you have a 1% chance. Did your risk go down by a factor of five? Or did it just inch down a couple of percentage points?
The answer is both, it just depends on how you look at it.
Anyway I don't think there's a pairing that works out to 0.8 and 15%, I just wanted to clarify that because the 0.8% figure is a rough average of the two big mRNA vaccines but the 15 I just pulled out of the air as an example and I didn't want to mislead anyone that I knew 15% was the actual number or anything.
SpringVelocity
Crew Member
Yeah watching as well. Looks promising.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
2. NACI recommends that a complete series with a viral vector COVID-19 vaccine may be offered to individuals 30 years of age and older without contraindications, only if the individual prefers an earlier vaccine rather than wait for an mRNA vaccine AND all of the following conditions apply
a) The benefit-risk analysis* determines that the benefit of earlier vaccination with the viral vector COVID-19 vaccine outweighs the risk of COVID-19 while waiting for an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine; AND b) The benefits, relative risk* and consequences of VITT and COVID-19 for the individual are clearly outlined, factoring in the anticipated waiting time to receive an mRNA vaccine as well as other effective personal public health measures to mitigate risk of COVID-19, and the individual makes an informed decision based on an understanding about these risks and benefits; AND c) There will be substantial delay to receive an mRNA vaccine. Note: Provinces and territories should adapt the age limit based on their local epidemiology.
- Status