Astrazeneca: Vaccine death inadequate payout

It must be a different United Kingdom that I and everyone I know lives in then.


a reply to: zosimov

a reply to: nonspecific

How about that commercial I just posted which started out with the assertion that your vax will save other people's lives? Is that not coercion and bullying and lying to you?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Like I said in your other thread, I think rightly or wrongly, world politicians and scientists when faced with a new global virus like covid planned for the worse case scenario, if they hadn't and it was something like a global Ebola, we all wouldn't be here discussing the errors.

The worst case scenario wasn't evaluated properly due to panic, incompetence, politics, and lack of understanding of infectious diseases as well as their history. Anyone with a basic understanding and having read the history of infectious diseases can easily deduce that coronaviruses have very small infection fatality rates, infecting a large number of the population and killing very few in comparison.

In the case of OC43 which likely caused the 1889-1890 pandemic the IFR was between 0.1% to 0.3%. You wouldn't expect anything different for SARS-CoV-2, it actually has an IFR close to 0.15%, and you can deduce that the other human coronaviruses have caused in the past pandemics and regional epidemics with similar IFRs

The reaction to Covid-19 was what we call shambles. Most infectious diseases experts and epidemiologists knew well how infectious or lethal was Covid-19 from the beginning (first few months). But politics blended with science and here are the results of the worst policy ever.

In the UK the push for preventative measures was coming from the exerts and largely resisted by the goverment until it became obvious there was little choice.

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: nonspecific

How about that commercial I just posted which started out with the assertion that your vax will save lives? Is that not coercion and bullying and lying to you?

It was accurate and you must be pretty weak willed if you find a tv commercial with some celebs to be bullying.

Yeah, what he said ^^^


a reply to: ScepticScot

a reply to: ScepticScot

Broadcasting the idea that anyone who chooses not to take the experimental shot is choosing not to save lives is bullying behavior which causes real harm in daily interactions for those who buy into it.

You really can't see that?

a reply to: nonspecific

My reply is above

a reply to: Asmodeus3

The worst case scenario wasn't evaluated properly due to panic, incompetence, politics, and lack of understanding of infectious diseases as well as their history. Anyone with a basic understanding and having read the history of infectious diseases can easily deduce that coronaviruses have very small infection fatality rates, infecting a large number of the population and killing very few in comparison.

In the case of OC43 which likely caused the 1889-1890 pandemic the IFR was between 0.1% to 0.3%. You wouldn't expect anything different for SARS-CoV-2, it actually has an IFR close to 0.15%, and you can deduce that the other human coronaviruses have caused in the past pandemics and regional epidemics with similar IFRs

The reaction to Covid-19 was what we call shambles. Most infectious diseases experts and epidemiologists knew well how infectious or lethal was Covid-19 from the beginning (first few months). But politics blended with science and here are the results of the worst policy ever.

I think it was more to do with how it spread in places like Italy, and the fact that China wasn't very fourth coming with details about the outbreak.

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: ScepticScot

Broadcasting the idea that anyone who chooses not to take the experimental shot is choosing not to save lives is bullying behavior which causes real harm in daily interactions for those who buy into it.

You really can't see that?

Public health adverts perfectly normal.

You can ignore them if you want.

a reply to: ScepticScot

You think it was accurate? (facepalm).

The vaccine does not stop transmission. You are not saving anyone else's life by taking it, no matter how righteous you'd like to think your choice (under coercion) was.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Like I said in your other thread, I think rightly or wrongly, world politicians and scientists when faced with a new global virus like covid planned for the worse case scenario, if they hadn't and it was something like a global Ebola, we all wouldn't be here discussing the errors.

Initially hey thought that it was going to be like the original SARS virus, which is about 10 times more deadly than Covid-19, and which was primarily transmitted on hard surfaces, which is why we were told to wipe everything with bleach, but not to wear masks.

When the found out that it had a lower mortality rate but was airborn they changed the advices.

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: ScepticScot

You think it was accurate? (facepalm).

The vaccine does not stop transmission. You are not saving anyone else's life by taking it, no matter how righteous you'd like to think your choice (under coercion) was.

Evidence is it reduces transmission so yes it does help.

It also reduces chance of hospitalisation so takes pressure of health care which can also help save lives.

No cohesion here, jus understanding of the evidence.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: ScepticScot

You think it was accurate? (facepalm).

The vaccine does not stop transmission. You are not saving anyone else's life by taking it, no matter how righteous you'd like to think your choice (under coercion) was.

Evidence is it reduces transmission so yes it does help.

It also reduces chance of hospitalisation so takes pressure of health care which can also help save lives.

No cohesion here, jus understanding of the evidence.

The links in my signature show that it was about 86 percent effective in the UK. It reduced both transmission and serious sickness. It's pretty conclusive that the vax saved many lives.

a reply to: ScepticScot

What evidence? All the evidence I've seen says otherwise.
It increases the chances of hospitalization in young people, especially men.

We estimate that 22,000 - 30,000 previously uninfected adults aged 18-29 must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation. Using CDC and sponsor-reported adverse event data, we find that booster mandates may cause a net expected harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities. Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favourable.

papers.ssrn.com...

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Like I said in your other thread, I think rightly or wrongly, world politicians and scientists when faced with a new global virus like covid planned for the worse case scenario, if they hadn't and it was something like a global Ebola, we all wouldn't be here discussing the errors.

Initially hey thought that it was going to be like the original SARS virus, which is about 10 times more deadly than Covid-19, and which was primarily transmitted on hard surfaces, which is why we were told to wipe everything with bleach, but not to wear masks.

When the found out that it had a lower mortality rate but was airborn they changed the advices.

Do you have some evidence to show that the IFR of COVID-19 was 10 times higher (initially).

To remind you that the estimation of IFR by Professor John Ioannidis and his colleagues which revealed 0.15% was done using the original virus together with the first few variants. So what you are saying isn't true.

See my links to the post I made above.

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: ScepticScot

What evidence? All the evidence I've seen says otherwise.
It increases the chances of hospitalization in young people, especially men.

We estimate that 22,000 - 30,000 previously uninfected adults aged 18-29 must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation. Using CDC and sponsor-reported adverse event data, we find that booster mandates may cause a net expected harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities. Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favourable.

papers.ssrn.com...

Either you haven't looked or you are looking in the wrong places.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Care to address the evidence I posted?

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: ScepticScot

Care to address the evidence I posted?

What a single paper deallng with the risk benefit for a boosters (not intial vaccination) for a specific demographic (not everyone) now ( not at height of pandemic).

The paper may be correct , it doesn't tell us anything about vaccination in general last year.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3
Like I said in your other thread, I think rightly or wrongly, world politicians and scientists when faced with a new global virus like covid planned for the worse case scenario, if they hadn't and it was something like a global Ebola, we all wouldn't be here discussing the errors.

Initially hey thought that it was going to be like the original SARS virus, which is about 10 times more deadly than Covid-19, and which was primarily transmitted on hard surfaces, which is why we were told to wipe everything with bleach, but not to wear masks.

When the found out that it had a lower mortality rate but was airborn they changed the advices.

Do you have some evidence to show that the IFR of COVID-19 was 10 times higher (initially).

To remind you that the estimation of IFR by Professor John Ioannidis and his colleagues which revealed 0.15% was done using the original virus together with the first few variants. So what you are saying isn't true.

See my links to the post I made above.

The problem here is IFR is different across several different published articles and is still very contentous and is still being debated.

Nature

One of the most contested statistics during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been the infection fatality ratio (IFR): the proportion of those infected who will go on to die from that infection. In the first general wave of the pandemic, estimates of the overall COVID-19 IFR ranged from 0.01 to 2.3%, with a review combining estimates across studies reporting an overall estimate of 0.68% (0.53–0.82%)

I made a big error earlier and I'm still suffering a spiced rum hangover!

..