Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Defo, if offered I’d defo take it to.

I’d disagree personally, there are risks, I had two doses of Pfizer in Jan and taking them I understood there were risks and I accepted them.

There is a risk with AZ however marginal, it’s not hard to find information or statistics around it and personally risk assess.

Should Public health bodies and clinicians sit on information around risk because people might get a bit nervous, absolutely not. That’s is a terrible slippery slope and thankfully, healthcare has moved on leaps and bounds to a time that may have sounded reasonable. It’s paternalistic stuff mate.
Maybe absolutely safe was the wrong choice of wording. How about very safe?. I don't think anything in life is totally risk free, even sleeping. It's all about degrees of risk. In my opinion the risk of serious illness or death associated with this vaccine is very very low and not even comparable for many people with the risk of not being vaccinated.
 
How weak is that new variant?
 
I’d take it personally if offered it mate. The risk benefit ratio is far in your favour. But I’d surmise a couple of reasons.

They aren’t doing it for the lols really, I suspect and in fact am almost certain some concerning data has emerged domestically or internationally.

Ethically as clinicians they have a duty of care to disclose that to give people informed choice and also knowingly to cause no harm. That’s a systemic thing, it’s important to remember there are many thousand health care professionals out there who unknowingly could be causing people harm.

Second principal which is very precious in health care is informed consent, knowing the risks, explaining to people and empowering choice, if that goes we are on a very slippery slope.

Truth being often in health care there are risks, a healthcare professional works on that spectrum ethically with the person that they understand and choose those risks depending on what they feel best. That can have an impact for sure, like this calculated risk with AZ, sometimes the % in these decisions can be 49% wrong or 51% right, gains and impacts.

But I happen to think yesterday was handled correctly ethically and from a public information and health point of view, practically as you say it may be inconsequential in terms of roll out, or AZ rep takes another bashing.

But the balance is to maintain ethics, freedom to correct informed healthcare information, liberty to decide Vs the scepticism and worry of those now in between doses etc. Gain and impacts, it’s the way of it,
Completely agree with everything in this post and will add that despite the side effects currently being established as rare it was also important from a response point of view - both for patients reacting to warning signs of blood clots and doctors making sure they ask “have you had the vaccine recently”. It also seems the treatment of the blood clots may be different, with standard treatment of heparin potentially making things worse.

The small chance of an allergic reaction was also important to make clear for similar reasons, so that everyone could have informed consent and that practices could be put in place to minimize its impact if it happened.
 
Maybe absolutely safe was the wrong choice of wording. How about very safe?. I don't think anything in life is totally risk free, even sleeping. It's all about degrees of risk. In my opinion the risk of serious illness or death associated with this vaccine is very very low and not even comparable for many people with the risk of not being vaccinated.

I think that’s fair, it’s incumbent on all of us to explore, understand, explain and decide on risk individually, but maybe we are speaking to generally, it all needs to be subdivided and explored in detail.

In this scenario, there is an awful lot to still assess, @LinekersLegs was hinting at it there, now we know there is a risk, we need to look at the scale of the risk, vulnerabilities and triggers in particular cohorts, age, sex, clinical background, lifestyle, etc, etc. Understanding this may help us mitigate risk and better protect people. It’s a perpetual process toward improving care, but it doesn’t happen without being upfront with acknowledging risk.
 
I think that’s fair, it’s incumbent on all of us to explore, understand, explain and decide on risk individually, but maybe we are speaking to generally, it all needs to be subdivided and explored in detail.

In this scenario, there is an awful lot to still assess, @LinekersLegs was hinting at it there, now we know there is a risk, we need to look at the scale of the risk, vulnerabilities and triggers in particular cohorts, age, sex, clinical background, lifestyle, etc, etc. Understanding this may help us mitigate risk and better protect people. It’s a perpetual process toward improving care, but it doesn’t happen without being upfront with acknowledging risk.
That's exactly why I said we should be spending the next 2 months investigating the link between AZ and blood clots, so we can get a much more accurate picture of who's at risk and to what extent, rather than make a kneejerk decision to stop it for a whole demographic of the population.
 
That's exactly why I said we should be spending the next 2 months investigating the link between AZ and blood clots, so we can get a much more accurate picture of who's at risk and to what extent, rather than make a kneejerk decision to stop it for a whole demographic of the population.

My understanding mate on some of the data available is the risk increases from 60-55 down, soon that basis until we know more it seems the clever play to me.

This virus is incredible in terms of contradictions, the older you were the more vulnerable you were, now with the AZ vaccine it may be the younger you are the more vulnerable to risk from a vaccine.
 
Can't be, viruses always mutate to be weaker. Simple science.
I know why you are saying this but it's a factually incorrect statement. Viruses are subject to natural selection in the same way that other life forms are, though they require a host to provide a living environment. If we consider influenza we can see that they evolve gradually through mutations to their surface in order to hide from our immune systems - a disguise of sorts. Without this evolving antigenic drift, (and shift when two mutations combine) the virus is at risk of failure, which can be a limitation for some, but not for the flu, common cold, norovirus, HIV, etc, and sadly looking to be not true for covid-19 which is display the ability to mutate rapidly.

If you look at this article about the new mutation in Africa you'll see they talk about covid "evolving under positive selection and improving viral fitness"

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top