> vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT)
> According to the European Medicines Agency, about 900 VITT cases have been reported after immunization with the AstraZeneca or J&J vaccines in Europe, including 200 deaths. Few data are available about the rest of the world, even though more than 3 billion doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine were administered globally.
> It’s not clear whether the syndrome was rarer outside Europe or whether cases were missed. In most parts of the world, between 40% and 60% of the population has the genetic background that makes people more prone to VITT, but in East Asia the prevalence is only 20%. Other factors, too, might contribute to the rare cases when they happen.
This is such a crazy fact. I didn't know the AstraZeneca was administered at that scale. I remember the quick switch to the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine previsely as precautionary because of the AstraZeneca shot. Our (Romanian) army personal was mostly the one subjected to this vaccine.
It seems that AstraZenaca has become a scapegoat for Pharmaceutical companies, so people can say "oh it was just that one bad vaccine with one rare side effect."
Could you expand on this a bit? I don't think that AstraZeneca has suffered any reputational damage from this, it's an extremely rare event that took broad monitoring to even discover. 200 documented deaths in what are likely hundreds of millions of doses is the type of thing that speaks to a very robust medical monitoring system.
> "oh it was just that one bad vaccine with one rare side effect."
What do reference by the "it" here? There were 1.2 million COVID deaths in the US alone which seems like the most notable "it" to reference but it doesn't really fit with the rest of the sentence.
Most likely a lot of medication you have taken in your live have a low probability to kill you. It's just virtually no other class of medication/vaccine has the same degree of monitoring in place so we can't even measure such rare events.
In comparison, back then I looked up the typical all cause death probability within a year for the age group 20-40 (in Germany) and it turns out, getting covid19 without vaccine increases that by 700%.
A relative increase of a very small number is still very small number. However, worse then astrazenaca and the 700% that's only death, there's a lot that is not deadly but still very bad.
The involved risks with astrazenaca makes taking it - compared to no vaccine at all - a no brainer in comparison.
I one time knocked on the door of a 200+ IQ student simply to ask her why she NEVER socialized with ANY other students. She was so introvert it was funny, she gazed at me for a few seconds, then looked at the ceiling and tilted her head. Stood there for 10 seconds or so. Well... she said, it's terrifying for me. I asked howso, she responded immediately now, almost everything they know is wrong but you cant tell them that because they don't even know what words mean. Some rather hilarious examples followed that I cant even remember. She made herself small and slowly closed her door, okay? she said. I laughed, thanks, I've been curious for a long time, I get it now.
Now go find the legal, medical and scientific definition of a vaccine. And everyone keeps calling it a vaccine? At best we can argue they tried really hard to make something like a vaccine really fast.
We for example have really strict rules for may be called medication. Until elaborately tested you may not call it that.
It doesn't matter if it works or not. You can inject people with something but it ain't vaccination no matter how often you say it. It should be called an experiment. The AstraZeneca experiment.
It doesn't make it any less sad but side effects or terrible outcomes are perfectly normal. We don't do clinical trials for the fun of it.
It is important to do language. If you punch a baby it isn't a fight, if you set fire to 100 babies it isn't a war. etc
This is a salient point: the mRNA method of inoculation is radically different from conventional "vaccines" as invented by Sabin and Salk (peace be upon them).
The traditional vaccines rely on a large industrial supply of chicken eggs or other precursors, even human stem cells. The manufacturers of traditional vaccines need to culture trillions of colonies of virulent strains, and store those viruses colonies long enough to weaken/kill them and then assemble a vaccine with the remnants. Sorry, I meant "contain them with biohazard safety facilities and protocols" which are euphemistically known as "labs".
I found essentially no moral objection to mRNA inoculations, unless you consider that the fungible funds we pay are going to the same pharmaceutical virus factories that manufacture and store influenza, polio, pertussis, tetanus, and other dangerous organisms. It would be really cool if we, as a civilization, could move past that stage, or at least enact treaties and disarmament protocols for the nations which are stockpiling them. But somehow, the general public doesn't see it that way.
on a cultural level id compare the covid vaccine mandate to conscription , "risk your life for the greater good else face ostracization" , a fair challenge to this idea is that disproportionate death rates are being compared , but the social aspect is similar enough that i expect down votes for merely daring to discuss the concept
Conscription is horribly inapt metaphor for mandatory inoculation.
Banning the playing of third-party Russian roulette, where you hold a mostly unloaded gun to the head of your neighbors, coworkers, and service staff, actually more accurately represents the risks involved to both yourself and the public, and importantly to the personal tax and effort required.
what about when a veteran returns from war with ptsd that can be triggered at any point and potentially result in violence to those around them ? thats about the same net effect as walking around with a loaded gun to everyones head , the only difference is the comparability in numbers. as well the covid death rates for young people are a fraction of the death rates of the elderly, who do deserve to be taken care of but ultimately are a net drain to society. so your comment is better stated as holding a gun to the head of the elderly ... which is horrible but not quite the same argument.
You face resistance for an inflammatory and incorrect framing, not for talking about vaccine safety. Everybody was talking about the safety of vaccines, which is why many governments moved away from this vaccine in favor of others.
To complain about downvotes you should realize that people are reading your entire comment, not just the bland non-controversial parts. Playing a fake victim might be good for your feelings but it's bad for examining the truth.
ill acknowledge your attacks on my verbal expression. now do you have a rebuttal to the idea that conscription and forced vaccine mandates are comparable ? because all the mrna vaccines have fucked up side effects, moving from one to another isn't a perfect solution. regardless - ive put an idea forth for discussion, what makes you think that accusing me of playing victim is a valid method of discussing things in a productive and non inflammatory way? it seems like youre intentionally trying to bait your opponent, like the engagement bots on reddit.
There's no need to rebutt such a claim, as it's extremely broadly false. The stated level of danger is not comparable, the expectation on effort or time is completely different, the broad negative outcomes of being drafted vs the positive outcomes of a vaccine, none of those are comparable. It would be like saying "rebuke my claim that being drafted is comparable to being asked not to listen to loud music on the bus."
your comment is basically "no" which isn't a great foot hold from which to form rebuttals , i feel like id have to drink different flavors of kool aid to respond adequately , eg if one prioritized national interests over some elderly dying then your point of broad negative vs broad positive outcomes is invalid
"Everybody was talking about the safety of vaccines"
Every platform on earth Shadow Banned and blocked people if you said anything other than "Safe and Effective"... Real conversation was shut down on a nation state level. Not exactly a scientific or logical way to discuss experimental injectable therapeutics.
> Every platform on earth Shadow Banned and blocked people if you said anything other than "Safe and Effective"...
Absolutely false. Safety of this vaccine was talked about all over. I did it, and I was never shadow banned.
Somehow there was enough discussion of this specific vaccine to enable a recall, even!
Search the news and it was all over at the time, found a ton of articles just now with a web search. There's so much documentary evidence to directly contradict your very weird claims.
If you were shadowbanned, it was either a very rare occurrence, or perhaps you were talking about something else?
Look, I know we're supposed to "believe women" and all, but in my personal experience every time I have followed up on the "They're censoring me for my views" thread it has not resulted in a conservative person being censored for tax policy and advocating for limited government, but instead, "you know the views" that amount to harassment. I admit I could be wrong, but my Bayesian prior from past data is pretty strong. So I'm hesitant to believe without evidence. I understand if others have a very different prior, but I can't deny my past experience.
In the past I've hesitated to even get involved with these discussions because they all seemed far too low signal to noise, and in fact lead to huge amounts of dangerous toxicity, but in these dangerous times I think it's important to interact more even if it's very unpleasant. I already got my first-ever "kill yourself" response to what was an extremely restrained comment response. We all see what goes on these discussions, we all see the common mischaracterizations, so if you want to overturn what people have seen in the past it's going to take documented evidence, I think.
this very thread is flagged, a simple link to science dot org. this directly supports the previous commenter who mentioned that these discussions are censored en masse.
im happy to keep discussing and bridge the gap between our perspectives. please understand that you came straight out the gate swinging with personal accusations in response to a hypothetical comparison, then in a later comment you engaged in the same behaviour that you accused me of, which is to say victimising yourself (by downplaying your actions and bringing up rude words others said to you). its my biased perspective, but those two in tandem make it seem like you have bad faith in the argument.
Political topics are censored en masse on HN, and this entire thread is all political, not scientific. It's so political that somebody replied to me with "kill yourself" which is something I've never experienced in my years on the internet. Much less on HN which is more buttoned up than other areas.
If you think I was "coming out swinging with personal accusations" please realize that I had very mild criticism, and I honestly do not understand how you can consider anything I said personal. It is a very inflammatory and incorrect framing! That is not a personal attack in any way. Preemptively complaining about downvotes is without a doubt playing a fake victim, which is discouraged by the guidelines.
Maybe you are not used to having your ideas challenged, but you came to a scientific subject with very political and emotional framing and inapt comparisons and saying "oh aren't I brave for making this comparison which is inapt."
This is a great science article, but seeing the exceptionally low quality political nature of the discussion here, it's quite appropriate that it was flagged. Apparently this topic is a honeypot for bad-faith and pointless political discussions that are not based in reality with parties coming in pre-aggrieved.
id apologise for expressing myself in a manner that wasn't directly related to the figures in the linked article , but that was accounted for by me initially positing that the figures themselves are the only difference in the given hypothetical. so what if my comment was an invitation to pick apart a hypothetical comparison related to the article - by saying it, i inherently ask for the idea to be challenged. since then youve attacked my language, called me self victimising, then delivered the diatribe that this comment responds to ... in other words, it genuinely appears to me as though you'd rather challenge my composure instead of the argument at hand.
if i was in your shoes id be mad so please reflect that you may not have immersed yourself in the given comparison as intended. conscientious objectors are often imprisoned and this is actually a lot more extreme than the combination of government vaccine mandate ostracization + social ostracization. your violent response is a great example of the latter.
viable non mrna vaccines were available less than a year after the initial mrna vaccines were released. we could have waited a bit and enforced something significantly less prone to unknown side effects. one last olive branch before i get flagged - aside from astronomical corporate profits, what was the advantage of subjecting the world to a science experiment?
> vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT)
> According to the European Medicines Agency, about 900 VITT cases have been reported after immunization with the AstraZeneca or J&J vaccines in Europe, including 200 deaths. Few data are available about the rest of the world, even though more than 3 billion doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine were administered globally.
> It’s not clear whether the syndrome was rarer outside Europe or whether cases were missed. In most parts of the world, between 40% and 60% of the population has the genetic background that makes people more prone to VITT, but in East Asia the prevalence is only 20%. Other factors, too, might contribute to the rare cases when they happen.
This is such a crazy fact. I didn't know the AstraZeneca was administered at that scale. I remember the quick switch to the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine previsely as precautionary because of the AstraZeneca shot. Our (Romanian) army personal was mostly the one subjected to this vaccine.
[flagged]
It seems that AstraZenaca has become a scapegoat for Pharmaceutical companies, so people can say "oh it was just that one bad vaccine with one rare side effect."
Could you expand on this a bit? I don't think that AstraZeneca has suffered any reputational damage from this, it's an extremely rare event that took broad monitoring to even discover. 200 documented deaths in what are likely hundreds of millions of doses is the type of thing that speaks to a very robust medical monitoring system.
> "oh it was just that one bad vaccine with one rare side effect."
What do reference by the "it" here? There were 1.2 million COVID deaths in the US alone which seems like the most notable "it" to reference but it doesn't really fit with the rest of the sentence.
Most likely a lot of medication you have taken in your live have a low probability to kill you. It's just virtually no other class of medication/vaccine has the same degree of monitoring in place so we can't even measure such rare events.
In comparison, back then I looked up the typical all cause death probability within a year for the age group 20-40 (in Germany) and it turns out, getting covid19 without vaccine increases that by 700%.
A relative increase of a very small number is still very small number. However, worse then astrazenaca and the 700% that's only death, there's a lot that is not deadly but still very bad.
The involved risks with astrazenaca makes taking it - compared to no vaccine at all - a no brainer in comparison.
I one time knocked on the door of a 200+ IQ student simply to ask her why she NEVER socialized with ANY other students. She was so introvert it was funny, she gazed at me for a few seconds, then looked at the ceiling and tilted her head. Stood there for 10 seconds or so. Well... she said, it's terrifying for me. I asked howso, she responded immediately now, almost everything they know is wrong but you cant tell them that because they don't even know what words mean. Some rather hilarious examples followed that I cant even remember. She made herself small and slowly closed her door, okay? she said. I laughed, thanks, I've been curious for a long time, I get it now.
Now go find the legal, medical and scientific definition of a vaccine. And everyone keeps calling it a vaccine? At best we can argue they tried really hard to make something like a vaccine really fast.
We for example have really strict rules for may be called medication. Until elaborately tested you may not call it that.
It doesn't matter if it works or not. You can inject people with something but it ain't vaccination no matter how often you say it. It should be called an experiment. The AstraZeneca experiment.
It doesn't make it any less sad but side effects or terrible outcomes are perfectly normal. We don't do clinical trials for the fun of it.
It is important to do language. If you punch a baby it isn't a fight, if you set fire to 100 babies it isn't a war. etc
This is a salient point: the mRNA method of inoculation is radically different from conventional "vaccines" as invented by Sabin and Salk (peace be upon them).
The traditional vaccines rely on a large industrial supply of chicken eggs or other precursors, even human stem cells. The manufacturers of traditional vaccines need to culture trillions of colonies of virulent strains, and store those viruses colonies long enough to weaken/kill them and then assemble a vaccine with the remnants. Sorry, I meant "contain them with biohazard safety facilities and protocols" which are euphemistically known as "labs".
I found essentially no moral objection to mRNA inoculations, unless you consider that the fungible funds we pay are going to the same pharmaceutical virus factories that manufacture and store influenza, polio, pertussis, tetanus, and other dangerous organisms. It would be really cool if we, as a civilization, could move past that stage, or at least enact treaties and disarmament protocols for the nations which are stockpiling them. But somehow, the general public doesn't see it that way.
on a cultural level id compare the covid vaccine mandate to conscription , "risk your life for the greater good else face ostracization" , a fair challenge to this idea is that disproportionate death rates are being compared , but the social aspect is similar enough that i expect down votes for merely daring to discuss the concept
Conscription is horribly inapt metaphor for mandatory inoculation.
Banning the playing of third-party Russian roulette, where you hold a mostly unloaded gun to the head of your neighbors, coworkers, and service staff, actually more accurately represents the risks involved to both yourself and the public, and importantly to the personal tax and effort required.
what about when a veteran returns from war with ptsd that can be triggered at any point and potentially result in violence to those around them ? thats about the same net effect as walking around with a loaded gun to everyones head , the only difference is the comparability in numbers. as well the covid death rates for young people are a fraction of the death rates of the elderly, who do deserve to be taken care of but ultimately are a net drain to society. so your comment is better stated as holding a gun to the head of the elderly ... which is horrible but not quite the same argument.
You face resistance for an inflammatory and incorrect framing, not for talking about vaccine safety. Everybody was talking about the safety of vaccines, which is why many governments moved away from this vaccine in favor of others.
To complain about downvotes you should realize that people are reading your entire comment, not just the bland non-controversial parts. Playing a fake victim might be good for your feelings but it's bad for examining the truth.
ill acknowledge your attacks on my verbal expression. now do you have a rebuttal to the idea that conscription and forced vaccine mandates are comparable ? because all the mrna vaccines have fucked up side effects, moving from one to another isn't a perfect solution. regardless - ive put an idea forth for discussion, what makes you think that accusing me of playing victim is a valid method of discussing things in a productive and non inflammatory way? it seems like youre intentionally trying to bait your opponent, like the engagement bots on reddit.
There's no need to rebutt such a claim, as it's extremely broadly false. The stated level of danger is not comparable, the expectation on effort or time is completely different, the broad negative outcomes of being drafted vs the positive outcomes of a vaccine, none of those are comparable. It would be like saying "rebuke my claim that being drafted is comparable to being asked not to listen to loud music on the bus."
your comment is basically "no" which isn't a great foot hold from which to form rebuttals , i feel like id have to drink different flavors of kool aid to respond adequately , eg if one prioritized national interests over some elderly dying then your point of broad negative vs broad positive outcomes is invalid
[flagged]
"Everybody was talking about the safety of vaccines"
Every platform on earth Shadow Banned and blocked people if you said anything other than "Safe and Effective"... Real conversation was shut down on a nation state level. Not exactly a scientific or logical way to discuss experimental injectable therapeutics.
> Every platform on earth Shadow Banned and blocked people if you said anything other than "Safe and Effective"...
Absolutely false. Safety of this vaccine was talked about all over. I did it, and I was never shadow banned.
Somehow there was enough discussion of this specific vaccine to enable a recall, even!
Search the news and it was all over at the time, found a ton of articles just now with a web search. There's so much documentary evidence to directly contradict your very weird claims.
If you were shadowbanned, it was either a very rare occurrence, or perhaps you were talking about something else?
Well good for you. I’m still permanently banned from Xitter just for explaining what GoF even is.
Im sure it has nothing to do with Allison Fauci being a Twitter systems engineer at the time.
Selective enforcement doesn’t mean it didn’t happen just because you’re still online.
Look, I know we're supposed to "believe women" and all, but in my personal experience every time I have followed up on the "They're censoring me for my views" thread it has not resulted in a conservative person being censored for tax policy and advocating for limited government, but instead, "you know the views" that amount to harassment. I admit I could be wrong, but my Bayesian prior from past data is pretty strong. So I'm hesitant to believe without evidence. I understand if others have a very different prior, but I can't deny my past experience.
In the past I've hesitated to even get involved with these discussions because they all seemed far too low signal to noise, and in fact lead to huge amounts of dangerous toxicity, but in these dangerous times I think it's important to interact more even if it's very unpleasant. I already got my first-ever "kill yourself" response to what was an extremely restrained comment response. We all see what goes on these discussions, we all see the common mischaracterizations, so if you want to overturn what people have seen in the past it's going to take documented evidence, I think.
this very thread is flagged, a simple link to science dot org. this directly supports the previous commenter who mentioned that these discussions are censored en masse.
im happy to keep discussing and bridge the gap between our perspectives. please understand that you came straight out the gate swinging with personal accusations in response to a hypothetical comparison, then in a later comment you engaged in the same behaviour that you accused me of, which is to say victimising yourself (by downplaying your actions and bringing up rude words others said to you). its my biased perspective, but those two in tandem make it seem like you have bad faith in the argument.
Political topics are censored en masse on HN, and this entire thread is all political, not scientific. It's so political that somebody replied to me with "kill yourself" which is something I've never experienced in my years on the internet. Much less on HN which is more buttoned up than other areas.
If you think I was "coming out swinging with personal accusations" please realize that I had very mild criticism, and I honestly do not understand how you can consider anything I said personal. It is a very inflammatory and incorrect framing! That is not a personal attack in any way. Preemptively complaining about downvotes is without a doubt playing a fake victim, which is discouraged by the guidelines.
Maybe you are not used to having your ideas challenged, but you came to a scientific subject with very political and emotional framing and inapt comparisons and saying "oh aren't I brave for making this comparison which is inapt."
This is a great science article, but seeing the exceptionally low quality political nature of the discussion here, it's quite appropriate that it was flagged. Apparently this topic is a honeypot for bad-faith and pointless political discussions that are not based in reality with parties coming in pre-aggrieved.
id apologise for expressing myself in a manner that wasn't directly related to the figures in the linked article , but that was accounted for by me initially positing that the figures themselves are the only difference in the given hypothetical. so what if my comment was an invitation to pick apart a hypothetical comparison related to the article - by saying it, i inherently ask for the idea to be challenged. since then youve attacked my language, called me self victimising, then delivered the diatribe that this comment responds to ... in other words, it genuinely appears to me as though you'd rather challenge my composure instead of the argument at hand.
if i was in your shoes id be mad so please reflect that you may not have immersed yourself in the given comparison as intended. conscientious objectors are often imprisoned and this is actually a lot more extreme than the combination of government vaccine mandate ostracization + social ostracization. your violent response is a great example of the latter.
viable non mrna vaccines were available less than a year after the initial mrna vaccines were released. we could have waited a bit and enforced something significantly less prone to unknown side effects. one last olive branch before i get flagged - aside from astronomical corporate profits, what was the advantage of subjecting the world to a science experiment?