CV and mad panic behaviour

[LP]

The Brazil variant P1 is a worry. Apparently, it has gained a foothold in Canada and we have to hope it doesn’t hop on a plane to Oz. Apparenly, it’s on the loose in the Whistler alpine resort and that is a favourite of some Australians. IIRC, some rich arseholes caused outrage in the early days of Covid when they flew back from a US ski resort and ignored warnings to isolate, spreading it at various social gatherings.

Seems P1 is twice as transmissible and is much likelier to infect young people and make them seriously ill. We’ve staved off Covid and that gave us the time to immunise the population but Scotty from Marketing has blown that opportunity :-X

Yes, the infamous Portsea/Sorrento cafe troupé!

Was it in fact Whistler they returned from or Aspen, I recall them being labelled the Aspen Spreaders? iirc They came back and said it's nothing more than a cold, then the media reported they had their own Private ICU setup at home, as you do for a cold. But went down the road for a latte and muffin anyway! :

btw., I agree, the new variants prevalence to infect U30s at twice the going rate is the most worrying aspect. That puts it in the Secondary School range, and as it stands we are months and months away from getting vaccines into that population, including the staff.

Scotty has turned into a marketing dud!

[Mav]

They returned from Aspen which is in the US. Didn’t one of them go to an 18th b/day party as well?

Whistler is near Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. I heard/read a commentator say it’s popular with Aussies. Unfortunately, the Vancouver Canucks, the NHL team, is assuming most of the team has been infected with the P1 variant given how quickly it has gone thru the team.

Covid 19: 5 Things to Know about the P1 Variant Spreading in B.C., Vancouver Sun.

[madbluboy]

https://www.9news.com.au/national/europe...191273b4a5

A top official at the European Medicines Agency (EMA) said there is a causal link between AstraZeneca's coronavirus vaccine and rare blood clots.
However it remains unclear what the connection is and whether the benefits of taking the shot still outweigh the risks of getting COVID-19.
Marco Cavaleri, head of health threats and vaccine strategy at the Amsterdam-based agency, told Rome's Il Messaggero newspaper on Tuesday there's a clear association between the AstraZeneca vaccine and the dozens of rare blood clots reported worldwide amid the tens of millions of AstraZeneca shots that have been given out.
“It is becoming more and more difficult to affirm that there isn’t a cause-and-effect relationship between AstraZeneca vaccines and the very rare cases of blood clots associated with a low level of platelets,” Mr Cavaleri said.

[Mav]

Interesting. We’ll have to watch this space.

The person who wrote the article needs to work on terminology. The scientists steered clear of saying there is a causal link, Cavaleri carefully parsing his words by saying it’s “becoming more and more difficult to affirm that there isn’t a cause-and-effect relationship”. But the scribe “filled in the gaps “ by asserting a “link”, “causal link” and “connection”. The trick is to rely on direct quotes rather than some journo’s interpretation of them.

[ElwoodBlues1]

There is a link for sure between AstraZ and blood clotting IMHO, but its a bit like when car companies recall a model that might have serious problems. They only recall them when it gets to a certain number of deaths caused by the faults if its something like brake failure or an airbag crushing a few chest cavities. They work out the cutoff point where the litigation's start to make it too costly and they need to fix the problem forcing a recall.

[Thryleon]

Interesting. We’ll have to watch this space.

The person who wrote the article needs to work on terminology. The scientists steered clear of saying there is a causal link, Cavaleri carefully parsing his words by saying it’s “becoming more and more difficult to affirm that there isn’t a cause-and-effect relationship”. But the scribe “filled in the gaps “ by asserting a “link”, “causal link” and “connection”. The trick is to rely on direct quotes rather than some journo’s interpretation of them.

On a personal level, I'd rather I was given the information, and then able to make my own personal risk assessment.

I'd rather not then have my suspicions proven validated even though the assertion that "nothing will go wrong, everything is fine" with the vaccine has been repeated ad nauseum.

I stated early on, that the way the numbers of COVID are being reported, we dont have a clear understanding of what a positive case actually means for the vast majority of people.

We get told about long covid.

We get told about the bad effects of covid.

We get told about asymptomatic positive people spreading.

Thing is, we dont have a clear idea of who falls into which category and all we get told about is what is going to be the best way forward for "everyone" as a collective provided you omit certain facts and viewpoints.

Is it possible that chancing the virus is better than chancing the vaccine?

Has that study been shown?

The one part that MBB does quote states the following:

However it remains unclear what the connection is and whether the benefits of taking the shot still outweigh the risks of getting COVID-19.

When does this become clear, and looking solely at our nation, given the number of infected, the number of hospitalised, and then the number with actual symptoms, what does this mean?

The questions pile up, the answers are not very easy to find, and for someone like myself, who is given very little choice I would really like to have a clear understanding.

Its worth noting that our fact sheets at work, tow very much the company line, and Ill leave that comment to speak for itself, given I am a government employee.

[LP]

The one part that MBB does quote states the following:

However it remains unclear what the connection is and whether the benefits of taking the shot still outweigh the risks of getting COVID-19.

@‍Thryleon That phrase you quote was the editorial commentary, not the official statement.

The official statement was;

He stressed the risk-benefit analysis remained positive for the AstraZeneca jab, even for young women who appear to be more affected by the clots.

It appears young women may be at risk of clots from COVID, and it may be there is a increased risk of clots from COVID vaccine. But the latest figures I've heard quoted indicate the positive differential is about 1000:1, that is 100,000 COVID infections in young women would give 1000 incidents of low platlets and clotting, but the vaccine risk if it exists would be just 1 case!

[Thryleon]

@‍Thryleon That phrase you quote was the editorial commentary, not the official statement.

The official statement was;It appears young women may be at risk of clots from COVID, and it may be there is a increased risk of clots from COVID vaccine. But the latest figures I've heard quoted indicate the positive differential is about 1000:1, that is 100,000 COVID infections in young women would give 1000 incidents of low platlets and clotting, but the vaccine risk if it exists would be just 1 case!

Not the point.

You are simply asserting an interpretation of risk assessment not providing the tools in which one was performed.

I.e.  all risk assessments have levels of acceptable risk built in to them.

Thing is, that isn't the same for all people.  Two investors will have different risk profiles.  The assessment is never the same.  Therefore anyone asserting that their risk assessment is the one to follow is acting with a utopian outcome.  Kind of idealistic dont you think?

[LP]

Thing is, that isn't the same for all people.  Two investors will have different risk profiles.  The assessment is never the same.  Therefore anyone asserting that their risk assessment is the one to follow is acting with a utopian outcome.  Kind of idealistic dont you think?

But the risk has to be realistically assessed in a relative framework, and I don't think this vaccine risk is being correctly communicated regardless of how it is assessed.

The total statistical figures are not some idealistic perspective, in fact they are the only truth in this matter, everything else is speculation.

In relation to daily risks, it's thousands of times riskier getting in the car and driving to the clinic for the vaccine shot that it is actually getting the vaccine shot. People do that drive by choice everyday day, millions globally make that decision at the moment. I wouldn't try to calculate the death rate from that commute because I would get it wrong, but it must be catastrophic relative to the risk of the vaccine.

The death rate from COVID is not a fiction, but the death rates from the vaccine reported by social media are a fiction, mostly even for the mainstream media it is just a form of clickbait.

[ElwoodBlues1]

But the risk has to be realistically assessed in a relative framework, and I don't think this vaccine risk is being correctly communicated regardless of how it is assessed.

The total statistical figures are not some idealistic perspective, in fact they are the only truth in this matter, everything else is speculation.

It's thousands of times riskier getting in the car and driving to the clinic for the vaccine shot that it is actually getting the vaccine shot. People do that drive by choice everyday day, millions globally make that decision at the moment. I wouldn't try to calculate the death rate from that commute because I would get it wrong, but it must be catastrophic relative to the risk of the vaccine.

Vaccine program is a one size fits all approach geared to herd immunity and with the prospect of losing some of the herd factored in by authorities. Thats all fine as long as its not you or one of your loved ones as that one in the herd that gets picked off.
As long as the majority of the herd are ok, we can keep playing games about the causes of those who do get the clots, the manufacturers can keep doing their own testing and fudging the numbers both with side effects and vaccine efficiency to keep the programs going and the money coming in.
The vaccine program is based around world government economics first and not individual health concerns.The Government have lost a fortune with Job keeper and are not about to give the plebs of the country the more expensive PFizer, Novavax or JJ vaccines. The $4 Astraz jab is what will oil the wheels of the economy better and they dont care if it is part ratsack, magic mushrooms, or causes newborns to grow two heads, thats what the plebs will be having because thats what the country can more afford.