CV and mad panic behaviour

[madbluboy]

What do you want to see, what will make you accept the performance of the vaccines relative to the risk of COVID?

You have 2 vaccines. One has more dangerous side effects than the other. You comparing Astra to smoking is just deflecting.

[PaulP]

I think in the fullness of time we will have a better picture as to the relative risks / merits of the Pfizer and AstraZ vaccines. Certainly the situation on all fronts is changing, sometimes quite quickly. For now, the Pfizer is thought of as "better" because there are a small number of cases concerning the AstraZ, chiefly of course centred around blood clotting. But the numbers need to be understood and need to be put into a human context. In numerical, mathematical terms, a 0.0004% chance is worse than 0% chance, but the difference is so small that in real world usage the risks are pretty much the same IMO. There also seem to be issues around the accuracy and completeness of record keeping and data collection, which will hopefully improve in the future.

If you're starving and walking down the road, you don't walk past 1000 2 Michelin star restaurants in the hope of finding a 3 Michelin star, even though the latter may be "better." So whilst we may all prefer the Pfizer (for peace of mind etc.) the difference between the two is not nearly as big as is made out to be, and IMO is being blown out of all proportion.

[ElwoodBlues1]

I think in the fullness of time we will have a better picture as to the relative risks / merits of the Pfizer and AstraZ vaccines. Certainly the situation on all fronts is changing, sometimes quite quickly. For now, the Pfizer is thought of as "better" because there are a small number of cases concerning the AstraZ, chiefly of course centred around blood clotting. But the numbers need to be understood and need to be put into a human context. In numerical, mathematical terms, a 0.0004% chance is worse than 0% chance, but the difference is so small that in real world usage the risks are pretty much the same IMO. There also seem to be issues around the accuracy and completeness of record keeping and data collection, which will hopefully improve in the future.

If you're starving and walking down the road, you don't walk past 1000 2 Michelin star restaurants in the hope of finding a 3 Michelin star, even though the latter may be "better." So whilst we may all prefer the Pfizer (for peace of mind etc.) the difference between the two is not nearly as big as is made out to be, and IMO is being blown out of all proportion.

What ever is the latest vaccine off the production line should be the greatest, I'll be interested to see how the Novavax goes..
https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2021-.../100064694

[PaulP]

What ever is the latest vaccine off the production line should be the greatest, I'll be interested to see how the Novavax goes..
https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2021-.../100064694

I'm hardly an expert, but that sounds like the traditional way of making a vaccine. Basically a weak strain of the virus in question ?

[LP]

You have 2 vaccines. One has more dangerous side effects than the other. You comparing Astra to smoking is just deflecting.

Comparing vaccines side effect risks to other types of daily risk is very valid, it gives people a common ground perspective.

The media is saying one is more dangerous than the other, the politicians obey public opinion and act based on politics and polls.

The truth is the scientific studies have shown them to be equivalent in all aspects, but you choose to believe the media / social media.

[LP]

I'm hardly an expert, but that sounds like the traditional way of making a vaccine. Basically a weak strain of the virus in question ?

Novavax, AstraZeneca and J&J are basically made by the same method.

They deliberately infect a vector of some sort and then collect the proteins needed to form the vaccine, in the Novavax case they use a virus and moths.

In the case of the virus vectors, AstraZeneca and J&J use Adenovirus, Novavax use Baculovirus.

[PaulP]

Novavax, AstraZeneca and J&J are basically made by the same method.

They deliberately infect a vector of some sort and then collect the proteins needed to form the vaccine, in the Novavax case they use a virus and moths.

In the case of the virus vectors, AstraZeneca and J&J use Adenovirus, Novavax use Baculovirus.

Thanks.

[madbluboy]

Comparing vaccines side effect risks to other types of daily risk is very valid, it gives people a common ground perspective.

The media is saying one is more dangerous than the other, the politicians obey public opinion and act based on politics and polls.

The truth is the scientific studies have shown them to be equivalent in all aspects, but you choose to believe the media / social media.

I believe the experts advising the governments in Europe and now here in Australia.

[LP]

I believe the experts advising the governments in Europe and now here in Australia.

What I posted about above in reply #2807 is the experts advising Australian GPs the latest science and you don't accept it, so what you have written quoted above in bold is not true.

[DJC]

AstraZeneca vs Moderna vs Pfizer vs Johnson and Johnson:

“The best vaccine is the one that’s offered the day you go in for your appointment,” says Andrew Thomas, M.D., chief clinical officer at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. “All of the [available] vaccines are incredibly effective. They’re all safe.”

https://www.prevention.com/health/a35118...9-vaccine/