CV and mad panic behaviour

[madbluboy]

Not an anti vaxxer, but maybe not relying on the best available information to make a decision IMO. I would check with your wife's GP, and see what they say. They may on certain occasions recommend one or the other.

The government website says
The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) recommends the COVID-19 vaccine by Pfizer (Comirnaty) is preferred in adults aged under 60 years.
In people 60 years and over, ATAGI continue to advise that the benefits of vaccination with the AstraZeneca vaccine outweigh the risks associated with vaccination.
This recommendation is based on:

the increasing risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 in older adults (and hence a higher benefit from vaccination), and
the increased risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia following AstraZeneca vaccine in those under 60 years.
There appears to be a small risk of TTS in people 60 years and over, but this risk appears to be lower than in younger people. Cases overseas have been reported at all ages.

If you are under 60 years of age and have already had your first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, and did not experience abnormal side effects, ATAGI recommends you still receive your second AstraZeneca dose. This will provide you with greater coverage against severe illness from COVID-19.

People who are considering vaccination with AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine should be aware of this potential complication as part of providing informed consent.

The COVID-19 AstraZeneca vaccine can be used in adults aged under 60 years where the benefits clearly outweigh the risk for that individual and the person has made an informed decision based on an understanding of the risks and benefits.

If you are aged 18-59 years of age, you can choose to receive the AstraZeneca vaccine:

following an appropriate assessment of suitability by a qualified health professional; and
if you provide verbal or written consent.

[DJC]

“In today's CoronaCheck, we explain how statistics concerning COVID-19 cases among vaccinated people can mislead.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-06/c.../100353540

It’s always good to have an expert untangle the metrics ??

[PaulP]

The government website says
The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) recommends the COVID-19 vaccine by Pfizer (Comirnaty) is preferred in adults aged under 60 years.
In people 60 years and over, ATAGI continue to advise that the benefits of vaccination with the AstraZeneca vaccine outweigh the risks associated with vaccination.
This recommendation is based on:

the increasing risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 in older adults (and hence a higher benefit from vaccination), and
the increased risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia following AstraZeneca vaccine in those under 60 years.
There appears to be a small risk of TTS in people 60 years and over, but this risk appears to be lower than in younger people. Cases overseas have been reported at all ages.

If you are under 60 years of age and have already had your first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine, and did not experience abnormal side effects, ATAGI recommends you still receive your second AstraZeneca dose. This will provide you with greater coverage against severe illness from COVID-19.

People who are considering vaccination with AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine should be aware of this potential complication as part of providing informed consent.

The COVID-19 AstraZeneca vaccine can be used in adults aged under 60 years where the benefits clearly outweigh the risk for that individual and the person has made an informed decision based on an understanding of the risks and benefits.

If you are aged 18-59 years of age, you can choose to receive the AstraZeneca vaccine:

following an appropriate assessment of suitability by a qualified health professional; and
if you provide verbal or written consent.

We've had this discussion many times before, and there seems little point in rehashing it. People who have convinced themselves that the Pfizer is better / safer / less dangerous will continue to believe that, and act accordingly.

The AZ is based on old, tried and true technology. Once you've had your shots, and had no issues, you should be comfortable in the knowledge that long term effects have been ironed out. The Pfizer is based on mRNA technology - this technology is newer, and before covid, was limited in use to test rats and the like, and also in human clinical trials for rabies and influenza. The first time they were available on a mass scale and approved for use in humans on such a scale was covid. Long term effects of such technology on a large scale is simply not known. The scientific community is not expecting any issues, but there's no way of knowing for sure.

So mbb, if you wake up one day and you've morphed into a 30cm plastic Arnie action figure, complete with face paint and a button on the back that calls out "chill out dickwad !" when you press it, look no further. 

[LP]

Meanwhile, data out of Israel shows that vaccine 'efficacy' past 6 months is poor.

No it doesn't.

Efficacy doesn't just mean "complete prevention" or "complete resistance", that inference is just a gross generalisation vaccine cynics make.

Efficacy is a compound measure of what a vaccine does to reduce transmission, prevent infection and prevent severe disease. Which is the exact point of the message from Saratosa Memorial Hospital was making with it's chart above.

Just as the Influenza vaccine do not stop everyone getting the flu, the Sars-CoV-2 vaccines won't stop everyone getting COVID-19. But all the vaccines are very efficacious at reducing transmission, reducing infections and preventing severe disease. Which then reduces hospitalisations, reduces ICU admissions and reduces the need for ventilation.

Finally, if you have a high percentage of the population already vaccinated, in Israel's case more than 80%, and a new variant starts to infect people, you will ironically have more vaccinated people being infected than unvaccinated people being infected because it's just either simple count or a percentage reported without regard to the severity of the cases or the otherwise healthy.      Hmmm, I think it's called arithmetic! ;D

[LP]

“In today's CoronaCheck, we explain how statistics concerning COVID-19 cases among vaccinated people can mislead.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-06/c.../100353540

It’s always good to have an expert untangle the metrics ??

The following bit was probably the most informative, because it turns the Social Media tactics back on themselves.

In her blog post Professor McGowan outlined a situation in which 90 per cent of a group of 20 people were vaccinated. Four people in the group contracted COVID-19, including two who were unvaccinated and two who were, which means that 50 per cent of the infections were among vaccinated people.

By another measure, however, the same scenario showed that 100 per cent of unvaccinated people got sick, compared to just 11 per cent of vaccinated people.

In this case, the vaccine would be seen to be 89 per cent effective.

How many football pitches is that?

[PaulP]

https://www.sydney.edu.au/marie-bashir-i...a-now.html

An open letter of sorts, signed by various medical professionals, summarising why you should take whatever vaccine is available to you, rather than waiting for Pfizer. Dated 5th August.

[Gointocarlton]

https://www.sydney.edu.au/marie-bashir-i...a-now.html

An open letter of sorts, signed by various medical professionals, summarising why you should take whatever vaccine is available to you, rather than waiting for Pfizer. Dated 5th August.

Raise the bat Pauly, you've made the triple ton of pages.

[PaulP]

Raise the bat Pauly, you've made the triple ton of pages.

Lol. A dubious honour.

[madbluboy]

57 cases.

[madbluboy]

Sydney took over a month to hit 50 cases for the record. Despite our tougher lockdowns we are going up quicker.