Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[dealtn]

The way I see it is that with the OAZN vaccine, there is the slightly increased risk of blood clots in younger women particularly those under 30, the OAZN has a lower efficacy and the OAZN is less effective against the South African and Brazilian mutations.

Where do you see it, please?

My understanding is that it is too early to know the answers to these questions, and that little comparable real world data and testing on hypothesis around this has occurred.

[Julian]

The way I see it is that with the OAZN vaccine, there is the slightly increased risk of blood clots in younger women particularly those under 30, the OAZN has a lower efficacy and the OAZN is less effective against the South African and Brazilian mutations.

As far as I am aware there is no scientific data or studies yet published which indicates that one vaccine type has less risk than any other, in any particular cohort or against any particular variant. (It looks very much like a difference in marketing and PR)

I rely for this info on Dr John Campbell's daily Youtube videos, which can be easily found.

The only data as yet is in a paper by Oxford Univ (un peer reviewed or published, produced in the last few days by a different bit to that responsible for the vaccine), which Campbell has cited as claiming that brain blood clots are almost the same for AZ and Pfizer, while portal vein clots are much higher with Pfizer. I await updates on this story with interest.

I agree. I just don't see how any lay person can form any reliable personal assessment regardless of how well-informed they try to be. We are being bombarded by so much contradictory information how on earth can we make sense of it? Nimrod103's citation of a recent Dr John Campbell video is apposite. I caught up on a few of JC's update videos this week and in one of his most recent updates in the last maybe 5 days, sadly I can't remember which, he put up some data showing that the incidence of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) for the AZ vaccine was about 1 in 1.1 million(*) and he also showed data for I think the Pfizer vaccine showing an incidence of something like 44 in 1 million for pulmonary venous thrombosis (PVT) that apparently can also be fatal. He was totally mystified as to why there was so much attention on the AZ CVST cases and nothing being said about the Pfizer (I think) PVT cases. In light of stuff like that how are we lay people supposed to know if there are valid clinical reasons, reporting distortions or some other valid reason for these seemingly huge discrepancies or whether it is "a difference in marketing and PR" (or some might less charitably say "stuff being brushed under the carpet").

I really don't understand why it is not possible for some truly independent body to take a high level unbiased comparative overview of this across all the vaccines and put out some clear guidance about what on earth is going on. If some seemingly strange distortions are present in the data, e.g. the CVST/PVT stuff, then either explain why the distortions are benign or make sure all potential issues of comparable concern are given equal attention. Even if that ends up "outing" more stuff in other vaccines ultimately I think it will benefit the vaccination drive because leaving a feeling that stuff might be being swept under the carpet can only fuel vaccine hesitancy. (Full-on anti-vaxers have all the crazy conspiracy-theory-derived fuel they need already.)

After that rant my answer to the original question is that I have no idea. I am totally confused by the data I see in the press and elsewhere such that I feel unable to make any informed descision whatsoever about relative vaccine risks re clotting.

- Julian

(*) He actually said in the video 1 in 1.2 million but he had got his division a bit wrong, it was closer to 1 in 1.1 million.

[richfool]

Thank you all for your comments and views.

It will be interesting to see what subsequent further analysis shows in the fullness of time, and indeed what side-affects, if any, are blamed on the Moderna vaccine, when it has got fully underway in the UK.

[Lootman]

It is sad that about 2 people in 1,000 in the UK have succumbed. But I disagree that it was ever obvious that we should have handled it much differently. The challenge was always to balance minimising the body count with maintaining some semblance of an economy and human freedoms.

Not much has been made of the fact that the vast majority of the body count comprised the very elderly, very frail, very sick and very unproductive. If I were young, I would be very angry that the economy has been trashed for so long, and colossal debts have been run up, which will blight my future and my childrens' future. All to protect the unproductive.

But remember that 2 in 1,000 figure is with the restrictions. Without it the count would have been higher. There is still the possibility of mutations that mean that younger people become iller and die.

It depends. There must be some upper limit to the number of deaths that ever could happen, because clearly most people are not seriously susceptible and many who catch Covid have no symptoms at all and do not realise they have it.

What that upper limit number is, we don't know, precisely because we have prevented the situation arising where we would naturally discover that. Maybe Brazil will give us the answer although of course their public healthcare system will not be as effective as ours.

[9873210]

I really don't understand why it is not possible for some truly independent body to take a high level unbiased comparative overview of this across all the vaccines and put out some clear guidance about what on earth is going on.

It is and they are.

Now if only some truly independent body would give clear guidance of which bodies are competent, unbiased, and truly independent.

There is also the problem that one of the marks of an expert is they say "I don't know" a lot.

[Julian]

I really don't understand why it is not possible for some truly independent body to take a high level unbiased comparative overview of this across all the vaccines and put out some clear guidance about what on earth is going on.

It is and they are.

Now if only some truly independent body would give clear guidance of which bodies are competent, unbiased, and truly independent.

There is also the problem that one of the marks of an expert is they say "I don't know" a lot.

Can you point me to anywhere that does attempt to explain why an approx 1 in 1.1m incidence of CVST seen with the J&J vaccine(*) is a signal that paused rollout whereas an approx 48 in 1.1m incidence of PVT with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines hasn't paused rollout? Maybe it's as simple as there being a massively higher incidence of PVT in the general population vs CVST so the CVST incidence rate is a higher multiple of baseline than the PVT incidence rate but I really wish I could find someone/somewhere that was explaining this more clearly.

Point taken on your middle paragraph but even finding places that attempt to explain e.g. the CVST/PVT thing would be a start and I could attempt to make my own mind up about any biases that might be in any information sources I can find.

On your final paragraph I 100% agree. I've seen that from the other side when at times in my career I would have counted as a "world expert" for want of a better word on certain very niche areas of computing and I was always very careful to say "I don't know" a lot where sometimes people with less knowledge would try to look good by coming up with plausible but not necessarily correct answers. Because wrt my specialist areas my word tended to get taken as gospel I felt it particularly important that I didn't make definitive statements in cases where I wasn't 100% sure resulting in someone going off and taking an action based on flawed expert input. I'm perfectly happy to get answers with "we don't know this bit yet" scattered around to fill in various blanks because that would at least give me some structure for my confusion e.g. on the CVST vs PVT thing (or maybe non-thing, I simply have no idea!).

- Julian

[richfool]

The way I see it is that with the OAZN vaccine, there is the slightly increased risk of blood clots in younger women particularly those under 30, the OAZN has a lower efficacy and the OAZN is less effective against the South African and Brazilian mutations.

As far as I am aware there is no scientific data or studies yet published which indicates that one vaccine type has less risk than any other, in any particular cohort or against any particular variant. (It looks very much like a difference in marketing and PR)

I rely for this info on Dr John Campbell's daily Youtube videos, which can be easily found.

The only data as yet is in a paper by Oxford Univ (un peer reviewed or published, produced in the last few days by a different bit to that responsible for the vaccine), which Campbell has cited as claiming that brain blood clots are almost the same for AZ and Pfizer, while portal vein clots are much higher with Pfizer. I await updates on this story with interest.

Though the UK Gov has said the women under 30 should have an alternative vaccine to the OAZN, have they not? Thus there must be some statistics that support that decision.

[XFool]

Why the World Should Worry About India

The Atlantic

The world’s largest vaccine producer is struggling to overcome its latest COVID-19 surge—and that’s everyone’s problem.

[kiloran]

The world (or at least a school in Miami) has gone mad..... Covid vaccines are "discouraged"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56905752

--kiloran

[murraypaul]

Well, sometimes you have to respect other people's points of view, and sometimes you just have to accept that some other people are just plain f*cking stupid.

[zico]

It is sad that about 2 people in 1,000 in the UK have succumbed.

I see the old "X in 1,000" figure is returning, because of course it sounds so much better than 120,000+ deaths.
If immortality was discovered tomorrow it would only affect about 11-12 people per 1,000 in the UK per year.
(This time I think I've got my figures correct!).

India is currently giving us a horrific glimpse of just how bad it might have been here if we'd delayed our lockdowns even further, because once the virus gets truly out of control, hospitals become overwhelmed, supplies run out, and the death rates climb.

According to FT statistics, India's death rates since the start of the pandemic are still much lower than that of the highest countries - I'm puzzled as to why this should be.

[Lootman]

It is sad that about 2 people in 1,000 in the UK have succumbed.

I see the old "X in 1,000" figure is returning, because of course it sounds so much better than 120,000+ deaths.
If immortality was discovered tomorrow it would only affect about 11-12 people per 1,000 in the UK per year.
(This time I think I've got my figures correct!).

India is currently giving us a horrific glimpse of just how bad it might have been here

Citing deaths per thousand or million is not "returning" because it never went away. It is the most neutral way to express the fatality rate. Obviously countries with greater populations will have more deaths than small countries., other things being equal.

But of course things are not equal in the case of India since, if you have been there (and I have, three times), you will know that people are thrust together in great numbers, thereby inflating the spread. Their healthcare system is also a more patchy and less advanced than ours. Apples and oranges.

[9873210]

I see the old "X in 1,000" figure is returning, ...

India is currently giving us a horrific glimpse of just how bad it might have been here if we'd delayed our lockdowns even further, because once the virus gets truly out of control, hospitals become overwhelmed, supplies run out, and the death rates climb.

According to FT statistics, India's death rates since the start of the pandemic are still much lower than that of the highest countries - I'm puzzled as to why this should be.

Where is the evidence that the situation in India today is worse than the situation in the UK in April 2020 or February 2021? I think Indians will look at the UK figures and pray it does not get that bad.

You have to use the "X in 1,000" figure when the countries you are comparing differ in size by a factor of 20. Otherwise you could solve the problem by massive devolution.

[redsturgeon]

It is sad that about 2 people in 1,000 in the UK have succumbed.

I see the old "X in 1,000" figure is returning, because of course it sounds so much better than 120,000+ deaths.
If immortality was discovered tomorrow it would only affect about 11-12 people per 1,000 in the UK per year.
(This time I think I've got my figures correct!).

India is currently giving us a horrific glimpse of just how bad it might have been here if we'd delayed our lockdowns even further, because once the virus gets truly out of control, hospitals become overwhelmed, supplies run out, and the death rates climb.

According to FT statistics, India's death rates since the start of the pandemic are still much lower than that of the highest countries - I'm puzzled as to why this should be.

According to statistics from the crematoria and burial sites in India, true figures are about 4 times the reported numbers that only refer to hospital deaths.

John

[Mike4]

It is sad that about 2 people in 1,000 in the UK have succumbed.

I see the old "X in 1,000" figure is returning, because of course it sounds so much better than 120,000+ deaths.
If immortality was discovered tomorrow it would only affect about 11-12 people per 1,000 in the UK per year.
(This time I think I've got my figures correct!).

India is currently giving us a horrific glimpse of just how bad it might have been here if we'd delayed our lockdowns even further, because once the virus gets truly out of control, hospitals become overwhelmed, supplies run out, and the death rates climb.

According to FT statistics, India's death rates since the start of the pandemic are still much lower than that of the highest countries - I'm puzzled as to why this should be.

Like the UK you mean?

Probably because despite the high absolute numbers dying, it is still a tiny proportion of the whole population. There was a Indian doctor on the R4 this morning saying he had calculated herd immunity in India is 600 days away at the current rate of infection spread.

And on a related note the R4 today has also been saying the crematoria in India are reporting/recording four times as many cremations as the hospitals are reporting deaths, and jumping to the conclusion that COVID deaths are being massively under-reported.

[gryffron]

R4 today has also been saying the crematoria in India are reporting/recording four times as many cremations as the hospitals are reporting deaths, and jumping to the conclusion that COVID deaths are being massively under-reported.

I would expect large parts of India have very little healthcare and even less COVID testing. All the news reports are coming from the big cities, where there actually are some hospitals.

Gryff

[9873210]

According to statistics from the crematoria and burial sites in India, true figures are about 4 times the reported numbers that only refer to hospital deaths.

John

This is General chat -- no statistics so we shouldn't use numbers to see which of two things is bigger, but if I multiply reported numbers by 4 the current situation in India is substantially less dire than the UK in February 2021. It might still get that bad, but it hasn't yet.

[servodude]

According to statistics from the crematoria and burial sites in India, true figures are about 4 times the reported numbers that only refer to hospital deaths.

John

This is General chat -- no statistics so we shouldn't use numbers to see which of two things is bigger, but if I multiply reported numbers by 4 the current situation in India is substantially less dire than the UK in February 2021. It might still get that bad, but it hasn't yet.

I don't think the distribution is even over India so we should be careful with denominators (avoiding numbers )
They have run out of oxygen and beds in some places - which is about as dire as we've seen anywhere yet

it's the speed of the turn around in India (this far in to the pandemic) that has been quite startling to me
- six weeks ago they would have been at the stage where people would have been pointing at the daily cases and saying "it's plateaued" at a very low point

Perhaps they believed they had herd immunity given the previous wave
Perhaps they believed it was seasonal

It should be a terrible warning for everywhere else
- and determining the effect on present vaccines of the risk from their variants should be a priority (and have bearing on NPI elsewhere)
- doubt it though
-sd

[Clitheroekid]

According to statistics from the crematoria and burial sites in India, true figures are about 4 times the reported numbers that only refer to hospital deaths.

John

This is General chat -- no statistics so we shouldn't use numbers to see which of two things is bigger, but if I multiply reported numbers by 4 the current situation in India is substantially less dire than the UK in February 2021. It might still get that bad, but it hasn't yet.

You're overlooking the fact that the vast majority of people who die with CV in the UK are elderly. The `death rate' for under 70's is about 1 in 2,000 as against 1 in 35 for those over 70.

Average life expectancy in India is 70, compared to 82 in the UK. You're therefore not making a valid comparison between the two countries, as far fewer people in India survive long enough to die of covid.

If Indian people had the same life expectancy as people in the UK the death rates would be far higher than even the estimated figures, let alone the official ones, and almost certainly far higher than in the UK.

[servodude]

According to statistics from the crematoria and burial sites in India, true figures are about 4 times the reported numbers that only refer to hospital deaths.

John

This is General chat -- no statistics so we shouldn't use numbers to see which of two things is bigger, but if I multiply reported numbers by 4 the current situation in India is substantially less dire than the UK in February 2021. It might still get that bad, but it hasn't yet.

You're overlooking the fact that the vast majority of people who die with CV in the UK are elderly. The `death rate' for under 70's is about 1 in 2,000 as against 1 in 35 for those over 70.

Average life expectancy in India is 70, compared to 82 in the UK. You're therefore not making a valid comparison between the two countries, as far fewer people in India survive long enough to die of covid.

If Indian people had the same life expectancy as people in the UK the death rates would be far higher than even the estimated figures, let alone the official ones, and almost certainly far higher than in the UK.

That's a very very good point; same goes for the terrible surges seen in Tanzania and Brazil
- and it serves as a good reminder as to why the risk to many "developed" nations from a virus of this nature is/was far higher

- sd