murraypaul wrote:Surely the balance is between how many people would have died from presumed vaccine induced clots, vs how many would have died if they had not been vaccinated?
Note, I did say...
"In the very near term, where there isn't the manufacturing capability to get enough Pfizer doses, you can probably still use the 'lesser harm vs covid' argument"
My point is that in the longer term, it isn't a binary choice between OAZ or Covid.
It might be the case that right now, while manufacturing (across all vaccines) is being ramped up, that we have current OAZ production capacity which can fill the gaps that Pfizer (etc) aren't able to meet in the short term.
But for future doses, why wouldn't you invest more heavily in the safer, more effective vaccine (based on the emerging evidence so far).
Like I said... if OAZ were the only vaccine in town, absolutely it would be a winner. The deaths from covid vs the risk from the vaccine, would be no contest.
But it isn't the only vaccine in town, so (going forwards a few months) it is not a binary choice.
I notice today that Boris is trying to say that the vaccine won't be the end of it (ffs!)... but if you take that stance, then why wouldn't you invest in the safer vaccine with the better efficacy?
The existing 19 deaths (in the UK alone) are unfortunate and unavoidable risk... we only know about the risk because of the deaths. Even if approval had been deferred, that risk wouldn't have been discovered until just as many people had had the vaccine and died.
But going forwards, when you know that a safer vaccine exists, that also happens to be more effective against covid to boot, it's a different picture.
If continuing to use OAZ could cause a further 19 deaths, but switching to Pfizer wouldn't (and would be more effective against covid as well), how can you justify not switching?
Look at it this way... it makes national headline news if a terrorist goes on a rampage and kills 19 random people.
But knowingly continuing to give the population a vaccine that could result in just as many (further) deaths, when there's an alternative available which, on the best evidence so far, isn't believed likely to cause that number of deaths... isn't that morally the equivalent to just randomly shooting 19 people people?
Obviously, if the clots really are treatable, and the treatment generally results in full recovery, and therefore the risk is now mitigated then perhaps not such an issue.
The article I referenced earlier seemed to suggest that once diagnosed, it was most important how you *don't* treat these specific clots, but it left unsaid whether there was a definite (alternative) treatment that works as long as you know to use it.
Since writing my earlier post, I've come across this later, and fairly interesting article (definitely worth a read) which does suggest that an alternative treatment is known for these specific clots, if properly diagnosed... and seems to suggests it's practically the opposite to how you'd treat a regular blood clot; in other words, it kind of implies that some of the deaths may have occurred because the (unwittingly) wrong treatment exacerbated the problem.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... n-hospitalIt meant they had a diagnostic test – and that the medical world needed to know about it immediately. “The reason that they had to know – everybody – is because it was a massive switch in how you would treat patients. It wasn’t just diagnosing it. The normal lines of therapy had to almost be reversed,” she said.
Blood thinners are needed but not heparin. Platelet transfusions aggravate the clots, so they are out. There is an urgent need to damp down the immune system, so it does not produce the PF4 antibodies. Intravenous immunoglobulin, in short supply, has been authorised by the NHS for all these cases. With appropriate treatment and earlier diagnosis as people have become aware of the symptoms, lives are being saved."
Though it doesn't indicate how successful the treatment is.
But clearly if the appropriate diagnostics are available in most hospitals, along with the necessary treatment, *and* if it is mostly effective, to the extent it would have been possible to avoid most of the reported 19 deaths had it been known sooner, then it could justifiably buy the OAZ vaccine a longer term reprieve.
But the regulators, etc, will need to consider the availability and likely success (or otherwise) of those treatments, when deciding whether to grant the OAZ vaccine longer term approval.