Agreed, the statistics don't support it and soe released statements saying Covid was worse than any supposed clotting risk. But clots can be serious - I lost a young friend when a clot in her leg (which happened to be a tiny bit of kidney) moved to her heart.

This exercise is to discount further clotting accusations. Other companies try saying "No, our stuff doesn't do that" and then get taken to the cleaners in class action suits decades down the line - smokers, countless drugs, glyphosate, etc.

It's pretty obvious that this is sour grapes masquerading as concern. The EU has made a total hash of acquiring enough of the AstroZeneca vaccine to vaccinate their people, so they are trying their hardest to discredit it. If people know that the vaccine works and is safe, they'll be angry with the EU central authorities for not providing it for them. If they can be made to believe that either it doesn't work or it isn't safe, they won't.

It's surely no coincidence that this concern about blood clots appeared after the preliminary results from vaccination in the UK, which showed that the vaccine works well on old people, something that had previously been denied.

I think it's a storm in a teacup that will be over by next week.

Unless you think the vaccine prevents clots you must realize that comparison is wrong. 1/1000 is per year; to compare properly you should use the time period that vaccinated people were monitored for blood clots. Presumably you would end up with approximately equal rates if you could do that. I'm not sure how to figure out the time period though.

Some guy did the numbers here on the news last night - too fast for me to get more than the general sense of it. So don't attack these figures pls.

• Let's presume the (unproven) suspicion that the vaccine caused the clots. Those statistics would be 3 deaths in 1.6 Million vaccine doses given.
• Average figures for serious Covid complications (ICU cases) are 15/100,000. Presuming the best possible outcome for all these patients, 5/100,000 will die many more will suffer long illnesses.
• A significant number will have long term covid, weakness, persistent weakness, breathing problems, or loss of smell or taste. If they had to be intubated, there are potentially permanent consequences for that also.

His point was that the outcome for patients with the vaccine was 15-20 times better skewing all the figures against the vaccine, so why are they pausing it?

This is EXACTLY the situation when such claims should be interrogated - a fast-talking used-car salesman giving the impression of one thing that people hear and repeat, whilst being able to say "I never said that".


Perhaps they think it's fine, but need to make sure that the significantly higher number of cases in Germany are an unrelated anomaly.
Perhaps they know it's fine, but also know that people will be reassured more by a pause and resume.
Perhaps they have less supplies than they've told people and this is a smokescreen to get more stock.

I saw a similar interview on the CBS Network in the USA last night with a medical professional who stated that the % of people who took the Astrazeneca shot and had blood clots was lower than the % of people in the general population who had not had the shot. Discussed at the link below.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/astraze...-clot-worries/

I'd be inclined to agree with the theories above by Hazel and Enorbet, either or both.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...ld/ar-BB1eFhPN

https://www.france24.com/en/france/2...ed-in-brittany

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/othe...ot/ar-BB1eBrEq

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ticket-...ts-11615973400

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/16/healt...day/index.html

It's easier to figure what time frame would be necessary for even parity with normal occurrence but a rough estimate should be useful.. Let's weight our math in favor of extreme caution and assume, for the sake of argument and enlightenment, that all 37 "clotters" associated with AstraZeneca got dosed in 1 week. So 37/week x 52weeks/year = 1924. Let's further bias it and round that off to 2,000/year associated with AstraZeneca assuming of course those first percentages continue weekly. Now compare 2,000 to 37,000. See? We could literally have assumed ALL doses occurred in 1 day instead of 1 week and it would still be "betting with the house" to accept that specific vaccine.

Additionally we have good meds for blood clots and even though those come with some risks as well, millions of people take those meds all the time and have for decades with an extremely low rate of issues. Their are no long term effects of which I am aware of taking such meds but a high percentage of people contracting Covid19, let alone it's unknown variants, have long term organ damage. Again, which odds are rationally preferred and by evidence not just vague general fear?

BTW I am not discounting the general fact that medical practice has changed for the worse in many ways, at least it has here in the US, due to doctors joining coops with lawyers and bean counters, causing many doctors to substantially dilute their concern for their patients, but it behooves everyone to at least try to develop a trusting relationship with their doctors and caregivers. Especially in the case of Covid which has global effect, we do have the benefit of common interest. Specifically in this area of vaccines, the odds seem to me to be a no-brainer.

I'll won't weigh in on the Astrazeneca Vaccine, but leave it to those exercised about it. A more humourous thought occurred to me.

Today is Patrick's Day, recognized as an Irish holiday/national day. In normal times, it's an excuse to party big time.
In a normal year, hundreds or thousands of Marching Bands descend on Ireland from various places and March in the Patrick's Day parades in all the major towns. Majorettes delay the parade by performing their high marching, stepping high kicking routines in positively Baltic and hostile weather. It's invariably cold (≅5ºC, ≅40ºF), with strong biting winds and squally showers or a full downpour. The chill factor would be ≅-25ºC for any warm blooded half naked individuals involved. These majorettes strut their stuff, smiling through gritted teeth, and quickly retire to recover. Side effects like frostbite, hypothermia, loss of bladder control and early onset arthritis are common consequences of this kind of behaviour.

This year, the Parade is virtual, marching bands are absent. Police are out rigorously enforcing Lockdowns. But the weather is a balmy 10-15ºC, the sun is shining, the winds are absent. The one year when Marching bands could have done themselves proud and enjoyed the experience, they are absent.

You're again coming up with a number that suggests the vaccine prevents blood clots (or slightly more plausible: perhaps the population getting the vaccine are less prone to blood clots on average?). So I doubt your calculation is taking all the factors into account properly.

Here is Germany's justification for why they suspended the AstraZeneca shot: https://www.pei.de/SharedDocs/Downlo...cationFile&v=5

This looks mostly like a Follow The Procedure thing, rather than anyone actually thinking there is something wrong. After all, if you vaccinate in say 20 countries, you would expect about 1 of those countries to have some kind of adverse reaction anomaly outside the 95% confidence interval just by chance. Aka p-hacking.

ntubski can you please explain to me how assessing the danger of causing blood clots is even similar to prevention? Seems a totally separate issue to me.

How do you explain the fact that according to your calculation, the people who received the vaccine got blood clots at a far lower rate than the average? I see 3 possibilities:

1. The population being vaccinated has a lower than average rate of blood clotting
2. The vaccine reduces the rate of blood clotting
3. You missed some factors in your calculation

Arguably 1 is a special case of 3.

I don't see how it is restricted to just those 3, ntubski. To me it is far more accurate to consider that the validity of statistics depends almost entirely on sample size and specifics. Until someone does a long term study that shows there is any correlation to reducing clot risk that consideration isn't even on the table. If it does, that's just "frosting on the cake" but has nothing to do with whether or not AstraZeneca is effective against Covid and safe for the vast majority of humans to take. Those are the only two concerns of current testing.

Again, I'll sidestep the parry and thrust here, and post on something interesting.

The European Medicines Agency has examined, and then comprehensively cleared the Astrazeneca vaccine of blame. It's looking like it's a storm in a teacup that will be over by the end of the week.

Where did I see those words before? Oh yes, a long time ago in post #123