Risk of blood clots relative to cause

[Altavia]

On Twitter, Dr. Stephanie Graff, director of Clinical Research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HCA Midwest Health, shared an infographic placing the risk of blood clots from the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in context with other common causes of blood clots. The risk of blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine is lower than that from birth control pills and smoking, and COVID itself leads to high prevalence of blood clotting.

[retiredguy123]

Yes, but it may be too late to explain the odds that most people cannot comprehend. When there are two other vaccines available that do the same thing, who will opt for the the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine?

[DeanFL]

.
.
The CDC and the US Food and Drug Administration a day earlier recommended the US pause the use of the single-shot J&J vaccine after "six reported US cases of a rare and severe type of blood clot." The six cases were among more than 6.8 million Americans who have received a dose of that vaccine.

"Less than 1 in a million," Dr. Anthony Fauci noted Tuesday during a White House briefing.

All six cases were among women between the ages of 18 and 48, the agencies said in a statement, and symptoms occurred six to 13 days after vaccination. The recommendation to pause comes out of "an abundance of caution," they added, and these cases "appear to be extremely rare."
.
.
I always feel that the trem "abundance of caution" is so overused lately, and perhaps in this matter as well.
example>

The odds of becoming a lightning victim in the U.S. in any one year is 1 in 700,000. The odds of being struck in your lifetime is 1 in 3,000. Lightning can kill people (3,696 deaths were recorded in the U.S.).

IMO - this "pause" will provide MUCH MORE fodder for those anti-vaccine folks, and will eventually kill more Amercians than the 1/1,000,000...
.
.

[Arctic Fox]

Yes, but it may be too late to explain the odds that most people cannot comprehend. When there are two other vaccines available that do the same thing, who will opt for the the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine?

If the choice were Astra-Zeneca now or a different one in a week (due to current supply constraints) I would choose AZ now, although I do agree that many might not.

The number of potential deaths that could arise from NOT using AZ (or J&J) for a few weeks while they do testing (that has already been done by reputable research teams around the World) does not bear thinking about.

Why not just limit their use to those who aren't at risk (those who don't have low platelet levels)?

[billethkid]

On Twitter, Dr. Stephanie Graff, director of Clinical Research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HCA Midwest Health, shared an infographic placing the risk of blood clots from the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in context with other common causes of blood clots. The risk of blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine is lower than that from birth control pills and smoking, and COVID itself leads to high prevalence of blood clotting.

6 out of 6,000,000 is almost zero (the intent is not to minimize the 6 individuals).

Is/was the expectation zero?

The all too frequent whip lash changes in directions and communications related to covid generate suspicion (of agendas).

[Two Bills]

This was published on BBC last week.
Another interesting fact regarding the risk of AZ. was, you are more at risk of blood clotting from long haul flights than this vaccine.
There have been 79 blood-clotting cases alongside low levels of platelets in the UK, of whom 19 have died, in over 20 million vaccinations.

89069

[blueash]

If you are going to attempt to prove how safe the vaccine is by comparing it to other death risks, then you ought to learn how to present death rate data, unless of course your goal is to mislead the reader.

The reason for the pause is that there is a 1 in a million rate in a ONE WEEK reporting period. If you wish to point out that the death rate for lightning is 1 in 700,000 per year then you must if you are correctly using the data, tell us what the rate is for a one week period. As there are 52 weeks in a year, the rate is 1 in (52 times 700,000) or 1 per 36 million per week. So the clot rate is 36 times greater than the lightning rate. We do not know the clot risk associated with vaccine at any other time period yet. We have no reports but that is not the same as no risk.

If smoking one cigarette had a clot rate of one in a million that is a very different statistic from the risk from smoking thousands of cigarettes. Similarly for contraceptives.

The reported clots are entirely different than those caused by long air flights which are clots which form usually in the lower leg and potentially break free and travel to the lungs. The reported clots are of a clot in what is essentially a large vein in the brain where the clot is associated with a significant decrease in platelets, a cell in your blood that makes your blood clot when you are cut. The treatment for the typical leg clot is heparin acutely. However, with these brain clots heparin is not what the patient should get, and the heparin will make you worse or kill you.

As of April 12, more than 6.8 (https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0413-JJ-vaccine.html) million doses of the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen ) vaccine have been administered in the U.S. CDC and FDA are reviewing data involving six reported U.S. cases of a rare and severe type of blood clot in individuals after receiving the J&J vaccine. In these cases, a type of blood clot called cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) was seen in combination with low levels of blood platelets (thrombocytopenia). All six cases occurred among women between the ages of 18 and 48, and symptoms occurred 6 to 13 days after vaccination. Treatment of this specific type of blood clot is different from the treatment that might typically be administered. Usually, an anticoagulant drug called heparin is used to treat blood clots. In this setting, administration of heparin may be dangerous, and alternative treatments need to be given.

A Dutch article reports (https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.671453) the annual rate of CVST of 13.2 per 1 million adults. That would translate to 13.2 divided by 52 to get the weekly rate 1/4 case per million per week. So the rate reported is 4 times the background rate in that study. The rate was higher in women than men and over 1/2 the cases in women were patients on oral contraceptives or pregnant.

A 2018 review article (https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/4/e019939) says the background rate is much smaller, only 3 to four cases per million

Very importantly all the cases reported to the CDC are women 18 and 48. While it is too soon to know as the sex finding may be random, this suggests that women are far more at risk of the clot complication. Other factors may be at play. Were they on oral contraceptives or pregnant both of which increase the risk.

Pausing the J & J vaccine is prudent. It may be that the ultimate recommendation be that woman in the childbearing age range not use this vaccine if other choices are available.

[champion6]

On Twitter, Dr. Stephanie Graff, director of Clinical Research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HCA Midwest Health, shared an infographic placing the risk of blood clots from the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in context with other common causes of blood clots. The risk of blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine is lower than that from birth control pills and smoking, and COVID itself leads to high prevalence of blood clotting.Interesting, but irrelevant. AstraZeneca's vaccine has not yet been rolled out in the U.S. as the FDA has only authorized the use of vaccines developed by Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson.

[Altavia]

This prudent/overabundance of caution is likely to have far greater negative impact on public health due to reducing vaccine acceptance and delaying vaccinations.

[Altavia]

A Dutch article reports[/URL] the annual rate of CVST of 13.2 per 1 million adults. That would translate to 13.2 divided by 52 to get the weekly rate 1/4 case per million per week. So the rate reported is 4 times the background rate in that study.


Sorry, you lost me here?

52 in 52 million is still 1 per million?

[Two Bills]

If you are going to attempt to prove how safe the vaccine is by comparing it to other death risks, then you ought to learn how to present death rate data, unless of course your goal is to mislead the reader.

I was trying to mislead no one.
I simply posted an article from a BBC report, that was putting into perspective the risk from AZ vaccine.
No doubt there will a similar reports regarding the JJ vaccine that has same problem.
I leave the heavy lifting to others.

[Bill14564]

Your data was good and the comparisons were fair. Recent numbers I have seen are 169 cases in 34M people (about 5 per million) for AZ and 6 cases in 6.8M (a little less than 1 per million) for J&J.

[asianthree]

Just asking....Why were so many outraged on the deaths of Covid, and yet the deaths from a possible vaccine issue seems frivolous. It is still a death no matter the amount

[stanley]

If anyone believes there were only six that died from clots I really need to find the title to that bridge I want to sell.

[JMintzer]

If anyone believes there were only six that died from clots I really need to find the title to that bridge I want to sell.

Well, in the US, it's only 1 who died... So...

[Altavia]

If anyone believes there were only six that died from clots I really need to find the title to that bridge I want to sell.

100,000 people/yr without the vaccine.

[Bill14564]

Just asking....Why were so many outraged on the deaths of Covid, and yet the deaths from a possible vaccine issue seems frivolous. It is still a death no matter the amount

No deaths are frivolous; all deaths are tragic for someone.

There were 169 cases reported with the AZ vaccine but not all cases resulted in death. 34M vaccinations and 169 cases give a death rate of less than five in one million. Compare that to the current US death numbers for COVID which are about 18,000 deaths per million cases.

Every one of the deaths are tragic but a reduction in rate from 18,000 to fewer than five is a large step in the right direction.

There are a few other things to consider:
1. The J&J numbers look like about one in one million
2. The US and some EU countries have paused vaccinations with J&J or AZ while the issue is investigated and, hopefully, mitigations are identified
3. In the US there are the Pfizer and Moderna alternatives

[jswirs]

Just asking....Why were so many outraged on the deaths of Covid, and yet the deaths from a possible vaccine issue seems frivolous. It is still a death no matter the amount
And that is such a great point. Folks have been so paranoid over Covid, but tell them people also die from the vaccine, they don't seem to hear it. And you can believe that Big Pharma and the powers that be are doing all they can to downplay and minimize any and all problems with the vaccine.

[jswirs]

No deaths are frivolous; all deaths are tragic for someone.

There were 169 cases reported with the AZ vaccine but not all cases resulted in death. 34M vaccinations and 169 cases give a death rate of less than five in one million. Compare that to the current US death numbers for COVID which are about 18,000 deaths per million cases.

Every one of the deaths are tragic but a reduction in rate from 18,000 to fewer than five is a large step in the right direction.

There are a few other things to consider:
1. The J&J numbers look like about one in one million
2. The US and some EU countries have paused vaccinations with J&J or AZ while the issue is investigated and, hopefully, mitigations are identified
3. In the US there are the Pfizer and Moderna alternatives

And how many of the deaths from Covid are false claims by hospitals. If a person dies from injuries related to a car accident, and that same person test positive for Covid, the hospital writes or the death certificate, "Cause of death, Covid". There is a big difference in determining how many folks die "with" Covid, and how many die "because of" Covid.
All this for a virus that has about a 99% survival rate.

[Bill14564]

And how many of the deaths from Covid are false claims by hospitals. If a person dies from injuries related to a car accident, and that same person test positive for Covid, the hospital writes or the death certificate, "Cause of death, Covid". There is a big difference in determining how many folks die "with" Covid, and how many die "because of" Covid.
All this for a virus that has about a 99% survival rate.

I haven't seen any information on false claims by hospitals other than assertions such as these. Do YOU have any basis for your statements? Can you provide links to any significant number of documented cases? There have been something like 600,000 deaths associated with COVID. If even 1% of those were false claims then that would make 6,000 false claims; it shouldn't be too hard to provide links to a few hundred, right?

There may be a big difference in determining how to separate the death certificates between "false claims," "with" Covid, and "because of" Covid but in the end that's just a distraction. Whichever bin the death certificates fall into, there are still about 600,000 more death certificates associated with Covid and the number is climbing daily. Let's wait to argue about "primary cause" or "contributing factor" or "hanging chads" until after the daily death numbers drop to fewer than 100.

99% survival rate. The published numbers show that to be more like 98% in the US but hey, 99% sounds better. If your electricity was 99% reliable that would mean you only had a total outage about four times per year or 100 hours per year. Nothing wrong with that, it's about 99% reliable. Four days without heat in the winter? That's okay, it's 99% reliable. 100 hours without power for the oxygen machine? That's okay, it's still 99% reliable.

A traffic light at a four-way intersection might have a three-minute cycle time; every three minutes it switches from red to green or from green to red. 20 times per hour, about 500 times per day. If the light was about 99% reliable then only five times per day would both directions have a green light at the same time. Normally, you see a green light and drive through the intersection without any thought. How would that change if you knew that five times every day the cross traffic had a green light too? That's 99% reliable.

I have had the flu and didn't like it. I wasn't hospitalized but I was uncomfortable enough that I don't want the symptoms again. I now get a flu shot along with many others. The CDC estimates (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html) that during the 2018-2019 flu season there were 35M cases with 34,200 deaths. There have been four million fewer documented Covid cases and 16 times more deaths. Maybe the question isn't why we would do all this for a virus that has a 99% survival rate (if that were even accurate); maybe the question should be why wouldn't we do this for a virus that is 16 times deadlier than the flu?

[FromNY]

Those that want a vaccine will get it. Those who are against vaccine, no changing their minds.
That being said ,notice as soon as J&J was stopped or even before its numbers decreased, Pfizer and Moderna were substituted. Seems there is an over abundance of those drugs that need to go into arms.?? Money was paid for how many millions of doses? J &J was the late comer. Most people want easy one and done. Yes abundance of caution is a good thing if done for all the vaccines. Just wondering if there is something else going on.? Push people to get the two shots more money? Use up supply, stock price driven?

[blueash]

Originally Posted by blueash View Post

A Dutch article reports[/URL] the annual rate of CVST of 13.2 per 1 million adults. That would translate to 13.2 divided by 52 to get the weekly rate 1/4 case per million per week. So the rate reported is 4 times the background rate in that study.

Sorry, you lost me here?

52 in 52 million is still 1 per million?

Sorry. Remember in math class how the teacher said to show all your work. I failed to do that. The 52 is not 52 million people, it is 52 weeks in a year. If you know the number of deaths in one week and you want to know, if that rate continues, how many deaths will there be in a year, you need to multiple the deaths by 52.

Example 5 people died in Smithville from gunshots last week where the population is one million. What is the yearly death rate from gunshots?

Answer If 5 people die every week then in one year 5 times 52 will die, or 260 deaths per million

The issue with the Covid vaccine clot number is that so far all the reports are in a one week time frame. I'd like to think that the vaccine only may present a very tiny risk of clots to a particular patient segment for a short time, but I don't have enough data to say that yet. The question in assessing whether the shot causes clots is whether the expected number of clots detected is any different than the expected number in an unvaccinated population, the background rate.

The announcement that the clots are only seen in one per million is accurate but all the cases appeared in a one week period. If new clots continue to form each and every week then you'd get 52 per million in a year. I was comparing that to the background rate of 13 per million per year which is the highest number I saw in my brief literature search.

If 13 per million people get clots a year, then the weekly rate is 1/52 of the yearly rate. In the gunshot example if I tell you that 260 per million die in a year, to get the weekly rate you have to divide the 260 by 52 to get 5 deaths per million per week. If 13 die in a year then 1/4 person dies per week. In the Covid vaccines the rate described is 1 per million doses in one week.

There are lots of wrong assumptions here I hope. I truly believe that if there is a causal relationship of the adenoviral vaccines [J & J and AZ] that there is likely a very brief period of risk and that it will not be ongoing. But until i have that data, like the gunshot situation, I can use a short term finding and extend it. See why I didn't show my work!

[Bill14564]

Sorry. Remember in math class how the teacher said to show all your work. I failed to do that. The 52 is not 52 million people, it is 52 weeks in a year. If you know the number of deaths in one week and you want to know, if that rate continues, how many deaths will there be in a year, you need to multiple the deaths by 52.

Example 5 people died in Smithville from gunshots last week where the population is one million. What is the yearly death rate from gunshots?

Answer If 5 people die every week then in one year 5 times 52 will die, or 260 deaths per million

The issue with the Covid vaccine clot number is that so far all the reports are in a one week time frame. I'd like to think that the vaccine only may present a very tiny risk of clots to a particular patient segment for a short time, but I don't have enough data to say that yet. The question in assessing whether the shot causes clots is whether the expected number of clots detected is any different than the expected number in an unvaccinated population, the background rate.

The announcement that the clots are only seen in one per million is accurate but all the cases appeared in a one week period. If new clots continue to form each and every week then you'd get 52 per million in a year. I was comparing that to the background rate of 13 per million per year which is the highest number I saw in my brief literature search.

If 13 per million people get clots a year, then the weekly rate is 1/52 of the yearly rate. In the gunshot example if I tell you that 260 per million die in a year, to get the weekly rate you have to divide the 260 by 52 to get 5 deaths per million per week. If 13 die in a year then 1/4 person dies per week. In the Covid vaccines the rate described is 1 per million doses in one week.

There are lots of wrong assumptions here I hope. I truly believe that if there is a causal relationship of the adenoviral vaccines [J & J and AZ] that there is likely a very brief period of risk and that it will not be ongoing. But until i have that data, like the gunshot situation, I can use a short term finding and extend it. See why I didn't show my work!

You claim that the reported clotting events were all from a single week but where did you get that idea? Do you mean to imply that there have been more events but those were not counted since they were not from the particular week?

I have seen reports of 169 events from 34M AZ injections with no reference to which week of the year these were reported. In fact, the paper that mentioned the 169 events initially discussed 62 events but added in a footnote that the number had climbed to 169 over time.

[JMintzer]

I haven't seen any information on false claims by hospitals other than assertions such as these. Do YOU have any basis for your statements? Can you provide links to any significant number of documented cases? There have been something like 600,000 deaths associated with COVID. If even 1% of those were false claims then that would make 6,000 false claims; it shouldn't be too hard to provide links to a few hundred, right?


The Director of Public Health in Colorado (I believe) admitted this last Summer/Fall.

She specifically stated that an MVA with a covid positive corpse would be listed as a covid death...

People who were sent to Hospice to die (with Stave 4 Cancer) were listed as a covid death if they happened to test positive...

[stanley]

I haven't seen any information on false claims by hospitals other than assertions such as these. Do YOU have any basis for your statements? Can you provide links to any significant number of documented cases?

Death certificate data: COVID-19 as the underlying cause of death - The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/death-certificate-data-covid-19-as-the-underlying-cause-of-death/)

[DonnaNi4os]

I’d be curious to learn if the women who experienced blood clots following the J&J vaccine were on birth control pills. Especially for smokers, blood clots are a risk to those who smoke and take birth control pills. The risk of clots are minuscule....unless you happen to be the one effected. We all have to make our own choices and how wonderful that we live in a country that allows the choice and also is willing to halt the distribution of these vaccines until a clear reason for the adverse reaction is found.

[blueash]

Those that want a vaccine will get it. Those who are against vaccine, no changing their minds.
That being said ,notice as soon as J&J was stopped or even before its numbers decreased, Pfizer and Moderna were substituted. Seems there is an over abundance of those drugs that need to go into arms.?? Money was paid for how many millions of doses? J &J was the late comer. Most people want easy one and done. Yes abundance of caution is a good thing if done for all the vaccines. Just wondering if there is something else going on.? Push people to get the two shots more money? Use up supply, stock price driven?

I really believe there are some things that would change the minds of those that are declining vaccine now. One is if one of their loved ones gets hospitalized or dies with Covid. The mayor of Ocala after he got Covid changed his tune and Ocala has a mask mandate for businesses that he opposed until he personally got sick

Days after his discharge from the hospital, Guinn was back at work. Earlier this week, city officials decided to extend Ocala's mask mandate (https://www.ocala.com/story/news/2021/02/04/guinn-hospital-five-days-and-hes-grateful-alive/4389014001/), a measure he has vetoed in the past.

Next is if political opinionators who have downplayed Covid for over a year push their followers to get vaccinated. One leader is very upse (https://nypost.com/2021/04/13/trump-bashes-biden-admin-for-johnson-johnson-vaccine-pause/)t that the J & J vaccines have been paused as he feels that he was the person who made it possible. He ought to tell his followers that the vaccine is really important and that he got a vaccine as early as he could even though he'd had Covid. You can't say the disease is low risk then complain about the vaccine being paused. A 30 second public service TV ad saying "The vaccine is important, it is safe, it is effective. I got it as did my wife and all my family and I want all of you to get vaccinated as soon as possible to make America safe and make you and your family safe." I think that would change a lot of minds.

Lastly why do you wonder if "something else is going on"? All the vaccines are being given and all are having side effects tracked. Individual physicians are reporting the clots to the FDA and in journal reports both in the US and in Europe. These clot reports are not being generated by BIG PHARMA or by any secret cabal. You can read the recent New England Journal of Medicine issues to review some of the case reports
HERE (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2105869?query=TOC)
and HERE (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104882?query=TOC)
and HERE (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104840?query=TOC)

The vaccines are paid for whether they go into arms or not. If you really believe that some group at the FDA with the CDC and the similar European agencies and the editors of all the medical journals are conspiring to hurt J & J after this country has given the corporation money to get the vaccine to market and has already contracted to buy the product, I can't help you. Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is almost always right. The pause is in place because of REAL reports from the field of clots. As there are products which have not had that complication reported those products can continue to be used. The products with clotting concerns, J&J here and AZ in Europe, have been paused while a determination of whether the vaccine is causal is analyzed, and if it is causal, whether there is just a segment of the population that is at risk or is everyone at risk.

And REALLY IMPORTANTLY, the pause made physicians and the public aware of the need to be attentive to complaints of new severe headache or other neurological symptoms in the period following a vaccine, and the doctors now know what to look for and really importantly not to use heparin which is the reflexive response to clots.

From the CDC
CDC and FDA recommended this pause to communicate with and prepare the healthcare system to recognize and treat patients appropriately. Communication with healthcare providers will also emphasize the importance of reporting and how to report severe events in people who have received this vaccine. This pause also will allow CDC’s independent advisory committee, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, to meet, review these cases, and assess their potential significance.

[coffeebean]

He ought to tell his followers that the vaccine is really important and that he got a vaccine as early as he could even though he'd had Covid. You can't say the disease is low risk then complain about the vaccine being paused. A 30 second public service TV ad saying "The vaccine is important, it is safe, it is effective. I got it as did my wife and all my family and I want all of you to get vaccinated as soon as possible to make America safe and make you and your family safe." I think that would change a lot of minds.



Ya think???

[blueash]

Originally Posted by Bill14564
I haven't seen any information on false claims by hospitals other than assertions such as these. Do YOU have any basis for your statements? Can you provide links to any significant number of documented cases?

Death certificate data: COVID-19 as the underlying cause of death - The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/death-certificate-data-covid-19-as-the-underlying-cause-of-death/)

Hey Stanley That is a report on the British health care system not the US. It is also not a report of hospitals filling in forms wrong, it is all deaths reported including deaths at home. Lastly the WHO criteria for filling in a death certificate is NOT used in the US where we have our own methodology set by each state individually with federal suggestions as to format. Some states allow "probable Covid" as a death certificate underlying factor. This was really important early in the pandemic when there was a severe shortage of tests and it was impossible to confirm. A death at home with fever and cough during the early days in NYC might get "Probable" on a death certificate. Some states only want it listed with a positive lab test.

Here is a Scientific American (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/debunking-the-false-claim-that-covid-death-counts-are-inflated1/) piece looking at claims that deaths are over-reported

The CDC tracks all deaths and has a very good baseline for the number of deaths expected from all causes. If Covid really kills people then for 2020 there should be more deaths reported than the expected number. Guess what, there was a huge jump (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6942e2.htm)in deaths in 2020.

You can see excess deaths over expected on a week by week basis HERE (https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid) You need to change the graph to show the USA if you care to see our data.

[MandoMan]

On Twitter, Dr. Stephanie Graff, director of Clinical Research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HCA Midwest Health, shared an infographic placing the risk of blood clots from the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in context with other common causes of blood clots. The risk of blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine is lower than that from birth control pills and smoking, and COVID itself leads to high prevalence of blood clotting.

I’m not confident that I have the numbers right, but I believe that the New York Times said yesterday that in the 18-48 age group affected by this extraordinarily rare problem, in the last year, 126 PEOPLE PER MILLION DIED OF COVID. Compared to ONE per million who died possibly as a result of the vaccination. That helps put it into perspective.

[jswirs]

I haven't seen any information on false claims by hospitals other than assertions such as these. Do YOU have any basis for your statements? Can you provide links to any significant number of documented cases? There have been something like 600,000 deaths associated with COVID. If even 1% of those were false claims then that would make 6,000 false claims; it shouldn't be too hard to provide links to a few hundred, right?

There may be a big difference in determining how to separate the death certificates between "false claims," "with" Covid, and "because of" Covid but in the end that's just a distraction. Whichever bin the death certificates fall into, there are still about 600,000 more death certificates associated with Covid and the number is climbing daily. Let's wait to argue about "primary cause" or "contributing factor" or "hanging chads" until after the daily death numbers drop to fewer than 100.
hey, 99% sounds better. If your electricity was 99% reliable that would mean you only had a total outage about four times per year or 100 hours per year. Nothing wrong with that, it's about 99% reliable. Four days without heat in the winter? That's okay, it's 99%
99% survival rate. The published numbers show that to be more like 98% in the US but reliable. 100 hours without power for the oxygen machine? That's okay, it's still 99% reliable.

A traffic light at a four-way intersection might have a three-minute cycle time; every three minutes it switches from red to green or from green to red. 20 times per hour, about 500 times per day. If the light was about 99% reliable then only five times per day would bot that five times every day the cross traffic had a green light too? That's 99% reliable.h directions have a green light at the same time. Normally, you see a green light and drive through the intersection without any thought. How would that change if you knew

I have had the flu and didn't like it. I wasn't hospitalized but I was uncomfortable enough that I don't want the symptoms again. I now get a flu shot along with many others. The CDC estimates (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html) that during the 2018-2019 flu season there were 35M cases with 34,200 deaths. There have been four million fewer documented Covid cases and 16 times more deaths. Maybe the question isn't why we would do all this for a virus that has a 99% survival rate (if that were even accurate); maybe the question should be why wouldn't we do this for a virus that is 16 times deadlier than the flu?

99% survival rate...Yes, I see your point...so...let's see: you mention electricity. Let's say 99% of people who have electricity in their house never get electrical shocks, but that leaves 1%, so maybe you should not use any electricity. You may get some sort of phantom voltage shock, it happens.

Next you bring up traffic...let's say 99% of folks driving in traffic don't get in an accident, but that still leaves 1%. The next time you are out on the road you could lose you life in a traffic accident. So maybe you better stop driving, you never know do you?

I also had the flu, once in my life, and I was very uncomfortable. I did not get the flu shot.

ALL OF LIFE is a risk. We start dying the moment we are born. Maybe the question should be: Why not just follow the crowd and do as we instructed, it's so much easier doing that than it is thinking for yourself.

[Bill14564]

...

ALL OF LIFE is a risk. We start dying the moment we are born. Maybe the question should be: Why not just follow the crowd and do as we instructed, it's so much easier doing that than it is thinking for yourself.

I remember the kids in high school who fought against conforming to societal norms, particularly in the way they dressed. They weren't going to "follow the crowd," they were going to think for themselves, they were going to be themselves. You could tell who they were, they all dressed alike.

You are following one crowd or another. With Covid there seems to be the 1 in 50 crowd or the 1 in 1,000+ crowd. I think I'll choose the latter.

[jimjamuser]

And how many of the deaths from Covid are false claims by hospitals. If a person dies from injuries related to a car accident, and that same person test positive for Covid, the hospital writes or the death certificate, "Cause of death, Covid". There is a big difference in determining how many folks die "with" Covid, and how many die "because of" Covid.
All this for a virus that has about a 99% survival rate.
I can NOT believe that!!!!!!!!!!!

[Altavia]

J&J Vaccine Pause Creates 'Perfect Storm' For Misinformation : NPR (https://www.npr.org/2021/04/15/987182241/the-most-popular-j-j-vaccine-story-on-facebook-a-conspiracy-theorist-posted-it)

The Most Popular J&J Vaccine Story On Facebook? A Conspiracy Theorist Posted It

[Bucco]

I can NOT believe that!!!!!!!!!!!

Because it is not true these conspiracy theories were bandied about last fall.

Most experts believe the deaths are under counted.

Debunking the False Claim That COVID Death Counts Are Inflated - Scientific American (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/debunking-the-false-claim-that-covid-death-counts-are-inflated1/)

How Covid-19 Death Counts Morphed Into a Conspiracy Theory (https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/940694)

Someday, our country will get back to truth.

[GrumpyOldMan]

I think this entire blood clot issue is a "man bites dog" thing.

It makes news and 1/2 the country is looking for excuses not to get a vaccination.

The CDC and WHO are terrified of appearing to make a mistake in light of the recent history of massive claims they are so awful. After all, if they aren't perfect then why trust anything they say.

So sad how much anger is out there.

[jswirs]

I can NOT believe that!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, do a search on Next door and you will find families distraught because this is what happened to their loved ones. Why in God's name would a family lie about such a thing?

[jswirs]

[QUOTE=Bucco;1930579]Because it is not true these conspiracy theories were bandied about last fall.

Most experts believe the deaths are under counted.

Debunking the False Claim That COVID Death Counts Are Inflated - Scientific American (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/debunking-the-false-claim-that-covid-death-counts-are-inflated1/)

How Covid-19 Death Counts Morphed Into a Conspiracy Theory (https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/940694)

My understanding is that hospitals are granted additional funds for every patient that has a death caused by Covid. I don't know this for a fact, but what I do know is that the media and the powers that be are doing all they can to promote fear and paranoia. If anyone thinks that Big Pharma, hospitals, and the AMA don't lie, you have a lot to learn.

[Bucco]

[QUOTE=Bucco;1930579]Because it is not true these conspiracy theories were bandied about last fall.

Most experts believe the deaths are under counted.

Debunking the False Claim That COVID Death Counts Are Inflated - Scientific American (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/debunking-the-false-claim-that-covid-death-counts-are-inflated1/)

How Covid-19 Death Counts Morphed Into a Conspiracy Theory (https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/940694)

My understanding is that hospitals are granted additional funds for every patient that has a death caused by Covid. I don't know this for a fact, but what I do know is that the media and the powers that be are doing all they can to promote fear and paranoia. If anyone thinks that Big Pharma, hospitals, and the AMA don't lie, you have a lot to learn.

Of course people lie.

My problem is spreading false information to serve obvious purpose. If you don't care about disinformation being spread, then I worry about anyone who feels that way.

Hospital Payments and the COVID-19 Death Count - FactCheck.org (https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/hospital-payments-and-the-covid-19-death-count/)

[JMintzer]

Because it is not true these conspiracy theories were bandied about last fall.

Most experts believe the deaths are under counted.

Debunking the False Claim That COVID Death Counts Are Inflated - Scientific American (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/debunking-the-false-claim-that-covid-death-counts-are-inflated1/)

How Covid-19 Death Counts Morphed Into a Conspiracy Theory (https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/940694)

Someday, our country will get back to truth.

Then please explain why cases of "The Flu" are almost non-existent this year...

[Bucco]

Then please explain why cases of "The Flu" are almost non-existent this year...

Covid-19 Story Tip: Flu Cases Dramatically Low So Far This Season (https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/covid-19-story-tip-flu-cases-dramatically-low-so-far-this-season)

[Bucco]

One of, and most important reason I post about misinformation and truth is the constant posting of plain out false conspiracy theories about everything, but sadly not excluding this virus and attempts to save lives.

FOR EXAMPLE.....

"CNN. ABC News. The New York Times. Fox News.

Those are the publishers of four of the five most popular Facebook posts of articles about the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine this week. They're ranked 2 to 5 in total interactions, according to data from the tracking tool CrowdTangle."

"The No. 1 posting, however, isn't from a news organization. Or a government official. Or a public health expert."

[SIZE="5"][B][SIZE="4"][SIZE="6"]"The most popular link on Facebook about the Johnson & Johnson news was shared by a conspiracy theorist and self-described "news analyst & hip-hop artist" named An0maly who thinks the pandemic is a cover for government control.

It's a stark example of what experts warn could be a coming deluge of false or misleading information related to the one-shot vaccine."

J&J Vaccine Pause Creates 'Perfect Storm' For Misinformation : NPR (https://www.npr.org/2021/04/15/987182241/the-most-popular-j-j-vaccine-story-on-facebook-a-conspiracy-theorist-posted-it)

While this poster has had problems in the past with TRUTH, Facebook will do nothing about this.......it is called " gray area misinformation"

"Experts call this sort of tactic gray area misinformation and said it can have the same impact on an audience as blatant falsehoods when it's being received without proper context or by people with preconceived ideas."

As a country we get greatly agitated by information being "edited" by platforms, even though they contain blatant lies and or untruths.

We better wake up and address this because tolerance for lying and liars is becoming normal........there is not negative to simply going on line and lying about anything.

This has caused a great chasm in our country and has to be addressed.

COVID is serious and for me, there is no reason or room for spreading lies or misinformation about the disease.

If you do not know the truth, do not post.....or just shut up. There are so many websites that peddle nothing but false information to satisfy whatever movement they endorse, and sadly there appears to be enough lazy, uninformed folks who will follow them to the end of the earth (hopefully not literally).

I find this problem in so many areas and we just seem to accept it.......to me, that signal of acceptance is a very bad omen.

You certainly hold your own family to the truth........why do you accept and endorse lying on so many important issues ?

[Bill14564]

One of, and most important reason I post about misinformation and truth is the constant posting of plain out false conspiracy theories about everything, but sadly not excluding this virus and attempts to save lives.

FOR EXAMPLE.....


... text of example removed to save space ...

While this poster has had problems in the past with TRUTH, Facebook will do nothing about this.......it is called " gray area misinformation"

"Experts call this sort of tactic gray area misinformation and said it can have the same impact on an audience as blatant falsehoods when it's being received without proper context or by people with preconceived ideas."

As a country we get greatly agitated by information being "edited" by platforms, even though they contain blatant lies and or untruths.

We better wake up and address this because tolerance for lying and liars is becoming normal........there is not negative to simply going on line and lying about anything.

This has caused a great chasm in our country and has to be addressed.

COVID is serious and for me, there is no reason or room for spreading lies or misinformation about the disease.

If you do not know the truth, do not post.....or just shut up. There are so many websites that peddle nothing but false information to satisfy whatever movement they endorse, and sadly there appears to be enough lazy, uninformed folks who will follow them to the end of the earth (hopefully not literally).

I find this problem in so many areas and we just seem to accept it.......to me, that signal of acceptance is a very bad omen.

You certainly hold your own family to the truth........why do you accept and endorse lying on so many important issues ?

I accept "lying" today because I want to have a voice tomorrow when I disagree with the "truth." Or put another way, who decides what "truth" is? I feel we need to encourage and rely upon critical thinking rather than censorship. I also feel we really have to come to a common understanding that facebook is not a reliable source of information.

"The earth is round" and "the earth revolves around the sun" are two truths that few will dispute, but there are some that will. Should we censor those who would say the earth is flat or should we let them have their voice? Give them their voice but then provide the other side to the argument.

Today the discussion is the seriousness of Covid and the effectiveness of the vaccines. While the majority agree, there are a significant number of deniers. But which is better, asking facebook to spoon feed people with the "real truth" or letting the deniers have their say and then providing the data that shows them to be wrong? To me, asking the reader to make the effort to consider both sides will help society in the future.

One more example: is the statement, "Trump was a good president," true or false? Who decides which is the correct answer? Should facebook remove any comments to the contrary?

It's easy to argue for the removal of misinformation when nearly everyone agrees on what misinformation looks like. it becomes less easy to agree when the topic is more controversial, especially if you find yourself in the minority. It is better for society if we allow all viewpoints and demand that the reader take the time to think about the subject rather than creating a Department of Truth that determines which truths are allowed to be presented.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Then please explain why cases of "The Flu" are almost non-existent this year...

Because of the precautions that are widespread for the COVID-19. It is an unintended side effect that those same precautions also reduce the number of flu cases.

Businesses are closed, people are socially distancing, people are wearing masks, people are not flying as much, and on and on. Not everyone but a serious number, which reduces the transmission of viruses.

[GrumpyOldMan]

I accept "lying" today because I want to have a voice tomorrow when I disagree with the "truth." Or put another way, who decides what "truth" is? I feel we need to encourage and rely upon critical thinking rather than censorship. I also feel we really have to come to a common understanding that facebook is not a reliable source of information.

"The earth is round" and "the earth revolves around the sun" are two truths that few will dispute, but there are some that will. Should we censor those who would say the earth is flat or should we let them have their voice? Give them their voice but then provide the other side to the argument.

Today the discussion is the seriousness of Covid and the effectiveness of the vaccines. While the majority agree, there are a significant number of deniers. But which is better, asking Facebook to spoon-feed people with the "real truth" or letting the deniers have their say and then providing the data that shows them to be wrong? To me, asking the reader to make the effort to consider both sides will help society in the future.

One more example: is the statement, "Trump was a good president," true or false? Who decides which is the correct answer? Should facebook remove any comments to the contrary?

It's easy to argue for the removal of misinformation when nearly everyone agrees on what misinformation looks like. it becomes less easy to agree when the topic is more controversial, especially if you find yourself in the minority. It is better for society if we allow all viewpoints and demand that the reader take the time to think about the subject rather than creating a Department of Truth that determines which truths are allowed to be presented.

Why do I have the right to say what the owners of Facebook, Twitter, or any other company can control what is on their company?

I guess I was under the mistaken opinion that capitalism and not socialism was what made America great - so, now we want the government to step in and tell companies how to operate.

hmm.

[Bill14564]

Why do I have the right to say what the owners of Facebook, Twitter, or any other company can control what is on their company?

I guess I was under the mistaken opinion that capitalism and not socialism was what made America great - so, now we want the government to step in and tell companies how to operate.

hmm.

It appears you are under the mistaken opinion that I was suggesting that the government step in and control anything. Quite the contrary, I do NOT want the government stepping in and determining what news is fit to print. At the same time, I don't want facebook or others determining what news is fit to print either.

The Section 230 debate and follow on rulings will determine how far facebook and others can go with moderating content on their platforms before they lose certain protections.

[Bucco]

I accept "lying" today because I want to have a voice tomorrow when I disagree with the "truth." Or put another way, who decides what "truth" is? I feel we need to encourage and rely upon critical thinking rather than censorship. I also feel we really have to come to a common understanding that facebook is not a reliable source of information.

"The earth is round" and "the earth revolves around the sun" are two truths that few will dispute, but there are some that will. Should we censor those who would say the earth is flat or should we let them have their voice? Give them their voice but then provide the other side to the argument.

Today the discussion is the seriousness of Covid and the effectiveness of the vaccines. While the majority agree, there are a significant number of deniers. But which is better, asking facebook to spoon feed people with the "real truth" or letting the deniers have their say and then providing the data that shows them to be wrong? To me, asking the reader to make the effort to consider both sides will help society in the future.

One more example: is the statement, "Trump was a good president," true or false? Who decides which is the correct answer? Should facebook remove any comments to the contrary?

It's easy to argue for the removal of misinformation when nearly everyone agrees on what misinformation looks like. it becomes less easy to agree when the topic is more controversial, especially if you find yourself in the minority. It is better for society if we allow all viewpoints and demand that the reader take the time to think about the subject rather than creating a Department of Truth that determines which truths are allowed to be presented.

In my family, lying was a big tabu.....no justification for it.

Sticking with family analogy, i think we need responsible, honest adults in "the room"

[Bill14564]

In my family, lying was a big tabu.....no justification for it.

Sticking with family analogy, i think we need responsible, honest adults in "the room"

Lying requires stating something that is opposite to the truth; who gets to decide what the truth is? Extending your family analogy, the question, "why?" is often answered, "because I said so." I am frightened by the idea of a centralized "mom" that establishes "truth" by the criteria, "because I said so."

[Bucco]

Lying requires stating something that is opposite to the truth; who gets to decide what the truth is? Extending your family analogy, the question, "why?" is often answered, "because I said so." I am frightened by the idea of a centralized "mom" that establishes "truth" by the criteria, "because I said so."

This will be my last post as you are twisting my meaning, and it appears that lying to some is connected to what they want to believe.

Truth is very easy.

Conspiracy theories rare usually easy....thus the term. Cannot, off the top of my head think of any conspiracy theories that have ever been proven to be true.

Your problem with recognizing truth is a problem.

Telling folks when facing serious illness that what they fear does not exist....that it is a conspiracy theory...that crosses all conceivable boundaries of civil discourse that I am aware of. I, me, believe that the promulgating of conspiracy theories is a demonstrative fear of the truth.

Or, as we are beginning to see, the lazy way out. Many of those who left Jamestown before the mass suicide have said exactly that....they knew they were being lied to but it was comfortable.

This is a serious disease. I find no humor, no wish to debate it.

It deserves truth and adherence to it.

And I lived in no fear growing up. I learned early to identify truth, and liars. And especially to be responsible for my actions and words

[Bill14564]

This will be my last post as you are twisting my meaning, and it appears that lying to some is connected to what they want to believe.

Truth is very easy.

Conspiracy theories rare usually easy....thus the term. Cannot, off the top of my head think of any conspiracy theories that have ever been proven to be true.

Your problem with recognizing truth is a problem.

Telling folks when facing serious illness that what they fear does not exist....that it is a conspiracy theory...that crosses all conceivable boundaries of civil discourse that I am aware of. I, me, believe that the promulgating of conspiracy theories is a demonstrative fear of the truth.

Or, as we are beginning to see, the lazy way out. Many of those who left Jamestown before the mass suicide have said exactly that....they knew they were being lied to but it was comfortable.

This is a serious disease. I find no humor, no wish to debate it.

It deserves truth and adherence to it.

And I lived in no fear growing up. I learned early to identify truth, and liars. And especially to be responsible for my actions and words

Truth is easy when you close your mind to the possibility that there might be something you aren't aware of. I don't have a problem recognizing/accepting the truth, my problem is with those who are closed-minded and insist that theirs is the only truth.

Recent conspiracy theory: The vaccines are unsafe and will cause deaths, several countries have already paused the use of the AZ vaccine due to blood clots and deaths.

Recent truth: The AZ and J&J vaccines have been linked to a small number of cases of a type of blood clot that has resulted in some deaths. The US has paused use of the J&J vaccine while they investigate.

"This is a serious disease, if you catch it you will die." "This disease is nothing more than a strong flu, some people will die, just like the flu, but most will recover" Which statement is the truth and which should be rejected as misinformation?

(I know, that was your last post so you won't be responding but it is something to think about)

[Altavia]

Sorry. Remember in math class how the teacher said to show all your work. I failed to do that. The 52 is not 52 million people, it is 52 weeks in a year. If you know the number of deaths in one week and you want to know, if that rate continues, how many deaths will there be in a year, you need to multiple the deaths by 52.

Example 5 people died in Smithville from gunshots last week where the population is one million. What is the yearly death rate from gunshots?

Answer If 5 people die every week then in one year 5 times 52 will die, or 260 deaths per million

The issue with the Covid vaccine clot number is that so far all the reports are in a one week time frame. I'd like to think that the vaccine only may present a very tiny risk of clots to a particular patient segment for a short time, but I don't have enough data to say that yet. The question in assessing whether the shot causes clots is whether the expected number of clots detected is any different than the expected number in an unvaccinated population, the background rate.

The announcement that the clots are only seen in one per million is accurate but all the cases appeared in a one week period. If new clots continue to form each and every week then you'd get 52 per million in a year. I was comparing that to the background rate of 13 per million per year which is the highest number I saw in my brief literature search.

If 13 per million people get clots a year, then the weekly rate is 1/52 of the yearly rate. In the gunshot example if I tell you that 260 per million die in a year, to get the weekly rate you have to divide the 260 by 52 to get 5 deaths per million per week. If 13 die in a year then 1/4 person dies per week. In the Covid vaccines the rate described is 1 per million doses in one week.

There are lots of wrong assumptions here I hope. I truly believe that if there is a causal relationship of the adenoviral vaccines [J & J and AZ] that there is likely a very brief period of risk and that it will not be ongoing. But until i have that data, like the gunshot situation, I can use a short term finding and extend it. See why I didn't show my work!

Thanks for taking the time to explain. I had not appreciated the rate of reporting aspect, so thanks for that understanding..

[jswirs]

I remember the kids in high school who fought against conforming to societal norms, particularly in the way they dressed. They weren't going to "follow the crowd," they were going to think for themselves, they were going to be themselves. You could tell who they were, they all dressed alike.

You are following one crowd or another. With Covid there seems to be the 1 in 50 crowd or the 1 in 1,000+ crowd. I think I'll choose the latter.
The only following I do is that which can be referred to as my own common sense.

[jswirs]

On Twitter, Dr. Stephanie Graff, director of Clinical Research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HCA Midwest Health, shared an infographic placing the risk of blood clots from the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in context with other common causes of blood clots. The risk of blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine is lower than that from birth control pills and smoking, and COVID itself leads to high prevalence of blood clotting.
I've been reading post such as these for the past several months now, and I must say that I find most of the post regarding mask, vaccine, cruise ships, etc., unnecessary. Just keep it simple, if you want to wear a mask, help yourself, but please don't expect others to go out of their way to protect you. If that causes you fear, stay home.
If you want to get the vaccine, do so, and don't criticize others if they choose not to do so.
If a person is healthy, the chances of getting Covid and dying are very slim.
The in-fighting I see on these post is pathetic. If a person quotes a number, that number is challenged, if a person tries to help, that post is taken apart and examined under a microscope.
GOOD GRIEF, let it go and get over it. In the words of Paul McCartney, "LET IT BE".