21 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Yes but logic is just a representation of real life, not real life itself. Odds and symbols will be of no use to you if you do happen to get cerebral thrombosis. And of course the odds of both dying of cerebral thrombosis and of Covid19 are both very low, however, with cerebral thrombosis you are near guaranteed to die, whereas with Covid19 your survival chances are pretty good. If you want to look at odds.

 

If you want to look at the odds.

 

Covid-19 Deaths per 1,000,000 people, in xxx country.

CVST Deaths per 1,000,000 people per year (un vaccinated) in the same country.

CVST Deaths per 1,000,000 people (within a month of being vaccinated) in the same country.

53 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

If you want to look at the odds.

 

Covid-19 Deaths per 1,000,000 people, in xxx country.

CVST Deaths per 1,000,000 people per year (un vaccinated) in the same country.

CVST Deaths per 1,000,000 people (within a month of being vaccinated) in the same country.

 

Well as you know Richard, a lot of the "deaths" from Covid were people dying "with" Covid who were counted by countries like the UK and Germany as dying from Covid, which rather skews the figures a bit. Of course I accept that the risk of cerebral thrombosis is low, but for a younger man like myself dying of Covid the risk is also pretty low. Again, if I have to choose between cerebral thrombosis or Covid I would chose Covid every time, not because of odds, but because recovery from Covid is much more likely than from cerebral thrombosis which is basically a death sentence.

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

Well as you know Richard, a lot of the "deaths" from Covid were people dying "with" Covid who were counted by countries like the UK and Germany as dying from Covid, which rather skews the figures a bit. 

 

That's not really true in the UK. Plenty of information available now on how death certificates are done in the UK and how Covid deaths are counted. It's quite interesting to see how it reflects on this 'from' and 'with' question.

1 hour ago, KhaoNiaw said:

 

That's not really true in the UK. Plenty of information available now on how death certificates are done in the UK and how Covid deaths are counted. It's quite interesting to see how it reflects on this 'from' and 'with' question.

 

Well, according to Reuters as of Oct. 15 2020, a total of 1,439 people without an underlying health condition had died with COVID-19 in an English hospital. This compares to 29,304 people who did have an underlying health condition and who also died with the disease in the same setting.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-covid-deaths-idUSKBN27D38A

 

This certainly would suggest that in the UK too, like in Germany, people who die with Covid are listed as Covid 19 deaths, ie dying from Covid.

34 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

Well, according to Reuters as of Oct. 15 2020, a total of 1,439 people without an underlying health condition had died with COVID-19 in an English hospital. This compares to 29,304 people who did have an underlying health condition and who also died with the disease in the same setting.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-covid-deaths-idUSKBN27D38A

 

This certainly would suggest that in the UK too, like in Germany, people who die with Covid are listed as Covid 19 deaths, ie dying from Covid.

An underlying health condition in the UK is "a chronic or long-term illness, which in turn weakens the immune system." [Source] Many people with these conditions can and do live full and reasonably normal lives with ongoing treatment. Obviously they are at greater risk of contracting COVID in the first place and dying if they do, as they can have compromised immune systems. 

 

So almost certainly they die from COVID, even though the infection is with underlying health conditions as they wouldn't necessarily have died otherwise. 

 

The with/from argument seems ridiculous as it is evident that COVID will exacerbate other health conditions, to the point of death in some cases, where life would have continued without the presence of the virus. 

 

Edited May 11, 20215 yr by DJBenz
Typo

6 hours ago, DJBenz said:

An underlying health condition in the UK is "a chronic or long-term illness, which in turn weakens the immune system." [Source] Many people with these conditions can and do live full and reasonably normal lives with ongoing treatment. Obviously they are at greater risk of contracting COVID in the first place and dying if they do, as they can have compromised immune systems. 

 

So almost certainly they die from COVID, even though the infection is with underlying health conditions as they wouldn't necessarily have died otherwise. 

 

The with/from argument seems ridiculous as it is evident that COVID will exacerbate other health conditions, to the point of death in some cases, where life would have continued without the presence of the virus. 

 

 

Yah, those with underlying conditions have greater risk of dying of Covid, but it does not always or necessarily follow that they did die of Covid. You'd really have to do an autopsy to determine if that was the case in most instance, however, with Covid doctors refused to do that for obvious reasons. It was easier to make an educated guess, but it is almost certain that a large percentage of those who died of underlying conditions died of non-Covid related case. Not always, but in many cases. It's not "almost certainly" the case that they died from Covid at all.

 

Yes Covid may excacerbate other health conditions but of course people do die of heart attacks, lung illnesses, strokes, etc, who have no covid at all. So "almost certainly", no you'd have to do an autopsy to know that, but you did not, and nobody else did.

7 hours ago, Logosone said:

 

Well, according to Reuters as of Oct. 15 2020, a total of 1,439 people without an underlying health condition had died with COVID-19 in an English hospital. This compares to 29,304 people who did have an underlying health condition and who also died with the disease in the same setting.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-covid-deaths-idUSKBN27D38A

 

This certainly would suggest that in the UK too, like in Germany, people who die with Covid are listed as Covid 19 deaths, ie dying from Covid.

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n352 
I feel someone  like David Oliver is a good source on these issues in the UK

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/coronavirus-nhs-doctors-death-certificates-conspiracy-theories-a9513981.html 

 

 

Edited May 11, 20215 yr by KhaoNiaw

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Yes Covid may excacerbate other health conditions but of course people do die of heart attacks, lung illnesses, strokes, etc, who have no covid at all. So "almost certainly", no you'd have to do an autopsy to know that, but you did not, and nobody else did.

Can you explain how an autopsy would detect that COVID did or didn’t kill someone? I mean, my father in law survived a suspected heart attack and the hospital was able to tell, just by blood work that he’d actually had an angina attack not a full heart attack. And this was 25-odd years ago. Amazing how medical science can detect such things without autopsies. 
 

I trust doctors to make the right call if someone with stable underlying health conditions gets COVID and dies from severe respiratory failure. I even trust them to make the right call if it isn’t as clear cut because, you know, they’re the experts. I’m sure there may be a few outlying cases where a potential wrong call might have been made, but I don’t believe it will skew the figures as much as the “hE tEsTeD pOsItIvE tHeN gOt HiT bY a CaR” crowd would like everyone to believe. 

10 hours ago, DJBenz said:

Can you explain how an autopsy would detect that COVID did or didn’t kill someone? I mean, my father in law survived a suspected heart attack and the hospital was able to tell, just by blood work that he’d actually had an angina attack not a full heart attack. And this was 25-odd years ago. Amazing how medical science can detect such things without autopsies. 
 

I trust doctors to make the right call if someone with stable underlying health conditions gets COVID and dies from severe respiratory failure. I even trust them to make the right call if it isn’t as clear cut because, you know, they’re the experts. I’m sure there may be a few outlying cases where a potential wrong call might have been made, but I don’t believe it will skew the figures as much as the “hE tEsTeD pOsItIvE tHeN gOt HiT bY a CaR” crowd would like everyone to believe. 

 

It would be nice if doctors could always tell by blood tests what exactly is wrong with someone, but whilst they can sometimes do that, unfortunately it is not always the case. In many cases once a person has died only an autopsy can determine what caused the death, hence autopsies are done when anyone needs to know for sure. 

 

It's obvious you have bit of a naive overblown trust in medics, which given how this pandemic unfolded is a bit surprising.

55 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

It would be nice if doctors could always tell by blood tests what exactly is wrong with someone, but whilst they can sometimes do that, unfortunately it is not always the case. In many cases once a person has died only an autopsy can determine what caused the death, hence autopsies are done when anyone needs to know for sure. 

 

It's obvious you have bit of a naive overblown trust in medics, which given how this pandemic unfolded is a bit surprising.

Looks like I can put aside my concerns over the pandemic then, it's obviously all overblown and nothing to worry about. Doctors and scientists can't be trusted and the whole thing is a ruse by Bill Gates to install 5G in everyone. ????

Edited May 12, 20215 yr by DJBenz

1 hour ago, DJBenz said:

Looks like I can put aside my concerns over the pandemic then, it's obviously all overblown and nothing to worry about. Doctors and scientists can't be trusted and the whole thing is a ruse by Bill Gates to install 5G in everyone. ????

Up to you, I would say the pandemic is very concerning. Doctors and scientists certainly got things extremely wrong many times with this pandemic, from the start not taking the adequate measures, then making wrong decisions a go go, even supposed experts like Prof Neil Ferguson making totally false judgements. 

 

I never mentioned Bill Gates or 5G ruses, I'm actually a big fan of Gates because he was one of the few to warn of a pandemic in 2015, the point rather was that doctors can not detect with blood tests what is wrong with a person at all times, as you claimed or implied. For instance if you have a pain in the chest a doctor can not tell if you have  blocked artery and where it is from a simple blood test, they have to inject you with something, do an MRT, have a look, and even then it's not a given they would find it. So your rather naive confidence in doctors' abilities is completely misplaced, and given what we have seen in this pandemic possibly life threatening in some cases. I mean they approved vaccines as safe that have killed people. Res ipsa loquitur, the facts speak for themselves.

15 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I mean they approved vaccines as safe that have killed people. Res ipsa loquitur, the facts speak for themselves.

Citation please? As I understood it they have established correlation so far (even in the case of cerebral thrombosis), but no concrete causality. 

On 5/11/2021 at 12:48 PM, BarraMarra said:

DBath  Would it change your mind if you were being taken into an ICU unit and took to a young Nurses bed where she is on a life support due to taking care of a Covid patient.  She was healthy with no health concerns until she probably gave her life to help someone infected. This has happened in the UK. Deniers will only understand the severity when there infected with it.

When did I say I was a denier? What you imply is I deny there is a virus and it’s horrible, devastating results - which is simply not true. What I have said is: nobody is going to force me to take some vaccine, especially one developed by the Chinese government who I don’t trust (for good reason), because so-called science says I should, side effects notwithstanding - it’s my choice!! I diligently follow all the policies to keep myself and others safe (masking, washing hands and social distancing, I even use alcohol gel after washing my hands). My wife and I rarely go out, except for our daily 5:00am 4-mile walk, and even have our groceries delivered. So given all this, please do tell me how much risk there is for me (not that you should care about me) and others (who I’m already being considerate of)? I’d love to see the statistics on that. 

On 5/10/2021 at 6:52 AM, ThailandRyan said:

Still not approved by Who or the CDC amongst others. Yet used primarily here.

And approved by the FDA here.

On 5/10/2021 at 7:28 AM, cyril sneer said:

On 5/10/2021 at 7:07 AM, Lucifer999 said:

9 out of 88 = 10% 

more dangerous than covid

None of the nine nurses died so it's less dangerous than Covid.

On 5/10/2021 at 8:14 AM, Davejf2017 said:

Sinovac not approved by W.H.O. World Health Orginisationc but OK to use in Thailand 

Approved here by the FDA, that's what is required.

On 5/10/2021 at 8:18 AM, ThailandRyan said:

So possibly this week it may be approved for use, but it has not as of yet.

It has been approved by the FDA here.  Each country has it's own approval agencies and do not rely on other countries' agencies.

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

It has been approved by the FDA here.  Each country has it's own approval agencies and do not rely on other countries' agencies.

Since when has sinopharm  been approved here?

4 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

None of the nine nurses died so it's less dangerous than Covid.

It's really both too small a sample and too isolated an incident to tell us anything significant about the coronavac vaccine. Cherry picking is not the way to evaluate a vaccine's performance.

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

15 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

None of the nine nurses died so it's less dangerous than Covid.

It's really both too small a sample and too isolated an incident to tell us anything significant about the coronavac vaccine. Cherry picking is not the way to evaluate a vaccine's performance.

i was responding to cyril sneer's post, not cherry picking or making any serious assertion about it's safety.  Maybe you should have read that first.

16 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Since when has sinopharm  been approved here?

I was referring to Sinovac, excuse the confusion there, but, as the WHO has approved Sinopharm, the chances are that the FDA will approve it here in due course.

Edited May 12, 20215 yr by Liverpool Lou

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

i was responding to cyril sneer's post, not cherry picking or making any serious assertion about it's safety.  Maybe you should have read that first.

. But your point of contention with cyril sneer was not it's invalid to use such a small group, but that he drew the wrong conclusion.

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

. But your point of contention with cyril sneer was not it's invalid to use such a small group, but that he drew the wrong conclusion.

Yes.  His comment was categorically wrong.

On 5/11/2021 at 1:07 PM, richard_smith237 said:

 

I’m not a denier by any means. But I am consistently reading incomplete news, receiving an incomplete story etc...  ‘incompleteness’ is so common now that when I read awful news such as you have reported above my first reaction is now that there must be more to the story and my first questions are...

.... Did this nurse have any underlying conditions? is she heavily over weight etc ?

 

 

I do know of one young girl last year, she was hit hard by Covid-19, no hospitalised, but was in a very rough way for a week (like a very bad dose of the flu - which no one wants). 

 

 

 

I saw in the news of another nurse who'd died of covid'. He funeral procession passed the hospital where she’d worked. It was national news. I was intrigued, I googled and found that his nurse had been seriously unwell and had not worked for 18 months, she’d died of cancer, but also had Covid-19 when she passed. 

 

We all saw the picture of the ‘girl with the allergy all over her body’ (posted in this thread but has since been deleted) - this picture was from a different hospital and from over a year ago (pre-Covid) and has nothing to do with a vaccine (as reported by an anti-fake news Thai site). 

 

Again... I’m not saying Covid-19 is not serious, but there has been a huge amount of misinformation and in many cases deliberately delivering part of the story to suit a narrative. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My apologies in advance for ‘piggy-backing’ your post, @richard_smith237. None of what I’ve said here is directed at you, but I’m adding to what you said, which I fully agree with...
 

The mis-information, and in some cases ‘fake news’ surrounding not just vaccines, but covid in general, is also a huge factor for me.
 

Regarding the Chinese vaccines, when I add to this how the Chinese government is still reporting 90,000 total cases of Covid against the population of 1.4 billion people (I mean seriously folks, is that not a big enough red flag for some of you???). Is it necessary to go into detail about some of China’s other transgressions? Like the Uighur's being locked up and mistreated there? Hong Kong’s loss of freedom of speech? China trying to intimidate Taiwan? Or China building military airstrips in and patrolling the South China sea and puffing their military at other countries in that region? China stealing of US technology and intellectual capital? Shredding documents, setting fire to and being kicked out of their consulate in Houston? 
 

Could this all be just more fake news and conspiracy theory? There is plenty more info about all of this on BBC - you can look it up. All of these things, to me, add up to be one big deal-breaker regarding Sinovac and Sinopharm. And the same goes for Sputnik V, but for slightly different reasons.

3 minutes ago, DBath said:

My apologies in advance for ‘piggy-backing’ your post, @richard_smith237. None of what I’ve said here is directed at you, but I’m adding to what you said, which I fully agree with...
 

The mis-information, and in some cases ‘fake news’ surrounding not just vaccines, but covid in general, is also a huge factor for me.
 

Regarding the Chinese vaccines, when I add to this how the Chinese government is still reporting 90,000 total cases of Covid against the population of 1.4 billion people (I mean seriously folks, is that not a big enough red flag for some of you???). Is it necessary to go into detail about some of China’s other transgressions? Like the Uighur's being locked up and mistreated there? Hong Kong’s loss of freedom of speech? China trying to intimidate Taiwan? Or China building military airstrips in and patrolling the South China sea and puffing their military at other countries in that region? China stealing of US technology and intellectual capital? Shredding documents, setting fire to and being kicked out of their consulate in Houston? 
 

Could this all be just more fake news and conspiracy theory? There is plenty more info about all of this on BBC - you can look it up. All of these things, to me, add up to be one big deal-breaker regarding Sinovac and Sinopharm. And the same goes for Sputnik V, but for slightly different reasons.

There have been plenty of independent studies done outside of China that show the vaccine is highly effective in reducing symptoms serious enough to require hospitalization and death. The Chinese govt's general awfulness has nothing at all to do with this.

1 hour ago, DJBenz said:

Citation please? As I understood it they have established correlation so far (even in the case of cerebral thrombosis), but no concrete causality. 

 

Certainly, thankfully German researchers have now pinpointed how AstraZeneca causes thrombosis in some patients:

 

The investigation showed how the vaccine caused rare thrombosis in the brain in a small number of patients.

 

https://www.dw.com/en/astrazeneca-german-team-discovers-thrombosis-trigger/a-56925550

2 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

Certainly, thankfully German researchers have now pinpointed how AstraZeneca causes thrombosis in some patients:

 

The investigation showed how the vaccine caused rare thrombosis in the brain in a small number of patients.

 

https://www.dw.com/en/astrazeneca-german-team-discovers-thrombosis-trigger/a-56925550

From the article:

"The Greifswald findings have not yet been published in a scientific journal and therefore have not been reviewed by independent experts. The Paul-Ehrlich-Institute in Germany is now looking into the scientists' work."

Of course, if their conclusions turn out to be correct, it does greatly mitigate the very rare threat posed by the vaccine.

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

 

Certainly, thankfully German researchers have now pinpointed how AstraZeneca causes thrombosis in some patients:

 

The investigation showed how the vaccine caused rare thrombosis in the brain in a small number of patients.

 

https://www.dw.com/en/astrazeneca-german-team-discovers-thrombosis-trigger/a-56925550

Quote

There's still no conclusive information on how the sinus vein thromboses actually develop and whether there is a connection to the vaccine. Researchers at the University of Greifswald, Germany, had published study results  at the end of March in which they described a possible mechanism.

Quote

These results were published in Research Square, a preprint publication,  which means the data has not yet been reviewed by independent experts. But for safety reviews and recommendations by committees such as Stiko, quick results like this may be important.

Quote

"The picture is not yet complete, but the question is what preliminary conclusions can be drawn from it," Robert Klamroth, chief physician for internal medicine at Vivantes Hospital in Berlin, said.

Thanks. So nothing conclusive yet.

1 minute ago, DJBenz said:

Thanks. So nothing conclusive yet.

 

There is an article in the New England Journal of Medicine which I think is quite persuasive  https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104882

 

Note however this discussion is solely with regard to the vaccines that use an Adenovirus platform (AZ and J&J). And that all studies confirm that the incidence is (1) very, very low and (2) disproportionately occurs in younger women.

 

It has taken a while to determine if the occurrence of this  rare clotting disorder was greater than average in people who got these vaccines precisely because the incidence was so low among both vaccinated and unvaccinated people.  However enough evidence has amassed at this point that it seems clear there is an increased incidence, though still a very low one; I don't know any public health professional who doubts that.  It also  seems clear that the increased incidence is disporoportionately in younger people and especially women, though we do not have the necessary age and sex disaggregated data on incidence in non-immunized people to quantify it.  There have only been a few studies on this condition prior to this and they did not capture enough cases to be able to compute rates by gender and age group.

 

It is clear that on an overall population level the very small risk is less than the risk of being unvaccinated. So if an across the board decision has to be made for everyone, it makes sense to use these vaccines. However, in countries where it is feasible to offer alternative vaccines not using the adenoviral platform to younger people, it makes sense to do that where possible.  The UK decision using age 40 makes sense to me, EU countries making it under 60 seem over the top and politically influenced.

 

All this has nothing at all to do with Sinovac, which is made from inactivated virus. There have been no blood clots identified linked to Sinovac or other similar vaccines. The Thai public on the whole is very unclear about this and does not seem to understand  the difference between one type of vaccine and another hence many receiving Sinovac think it is linked to blood clots and thsi may explain the groups of young women reporting symptoms for which no cause can be identified and which then spontraneously disappear.

 

It was clear to me right at the start that the reports from Rayong and now this one were almost surely not genuine and rather reflected social media-fueled mass hysteria. When rare vaccine side effects occur, they do not occur in a whole groups of people immunized together and then not at all in elsewhere. They will occur in isolated cases here and there, which is exactly what happened with AZ and J&J.  Even if the problem was batch specific, it should occur evenly among all peopel immunized with the same batch, which is not what happened here.

 

The pattern we are seeing in Thailand does not look like genuine rare adverse effects, especially since not being reported elsewhere with the same vaccine.  Rather it seems to be an "infectious" process due to auto-suggestion and spread on social media and through person to person rumor mongering.

 

There is are also  individual case reports in Facebook of things that happened to just one person and are almost certainly unrelated to the vaccine, i.g. one circulating of what appears to be either ringworm or psoriasis. People do nto seem to understand that every single thing that occurs to a person in the days and weeks after vaccination are nto due to the vaccine and that there are clear scientific  methods for determining this through comparing the incidence in both vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.