23 pointsby epistasis5 hours ago3 comments
  • mhitza4 hours ago
    > vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT)

    > According to the European Medicines Agency, about 900 VITT cases have been reported after immunization with the AstraZeneca or J&J vaccines in Europe, including 200 deaths. Few data are available about the rest of the world, even though more than 3 billion doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine were administered globally.

    > It’s not clear whether the syndrome was rarer outside Europe or whether cases were missed. In most parts of the world, between 40% and 60% of the population has the genetic background that makes people more prone to VITT, but in East Asia the prevalence is only 20%. Other factors, too, might contribute to the rare cases when they happen.

    This is such a crazy fact. I didn't know the AstraZeneca was administered at that scale. I remember the quick switch to the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine previsely as precautionary because of the AstraZeneca shot. Our (Romanian) army personal was mostly the one subjected to this vaccine.

  • salodeus4 hours ago
    It seems that AstraZenaca has become a scapegoat for Pharmaceutical companies, so people can say "oh it was just that one bad vaccine with one rare side effect."
    • epistasis3 hours ago
      Could you expand on this a bit? I don't think that AstraZeneca has suffered any reputational damage from this, it's an extremely rare event that took broad monitoring to even discover. 200 documented deaths in what are likely hundreds of millions of doses is the type of thing that speaks to a very robust medical monitoring system.

      > "oh it was just that one bad vaccine with one rare side effect."

      What do reference by the "it" here? There were 1.2 million COVID deaths in the US alone which seems like the most notable "it" to reference but it doesn't really fit with the rest of the sentence.

  • Aeglaecia4 hours ago
    on a cultural level id compare the covid vaccine mandate to conscription , "risk your life for the greater good else face ostracization" , a fair challenge to this idea is that disproportionate death rates are being compared , but the social aspect is similar enough that i expect down votes for merely daring to discuss the concept
    • curtisf3 hours ago
      Conscription is horribly inapt metaphor for mandatory inoculation.

      Banning the playing of third-party Russian roulette, where you hold a mostly unloaded gun to the head of your neighbors, coworkers, and service staff, actually more accurately represents the risks involved to both yourself and the public, and importantly to the personal tax and effort required.

      • Aeglaecia3 hours ago
        what about when a veteran returns from war with ptsd that can be triggered at any point and potentially result in violence to those around them ? thats about the same net effect as walking around with a loaded gun to everyones head , the only difference is the comparability in numbers. as well the covid death rates for young people are a fraction of the death rates of the elderly, who do deserve to be taken care of but ultimately are a net drain to society. so your comment is better stated as holding a gun to the head of the elderly ... which is horrible but not quite the same argument.
    • epistasis4 hours ago
      You face resistance for an inflammatory and incorrect framing, not for talking about vaccine safety. Everybody was talking about the safety of vaccines, which is why many governments moved away from this vaccine in favor of others.

      To complain about downvotes you should realize that people are reading your entire comment, not just the bland non-controversial parts. Playing a fake victim might be good for your feelings but it's bad for examining the truth.

      • normalaccess4 hours ago
        "Everybody was talking about the safety of vaccines"

        Every platform on earth Shadow Banned and blocked people if you said anything other than "Safe and Effective"... Real conversation was shut down on a nation state level. Not exactly a scientific or logical way to discuss experimental injectable therapeutics.

        • epistasis4 hours ago
          > Every platform on earth Shadow Banned and blocked people if you said anything other than "Safe and Effective"...

          Absolutely false. Safety of this vaccine was talked about all over. I did it, and I was never shadow banned.

          Somehow there was enough discussion of this specific vaccine to enable a recall, even!

          Search the news and it was all over at the time, found a ton of articles just now with a web search. There's so much documentary evidence to directly contradict your very weird claims.

          If you were shadowbanned, it was either a very rare occurrence, or perhaps you were talking about something else?

          • razingeden3 hours ago
            Well good for you. I’m still permanently banned from Xitter just for explaining what GoF even is.

            Im sure it has nothing to do with Allison Fauci being a Twitter systems engineer at the time.

            Selective enforcement doesn’t mean it didn’t happen just because you’re still online.

            • epistasis3 hours ago
              Look, I know we're supposed to "believe women" and all, but in my personal experience every time I have followed up on the "They're censoring me for my views" thread it has not resulted in a conservative person being censored for tax policy and advocating for limited government, but instead, "you know the views" that amount to harassment. I admit I could be wrong, but my Bayesian prior from past data is pretty strong. So I'm hesitant to believe without evidence. I understand if others have a very different prior, but I can't deny my past experience.

              In the past I've hesitated to even get involved with these discussions because they all seemed far too low signal to noise, and in fact lead to huge amounts of dangerous toxicity, but in these dangerous times I think it's important to interact more even if it's very unpleasant. I already got my first-ever "kill yourself" response to what was an extremely restrained comment response. We all see what goes on these discussions, we all see the common mischaracterizations, so if you want to overturn what people have seen in the past it's going to take documented evidence, I think.

              • Aeglaecia23 minutes ago
                this very thread is flagged, a simple link to science dot org. this directly supports the previous commenter who mentioned that these discussions are censored en masse.

                im happy to keep discussing and bridge the gap between our perspectives. please understand that you came straight out the gate swinging with personal accusations in response to a hypothetical comparison, then in a later comment you engaged in the same behaviour that you accused me of, which is to say victimising yourself (by downplaying your actions and bringing up rude words others said to you). its my biased perspective, but those two in tandem make it seem like you have bad faith in the argument.

      • Aeglaecia4 hours ago
        ill acknowledge your attacks on my verbal expression. now do you have a rebuttal to the idea that conscription and forced vaccine mandates are comparable ? because all the mrna vaccines have fucked up side effects, moving from one to another isn't a perfect solution. regardless - ive put an idea forth for discussion, what makes you think that accusing me of playing victim is a valid method of discussing things in a productive and non inflammatory way? it seems like youre intentionally trying to bait your opponent, like the engagement bots on reddit.
        • lelandbatey3 hours ago
          There's no need to rebutt such a claim, as it's extremely broadly false. The stated level of danger is not comparable, the expectation on effort or time is completely different, the broad negative outcomes of being drafted vs the positive outcomes of a vaccine, none of those are comparable. It would be like saying "rebuke my claim that being drafted is comparable to being asked not to listen to loud music on the bus."
          • Aeglaecia3 hours ago
            your comment is basically "no" which isn't a great foot hold from which to form rebuttals , i feel like id have to drink different flavors of kool aid to respond adequately , eg if one prioritized national interests over some elderly dying then your point of broad negative vs broad positive outcomes is invalid
      • 4 hours ago
        undefined
      • wtewoman4 hours ago
        [flagged]