Jump to content

NACI not recommending the use of AstraZeneca for seniors over 65 on Canada.


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Without analyzing all the data all I can say is it's possible. Let's hope it is a light at the end of the tunnel.

But if that is the case, begs the question why we didn't do as some experts said, and as some other countries actually did, as protesters called for to focus on protecting the elderly first and foremost. Exactly what we should have done and proves we would have seen improvement without the vaccine, had we followed a more well-informed approach.

We did better than some and worse than others. As far as protecting the elderly goes, the best thing we can do for them is not get infected ourselves. All those people in LTC's didn't go out and get Covid, it was delivered to them by people who had been infected by someone else during their daily lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This however goes beyond making a point, all the way to professional integrity that can easily translate into outcomes for the society. Consider a scenario that is entirely plausible based on the available data: coexistence of two strains. One group is going down because it's been around for a while, some immunity has developed and it reached its boundaries; the other is still developing and from the past experience it can take a few months to the top of the curve. So there's a temporary lull that we interpret as a success of the early vaccination though there isnt' yet sufficient data for a confident conclusion. And yes, what if the vaccines were less effective against the emerging strains, Heavens forbid?

Then in a few months we would be up for a real surprise: cases go up, vaccines aren't working as expected and yet again we have no clue what to do next. And yes, the public is totally lost. That would be the price of pumping out the hopes before there's sufficient confidence and every professional understands that or should. But what can be explained to the "travel from Wuhan" professionals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only boundary the old and vulnerable reach from this virus is death. There is no herd immunity for them unless it comes from a vaccine.

Professionals are concerned about new variants and their resistance to vaccines. So far the vaccines we have are working well, who knows about the future. There are no guarantees here.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

The only boundary the old and vulnerable reach from this virus is death. There is no herd immunity for them unless it comes from a vaccine.

Actually 95% of seniors survive the virus. Below age 60 it's like 97% survival, and higher. The vast majority of seniors survive it. Presumably they too have immunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Actually 95% of seniors survive the virus. Below age 60 it's like 97% survival, and higher. The vast majority of seniors survive it. Presumably they too have immunity.

It isn't just about deaths, hospitalizations increase exponentially with age. Someone between 50 and 65 is twice as likely to be hospitalized as someone between 40 and 50 and they are twice as likely to be hospitalized as someone between 30 and 40, and so on.

This virus may also have long term effects. It screws with all kinds of organs including the brain. The lasting "brain fog" is well documented. Will those people be more vulnerable to things like Alzheimers and strokes in the future. We don't know. Someone who has had Chickenpox as a child can have Shingles which is much worse get them when they are older. Anyone who takes this lightly is playing roulette.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Aristides said:

It isn't just about deaths, hospitalizations increase exponentially with age. Someone between 50 and 65 is twice as likely to be hospitalized as someone between 40 and 50 and they are twice as likely to be hospitalized as someone between 30 and 40, and so on.

This virus may also have long term effects. It screws with all kinds of organs including the brain. The lasting "brain fog" is well documented. Will those people be more vulnerable to things like Alzheimers and strokes in the future. We don't know. Someone who has had Chickenpox as a child can have Shingles which is much worse get them when they are older. Anyone who takes this lightly is playing roulette.

Yeah I know. I've been saying it since day one. Protect the elderly. As for those effects, they are not common. TOday every time somebody gets a nasty rash we get to hear all about it.

Life is full of risks and I am not concerned about getting it. It would be a few days of unpleasant feeling at most. Or, like the majority of people, no symptoms at all. You are still free to be overly cautious if that works for you. Just leave otherwise healthy normal people alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Yeah I know. I've been saying it since day one. Protect the elderly. As for those effects, they are not common. TOday every time somebody gets a nasty rash we get to hear all about it.

Life is full of risks and I am not concerned about getting it. It would be a few days of unpleasant feeling at most. Or, like the majority of people, no symptoms at all. You are still free to be overly cautious if that works for you. Just leave otherwise healthy normal people alone.

Shingles can be much more than a nasty rash. I have a friend who lost his flying career when it got into his eyes. It didn't blind him but he could no longer pass a physical.

How do you know you are otherwise healthy and how do you leave others alone? You unknowingly infect a health care worker in the grocery store and they unknowingly take it into a LTC or hospital. That's how this works.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Aristides said:

Professionals are concerned about new variants and their resistance to vaccines. So far the vaccines we have are working well, who knows about the future. There are no guarantees here.

If the past results of their concern is any indication, I would be concerned. If Heaven forbid anything goes not so smoothly as planned and advertised, prepare for more doses of "brand new virus" and "oh so new".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, myata said:

If the past results of their concern is any indication, I would be concerned. If Heaven forbid anything goes not so smoothly as planned and advertised, prepare for more doses of "brand new virus" and "oh so new".

The more a virus circulates, the greater chance of more variants. It’s just too bad we can’t vaccinate much quicker. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I'm no immunologist but it seems implausible. The vaccine has not been out long enough, and was not given out widely enough to reliably claim these assertions.

So while I understand the need for cheers and big hurrahs, sorry but it don't add up. Sounds unscientific to me.

You are probably right.  I can say that his vaccination was over 6 weeks ago, not sure when others received the Oxford vaccine, and I doubt there is any study showing any numbers as yet, but I did say HELPED by the vaccine.  The UK has delivered far more than 20 million vaccinations (in 2 - 3 weeks after first injection, effectively decreases probability of severe effects from infection) and that could well have taken the supply of severe cases down notably (as these would tend to be elderly patients who were among the first to be vaccinated).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should be understood that most new initiatives will likely come from public health doctors based on real world experience. Once the vaccines are out the manufacturers priority will be ass covering. There is nothing in it for them to increase the interval between doses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

The more a virus circulates, the greater chance of more variants. It’s just too bad we can’t vaccinate much quicker. 

There is also our natural immune system, which has served well enough for millions of years. Given the survival rate for all ages combined is over 99%, I find I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

There is also our natural immune system, which has served well enough for millions of years. Given the survival rate for all ages combined is over 99%, I find I'm not losing any sleep over it.

It's only over 99% if you figure every person in the world has been infected. Get real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Wrong but who cares. You can look it up. CDC

World wide the death rate of those infected Is 2.2%. John’s Hopkins.

Saying there is an over 99% survival rate is like saying you survived the Afghan war just because you were alive when it happened, even though you never went near the place. You can’t recover from something you never had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

There is also our natural immune system, which has served well enough for millions of years. Given the survival rate for all ages combined is over 99%, I find I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Smallpox killed 100 million people in the last 100 years before it was eliminated by vaccines.  It had been around for at least 4000 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It isn't approved for people over 65 simply because few people over 65 were included in the trials."

Isn't the innocent naivite of experts so cute and amusing? Think of it - for a year now, and many months before the trials it was known that the elderly population that is at the highest risk and therefore one of the first groups targeted for priority vaccination. And that's exactly why of that group "few were included in the trials". Makes sense, right?

I'm not into conspiracies but anyone with a half of a brain can see something here and ask questions, to which there's no straight answers. In a democracy in the 21st century no one can comment with sense, why travel from Wuhan at the heat of new and dangerous epidemics, "is not a problem"; why critical medicine was not tested sufficiently with one of the main target groups. No one will give a straight answer to obvious questions, no expert and none of investigative journalists. It's just out there, somewhere.

And that is the chief problem far more serious imv than any issues with vaccines. What if it was only a test, for basic common sense, and for the democracy? And here we are. Far from encouraging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vaccine and drug regulators usually err on the side of caution - primum non nocere, first do no harm - and they get absolutely hammered if they cut any corners. A pandemic where new products are appearing at an unusually rapid rate is not what they are set up to deal with. However, the evidence on the efficacy of the AZ vaccine in seniors seems solid enough now and the Germans are happy to move ahead with it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, myata said:

Nope, not a straight answer so let's try again: why has not it be tested with sufficient statistical accuracy in one of the main expected recipient group? "ABC moving with" doesn't answer this question because everyone can evaluate the numbers but we don't necessarily know how and why ABC is making their decisions, so many factors can be at play.

And so why cannot the expert give straight and honest answers to simple questions? There's one obvious reason but I don't want to think it can be true, and believing blindly whatever comes isn't an answer either.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...