These Covid Polices Are Going Well .....

[lazybloke]

Without more information this is really tricky.

What condition has your child got for the nurse to give that judgement? What underlying condition does your child have which means you believe that they may be at more risk if they catch it? How do the two interact? What precautions are you taking? What does your child think? What else are they taking?

These are all rhetorical by the way, you don't have to answer them!

However.......... you make these decisions 00,000s a time when a child is growing up, essentially this one is no different at all. This just seems harder. If your child could have a potentially fatal reaction to the Covid vaccine, and this is top line because I don't know your child, then that risk is pretty much there with every other new medicine they may ever take, and my guess is you didn't hesitate with HPV, Meningitis and any of the dozens of other vaccines they will need and may need as they get older.

Also there are different types of vaccine remember, so if definitely allergic to A, there is B, C and soon D as options which may be clinically more suitable.

Good luck

Thanks for the good luck message.

The letter from NHS England doesn't explain why two jabs are recommended.

The contradictory warning from the vaccination service nurse was because of a history of clotting. There's a rare clotting issue with the covid jabs (VITT); so I'm guessing it's bad to have certain predispositions to clotting.

No other jabs have caused us such issues, so unless this clotting risk is specific to Covid then I hope we'll be okay.
I have a GP appt on Monday to discuss further.

 

[FishFright]

Or, since most (not all) of our fatalities had pre-existing conditions, they may have fewer people with pre-existing conditions.

My point is, comparing figures is somewhat pointless, unless they are compatible, the old "comparing apples with pears" from school days.

Is there any Covid data you consider worth comparing ? It does seem to be your stock answer.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

The contradictory warning from the vaccination service nurse was because of a history of clotting. There's a rare clotting issue with the covid jabs (VITT); so I'm guessing it's bad to have certain predispositions to clotting.

Definitely worth checking out this detail with someone who really understands the vaccine.

VITT has been associated with the AZ vaccine, and as a younger person your child would be getting either Pfizer or Moderna, so it may be a bit of over-cautiousness or possibly a misunderstanding on the nurses behalf.

"Because of the likely immune mechanism, there is no reason to believe that individuals with a past history of clots or certain thrombophilic conditions would be at increased risk of this very rare condition"

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Is there any Covid data you consider worth comparing ? It does seem to be your stock answer.

Well, actually not much no.

States have all different things, and as easy as it is to say that Boris messed it up and everyone has been murdered by him because he doesn't care is, actually you need to step back.

With all these differences in population, demographic, urban/rural, there is little point in comparing datasets. Even the death figures are difficult, lots of you say that Boris killed 150,000 people, but of course he could have measured the deaths how other countries did and the number would be much lower. For instance in Germany you only died of Covid if you were tested positive while you were alive, in the UK you died of Covid if a Dr thought you had symptoms at the time of death.

So, comparisons are great for knocking the governments response, but offer little education as to much else.

If I had a gravel bike, and you had a time trial bike, who could reverse a car faster in a swimming pool?

 

[newfhouse]

Would counting the percentage rise in excess deaths provide a reasonable comparison?

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Would counting the percentage rise in excess deaths provide a reasonable comparison?

Slightly better than meaningless, slightly.

It isn't that good though as it looks at excess deaths and not always by cause. So there may be more people dying during covid, and not with covid or even of covid.

International comparisons are really tricky, as are the implementation of population control measures. Lots of the population of the UK moaned about not going to the pub, in China whole towns were literally locked in their houses under 20 hour+ curfews!

 

[newfhouse]

Slightly better than meaningless, slightly.

It isn't that good though as it looks at excess deaths and not always by cause. So there may be more people dying during covid, and not with covid or even of covid.

Are people likely to have been dying unexpectedly in their thousands of something other than covid19 in the last eighteen months? What might that be?

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Are people likely to have been dying unexpectedly in their thousands of something other than covid19 in the last eighteen months? What might that be?

You see, what you have done is to put your conclusion first. You do know there are different ways of calculating excess deaths don't you?

 

[BoldonLad]

Is there any Covid data you consider worth comparing ? It does seem to be your stock answer.

Not that I have seen so far, but, I do admit to being being only a cycling pensioner, and not an expert.

 

[swansonj]

Slightly better than meaningless, slightly.

It isn't that good though as it looks at excess deaths and not always by cause. So there may be more people dying during covid, and not with covid or even of covid.

International comparisons are really tricky, as are the implementation of population control measures. Lots of the population of the UK moaned about not going to the pub, in China whole towns were literally locked in their houses under 20 hour+ curfews!

But I would argue that excess deaths - from immediate causes other than covid as well as immediate cause covid - is actually a very meaningful statistic to be looking at. The policies a nation could adopt in relation to covid had effects elsewhere and there will have been increased deaths from poor mental health and untreated other conditions, and reduced deaths from reduced exposure to other infections, and an effect whose direction I don't know from changed exercise patterns, and all sorts of other second-order effects. The government deserve to be judged on whether or not they got the policy right overall, and measuring excess all-causes deaths is a start at that. (It still doesn't include some other effects that are part of the overall picture, though, such as damaged education, damaged social development, etc)

 

[newfhouse]

You see, what you have done is to put your conclusion first. You do know there are different ways of calculating excess deaths don't you?

No, I don't see. I asked a question. Feel free to explain the flaws in my idea, I'm quite happy for it to be kicked around and improved.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Feel free to explain the flaws in my idea,

Quite simply then, there are different ways of calculating excess deaths. That is the flaw in your idea.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

It still doesn't include some other effects that are part of the overall picture, though, such as damaged education, damaged social development, etc

Would you hold the government responsible for those issues as well?

 

[Craig the cyclist]

No, I don't see. I asked a question. Feel free to explain the flaws in my idea, I'm quite happy for it to be kicked around and improved.

Then of course, we have to take off the total those lives saved through other causes too do we?

It is a way more complicated picture than it seems at first I am afraid.

 

[newfhouse]

Quite simply then, there are different ways of calculating excess deaths. That is the flaw in your idea.

Are you able to elaborate? In my naivety it would seem reasonable to count deaths over a five year period prior to the pandemic, calculate an average, and compare it with 2020 and 2021. Rough and ready but it should be fairly indicative. It also seems to me that it is easy to do for each country and would remove testing and reporting differences quite well.

Then of course, we have to take off the total those lives saved through other causes too do we?

I'm not sure what this means. My suggestion is that by comparing deaths in an average year (statisticians may wish to quibble about the definition and method of calculation) we can usefully see who did better or worse and seek to emulate best practice.

It is a way more complicated picture than it seems at first I am afraid.

Are you able to say more? It's ok to say that you don't know, too.