Claim: adverse reactions in Covid vaccine trials are not being recorded

Rory

Senior Member.
They should have said "safe enough for the purpose"

Okay, so if they'd said that in the beginning and then later said "it's still safe enough for purpose even though we've now identified a few additional rare but potentially serious side effects" is that not the same as saying: "it's not quite as safe as we initially thought"?

@Rory i'm sentencing you to a year in jail (and not because you said the grass is green)

Guilty! :D
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
Okay, so if they'd said that in the beginning and then later said "it's still safe enough for purpose even though we've now identified a few additional rare but potentially serious side effects" is that not the same as saying: "it's not quite as safe as we initially thought"?
Sure. But the pragmatics of marketing to a diverse audience IMO outweigh any need to satisfy a few highly experienced and pedantic nit-pickers on an Internet Forum. I would allow them a bit of"slack" out there in the real world.
And - so far - she hasn't charged me with excessive pedantry nor stating the bleeding obvious.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
we could just ask this guy if he is still giving astra zeneca boosters to his teenage/young adult children or grand children. Then we would know if his definition of safe has changed.

Article:
"We've had absolute confidence in the efficacy of the vaccine, but I think seeing this data now, I hope gives others increased confidence that this is a very effective and safe vaccine," said Menelas Pangalos, AstraZeneca's executive vice president of biopharmaceuticals research and development.
 

econ41

Senior Member
we could just ask this guy if he is still giving astra zeneca boosters
Side line issue but yesterday my wife booked both of us in for "boosters" mid January. We are both AZ recipients - got the vax around the time of the breaking news of the blood clots issue. I haven't a clue as to the AU Federal Health agency's position on AZ nor have either of us asked about which vax we will get.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Side line issue but yesterday my wife booked both of us in for "boosters" mid January. We are both AZ recipients - got the vax around the time of the breaking news of the blood clots issue. I haven't a clue as to the AU Federal Health agency's position on AZ nor have either of us asked about which vax we will get.
see? you've got more in common with the vaccine holdouts than you'd like to think.. you all have that "eh. it won't happen to me" mentality :)
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Article:
"We've had absolute confidence in the efficacy of the vaccine, but I think seeing this data now, I hope gives others increased confidence that this is a very effective and safe vaccine," said Menelas Pangalos, AstraZeneca's executive vice president of biopharmaceuticals research and development.
From the same article, we find yet another definition of safe:
Interim results on the 32,000-person trial showed the vaccine met Food and Drug Administration guidelines for safety and effectiveness.
Content from External Source
"safe" := "meets FDA safety guidelines".

The FDA never approved it, and I don't know why.
But the Health Authorities in Great Britain did, on December 30th, 2020, and that hasn't been revoked, so they thought it was safe then, and is safe now.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
But the Health Authorities in Great Britain did, on December 30th, 2020, and that hasn't been revoked, so they thought it was safe then, and is safe now.

Nobody's arguing that. What you're arguing is that AstraZeneca feels its level of safety is exactly what it always was even after new information about its potentially lethal side effects has come to light.
 

econ41

Senior Member
see? you've got more in common with the vaccine holdouts than you'd like to think.. you all have that "eh. it won't happen to me" mentality :)
I'll take that as a joke tho given the confusion in this thread that could be a risky choice. The possibly less than fully professional part of my reasoning is that - given the overall low level of risk of catching COVID in AU and even lower where I am in a rural area - the AZ blood clots issue is more significant now than it was 6 months ago when I had no priority access to alternate vaccines. Then, the counterside - which I won't even try to quantify - but now that blood clots is known I understand that both prophylactic and curative measures are improved. And, if I'm wrong it might be best if you leave me in my ignorance. I'll live with it and prove your point. Maybe I'm a closet anti-vaxer?????

Actually when the risks are in the order of one in several million anyone objecting should never cross a trafficked street.
 
Last edited:

FatPhil

Senior Member.
If we go with the top definition from the top dictionary (the OED) safe is defined as: "Free from hurt or damage; unharmed."

But if we scroll down we get the definition "11. Secured, kept in custody; unable to escape.", and what's that got to do with the price of eggs in China? It's just as relevant as definition 1. Namely not at all. The vaccines are evidently not safe - none are - they will be attacked and broken down by the body they are injected into. That's quite a lot of damage, it's destruction.

The usage in question is neither 1 nor 11 but 8:
8.
a. Presenting no risk of physical harm; posing no threat, not dangerous.
...
b. Of a course of action, plan, etc.: not attended by risk of failure; without disadvantages, prudent.
Content from External Source
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
What you're arguing is
What I am arguing is indeed that the safety of the AZ vaccine never changed (because neither the vaccine nor the dosage or the manufacturing process changed), we simply know more about what that level of safety is than we did initially.

Even with the new knowledge, calling the vaccine "safe" is still as justified today as it was in December, both by comparing it to a placebo therapy, and by applying legal standards.

No vaccine was ever "safe" by the "no risk of physical harm" standard. (It has that in common with peanut butter sandwiches.)
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
I'll take that as a joke tho given the confusion in this thread that could be a risky choice. The possibly less than fully professional part of my reasoning is that - given the overall low level of risk of catching COVID in AU and even lower where I am in a rural area - the AZ blood clots issue is more significant now than it was 6 months ago when I had no priority access to alternate vaccines. Then, the counterside - which I won't even try to quantify - but now that blood clots is known I understand that both prophylactic and curative measures are improved. And, if I'm wrong it might be best if you leave me in my ignorance. I'll live with it and prove your point. Maybe I'm a closet anti-vaxer?????

Actually when the risks are in the order of one in several million anyone objecting should never cross a trafficked street.

ok. now you're getting sentenced for pedantry :)
 

Rory

Senior Member.
What I am arguing is indeed that the safety of the AZ vaccine never changed, we simply know more about what that level of safety is than we did initially.

Well then, that sounds the same as what I said in the beginning.

Cool. :)
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Go on then @Mendel, at the risk of having my sentence increased by Judge Deirdre please explain how:

is different from:
Your statement suggests that AZ said something that is no longer true, my statement does not.
As far as I know, everything AZ said (with one of my interpretations of "safe", either 1) compared to placebo, or 2) per government regulations) is still true.
If you'd like me to accept that AZ said "no serious side effects" and not merely "no evidence of SAEs", please point out a quote that proves this point.
That quote is from Monday, and that's where we still are.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Gotcha. So we're basically splitting hairs and arguing over something completely inconsequential. Well at least I'm finally clear on that. :)
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Gotcha. So we're basically splitting hairs and arguing over something completely inconsequential. Well at least I'm finally clear on that. :)
Well, one is accusing AZ of making false claims, and the other is not; to me, that's a consequence of honor and integrity.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Gotcha. So we're basically splitting hairs and arguing over something completely inconsequential. Well at least I'm finally clear on that. :)
Yes. And some posts are still not defining which definition of "safe" is being discussed. It inherently requires a probability-based definition in the style of "safe enough".
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Conclusion: AZD1222 was safe, with low incidences of serious and medically attended adverse events and adverse events of special interest; the incidences were similar to those observed in the placebo group.
Yes. And some posts are still not defining which definition of "safe" is being discussed. It inherently requires a probability-based definition in the style of "safe enough".
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Well, one is accusing AZ of making false claims, and the other is not; to me, that's a consequence of honor and integrity.

That sounds like you're saying: a) you have honour and integrity; b) you have more honour and integrity than me; and c) because you have honour and integrity the things you say are bound to be accurate.

Is that what you're saying?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
That sounds like you're saying: a) you have honour and integrity; b) you have more honour and integrity than me; and c) because you have honour and integrity the things you say are bound to be accurate.

Is that what you're saying?

is "AZ" like your nickname or something?
 
Top