Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Vaccine.. another sad story

365 replies

BountyIsUnderrated · 28/06/2021 14:26

I've just read the below article, one little boy left without a mother and the poor father left alone to raise him.

There have been so many stories about this happening I don't know what to feel anymore.. I've been vaccinated myself but I can see why people are scared of the AZ.

It's rare yes but I don't think that would be very reassuring if someone I loved died... Is this the cost of protecting against covid?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9732583/Mother-three-47-dies-AstraZeneca-Covid-jab-caused-blood-clots-brain.html

OP posts:
Notthemessiah · 28/06/2021 22:12

@ZednotZee

www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/htm

An interesting study on the safety of covid vaccines.

There is a link at the top of that article saying that the journal itself wants people to be aware it has concerns over it, just fyi.
ollyollyoxenfree · 28/06/2021 22:30

@ZednotZee

www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/htm

An interesting study on the safety of covid vaccines.

nope, a study that has attracted widespread criticism due to it's poor methodology and biased reported. Note there isn't a single epidemiologists, clinician or statistician on the author list.

This a good summary of it's (many!) issues from academic twitter:

twitter.com/GidMK/status/1409406534602215424

ZednotZee · 28/06/2021 22:30

Yes I am aware of the controversy.

But until it is fully discredited/retracted it remains interesting.

ollyollyoxenfree · 28/06/2021 22:33

as he states...

Using reporting systems like this is a common anti-vaccine trope. We KNOW that many of the events in the reporting system ARE NOT LINKED TO VACCINATION because we investigate them carefully
@GidMK

Because of this, we have two awful, useless numbers being compared to each other. The true rate of deaths CAUSED by vaccines is 100sx lower than this paper calculates, and the number of deaths PREVENTED is 100sx higher

His twitter peer review has been retweeted 100s of time by credible scientists who are shocked it was even accepted for publication in the first place

ollyollyoxenfree · 28/06/2021 22:34

@ZednotZee

Yes I am aware of the controversy.

But until it is fully discredited/retracted it remains interesting.

Nope it's not controversial, it's complete bullshit

The methods make no sense, even an undergraduate with a basic understanding of statistics can see the issues in the paper, and how it's being used to promote anti-vax messaging

ZednotZee · 28/06/2021 22:37

He also states that in the absence of a vaccine we would all be infected with covid eventually.

That's quite a stretch of a conclusion by any measure. Not everybody will be genetically susceptible to covid infection. It doesn't appear to be a wholly indiscriminate virus.

That is not to say that the study isn't biased, I'd simply like for somebody other than a random man with a PhD on twitter to verify that fact.

youshouldbeplotting · 28/06/2021 22:37

even an undergraduate with a basic understanding of statistics can see the issues in the paper, and how it's being used to promote anti-vax messaging

Which is exactly how ZednotZee is now using it - they started a thread on it as well as posting the link here.

Notthemessiah · 28/06/2021 22:38

@ZednotZee

Yes I am aware of the controversy.

But until it is fully discredited/retracted it remains interesting.

I'm not sure. That Twitter thread is fairly damning and if it's true that two members of the board of that journal have resigned simply because it was published, then that's not exactly a good sign.
ZednotZee · 28/06/2021 22:39

Nope it's not controversial, it's complete bullshit

Well I certainly hope that it is and will be following its presumed retraction with interest.

ollyollyoxenfree · 28/06/2021 22:39

@ZednotZee

He also states that in the absence of a vaccine we would all be infected with covid eventually.

That's quite a stretch of a conclusion by any measure. Not everybody will be genetically susceptible to covid infection. It doesn't appear to be a wholly indiscriminate virus.

That is not to say that the study isn't biased, I'd simply like for somebody other than a random man with a PhD on twitter to verify that fact.

Hundreds of scientists have retweeted his thread, adding their comments, just take a look a twitter. It's not just a single "random man with a phd" (although he is a very respected epidemiologist at any rate)

You have a single paper authored by three non-experts, compared to 100s of experts carefully explaining the flaws in the methods and why it is classic anti-vax crap

ZednotZee · 28/06/2021 22:41

@youshouldbeplotting

I'm afraid you are mistaken.

ZednotZee · 28/06/2021 22:42

@ollyollyoxenfree

Then it will necessarily be retracted, surely?

ollyollyoxenfree · 28/06/2021 22:44

Yes, it will be retracted.

If you think it should it be discredited, why have you started a thread on it and called it "interesting"? @ZednotZee

It's just spreading more anti-vax fear and misinformation

Walkaround · 28/06/2021 22:46

As @ZednotZee seems intent on further publicising and defending an already discredited article, I will repost the link I posted on Zed’s other thread, summarising the general reputation of the organisation which saw fit to publish it in the first place.

www.universityaffairs.ca/features/feature-article/beware-academics-getting-reeled-scam-journals/

“ The publisher, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), churns out nearly 160 scholarly journals a year, many of them of mediocre quality, according to Jeffrey Beall, an associate professor and librarian at the University of Colorado Denver, and one of the world’s leading experts on what he calls “predatory” open access publishing. Each week, MDPI and other questionable publishers hound Dr. Lee by email, asking her to review submissions that she considers shoddy. Mr. Beall has called this particular environmental publication a “pretend journal.” So when Dr. Lee next saw the biology student, she alerted her to the potential problems and redirected her to more credible scholarly publications, such as FACETS, a Canadian open access journal.

Predatory and mediocre journals are based on the model of open access publishing in which authors pay fees to have their work published online. However, unlike legitimate journals, they bombard academics with spam emails, accept almost all submissions and overstate the rigour of their peer-review processes. They also often conveniently neglect to mention publication fees until late in the process.

In other cases, authors are complicit in the scam, publishing numerous articles in these questionable journals to earn quick and easy academic credit at their institutions. “There are some predatory journals that specialize in that, charging only $200 or $300 for publication,” says Mr. Beall. This compares to fees of $1,500 or more for most of the large, reputable open access publishers. “If you need academic credit, the market provides a solution,” he says, adding: “Universities are particularly susceptible to these ethical breaches and predatory practices.”

youshouldbeplotting · 28/06/2021 22:47

[quote ZednotZee]@youshouldbeplotting

I'm afraid you are mistaken.[/quote]
So was it a case of "oh look here is a dodgy anti-vax study. Gee. I sure hope it isn't true, but I'll post it here anyway and start a thread on it while I am at it?" Why woud you do that? Hmm

ZednotZee · 28/06/2021 22:48

I find it interesting that a study which draws such conclusions was accepted for publication.

Interesting is neutral term, is it not?

And its better to discuss these things I would have thought.

ZednotZee · 28/06/2021 22:50

@youshouldbeplotting

Why would I not?

Why shouldn't it be discussed?
Are there only sanctioned topics allowed on here?because I must have missed that announcement.

If its horse shit which is easily discredited surely its better to acknowledge that?

ollyollyoxenfree · 28/06/2021 22:51

@ZednotZee

I find it interesting that a study which draws such conclusions was accepted for publication.

Interesting is neutral term, is it not?

And its better to discuss these things I would have thought.

I think you need to read this article and gain some understanding of the issues of publication in academia

www.the-scientist.com/critic-at-large/opinion-using-pokmon-to-detect-scientific-misinformation-68098

youshouldbeplotting · 28/06/2021 22:53

OK, if you say so, ZednotZee.

ollyollyoxenfree · 28/06/2021 22:53

[quote ZednotZee]@youshouldbeplotting

Why would I not?

Why shouldn't it be discussed?
Are there only sanctioned topics allowed on here?because I must have missed that announcement.

If its horse shit which is easily discredited surely its better to acknowledge that?[/quote]
of course it should be discussed but that's not what you're doing

you've posted it in an oh shucks, look at this interesting study, vaccines are going to kill everyone... oh no! fashion. In the hope that noone with a basic understanding of statistics would happen upon the thread.

A very cursory internet search would've thrown up some of the issues with paper and why it is so problematic

ZednotZee · 28/06/2021 22:59

@ollyollyoxenfree

you've posted it in an oh shucks, look at this interesting study, vaccines are going to kill everyone... oh no! fashion. In the hope that noone with a basic understanding of statistics would happen upon the thread.

Your fallacy of assumption is showing here.

I posted for discussion. I had hoped that others who had seen this would show up and discuss it, which they have.

And I will continue to follow this studies future or lack thereof with interest.

Its really not problematic.

Torvean · 28/06/2021 22:59

[quote BountyIsUnderrated]I've just read the below article, one little boy left without a mother and the poor father left alone to raise him.

There have been so many stories about this happening I don't know what to feel anymore.. I've been vaccinated myself but I can see why people are scared of the AZ.

It's rare yes but I don't think that would be very reassuring if someone I loved died... Is this the cost of protecting against covid?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9732583/Mother-three-47-dies-AstraZeneca-Covid-jab-caused-blood-clots-brain.html[/quote]
Sadly ppl die from rare effects of many things. Most you won't have heard of , and you may have even had the same treatment with no issue.

It is of course a tragedy for this womans family.
However we are also not just disregarding lives to get rid of Covid.

Silverparting · 28/06/2021 23:09

I'm female, 47, two kids, so this story feels very close to home.

I live in a high risk area and know so many who've had Covid.

My choice felt limited, AZ or nothing, so I feel it was a rock and a hard place.

IncessantNameChanger · 28/06/2021 23:09

I was in hospital with suspected stroke after my first jab. It wasnt a stroke and my CT and bloods was fine. Nothing to do with the vaccine in the end.

But I strongly feel that even if your only a one in million statistic, it's no comfort on a personal level.

I had my second dose and it was fine. I'm pro vax but these things need to be shared with the public. Who really wants it to be hushed up or covered up and lied about.

Better to be told you have more chance of winning the lottery or whatever than getting a serious complication than a bear faced lie surely

Notthemessiah · 28/06/2021 23:23

@IncessantNameChanger

I was in hospital with suspected stroke after my first jab. It wasnt a stroke and my CT and bloods was fine. Nothing to do with the vaccine in the end.

But I strongly feel that even if your only a one in million statistic, it's no comfort on a personal level.

I had my second dose and it was fine. I'm pro vax but these things need to be shared with the public. Who really wants it to be hushed up or covered up and lied about.

Better to be told you have more chance of winning the lottery or whatever than getting a serious complication than a bear faced lie surely

Absolutely, but I'm not sure that emotive articles in the daily mail are the way to do it. We react far more personally to things like this when really we should be doing our best to take the emotion out of it and only look at the cold hard facts.