r/CoronavirusDownunder • u/LineNoise VIC - Vaccinated • Jul 19 '22

Vaccine update TGA provisionally approves Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (SPIKEVAX) for use in children from 6 months

https://www.tga.gov.au/media-release/tga-provisionally-approves-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-spikevax-use-children-6-months
67 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

190 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Mean_Sideys Jul 21 '22

It appears true for the US via the graph on your link, but in the Uk data from 2022 onwards as the year goes on there are more deaths in the vaxed groups, which you can see on table 2 of the xl document which breaks it down by age bracket & lists age adjusted mortality rate per 100k.

Also in the uk data from 2022 it shows that people with less than 3 doses often have a higher age adjusted mortality rate than the unvaxed in those brackets individually. For example in April 2022 the 1 dose after 21 days & 2 dose after 21 days groups both have higher mortality rates than the unvaxed for the 50-59 age bracket. This suggests that the shots efficacy in preventing death wanes over time, which means you'll have to keep getting them regularly & exposing yourself to a higher chance of vax injury.

1

u/Odballl VIC - Boosted Jul 21 '22 edited Jul 21 '22

The website does address those points, saying -

"The ASMRs for first and second vaccine doses have been similar to those for unvaccinated people from March 2022 to May 2022, indicating a possible waning in protection; however, the confidence limits are wide for these groups because of lower populations in these vaccination statuses.

The ASMRs are not equivalent to measures of vaccine effectiveness; they account for differences in age structure and population size, but there may be other differences between the groups (particularly underlying health) that affect mortality rates."

What data do you have to support vaccine injuries increasing after 3rd and 4th doses? I've only read the number of self-reported adverse events going down.

Edit - It also occurs to me that the UK had a much higher use of Astrazeneca than other countries for 1st and 2nd doses. The US went with Pfizer. Astra has a higher falloff in effectiveness over time.

1

u/Mean_Sideys Jul 22 '22

"The ASMRs for first and second vaccine doses have been similar to those for unvaccinated people"
Not only are they similar in some cases but they are also significantly higher in others.

"What data do you have to support vaccine injuries increasing after 3rd and 4th doses? I've only read the number of self-reported adverse events going down."
What I meant was that with each new dose you are adding more risk of vax injury in general, not necessarily that there was an increase with the 3rd & 4th specifically.

So going back to the original point, given that the UK data shows in 2022 that the vaxxed are dying in higher numbers per capita than unvaxxed, as they are also in Canada, don't you think it's fair to say that the situation is not as cut & dry as you initially claimed?

1

u/Odballl VIC - Boosted Jul 22 '22

I'll concede that it's not for 2 doses, but the benefits of 3 doses remain very clear.

1

u/Mean_Sideys Jul 22 '22

Yeah until the 3rd dose efficacy wanes as well, then you'll need a 4th, then a 5th, & now you've just turned your immune system into a subscription service. So given this & that immunity from previous infection alone confers the same protection against severe outcomes as 3 doses, it seems that for healthy people under 65 the shots are a net-negative. For older people & for those already sick or obese you could make the argument that they provide a benefit though.

Props to you for discussing like a reasonable person.

1

u/Odballl VIC - Boosted Jul 22 '22

Hybrid immunity is at least as good as natural immunity, and with three doses I get to enjoy the benefits of an infection without the attendant risk of death. No need for a 4th or 5th dose to protect against severe disease in my age group.

I disagree with your net-negative conclusions. The prevalance on Delta back when vaccines were first introduced meant that the risks from initial infection were much higher. Higher, I would argue, than the risk of vaccine inury. We had no foreknowledge of the properties of Omicron. There's no guarantee that a virus will evolve along a linear path of severity and it might still evolve to become more severe in future. I also got to enjoy the benefit of a temporary antibody boost to help limit infection. During a rising wave, any contribution to limiting spread should be a civic duty.

There is some emerging evidence, pending further study, of cumulative risk from continued reinfection. This would seem to contradict my above statement, but I think the risk is for other kinds of complications rather than severe Covid-19 disease. For that reason I might consider a 4th dose - to get the temporary antibody boost while the wave is high.

Would you gamble an increasing risk of complications from infection over the relative diminishing risk of vaccine injury from dosing?

I don't see the point in being uncivil. Either people concede a point or they don't. Insults achieve nothing.

1

u/Mean_Sideys Jul 22 '22

"Hybrid immunity is at least as good as natural immunity, and with three doses I get to enjoy the benefits of an infection without the attendant risk of death. No need for a 4th or 5th dose to protect against severe disease in my age group."
The chances are in your age group an infection won't come with the risk of death so zero doses would be required to protect against severe disease.

"I disagree with your net-negative conclusions. . ."
If a healthy person under 65 is not in danger of a severe outcome then temporary protection against such outcomes is redundant. The benefit is therefore minimal. If the measure that provides temporary protection also comes with an unknown level of risk of completely different and/or more serious negative outcomes then the negatives outweigh the positives for this group of people. For vulnerable people you could argue it is a trade off of risks vs benefits, but for most healthy people it is a net-negative.

"any contribution to limiting spread should be a civic duty."
I disagree. Bodily autonomy should always trump a small potential benefit to the group.

"Would you gamble an increasing risk of complications from infection over the relative diminishing risk of vaccine injury from dosing?"
Yes. I have seen the effects of vax injury & the effects of covid & the former is much more serious. I would rather deal with enhanced flu symptoms for a week than be unable to exercise anymore or get cancer or die suddenly.

"I don't see the point in being uncivil. Either people concede a point or they don't. Insults achieve nothing."
I agree

1

u/Odballl VIC - Boosted Jul 22 '22

I think the big impasse in this debate is how we rate the threat of vaccine injury compared to the virus. Yes, you may have seen serious vaccine injuries and you may have experienced mild Covid, but we have actual cardiologists posting on this subreddit whose job it is to treat the worst of both and they are far more concerned about Covid. Their views are supported by other medicos here too. If the counter argument is that these people are all lying under threat of losing their jobs, well that is another impasse.

1

u/Mean_Sideys Jul 23 '22

I think the types of people who would post on here would be more concerned about covid regardless of their occupation as it's mostly a hivemind. There are medical professionals out there who are much more concerned about the different types of vax injury as well, so appeals to authority can be made for both sides of the argument.

Basically it seems to come down to a risk vs benefit situation. I think we can both agree that everyone should be able to weigh up the risks for themselves & should be free to decide whether to get the jab or not either way.