It’s an old question in the world of public health – whether all these numbers help people or overwhelm them. But more often than not it’s as much information about vaccines that relieves skepticism rather than exacerbating it. That comes down to how people view their risk profiles. “If you get Covid, you get Covid 100%, and if you don’t, it’s 0% Covid,” Olliaro said. “You have to consider each person’s perspective within the community.”
One of the the signs of a pandemic are that it affects different groups of people in different ways. In the U.S., poor people and people of color are more likely to get sick and die from Covid-19 than whites and rich people. Older people are more at risk than young people.
And like other medical interventions since, the vaccines themselves have risks as well as benefits. The J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines are among the most unique however severe blood clots, which led to a cessation of vaccine use at J&J in the U.S. last month. People with severe allergies may be more likely to suffer anaphylactic shock from two -dose mRNA -based vaccines.
All of these complications create a fog around the decision-making space, making risk-benefit calculations more complicated for some people — or creating a void for people to find. themselves at low risk from Covid-19, or who are more concerned about the side effects than they should be, to think it’s OK not to be vaccinated. “Most people don’t sit there with numbers worried about the decimal point, thinking,‘ I’ll weigh the risk-benefit ratio, ’” said Alexandra Freeman, executive director of the Winton Center for Risk & Evidence Communication at the University of Cambridge. But just because most people don’t do math doesn’t mean they don’t address the problem. As Freeman said, “a risk is more of a topic.”
So, OK, let’s talk about blood transfusions. Freeman’s team has put together a set of infographics that weave some of these elements into a useful tapestry. Instead of comparing the risk of getting Covid to the risk of being vaccinated-an apple-to-orange problem-they publish instead DOCUMENTS Comparing the potential blood risk of the AstraZeneca vaccine to its actual benefit, the number of intensive care unit admissions associated with Covid was restricted to its use. And then they release that by age group and risk of exposure. (In real life, the risk of exposure varies by country and even by professions… and the group considers 80% effectiveness for the vaccine across the board, a necessary simplification… and they use a fixed time to 16 weeks, because all of these risks shift over time as infection rates gradually decrease.Statistics!)
Of the 100,000 people at low risk of exposure, they calculated, the AstraZeneca vaccine could be expected to cause 1.1 people to draw blood and avoid 0.8 admission to the ICU. If you’re just a sought -after class of people, that seems like a reason to avoid the AstraZeneca vaccine – and in fact, European regulators have limited its use. Good luck with all the other vaccines.
Among other things, among people who for some reason are at high risk of exposure – many infections have spread in their province, let’s say – at 60 to 69 years of age, the vaccine can cause only 0.2 cases of blood clots (which as a whole affect young people) but will keep 127.7 people in the ICU. This makes a serious case. In most Winton Center groupings, the risk of the AstraZeneca vaccine will be paid for.
However, however, the The US and Europe have given the power to test these vaccines to the companies that make them. Each uses slightly different protocols and different populations. A multi-arm study of all of them may have ironed out these statistical kinks. The WHO really is Office has partnered such a test in 2020; there seems to be nothing from it.