The reason prescription meds have so many side effects is because, during trials, you have to record any symptom from the subject. So if even if the client gets a headache from dehydration or a stomach ache from eating too much candy, that has to be part of the study. So what ends up happening is that you get a list of side effects that may or may not actually be caused by the medication. I'm sure I'm oversimplifying it as there are ways to root out statistical outliers from studies. But I assume that these vaccine rollout are basically doing the same thing. If someone has a heart attack 30 mins after getting the vaccine ,they will count that.
While it sucks because it means holding up the rollout process, I can see why they do this. Because everything isn't immediately clear. You wouldn't want to keep going and then find out in a year that your vaccine did have some effect on blood clotting.
This is why you don't put all your eggs on a new vaccine technology during a crisis and it's why patents and development information needs to be public. Rather than having to depend on a single company's vaccine there could be a replacement right behind it ready to go.
On the other hand, even if the clotting is caused by the vaccine, it might still be a better idea to just continue with it.
We already have the doses and not using them would result in 500k fewer people getting the vaccine per week. Of those people, some will get covid, and more than average will die from it, because the people currently getting the vaccine are the populations that are most at risk.
Continuing despite the risks might be the option that saves more lives in the end
The reason prescription meds have so many side effects is because, during trials, you have to record any symptom from the subject. So if even if the client gets a headache from dehydration or a stomach ache from eating too much candy, that has to be part of the study. So what ends up happening is that you get a list of side effects that may or may not actually be caused by the medication. I'm sure I'm oversimplifying it as there are ways to root out statistical outliers from studies. But I assume that these vaccine rollout are basically doing the same thing. If someone has a heart attack 30 mins after getting the vaccine ,they will count that.
While it sucks because it means holding up the rollout process, I can see why they do this. Because everything isn't immediately clear. You wouldn't want to keep going and then find out in a year that your vaccine did have some effect on blood clotting.
This is why you don't put all your eggs on a new vaccine technology during a crisis and it's why patents and development information needs to be public. Rather than having to depend on a single company's vaccine there could be a replacement right behind it ready to go.
On the other hand, even if the clotting is caused by the vaccine, it might still be a better idea to just continue with it.
We already have the doses and not using them would result in 500k fewer people getting the vaccine per week. Of those people, some will get covid, and more than average will die from it, because the people currently getting the vaccine are the populations that are most at risk.
Continuing despite the risks might be the option that saves more lives in the end
deleted by creator
deleted by creator