UK approves Pfizer jab for use in 12-15-year-olds
Discussion
Terminator X said:
Lol I just quoted your linked article, that is exactly what it says
"estimate not actual data"
"self reporting long Covid"
"These results should be interpreted with caution"
Facts from your article but yeah denier
TX.
Of course it’s an estimate. So is pretty much every stat the world over. Some is a complete guess, some is very accurate but still an estimate as not every single instance of something can be covered. That’s how numbers like this work. They are estimating the numbers impacted by long Covid and getting a baseline to work from. Covid quite a new thing and we’re all still learning about it and the after effects. Asking people how they feel and side effects is a key part of the learning process. "estimate not actual data"
"self reporting long Covid"
"These results should be interpreted with caution"
Facts from your article but yeah denier
TX.
Edited by Terminator X on Monday 7th June 17:46
You know how you lot bang on about the vaccine and how it’s bad, well the numbers you quote are an estimate. The guesswork you’re all doing about what you think might hope. Is just that. A guess. And potential side effects are all about what people report too, not what science always finds.
johnboy1975 said:
Excellent, thanks very much 
That's surely not saying 150 abortions and 35 normal pregnancies?? Ill go back and have a look at the link.
Spontaneous abortion is medical speak for a miscarriage. So yes it’s saying there are 150 recorded/reported miscarriages. This would need to be compared against the natural background rate and any for miscarriages and any additional risk factors e.g. excessive stress etc. That's surely not saying 150 abortions and 35 normal pregnancies?? Ill go back and have a look at the link.
Only if the reports are higher than the expected background rate would this indicate a potential problem. I don’t know what the expected background rate is so can’t comment on that.
b0rk said:
johnboy1975 said:
Excellent, thanks very much
That's surely not saying 150 abortions and 35 normal pregnancies?? Ill go back and have a look at the link.
Spontaneous abortion is medical speak for a miscarriage. So yes it’s saying there are 150 recorded/reported miscarriages. This would need to be compared against the natural background rate and any for miscarriages and any additional risk factors e.g. excessive stress etc. That's surely not saying 150 abortions and 35 normal pregnancies?? Ill go back and have a look at the link.
Only if the reports are higher than the expected background rate would this indicate a potential problem. I don’t know what the expected background rate is so can’t comment on that.
This is probably a case of a little information being a dangerous thing. And in my hands, it's bloody deadly
But on the face of it, its concerning
Edit
Ah - just seen the dataset from the reports (I misunderstood and thought it was a survey of 300 pregnant women or whatever. Incidentally, they should do this IMO)
So if you didnt have a reaction, you wouldn't need to report it, so that's skewing the figures somewhat?
Edited by johnboy1975 on Monday 7th June 20:17
Edited by johnboy1975 on Monday 7th June 20:19
johnboy1975 said:
Well - taking the 307 events as pregnancies (is that right, or can you have multiple events per pregnancy? Even so, that would decrease the number of pregnancies and thus increase the %age of miscarriages) - that gives a near 50% hit rate for miscarriage, as opposed to the background rate of around 1 in 5 or 20% (thanks google). The 35 healthy babies vs 150 miscarriages is even more problematic (on the face of it). Not checked the original link yet, I'll do that now
This is probably a case of a little information being a dangerous thing. And in my hands, it's bloody deadly
But on the face of it, its concerning
Edit
Ah - just seen the dataset from the reports (I misunderstood and thought it was a survey of 300 pregnant women or whatever. Incidentally, they should do this IMO)
So if you didnt have a reaction, you wouldn't need to report it, so that's skewing the figures somewhat?
Yes no reaction no report so you can't estimate the probably from the dataset as presented neither can you try to understand if the dataset is biased or unbiased. The biasing might for example be an over prevalence of reports from people with underlying conditions (risks) that have material affect on the likelihood of miscarriage. If one report lists multiple events these are counted separately as events so to know the number people you need to know the number cases not events. Total events will be more than total cases (people).This is probably a case of a little information being a dangerous thing. And in my hands, it's bloody deadly
But on the face of it, its concerning
Edit
Ah - just seen the dataset from the reports (I misunderstood and thought it was a survey of 300 pregnant women or whatever. Incidentally, they should do this IMO)
So if you didnt have a reaction, you wouldn't need to report it, so that's skewing the figures somewhat?
Edited by johnboy1975 on Monday 7th June 20:17
Edited by johnboy1975 on Monday 7th June 20:19
These are yellowcard (adverse drug reactions) reports, they can be submitted by medical professionals and the public. The MHRA doesn't publicly publish the split between healthcare professional reports and public reports.
However the EMA do list such a split and it's notable that the majority of all reported covid vaccine ADR's in the EU are from the public, https://www.adrreports.eu/en/search_subst.html Scroll down the "c" group to find the covid vaccines. This is anything highlights how good a job vaccinators and health authorities have done in publicising where to report suspected problems. I wouldn't be shocked if MHRA reports are similar.
In comparison for something like the flu jab its the other way round and 70% reports are from healthcare professionals. Yes btw there are miscarriages reported for the flu jab in the 6? years the current egg based version made by Sanofi has been in use.
At some point and I'd guess next year at the earliest one of the vaccine developers will present data from a human pregnancy and neonatal study, probably in conjunction with trying to attain full marketing authorisation in place of the EUA.
unident said:
Someone wanted evidence. I provided evidence. Now you want to deny the evidence. Oh look a denier.
Here is some more evidence,https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.06...
23,000 people have long covid coded on their primary care record out of 58million so 0.04%. So that is to say roughly 0.04% of the population have bothered to seek medical attention from your usual point of call of your GP.
Doesn’t quite correlate with the ONS self reported survey does it
Goose4 said:
unident said:
Someone wanted evidence. I provided evidence. Now you want to deny the evidence. Oh look a denier.
Here is some more evidence,https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.06...
23,000 people have long covid coded on their primary care record out of 58million so 0.04%. So that is to say roughly 0.04% of the population have bothered to seek medical attention from your usual point of call of your GP.
Doesn’t quite correlate with the ONS self reported survey does it
conclusion said:
Long COVID coding in primary care is low compared with early reports of long COVID prevalence. This may reflect under-coding, sub-optimal communication of clinical terms, under-diagnosis, a true low prevalence of long COVID diagnosed by clinicians, or a combination of factors.
A quarter of health bodies didn't even bother using the ICD code. Goose4 said:
unident said:
Someone wanted evidence. I provided evidence. Now you want to deny the evidence. Oh look a denier.
Here is some more evidence,https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.06...
23,000 people have long covid coded on their primary care record out of 58million so 0.04%. So that is to say roughly 0.04% of the population have bothered to seek medical attention from your usual point of call of your GP.
Doesn’t quite correlate with the ONS self reported survey does it
Who said anything about absolute truth just this is from your primary care record. You know the one the GP updates if you phone up and have a telephone conversation or face to face. The one where the two main GP systems both autocomplete text fields and add in clinical codes. All I’m saying is perhaps long covid isn’t such an issue if quite clearly people aren’t seeking medical attention (if they were and if this was their usual first port of call - the GP then this rate would more close mirror the self reported survey from the ONS).
Goose4 said:
Who said anything about absolute truth just this is from your primary care record. You know the one the GP updates if you phone up and have a telephone conversation or face to face. The one where the two main GP systems both autocomplete text fields and add in clinical codes. All I’m saying is perhaps long covid isn’t such an issue if quite clearly people aren’t seeking medical attention (if they were and if this was their usual first port of call - the GP then this rate would more close mirror the self reported survey from the ONS).
See above under “conclusion said”Goose4 said:
Sure it’s likely to be an underestimate but I would guarantee it’s closer to the truth than a self reported ons survey. You don’t rely on self reported ONS surveys for cancer diagnosis or any other clinical issue do you
No because unsurprisingly there are tried and tested methods for reporting cancer. This Covid thing is quite new if you hadn’t noticed and focus has been on dealing with other aspects of it until quite recently. unident said:
Goose4 said:
Sure it’s likely to be an underestimate but I would guarantee it’s closer to the truth than a self reported ons survey. You don’t rely on self reported ONS surveys for cancer diagnosis or any other clinical issue do you
No because unsurprisingly there are tried and tested methods for reporting cancer. This Covid thing is quite new if you hadn’t noticed and focus has been on dealing with other aspects of it until quite recently. bmwmike said:
unident said:
Goose4 said:
Sure it’s likely to be an underestimate but I would guarantee it’s closer to the truth than a self reported ons survey. You don’t rely on self reported ONS surveys for cancer diagnosis or any other clinical issue do you
No because unsurprisingly there are tried and tested methods for reporting cancer. This Covid thing is quite new if you hadn’t noticed and focus has been on dealing with other aspects of it until quite recently. “Long Covid doesn’t exist. It’s just other things that have always existed coincidentally happening to people who have had Covid”
unident said:
bmwmike said:
unident said:
Goose4 said:
Sure it’s likely to be an underestimate but I would guarantee it’s closer to the truth than a self reported ons survey. You don’t rely on self reported ONS surveys for cancer diagnosis or any other clinical issue do you
No because unsurprisingly there are tried and tested methods for reporting cancer. This Covid thing is quite new if you hadn’t noticed and focus has been on dealing with other aspects of it until quite recently. “Long Covid doesn’t exist. It’s just other things that have always existed coincidentally happening to people who have had Covid”
soofsayer said:
unident said:
bmwmike said:
unident said:
Goose4 said:
Sure it’s likely to be an underestimate but I would guarantee it’s closer to the truth than a self reported ons survey. You don’t rely on self reported ONS surveys for cancer diagnosis or any other clinical issue do you
No because unsurprisingly there are tried and tested methods for reporting cancer. This Covid thing is quite new if you hadn’t noticed and focus has been on dealing with other aspects of it until quite recently. “Long Covid doesn’t exist. It’s just other things that have always existed coincidentally happening to people who have had Covid”
unident said:
bmwmike said:
unident said:
Goose4 said:
Sure it’s likely to be an underestimate but I would guarantee it’s closer to the truth than a self reported ons survey. You don’t rely on self reported ONS surveys for cancer diagnosis or any other clinical issue do you
No because unsurprisingly there are tried and tested methods for reporting cancer. This Covid thing is quite new if you hadn’t noticed and focus has been on dealing with other aspects of it until quite recently. “Long Covid doesn’t exist. It’s just other things that have always existed coincidentally happening to people who have had Covid”
unident said:
No because unsurprisingly there are tried and tested methods for reporting cancer. This Covid thing is quite new if you hadn’t noticed and focus has been on dealing with other aspects of it until quite recently.
That’s the point. Both of the main GP system will automatically code for this so if you start typing long covid it would add the relevant clinical coding. Just the same as if they typed a specific cancer etc. This isn’t new and is how the whole of Primary care works and has done for years.GPS are basically a means to stop people going into hospital due to amongst other things preventative measures. They literally get paid on what they code. The majority of reports the practice rely on are based on clinical coding in the patient records. For instance GPS get paid per patient but also get paid if for instance they ensure all diabetic patients have a blood test every 6 months or for minor surgeries etc. These are all coded and the reports they run to identify patients who are diabetic and due a blood test (for example) rely on these codes.
Goose4 said:
That’s the point. Both of the main GP system will automatically code for this so if you start typing long covid it would add the relevant clinical coding. Just the same as if they typed a specific cancer etc. This isn’t new and is how the whole of Primary care works and has done for years.
GPS are basically a means to stop people going into hospital due to amongst other things preventative measures. They literally get paid on what they code. The majority of reports the practice rely on are based on clinical coding in the patient records. For instance GPS get paid per patient but also get paid if for instance they ensure all diabetic patients have a blood test every 6 months or for minor surgeries etc. These are all coded and the reports they run to identify patients who are diabetic and due a blood test (for example) rely on these codes.
Did you even bother to read the article you linked? It’s only a page long. Here are some key bits in bold. You’ve decided that it’s all down to one factor and that factor alone, whereas the report says quite the opposite. You’ve completely ignored that over a quarter of all proctored haven’t used the code at all. Then there’s those that may have used it sparingly. GPS are basically a means to stop people going into hospital due to amongst other things preventative measures. They literally get paid on what they code. The majority of reports the practice rely on are based on clinical coding in the patient records. For instance GPS get paid per patient but also get paid if for instance they ensure all diabetic patients have a blood test every 6 months or for minor surgeries etc. These are all coded and the reports they run to identify patients who are diabetic and due a blood test (for example) rely on these codes.
report said:
Results Long COVID was recorded for 23,273 people. Coding was unevenly distributed amongst practices, with 26.7% of practices having not used the codes at all. Regional variation was high, ranging between 20.3 per 100,000 people for East of England (95% confidence interval 19.3-21.4) and 55.6 in London (95% CI 54.1-57.1). The rate was higher amongst women (52.1, 95% CI 51.3-52.9) compared to men (28.1, 95% CI 27.5-28.7), and higher amongst practices using EMIS software (53.7, 95% CI 52.9-54.4) compared to TPP software (20.9, 95% CI 20.3-21.4).
Conclusions Long COVID coding in primary care is low compared with early reports of long COVID prevalence. This may reflect under-coding, sub-optimal communication of clinical terms, under-diagnosis, a true low prevalence of long COVID diagnosed by clinicians, or a combination of factors. We recommend increased awareness of diagnostic codes, to facilitate research and planning of services; and surveys of clinicians’ experiences, to complement ongoing patient surveys.
Conclusions Long COVID coding in primary care is low compared with early reports of long COVID prevalence. This may reflect under-coding, sub-optimal communication of clinical terms, under-diagnosis, a true low prevalence of long COVID diagnosed by clinicians, or a combination of factors. We recommend increased awareness of diagnostic codes, to facilitate research and planning of services; and surveys of clinicians’ experiences, to complement ongoing patient surveys.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff