Astrazeneca/Oxford vaccine approved

[Taipan]

I saw this on FB yesterday. Not sure on the figures, but risk of blood clots from the pill is widely known.


"The incidence of serious blood clots from:
The Contraceptive Pill: 0.6%
The AZ vaccine: 0.00017%
AZ not being offered to the under 30’s because of the risk of blood clots. Think about that."

[Mussels]

I saw this on FB yesterday. Not sure on the figures, but risk of blood clots from the pill is widely known.


"The incidence of serious blood clots from:
The Contraceptive Pill: 0.6%
The AZ vaccine: 0.00017%
AZ not being offered to the under 30’s because of the risk of blood clots. Think about that."

From the numbers on the BBC site it's 0.0004% that have clots and 0.00001% that die.
From the Metro it's 0.05% from the pill

Different numbers but the same story. AFAIK AZis still being offered to under 30s but they are being given a choice, probably just because the scaremongering could stop some getting any vaccine.

[Saga Lout]

I saw this on FB yesterday. Not sure on the figures, but risk of blood clots from the pill is widely known.


"The incidence of serious blood clots from:
The Contraceptive Pill: 0.6%
The AZ vaccine: 0.00017%
AZ not being offered to the under 30’s because of the risk of blood clots. Think about that."

From the numbers on the BBC site it's 0.0004% that have clots and 0.00001% that die.
From the Metro it's 0.05% from the pill

Different numbers but the same story. AFAIK AZis still being offered to under 30s but they are being given a choice, probably just because the scaremongering could stop some getting any vaccine.

Or maybe because even with that low risk from the vaccine, the risk from the virus for under 30s is even lower.

[Horse]

"The incidence of serious blood clots from:
The Contraceptive Pill: 0.6%
The AZ vaccine: 0.00017%
Think about that."

Half the population will possibly find it interesting but, for them, inapplicable

[DefTrap]

Yeah but data from contraception is coming in over decades and time has been taken to collate, verify and analyse the data.
We're literally 3 or 4 months into vaccination, so despite the high numbers of vaccinated, data is still pretty sketchy.

Hence, prudence.

[irie]

Agree with you.

There are studies which show a high correlation between BMI and serious Covid-19 infection, hospitalisation, and mortality..

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new- ... ct-the-nhs.

Living with excess weight puts people at greater risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19, with risk growing substantially as body mass index (BMI) increases. Nearly 8% of critically ill patients with COVID-19 in intensive care units have been morbidly obese, compared with 2.9% of the general population.

So the morbidly obese have ~2.75 times the chance of dying from Covid-19 than the general population. They may have other conditions resulting from obesity (such as type 2 diabetes), but obesity is the primary indicator.

I am surprised that there has as yet been no suggestion that vaccination cohorts should also be triaged on the basis of BMI. Presumably because it would be against their human rights.

[Mr. Dazzle]

There's no central record of people's BMI so how would that work? Surely that's the bigger reason.

[cheb]

The bigger problem is that BMI is a flawed measuring system, at least in the way it's used.

Random article that proves I'm right: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 94951.html

[Saga Lout]

The bigger problem is that BMI is a flawed measuring system, at least in the way it's used.

Random article that proves I'm right: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 94951.html

When I first encountered BMI some 30 years ago, I thought I'd turned over two pages at once. I couldn't see how you could get a useful measure by comparing weight, a volume measure, with height squared. It should be height cubed. Using height squared the number will be too large for tall people and too small for short people.

I suppose we could use the Procrustean solution and make everybody the same height. That would work.

[cheb]

The Procrusten solution is a good one, 183cm being the perfect height.

[Bike Breaker]

The bigger problem is that BMI is a flawed measuring system, at least in the way it's used.

Random article that proves I'm right: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 94951.html

When I first encountered BMI some 30 years ago, I thought I'd turned over two pages at once. I couldn't see how you could get a useful measure by comparing weight, a volume measure, with height squared. It should be height cubed. Using height squared the number will be too large for tall people and too small for short people.

I suppose we could use the Procrustean solution and make everybody the same height. That would work.

I could see how it's easy to chop a bit off each leg to reduce the over-tall, but adding bits on to the shorties takes a lot longer.

[Yorick]

The bigger problem is that BMI is a flawed measuring system, at least in the way it's used.

Random article that proves I'm right: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 94951.html

When I first encountered BMI some 30 years ago, I thought I'd turned over two pages at once. I couldn't see how you could get a useful measure by comparing weight, a volume measure, with height squared. It should be height cubed. Using height squared the number will be too large for tall people and too small for short people.

I suppose we could use the Procrustean solution and make everybody the same height. That would work.

I could see how it's easy to chop a bit off each leg to reduce the over-tall, but adding bits on to the shorties takes a lot longer.

High heels ?

[irie]

There's no central record of people's BMI so how would that work? Surely that's the bigger reason.

I think GP records would contain BMI, or maybe they don't but I do know that my GP record has my height and weight.

[DEADPOOL]

When I first encountered BMI some 30 years ago, I thought I'd turned over two pages at once. I couldn't see how you could get a useful measure by comparing weight, a volume measure, with height squared. It should be height cubed. Using height squared the number will be too large for tall people and too small for short people.

I suppose we could use the Procrustean solution and make everybody the same height. That would work.

Wow. Every day is a school day. Thanks for the Procrustean reference.

I think BMI is a reasonable "rule of thumb" when the deviation form "norm" is relatively large. The geometric/volumetric measurement of humanoids is less appropriate I think. Humans do not really "scale" per se.

[irie]

The bigger problem is that BMI is a flawed measuring system, at least in the way it's used.

Random article that proves I'm right: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 94951.html

BMI is what we have until a better measure is universally used.

[Mr. Dazzle]

There's no central record of people's BMI so how would that work? Surely that's the bigger reason.

I think GP records would contain BMI, or maybe they don't but I do know that my GP record has my height and weight.

If mine does it at least 20 years out of date. Probably more. I can't remember ever being measured for either at the doctor, which is where I'm getting the "20 year" figure from.

[Mr. Dazzle]

I couldn't see how you could get a useful measure by comparing weight, a volume measure, with height squared. It should be height cubed.

You're obviously not as adept as most physicists at dimensional analysis. Volume over height squared (i.e. cubed over squared) gives you a linear distance. So BMI is essentially measuring how wide you are. Seems fair enough to me

[Noggin]

I think BMI is a reasonable "rule of thumb" when the deviation form "norm" is relatively large. The geometric/volumetric measurement of humanoids is less appropriate I think. Humans do not really "scale" per se.

If I remember rightly, top rugby players come in as obese on the BMI scale - the muscle mass squews the results

I have a high BMI (I'm glad about it as it right now as it meant I could get the vaccine) asn over the years a couple of doctors have run tests because obviously I'm seriously unhealthy with a high BMI

Conversations are normally along these line -

Doctor -
So, because of your weight your cholesterol with be far too high - oh, well (it was actually very low and still not actually high after 3 years of inactivity)
Well, anyway, your lung function will be suffering - oh, so that's ok
But, your heart rate/blood pressure will be all wrong at your size - oh, you actually have low blood pressure

Well - being fat is unhealthy and you should diet

Me - no shit sherlock, I am aware of the need to diet!

Yes, being overweight can be very unhealthy, but because someone has a high BMI doesn't automatically mean that!


No idea what other system they should use, and as I've said, right now, having a BMI over 30 means I have been able to get the vaccine early!! First time in my life I've been pleased I'm fat!! LOL

[Mr. Dazzle]

The BMI calc essentially assumes that humans have a constant density. Most people do have a 'normal' density (if healthy), the BMI assumes you've got a typical ratio of skeleton to muscle to fat to everything etc. And most people do have that.

If you don't...well there are lots of reasons, but being a chubster is the most common.

[Noggin]

The BMI calc essentially assumes that humans have a constant density. Most people do have a 'normal' density (if healthy), the BMI assumes you've got a typical ratio of skeleton to muscle to fat to everything etc. And most people do have that.

If you don't...well there are lots of reasons, but being a chubster is the most common.

But what I'm saying is that being a chubster doesn't automatically mean you have health issues!!