Medijska histerija okrog Astra Zenece kot poslovni model

Dober thread Maria Zechnerja glede histerije, ki so jo naredili mediji zaradi nekaj stranskih učinkov pri cepljenju s cepivom AstraZenece. Pri tem je karakteristično, da se večina medijev, ki je sprožila paniko in mnoge odvrnila od cepljenja proti Covid-19, ni niti toliko potrudila, da bi pregledala informacijsko gradivo glede delovanja cepiv, alergijskih reakcij in možnih zapletov ter primerjala te učinke med različnimi cepivi. Seveda je veliko bolj atraktivno za medije objaviti informacijo, da je nekdo umrl ali dobil strdke, kot pa se potruditi in preveriti ali so ti dogodki v vzročni zvezi s cepljenjem ter cepljenjem samo s konkretnim zdravilom ali pa gre za podobne učinke vseh cepiv ter ali te številke odstopajo od pričakovanih. To je seveda posledica poslovnega modela digitalnih medijev, ki jih zanima samo gledanost.

A bunch of friends and family alerting me not to take the AstraZeneca jab in the past few days. And to be honest, after the news reports on one woman dying and two women being in the ICU from blood clots in Austria, I too started to have my doubts. Even though I love science.

The reports must be taken seriously and must lead to investigastions, which has already happened to a large extent. The data is available publicly, e.g. here from the UK in form of yellow card reports, for both Pfizer and AstraZeneca.

Now, media has access to all this as well. But they generally neither have the time to research this properly, nor do they usually have science journalism departments that could actually do proper reporting. This was very evident the past 12 months.

But media must report, and many must report in alarmist ways for clicks. That’s simply how their business model works, because we no longer want to pay for journalism. Anyways, tangent. If you only followed media, you’d think AstraZeneca will kill you and Pfizer is best.

If you listen to the experts, who seldomly get their statements printed in quickly assembled news alerts, then they’ll tell you the data doesn’t support causality. And the great part is, you can counter check this yourself, as the data is often public. Here’s an example.

AstraZeneca was correlated to thrombosis (i.e. stroke, pulmonary embolism) in Europe, with 3 cases and 1 death in Austria, 1 death in Denmark, and 1 death in Italy. A total of 22 such events were reported in 3M. Source EMA (and media I read past days)

If you only followed media reports, it would appear that this only happens for AstraZeneca. But that’s not so. Here’s the yellow card reports from the UK for Pfizer and AstraZenca. About the same number of pulmonary embolisms close in time to the jab. 2 more for Pfizer even.

Pfizer has been used 10.7M times, AstraZeneca 9.7M times in the UK, the data is thus comparable to quite some degree (under a few demographic assumptions, which I think hold in the UK). So, Pfizer and AZ “perform” equally when it comes to thrombosis.

Not a single news outlet in Austria has reported this. But clearly, we should be afraid of both Pfizer and AstraZeneca now, right? No. We have historical data that tells us how many people from what demographic develop thrombosis at what probability per year.

That’s called background mortality. And we have extremely good data for that! We can calculate how many people we expect to die of a certain health issue given demographic data and a time frame.

For pulmonary embolisms, that’s roughly 1:10000 in younger adults per year, and 1:1000 in older. We can then take that data and applynit to the number of vaccinated people and fheir demographic. And for both Pfizer and AstraZeneca, the number of thrombosis events is …

well within the estimated background mortality. And this is what experts keep telling us, and why EMA, WHO, the German RKI and many many other health organisations tell us there is, with a very high likelihood, no causality here. But this analysis is to complex for many news outlets.

So what we end up with is alarmist news headers without substance. That’s very bad.

In summary: listen to the experts, they are not out to kill you. Yes, they also can be in error. But for this specific thing, the data is so far VERY clear.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: