This blog may help people explore some of the 'hidden' issues involved in certain media treatments of environmental and scientific issues. Using personal digital images, it's also intended to emphasise seasonal (and other) changes in natural history of the Swansea (South Wales) area. The material should help participants in field-based modules and people generally interested in the natural world. The views are wholly those of the author.
Monday, 15 March 2021
Et Tu Brute?
As the Anglo, half of what was an Anglo-Dutch family, I was disheartened by news the Netherlands is joining Denmark, Ireland, Iceland, Norway and Thailand, in delaying their roll-out of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/14/ireland-suspends-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-over-blood-clot-concerns). I start to worry, however, that I am taking it too 'personally'. This is, in spite, of having no shares in the vaccine's producers (no shares in anything, actually!). I also have never thought of pharmaceutical preparations as having a nationality (the teams are always multinational). Surely, these decisions must have been taken very carefully, with the best possible scientific advice? They can't only be based on four blood clotting events reported in Norway? Perhaps my scientific understanding has become flawed with age? Perhaps they know something I don't? It's with some relief then, to read the opinion piece of David Spiegelhalter (Cambridge University) confirming 'we should be careful about finding causal links where none exist' (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/15/evidence-oxford-vaccine-blood-clots-data-causal-links). Spiegelhalter notes there is already evidence, in the double blind studies carried out for vaccine approval. These confirmed the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine was not associated with a higher level of 'side-effects' than those seen in the placebo-treated group. Neither the experimentals nor the controls knew what preparation they were getting. The four Norwegian 'cases' would be more worrying, if they had a control group, showing a lower incidence of blood disorders. Having said that, four is a tiny number on which to base a study. This is basic science! Surely, the advisers know this? Perhaps this is people (politicians and medics), covering their backs? We do have to look carefully at unexpected outcomes, when using a new vaccine. I can't help feeling, however, the reaction has been 'over the top'. It plays into the 'hands' of the virus and the antivaxxers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Fusion: Confusion?
Nuclear fusion involves light elements, like hydrogen, being combined under pressure, with a massive release of energy. It's basically...
-
It's necessary, where possible, to replace diesel and petrol-fueled vehicles by electrical equivalents. Electric vehicles (EVs) don...
-
Zonal pricing is a proposed change to the UK energy market. It would result in energy consumers paying less for electricity, if they are ba...
-
Seagrasses are the only flowering plants growing in marine environments. Seagrass meadows (large accumulations of these plants) provide vit...
No comments:
Post a Comment