FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Blood related conditions
Blood related conditions
Jump to: Newest in thread
The study and data announced in the news today, relating to chances of developing blood-related conditions from COVID.
There is an increased risk of developing blood clotting from taking a covid vaccine, but the chances of developing blood clotting from COVID infection in the unvaccinated is higher.
The information is now that the vaccine reduces the chances of blood clots, but only if you actually catch Covid, otherwise, the chances of blood clotting are higher if you have the vaccine and you don't catch it?
Relating this data to Lisa Shaw, BBC presenter, what would have been her best choice?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The study and data announced in the news today, relating to chances of developing blood-related conditions from COVID.
There is an increased risk of developing blood clotting from taking a covid vaccine, but the chances of developing blood clotting from COVID infection in the unvaccinated is higher.
The information is now that the vaccine reduces the chances of blood clots, but only if you actually catch Covid, otherwise, the chances of blood clotting are higher if you have the vaccine and you don't catch it?
Relating this data to Lisa Shaw, BBC presenter, what would have been her best choice?
"
We've always been in the camp of vaccinate the at risk groups although we understand some people will not obviously fall into one and slip thru the cracks.
We never believed you can vaccinate your way out of a current running Pandemic and therefore you lessen the effects and let the virus run its course, all the recent data shows that natural infection protection is better than vaccination and gives better protection against the next variant. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Blood clots. It is a natural process that happens to everyone. But in the majority of cases the clots are disolved naturally by the body. The problem is in the cases where the clot does not get disolved…
My ex partner developed two blood clots at the same time, out of the blue. This was a few years before covid and the covid vaccines made their appearance.
The risk of having a blood clot increases by a number of factors such as Obesity Pregnancy
Immobility (including prolonged inactivity, long trips by plane or car),Smoking, Oral contraceptives, Certain cancers, Trauma,Certain surgeries, Age (increased risk for people over age 60), A family history of blood clots,, Chronic inflammatory diseases, Diabetes, High blood pressure, High cholesterol. (hematology. org)
It is very unfortunate that this happen to the BBC presenter. Without the vaccine, it is possible that these blood clots would have never happened to her.
However, we have a situation with covid. And there is a risk of dying from covid or develop serious health issues after catching covid. Not just from blood clots but also from pneumonia, from renal failure etc. And right now our best shot to get protection from covid is the vaccine.
Only yesterday I read about a 33 year old pregnant woman. She got covid when she was 22 weeks pregnant. She was a nurse but the vaccine was not available yet at that time. She did not experience any bad symptoms but clots were developed in her placenta. The unborn baby died.
The risk of developing a blood clot is real. But unfortunately we have a pandemic situation. People died or got really sick from covid, something that they could had possibly avoid if they had the vaccine. And some people are making a meal of the small possibility of getting blood clots from having the vaccine.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The study and data announced in the news today, relating to chances of developing blood-related conditions from COVID.
There is an increased risk of developing blood clotting from taking a covid vaccine, but the chances of developing blood clotting from COVID infection in the unvaccinated is higher.
The information is now that the vaccine reduces the chances of blood clots, but only if you actually catch Covid, otherwise, the chances of blood clotting are higher if you have the vaccine and you don't catch it?
Relating this data to Lisa Shaw, BBC presenter, what would have been her best choice?
"
Yes I saw that story too. Here's the link...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58347434
It's interesting as there was a thread yesterday (and not for the first time) how much more likely to clot vaccinated v unvaccinated or vaccinated v covid infected.
As you say the answer according to this story is 9 times more likely. Which is significant but not the 1000s of times more likely some were stating. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The study and data announced in the news today, relating to chances of developing blood-related conditions from COVID.
There is an increased risk of developing blood clotting from taking a covid vaccine, but the chances of developing blood clotting from COVID infection in the unvaccinated is higher.
The information is now that the vaccine reduces the chances of blood clots, but only if you actually catch Covid, otherwise, the chances of blood clotting are higher if you have the vaccine and you don't catch it?
Relating this data to Lisa Shaw, BBC presenter, what would have been her best choice?
Yes I saw that story too. Here's the link...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58347434
It's interesting as there was a thread yesterday (and not for the first time) how much more likely to clot vaccinated v unvaccinated or vaccinated v covid infected.
As you say the answer according to this story is 9 times more likely. Which is significant but not the 1000s of times more likely some were stating. "
Yes. Yesterdays thread was the information that the coroner had concluded that Lisa Shaw died from complications as a result of taking the vaccine.
Today we have the release of data from a study which is showing that there is more chance of blood clots from catching covid and not being vaccinated, but the chances of blood clots is still higher if you do have a vaccine.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The only change I would make to current health policy is that I wod not offer the vaccine to low risk people who have already had a natural Covid infection.
In that case, the risk (albeit small) simply doesn't need to be taken.
These people, for the benefit of Covid Passports, should be treated as fully vaccinated.
It won't happen because it would be classed as 'too complicated'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The vaccines are still incredibly safe and tho study supports that. The age related differences are known and adjustments made accordingly. I'd still get vaccinated during an out of control pandemic if her. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Is it possible to determine prior to having the vaccine if you have a condition or your health would make you more susceptible to blood clots?"
I'm a layman so little medical expertise. But id bloody well hope that after all this time effort and money that at least some (of not all) such determinations could be made. I mean the nhs app already has access to our covid records and our medical records. It's surely not beyond the whit of serco or whichever consulting firm they use to push some advisory note out to people based on what we now know and update it as knowledge improves. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So like HepB inj you blood test first to see antibodies rather than random jab all"
No they don't. People have Hep B injections for holidays and work they don't do a blood test first.
You have a blood test AFTER you have completed the course to make sure it has worked. If it hasn't you get another vaccine. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"The study and data announced in the news today, relating to chances of developing blood-related conditions from COVID.
There is an increased risk of developing blood clotting from taking a covid vaccine, but the chances of developing blood clotting from COVID infection in the unvaccinated is higher.
The information is now that the vaccine reduces the chances of blood clots, but only if you actually catch Covid, otherwise, the chances of blood clotting are higher if you have the vaccine and you don't catch it?
Relating this data to Lisa Shaw, BBC presenter, what would have been her best choice?
"
1) the blood clot issue has affected 70 deaths in the uk out of a total of 42 million people who have taken the vaccines…. Context
2) if we are talking blood clots… there is a much higher chance developing them through travelling on planes than getting them through the vaccines… so should we not fly??????  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If the gov gave a dam about youre health instead of using the crisis as a way to steel from the tax payer while youre attention is divided dont you think they would give you asprin with every jab to reduce risks
The fact that they dont shows therse more to this than we are been told |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Is it possible to determine prior to having the vaccine if you have a condition or your health would make you more susceptible to blood clots?"
Yes… there are known medical conditions that increase blood clotting potential- that can be tested for. I have one.. I have to have blood thinning injections if I fly/ when I was pregnant. I still had the vaccine… I have seen first hand the clotting problems with covid… those of us having witnessed it could have told everyone 15 months ago that the clots covid causes are like nothing we’ve seen and way more risk than the vaccine. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the gov gave a dam about youre health instead of using the crisis as a way to steel from the tax payer while youre attention is divided dont you think they would give you asprin with every jab to reduce risks
The fact that they dont shows therse more to this than we are been told"
They don't give out aspirin with every jab because that _would_ be medical reckless endangerment, as there are loads of people for whom aspirin could be a killer. Instead they ask a bunch of questions about your medical history to see if there are any contra-indications due to previous conditions, allergies, existing medications etc. If there is any indication that one type of vaccine might be problematic then a different type of vaccine will be offered, or the person might even be told that they should not take a vaccine. The injection is then given by a trained medical operative, with a bunch more medics in close quarters. The vaccinated person is told to sit for at least 15 minutes to be observed for any immediate sign of any side effect - in 99.9% of cases where there could be any reaction it would occur within the first 10 minutes, mainly these reactions being either an allergic reaction to one of the vaccine components or an anxiety attack provoked by a combination of needle phobia and having listened too much to anti-vax bollocks.
To be perfectly honest if the process was just to grab, jab and send you on your way with a couple of aspirin it would be a shit load faster and cheaper than expending all this medical effort to make the process as safe as it could possibly be.
And no, I'm not defending our "glorious" government, my opinion is that they are a bunch of liars and criminals who should be in jail waiting for trial. But I am defending the scientific process and the medical personnel of this country that have been doing everything they possibly can to try to keep people healthy since the start of the pandemic, up to and including dying themselves. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If the gov gave a dam about youre health instead of using the crisis as a way to steel from the tax payer while youre attention is divided dont you think they would give you asprin with every jab to reduce risks
The fact that they dont shows therse more to this than we are been told
They don't give out aspirin with every jab because that _would_ be medical reckless endangerment, as there are loads of people for whom aspirin could be a killer. Instead they ask a bunch of questions about your medical history to see if there are any contra-indications due to previous conditions, allergies, existing medications etc. If there is any indication that one type of vaccine might be problematic then a different type of vaccine will be offered, or the person might even be told that they should not take a vaccine. The injection is then given by a trained medical operative, with a bunch more medics in close quarters. The vaccinated person is told to sit for at least 15 minutes to be observed for any immediate sign of any side effect - in 99.9% of cases where there could be any reaction it would occur within the first 10 minutes, mainly these reactions being either an allergic reaction to one of the vaccine components or an anxiety attack provoked by a combination of needle phobia and having listened too much to anti-vax bollocks.
To be perfectly honest if the process was just to grab, jab and send you on your way with a couple of aspirin it would be a shit load faster and cheaper than expending all this medical effort to make the process as safe as it could possibly be.
And no, I'm not defending our "glorious" government, my opinion is that they are a bunch of liars and criminals who should be in jail waiting for trial. But I am defending the scientific process and the medical personnel of this country that have been doing everything they possibly can to try to keep people healthy since the start of the pandemic, up to and including dying themselves."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Just to add to the facts being discussed and considered in the thread. Sadly heres the story about the New Zealand lady who died after the Pfizer jab...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58380867
And the news about the covid sceptic man who sadly died in hospital aged 40.
Such sad news for both people and their families and friends.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-58376709
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The study and data announced in the news today, relating to chances of developing blood-related conditions from COVID.
There is an increased risk of developing blood clotting from taking a covid vaccine, but the chances of developing blood clotting from COVID infection in the unvaccinated is higher.
The information is now that the vaccine reduces the chances of blood clots, but only if you actually catch Covid, otherwise, the chances of blood clotting are higher if you have the vaccine and you don't catch it?
Relating this data to Lisa Shaw, BBC presenter, what would have been her best choice?
"
so they should add “blood clots” to the latest list of covid symptoms. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"If the gov gave a dam about youre health instead of using the crisis as a way to steel from the tax payer while youre attention is divided dont you think they would give you asprin with every jab to reduce risks
The fact that they dont shows therse more to this than we are been told"
Not really as taking asprin carries it's own risks internal bleeding ect .
But you don't see people on the streets protesting against it
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
Playing Devil’s Advocate (said this on another thread and nobody came up with a plausible response).
If you choose to have the vaccine you are 100% exposing yourself to the potential risks from that vaccine.
If you don’t have the vaccine then you are only exposed to the risks of serious illness from Covid if you catch it.
So before that risk profile even comes into play, you must catch Covid. To date we know there are been 6.7m positive Covid tests in the UK. I believe that isn’t people, that is tests and some people have tested more than once but even if that is people then it is c.10% of population (not everyone has tested and certainly not back at the start of this clearly).
So taking those numbers at face value, to date c.90% of population have not had Covid. Of those 6.7m (let’s assume people not tests for this) 95% did not get a serious illness. So 335,000 were seriously ill? Not sure if anyone has the total hospitalisation figures to date?
I would say based on that you can understand vaccine hesitancy, especially now there are studies saying vaccinated are still transmitting so the societal/community benefits argument may end up being weakened.
I have no time for tinfoil conspiracies but I do have sympathy for the hesitant.
It wouldn’t be that hard for the gov’t/science community statisticians (ie folks far cleverer than me) to demonstrate and real comparison of risk profiles to allow people to take a fully informed decision. It is clear just saying “we are the science community so trust us” isn’t sufficient for some people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Playing Devil’s Advocate (said this on another thread and nobody came up with a plausible response).
If you choose to have the vaccine you are 100% exposing yourself to the potential risks from that vaccine.
If you don’t have the vaccine then you are only exposed to the risks of serious illness from Covid if you catch it.
So before that risk profile even comes into play, you must catch Covid. To date we know there are been 6.7m positive Covid tests in the UK. I believe that isn’t people, that is tests and some people have tested more than once but even if that is people then it is c.10% of population (not everyone has tested and certainly not back at the start of this clearly).
So taking those numbers at face value, to date c.90% of population have not had Covid. Of those 6.7m (let’s assume people not tests for this) 95% did not get a serious illness. So 335,000 were seriously ill? Not sure if anyone has the total hospitalisation figures to date?
I would say based on that you can understand vaccine hesitancy, especially now there are studies saying vaccinated are still transmitting so the societal/community benefits argument may end up being weakened.
I have no time for tinfoil conspiracies but I do have sympathy for the hesitant.
It wouldn’t be that hard for the gov’t/science community statisticians (ie folks far cleverer than me) to demonstrate and real comparison of risk profiles to allow people to take a fully informed decision. It is clear just saying “we are the science community so trust us” isn’t sufficient for some people."
Stop making sense again. Accepting that the numbers may need tweaking but the process you've laid out seems sensible. It is also understandable that if choosing a vax you put yourself into that equation twice... 12 weeks apart, Possibly three times with a booster, which let's face it, is needed as efficacy tails off.
When you see yesterday's report saying with covid your 9 times more likely to suffer clots than with a vaccine...or whatever the number was, (which is clearly very veryb broad brush as not all vaccines are the same and not all people are the same age or sex ) Well as you have said it is understandable where hesitancy comes from.
As I've said a lot on these fora... The numbers must be available to perform a proper risk analysis by sex and age group... (using a standard set of age groups would be a good start rather than changing them to derive your desired conclusion every report) Having them and keeping them updated would address a lot of people's concerns (not all as some will not be Convinced and that is just fine), and communicating them effectively far and wide would be sensible.
The fact that such sensible measures are not being communicated is more than a little suspicious to me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Playing Devil’s Advocate (said this on another thread and nobody came up with a plausible response).
If you choose to have the vaccine you are 100% exposing yourself to the potential risks from that vaccine.
If you don’t have the vaccine then you are only exposed to the risks of serious illness from Covid if you catch it.
So before that risk profile even comes into play, you must catch Covid. To date we know there are been 6.7m positive Covid tests in the UK. I believe that isn’t people, that is tests and some people have tested more than once but even if that is people then it is c.10% of population (not everyone has tested and certainly not back at the start of this clearly).
So taking those numbers at face value, to date c.90% of population have not had Covid. Of those 6.7m (let’s assume people not tests for this) 95% did not get a serious illness. So 335,000 were seriously ill? Not sure if anyone has the total hospitalisation figures to date?
I would say based on that you can understand vaccine hesitancy, especially now there are studies saying vaccinated are still transmitting so the societal/community benefits argument may end up being weakened.
I have no time for tinfoil conspiracies but I do have sympathy for the hesitant.
It wouldn’t be that hard for the gov’t/science community statisticians (ie folks far cleverer than me) to demonstrate and real comparison of risk profiles to allow people to take a fully informed decision. It is clear just saying “we are the science community so trust us” isn’t sufficient for some people."
I like the risk profile approach I must say ; seems a more fair and transparent approach. I’m not an anti vaccine by no means but I must admit when I read an article on sky news saying that the unvaccinated are at more risk from blood clots than the vaccinated persons. Up until recently all of the blood clot stories in the media (all tragic and very sad) we’re all related to the vaccines. - rare as they are but all related to either the first or second jab , mostly within a few days after taking it. But now the narrative is changing somewhat if sky news are anything to go by ; they are acknowledging the risk of clots from vaccines but are now saying that risk of blood clots from covid for the unvaccinated is much higher - it’s like shining the spotlight back on to the unvaccinated and suggesting the they are at a higher risk of clots despite not taking the jab. I like to keep an open mind but the risk of clots surely is higher the more jabs and boosters we take. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The study and data announced in the news today, relating to chances of developing blood-related conditions from COVID.
There is an increased risk of developing blood clotting from taking a covid vaccine, but the chances of developing blood clotting from COVID infection in the unvaccinated is higher.
The information is now that the vaccine reduces the chances of blood clots, but only if you actually catch Covid, otherwise, the chances of blood clotting are higher if you have the vaccine and you don't catch it?
Relating this data to Lisa Shaw, BBC presenter, what would have been her best choice?
"
best thing for all of this is to just let people decide if they want the vaccine or not. Stop trying to force it upon people with added restrictions and threat of removing freedoms.
( must be vaccinated to work in a care home what a joke that’s 50% of the work force gone then as they do not wish to be vaccinated surely just daily tests before work world be fine. Less workers in this section alone would decrease the care / wellbeing / and increase death and suffering ) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Also 88.3% of the over 16 population of the UK has now been vaccinated up to one dose. So that’s actually a very small percentage of unvaccinated people now in the UK. So likelihood of them all getting blood clots from covid can not be that high and would suggest that people vaccinated are still getting blood clots from covid or the Jab. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
@Backformore I agree.
While I know this will lend itself to conspiracy theorists...
The change of measurement parameters etc throughout the pandemic has been a deliberate decision to avoid consistent comparison and keep people discombobulated. Very few of us have access to all the necessary data (or the ability to analyse) to be able to make a proper informed decision.
Why would “they” do that?
Why not provide a clear set of lines that allow people to make their own informed decisions based on personal risk?
I would argue it is because vaccine take up would be far lower.
For a variety of reasons (some good for society and some good for themselves) “they” don’t want people to have the ability to easily question or debate the need to be vaccinated.
(And generally those in power think the majority of the population are pretty thick, which is fair enough actually, to be able to make an informed decision based on personal risk profile). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Playing Devil’s Advocate (said this on another thread and nobody came up with a plausible response).
If you choose to have the vaccine you are 100% exposing yourself to the potential risks from that vaccine.
If you don’t have the vaccine then you are only exposed to the risks of serious illness from Covid if you catch it.
So before that risk profile even comes into play, you must catch Covid. To date we know there are been 6.7m positive Covid tests in the UK. I believe that isn’t people, that is tests and some people have tested more than once but even if that is people then it is c.10% of population (not everyone has tested and certainly not back at the start of this clearly).
So taking those numbers at face value, to date c.90% of population have not had Covid. Of those 6.7m (let’s assume people not tests for this) 95% did not get a serious illness. So 335,000 were seriously ill? Not sure if anyone has the total hospitalisation figures to date?
I would say based on that you can understand vaccine hesitancy, especially now there are studies saying vaccinated are still transmitting so the societal/community benefits argument may end up being weakened.
I have no time for tinfoil conspiracies but I do have sympathy for the hesitant.
It wouldn’t be that hard for the gov’t/science community statisticians (ie folks far cleverer than me) to demonstrate the real comparison of risk profiles to allow people to take a fully informed decision. It is clear just saying “we are the science community so trust us” isn’t sufficient for some people."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"@Backformore I agree.
While I know this will lend itself to conspiracy theorists...
The change of measurement parameters etc throughout the pandemic has been a deliberate decision to avoid consistent comparison and keep people discombobulated. Very few of us have access to all the necessary data (or the ability to analyse) to be able to make a proper informed decision.
Why would “they” do that?
Why not provide a clear set of lines that allow people to make their own informed decisions based on personal risk?
I would argue it is because vaccine take up would be far lower.
For a variety of reasons (some good for society and some good for themselves) “they” don’t want people to have the ability to easily question or debate the need to be vaccinated.
(And generally those in power think the majority of the population are pretty thick, which is fair enough actually, to be able to make an informed decision based on personal risk profile)."
There's a couple of further points.
1) "they" have all the data.. They have our personal details and they have our medical records and history. It would lend itself perfectly to a technical solution. An app... Let's see... Perhaps there is one we can piggy back on? Hmm the nhs app? The covid app? The zoe app? We've already given all our personal data away so why not do something useful with it?
2) I actually think by and large we are a compliant nation.. Just tell us what to do... Wind us up and we will crack on...(as long as it doesn't take too much effort and stop our holiday) There will always be outliers... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The study and data announced in the news today, relating to chances of developing blood-related conditions from COVID.
There is an increased risk of developing blood clotting from taking a covid vaccine, but the chances of developing blood clotting from COVID infection in the unvaccinated is higher.
The information is now that the vaccine reduces the chances of blood clots, but only if you actually catch Covid, otherwise, the chances of blood clotting are higher if you have the vaccine and you don't catch it?
Relating this data to Lisa Shaw, BBC presenter, what would have been her best choice?
"
How convenient |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
