DON'T PANIC.... well, maybe a little bit.

Following your words, the fear of covid in Indonesia is overstated. Only 20% of the population in Indonesia is above 50 years. Not many population at risk, especially if you are below 50 years.
I'm not sure what metric you use to quantify whether fear is overstated or not? On a scale from 1 to 10, what would you rate Indonesia's current level of fear, and what level do you think it should be?

And of course, the statistic is skewed. Many recovered covid cases die because they get blood clots mont-two later and get a fatal stroke or heart attack. So your friends have a high probability of dying in the next month or two, but nobody would record that as a covid, it will be a stroke, unless, of course, he has good post-covid treatment and regular blood checks.

This is all correct, which took me by surprise...:LOL:
 
When you share articles without vetting, then expect people to react to it. Especially on this website where we don't necessarily like being a platform for spreading falsehoods.

But we're always happy to have a constructive conversation or debate.

I DEFINITELY do not want our forum as a platform for spreading falsehoods. Early in this thread, we have cautioned users to not post materials of questionable veracity. Granted, this was now over a year ago, so I am taking this as a chance to repeat this caution.
 
I'm not sure what metric you use to quantify whether fear is overstated or not? On a scale from 1 to 10, what would you rate Indonesia's current level of fear, and what level do you think it should be?



This is all correct, which took me by surprise...:LOL:

Middle and middle up classes are terrified, level of fear 8-10 (opinion-makers among them).
Lower-class ad lower-middle-class level of fear 2-3 (the one who must work or serve the middle up and higher classes).
Realistic level of fear-4-6.
This is all correct, which took me by surprise...:LOL:
You had your moments as well. I have to take as well your 1-hour virology internet course at Wellesley :)
 
By the way, one of my friends also sent me this link. I gotta say it again, I can't judge this. Just maybe it is interesting for some of you to read and discuss it. The site is pretty "big", lots of stuff to read in general.(not only about adverse events)

I don't really know much about medicine... but I do have an opinion about how to present data without invoking my stink-eye. My basic problem though, is that the article generally gives enough information to elicit a fear response without giving enough information to let me know if that fear is justified (relative to my fear of living in a world with unchecked Covid). They use an A, B, C, etc format in the article, so let's use that.

A. I need to see what the increase of incidence of GBS is and to see that compared to the risks related to contracting Covid. For all I know (from the article) we would normally expect thousands of cases of GBS and the Covid vaccine is somehow miraculously reducing the rate of incidence.

B. Same problem as A. Is 650 miscarriages an increase or a decrease compared to normal? How does that increase/decrease compare to the risks associated with a 70% chance of contracting Covid (in an unvaccinated world)?

C. Here we get that emotional effect kicked up a notch with the inclusion of named and personified individuals. Again, there is a lack of actual data to compare rates of death.

D. Same, really. No data here that tells me if I should be more afraid of Covid or the vaccine, just a sort of general "bad things happen to good people" vibe.

E. I'm just going to point out the use of the phrase "experimental Covid vaccines" here as an example of the way in which adverse vaccine effects continue to be emphasized and "post covid syndrome... may effect... and drastically reduce quality of life" as an example of how Covid effects are sidelined.

I'm not going to click through the many links from the article to try and verify the relative risks for myself, because they didn't meet my standards of reliability in their initial presentation. If there was something meaningful to be presented, I think they would have presented it.

Just as a note, I do realize that every one of the people who is suffering adverse effects from the vaccine is an important individual. What I need to know, is if the total amount of important individuals suffering from the vaccine is greater than the total amount of important individuals suffering from the disease.
 
It is also strange to see where we have come to in terms of discussion-culture. You post something and some people directly see you as some kind of enemy, because in this world there is probably more than one opinion about things (not only covid related).

What I observed in recent years and months seems like there are only two sides now: People who believe in any official or government position to a 1000% and enemys/conspiracy freaks that we can't talk to anymore.

Well, no matter what, there are a lot of bad developments going on in our society and this is just one.

It's probably because people don't like having their time wasted by having to read Covid conspiracy articles on dubious websites. Also, most people will understandably get annoyed when you are "bothsidesing", and comparing rigorous studies published in medical journals with a track record of decades to an article some guy wrote on a website founded last year that has 5 articles, as if those two are anywhere near equal.
 
Can you still get Covid if you're vaccinated? Yes, between Jan 1 and Apr 30, 10,262 breakthrough COVID cases occurred in 110 million vaccinated people in the US.

Over the same period, 12 million unvaccinated people in the US got Covid-19.

 
Follow the science.

For the TLDRs,
  • An mRNA vaccine is now preferred as the second dose for individuals who received a first dose of the AstraZeneca/COVISHIELD vaccine, based on emerging evidence of a potentially better immune response from this mixed vaccine schedule and to mitigate the potential risk of VITT associated with viral vector vaccines.
The Canadian healthcare guys are now recommending mRNA vaccines for both first and second doses. So, AZ is the second safest choice (still ahead of full blown Covid, of course). They also state that the increased availability of mRNA vaccines was a factor in this decision.
Doubting I'll have a choice in the matter, I'll accept either.
 
Follow the science.

1624019698640.png


My $9.99 Udemy course on vaccine development helped me to deduce this strategy before those egghead scientists.

A small trial in Germany suggested that mixing Astra and Pfizer shots could trigger antibody responses almost four times higher than a two-dose course of the Pfizer vaccine.

 
Last edited:
@dafluff
What will Indonesians mix? AZ with teh botol? The article says that the mixed shots lower the possibility of blood clots.


AZ in Australia only over 60 years, after the death of 52-year-old women.

I did not understand did this Balinese died yesterday after the first or the second shot?
 
Can you still get Covid if you're vaccinated? Yes, between Jan 1 and Apr 30, 10,262 breakthrough COVID cases occurred in 110 million vaccinated people in the US.

Over the same period, 12 million unvaccinated people in the US got Covid-19.

Wow, 10 thousand versus 12 million, that's a great result for the vaccine! And of the 10,262, how many were hospitalized or died? They answered that too:
995 (10%) patients were known to be hospitalized, and 160 (2%) patients died. Among the 995 hospitalized patients, 289 (29%) were asymptomatic or hospitalized for a reason unrelated to COVID-19. The median age of patients who died was 82 years (interquartile range = 71–89 years); 28 (18%) decedents were asymptomatic or died from a cause unrelated to COVID-19.
 
By the way, one of my friends also sent me this link. I gotta say it again, I can't judge this. Just maybe it is interesting for some of you to read and discuss it. The site is pretty "big", lots of stuff to read in general.(not only about adverse events)


This data is perhaps the most abused of all by anti-vaxxers. The 'adverse events' recorded by VAERS is not a real number, and the CDC bends over backwards trying to explain the limitations, scroll down on this page to the "Limitations" section: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vaers/index.html

On the same page they describe what the VAERS data is and the role it plays:

VAERS accepts and analyzes reports of possible health problems—also called “adverse events”—after vaccination. As an early warning system, VAERS cannot prove that a vaccine caused a problem. Specifically, a report to VAERS does not mean that a vaccine caused an adverse event. But VAERS can give CDC and FDA important information. If it looks as though a vaccine might be causing a problem, FDA and CDC will investigate further and take action if needed.

Anyone can submit a report to VAERS — healthcare professionals, vaccine manufacturers, and the general public. VAERS welcomes all reports, regardless of seriousness, and regardless of how likely the vaccine may have been to have caused the adverse event.
 
By the way, one of my friends also sent me this link. I gotta say it again, I can't judge this. Just maybe it is interesting for some of you to read and discuss it. The site is pretty "big", lots of stuff to read in general.(not only about adverse events)

Tagesschau calls this Swiss Policy Research a “propaganda tool”.

 
@dafluff
What will Indonesians mix? AZ with teh botol? The article says that the mixed shots lower the possibility of blood clots.

No, the article says:

An mRNA vaccine is now preferred as the second dose for individuals who received a first dose of the AstraZeneca/COVISHIELD vaccine, based on emerging evidence of a potentially better immune response from this mixed vaccine schedule and to mitigate the potential risk of VITT".

It puts the fact that viral vector + mRNA shots have a better immune response first. I posted an article above where it is said it is 4x higher than 2 mRNA shots. Then it mentions the risks of VITT, which is correct. There is a risk using vector-based vaccines, and using one less naturally reduces this risk.

The NACI recommendation, on which the article is reporting, also says:

NACI's previous recommendation - that people who wanted earlier vaccination could receive a viral vector vaccine rather than wait for an mRNA vaccine - reflected the limited supply of mRNA vaccines at the time and the imperative of protecting vulnerable populations from serious illness and death from COVID-19.
This recommendation was based on a public health benefit-risk analysis comparing the rates of VITT and the risk of COVID-19 while waiting for an mRNA vaccine.
NACI now recommends that an mRNA vaccine is preferred as a first dose unless an mRNA vaccine is inaccessible or there is a contraindication, for example, an allergy to an mRNA vaccine or its components.
NACI recommends a viral vector vaccine may be offered to individuals in the authorized age group when an mRNA vaccine is inaccessible or contraindicated, for example because of an allergy to an mRNA vaccine or its components.

Unfortunately, Indonesia is in a situation where there aren't any mRNA shots, and even the shots it has are in limited supply. So it has to use what is available to protect vulnerable populations from serious illness and death from COVID-19.
 
Last edited:

AstraZeneca second dose 'good choice' despite federal guidance: B.C.'s top doctor​

There is no wrong choice for a second COVID-19 vaccine dose despite recommendations from a federal panel that people who received Oxford-AstraZeneca first should choose Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna for a second shot, says British Columbia's top doctor.

Henry said anybody who received two doses of AstraZeneca can be assured they received a safe vaccine.

B.C. will not change its immunization advice, leaving the choice of which vaccine to get up to individuals, she said. Henry said people in B.C. can feel safe that picking AstraZeneca for their vaccine "was a good choice to make." "There's no wrong decision here," she said. "If you got two doses of AstraZeneca, you can rest assured you got a safe vaccine."

PS: Anyone on this forum wishing to inquire which online video made this person an expert can inquire via the Office of the Provincial Health Officer. :D

 
By the way, one of my friends also sent me this link. I gotta say it again, I can't judge this. Just maybe it is interesting for some of you to read and discuss it. The site is pretty "big", lots of stuff to read in general.(not only about adverse events)


We have cautioned in the past that people do not post articles from conspiracy websites.

If you can not determine for yourself whether this is the case by reading the articles, you can google "Is <websitename.com> legit", or using resources such as mediabiasfactcheck.com.

The first result when googling "is swprs.org legit" is its Wikipedia page, which classifies them as a "Propaganda, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience" website, and provides over a dozen link citations as to why this is.

MediaBias/FactCheck says:
Overall, we rate Swiss Policy Research (SPR) a Moderate Conspiracy website based on the promotion of unproven claims. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to poor sources and complete lack of transparency.

It then provides a detailed report as to how it came to that conclusion.

If after this, for whatever reason you can still not determine whether an article is legitimate or not, I strongly recommend you erring on the side of caution and not posting them here.
 
Last edited:
The Health Ministry expects the first Pfizer vaccines are to enter Indonesia in July, with around 5-10m doses for the first order.

The ministry spokesperson also tells the public that there is no need to choose vaccines, as they are equally safe and effective.

 
The Health Ministry expects the first Pfizer vaccines are to enter Indonesia in July, with around 5-10m doses for the first order.

The ministry spokesperson also tells the public that there is no need to choose vaccines, as they are equally safe and effective.

There is no need to choose? Sure.

Pfizer has about 95% efficacy while Sinovac is at around 65%. Something tells me that people with money will jockey to get the Pfizer vaccine.
 
There is no need to choose? Sure.

Pfizer has about 95% efficacy while Sinovac is at around 65%. Something tells me that people with money will jockey to get the Pfizer vaccine.

What's really going to be annoying, and hopefully doesn't happen, is if people who already were fully vaccinated with Sinovac/AZ, then get a Pfizer booster, taking doses from unvaccinated people.
 

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Follow Us

Latest Expat Indo Articles

Latest Tweets by Expat Indo

Latest Activity

New posts Latest threads

Online Now

Newest Members

Forum Statistics

Threads
5,966
Messages
97,423
Members
3,037
Latest member
Cloudcat
Back
Top Bottom