Covid in Norway: Injection Safety Edition, pt. 1: 1 in every 200 injections caused an adverse event and a paper on menstrual disturbances after injection
Covid in Norway: Injection Safety Edition, pt. 1: 1 in every 200 injections caused an adverse event and a paper on menstrual disturbances after injection
The share of Norwegian women 18-30yo who reported 'more heavy bleeding' almost doubled after getting injected, a recent pre-print by Trogstad et al. reveals
I think the 'real' rates are much higher, but more so for the 'mild-to-medium' AEs; the gender bias is particularly important, I think (think 'man-cold' vs. 'woman-cold'). Generally, I'd say the Norwegian data is more transparent than, say, the Central European one, but they all fall short in one particular instance:
The 'all-cause AEs' don't capture the 'true' risk of repeat injections, hence, ceteris paribus, the 'true' rates won't tell us anything, if they aren't 'adjusted' to precisely this issue. In other words: it the rate of 'all-cause AEs' is 1 in 200 injections, that would give us the 'risk' for 1 injection; it would be 1 in 100 for those who take a second injection, and 1 in 50 for those who take another injection. (As a thought experiment, it would be some 1 in 25 for a possible 4th injection, right?)
So, let me ask you this, my friend: what 'real'--and at what point in each injected individual trajectory--would you like to know?
Good point. Your personal probability of AE for the n-th injection will definitely depend on your AE profile for the n-1 previous injections. Some countries publish AE data for the different injections separately but so far I have not seen any information about successive AEs. It's all swamped by the under-reporting anyway...
I specifically included such language (perhaps too weak) in my piece, but it's important to stress the risk ratio of 1 in 200 is the broadest average, akin (almost) to what Max Weber may call 'an ideal type', i.e., a fictional (Weber uses the term 'utopian') vehicle for analysis that doesn't exist in reality.
Also, look at the calculated 'severe AE' ratios broken down by age: if this isn't 'the obverse' image of risk stratification by age--albeit not for Sars-Cov-2, but for the Covid-19 injections--I don't know what else this tells us.
As an aside, these data points should probably also used to guide sensible policies that would allow physicians to individually treat their patients, you know, medicine is an art as well as a science. This is the part that I cannot comprehend: everything in medical science in terms of therapy/treatment is about the *one* patient in front of you--why is there this 'one product for everyone' push?
Norway's 0.05% for severe side effects seems quite high, right!? what qualifies as severe?
That's 1 in 2000 vaccinated. The risk of hospitalisation because of Sars Cov-2 is much lower for many age groups. Is there an age breakdown of the Adverse Effects in Norway?
I think it's higher than *reported* elsewhere, but I also don't think it reflects the 'true' rate (see my above comment).
As to your question, table 2 (in my post) gives the age breakdown, but without te crucial no. of injections. So, we know something, but too little in terms of details and particulars.
On that page you can also find more detailed reports, though these are in swedish. Look for the links below the headline "Handled reports" beneath the tables.
Even more detailed information, such as how AEs corresponds to the individuals health status and such is not publicly available, if it exists.
But it would appear that .5% for 'all-cause AEs' may be 'the floor' in this.
I'd also argue that, on a very broad average, Scandinavians are perhaps a bit healthier than their fellow Europeans, if only for absolutely specific reasons, such as kindergarten kids spending considerable time outside every day and primary school students having 'outdoor school' once a week. I've never seen of anything remotely like this in, say, Central Europe. Yes, kindergarten kids there go outside, too, but here's it's like, in every kind of weather, with perhaps the exception of heavy storms.
That said, I suppose that comparatively generous welfare/social spending--which specifically incl. virtually no costs for medical insurance (other than taxes) for children and teens under 18, and that--in Norway--also incl. dental (unsure about vision, but I'd bet that if a kid needs glasses or contact lenses, they'd be at the least heavily subsidised). I would imagine that this kind of policy takes a lot of pressure out of every parents' life.
This about kindergarten/pre-school varies tremendously depending on location and the quality of staff, though over all being out doors is still seen as the natural state virtually all year round. There is even a specialisation in the programme for kindergarten-techers for outdoor activities.
Also, there is still some social stigma associated with beng fat, so that helps too with regards to parents keeping their kids healthy, though again that varies very much with ethnicity and class.
Medical insurance in Sweden is for swedes dependant on your salary and duration of last employment. Initially, you get 85% of your pay after tax and then pay full income tax on those 85%. After six months, it drops to 65%. Of the 85%. And you still pay income tax. And if you are deemed unable to work, your sick pay is again 65% of those 65% that's counted off from the 85%, so no matter your disability you will always be kept on sick leave until you only qualify for the lowest amount.
And if you loose your sick pay, it's social security handouts for you. Unless they deem you to injured or sick to work; if they do they may refuse to pay out and will instead refer you back to the state health insurance who will refer you to welfare.
About 50 000 swedes are trapped in this Kafka-esque limbo. Most of them elderly, and/or with disabilities, and/or cognitive handicaps. Meanwhile, convicted felons get free dental care, and costs on average around 3 500:-/day/convict due to the quality of the prisons. Disabled people put in work programmes receive, if they haven't had previous income (with unemployment for the disabled being +80% fat chance of that), about 24:-/hour. Before tax. And the gross sum is deducted from their welfare check.
Our system looks very good on paper, but like an old medieval Bible having been kept in a damp sacristy, it all falls apart when you try to look inside.
There are quite a lot of "Waldkindergärten" in Germany. Also medical insurance for children is very cheap. The problem around here, it seems to me, is the social stratification. Half of the population (just to invent a figure) is using all these opportunities (Waldkindergarten, sports, regular visits at pediatrician and dentist), the other half is not aware of them or doesn't care.
Some people are waking up, or at least getting uneasy. Three days ago, the Ständige Impfkommission (STIKO, German panel for vaccine matters) recommended aspiration when applying a Covid vaccine (in contrast to all other vaccines). Official explanation is peri-/myocarditis in animal models (when the vaccines are injected into a vein), but we have seen some of this in certain bipeds as well, haven't we?
OK, so official AE rate for Norway is around 0.5%, and 0.05% for severe AE. For Germany, the Paul Ehrlich Institut (PEI) reports 0.164% and 0.02%:
https://www.pei.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/newsroom/dossiers/sicherheitsberichte/sicherheitsbericht-27-12-20-bis-31-12-21.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5
Official AE rate for the EU is something like 0.13%:
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/public-health-threats/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/treatments-vaccines/vaccines-covid-19/safety-covid-19-vaccines
Will we ever know the real rates?
I think the 'real' rates are much higher, but more so for the 'mild-to-medium' AEs; the gender bias is particularly important, I think (think 'man-cold' vs. 'woman-cold'). Generally, I'd say the Norwegian data is more transparent than, say, the Central European one, but they all fall short in one particular instance:
The 'all-cause AEs' don't capture the 'true' risk of repeat injections, hence, ceteris paribus, the 'true' rates won't tell us anything, if they aren't 'adjusted' to precisely this issue. In other words: it the rate of 'all-cause AEs' is 1 in 200 injections, that would give us the 'risk' for 1 injection; it would be 1 in 100 for those who take a second injection, and 1 in 50 for those who take another injection. (As a thought experiment, it would be some 1 in 25 for a possible 4th injection, right?)
So, let me ask you this, my friend: what 'real'--and at what point in each injected individual trajectory--would you like to know?
Good point. Your personal probability of AE for the n-th injection will definitely depend on your AE profile for the n-1 previous injections. Some countries publish AE data for the different injections separately but so far I have not seen any information about successive AEs. It's all swamped by the under-reporting anyway...
Agreed re the personal/individual probability.
I specifically included such language (perhaps too weak) in my piece, but it's important to stress the risk ratio of 1 in 200 is the broadest average, akin (almost) to what Max Weber may call 'an ideal type', i.e., a fictional (Weber uses the term 'utopian') vehicle for analysis that doesn't exist in reality.
Also, look at the calculated 'severe AE' ratios broken down by age: if this isn't 'the obverse' image of risk stratification by age--albeit not for Sars-Cov-2, but for the Covid-19 injections--I don't know what else this tells us.
As an aside, these data points should probably also used to guide sensible policies that would allow physicians to individually treat their patients, you know, medicine is an art as well as a science. This is the part that I cannot comprehend: everything in medical science in terms of therapy/treatment is about the *one* patient in front of you--why is there this 'one product for everyone' push?
It's not for medical reasons, that's for sure.
Norway's 0.05% for severe side effects seems quite high, right!? what qualifies as severe?
That's 1 in 2000 vaccinated. The risk of hospitalisation because of Sars Cov-2 is much lower for many age groups. Is there an age breakdown of the Adverse Effects in Norway?
I think it's higher than *reported* elsewhere, but I also don't think it reflects the 'true' rate (see my above comment).
As to your question, table 2 (in my post) gives the age breakdown, but without te crucial no. of injections. So, we know something, but too little in terms of details and particulars.
If you want to contrast and compare with Sweden, here is the swedish data collected:
[https://www.lakemedelsverket.se/en/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccine/reported-suspected-adverse-reactions-corona-vaccines#hmainbody1]
On that page you can also find more detailed reports, though these are in swedish. Look for the links below the headline "Handled reports" beneath the tables.
Even more detailed information, such as how AEs corresponds to the individuals health status and such is not publicly available, if it exists.
Ha, you bet I'd like to do so, if 'only' to see how 'good' the Norwegian data is. Thanks for this one!
Thanks! So it's about 100,000 / 20,000,000 = 0.5% there as well.
You beat me to it.
But it would appear that .5% for 'all-cause AEs' may be 'the floor' in this.
I'd also argue that, on a very broad average, Scandinavians are perhaps a bit healthier than their fellow Europeans, if only for absolutely specific reasons, such as kindergarten kids spending considerable time outside every day and primary school students having 'outdoor school' once a week. I've never seen of anything remotely like this in, say, Central Europe. Yes, kindergarten kids there go outside, too, but here's it's like, in every kind of weather, with perhaps the exception of heavy storms.
That said, I suppose that comparatively generous welfare/social spending--which specifically incl. virtually no costs for medical insurance (other than taxes) for children and teens under 18, and that--in Norway--also incl. dental (unsure about vision, but I'd bet that if a kid needs glasses or contact lenses, they'd be at the least heavily subsidised). I would imagine that this kind of policy takes a lot of pressure out of every parents' life.
This about kindergarten/pre-school varies tremendously depending on location and the quality of staff, though over all being out doors is still seen as the natural state virtually all year round. There is even a specialisation in the programme for kindergarten-techers for outdoor activities.
Also, there is still some social stigma associated with beng fat, so that helps too with regards to parents keeping their kids healthy, though again that varies very much with ethnicity and class.
Medical insurance in Sweden is for swedes dependant on your salary and duration of last employment. Initially, you get 85% of your pay after tax and then pay full income tax on those 85%. After six months, it drops to 65%. Of the 85%. And you still pay income tax. And if you are deemed unable to work, your sick pay is again 65% of those 65% that's counted off from the 85%, so no matter your disability you will always be kept on sick leave until you only qualify for the lowest amount.
And if you loose your sick pay, it's social security handouts for you. Unless they deem you to injured or sick to work; if they do they may refuse to pay out and will instead refer you back to the state health insurance who will refer you to welfare.
About 50 000 swedes are trapped in this Kafka-esque limbo. Most of them elderly, and/or with disabilities, and/or cognitive handicaps. Meanwhile, convicted felons get free dental care, and costs on average around 3 500:-/day/convict due to the quality of the prisons. Disabled people put in work programmes receive, if they haven't had previous income (with unemployment for the disabled being +80% fat chance of that), about 24:-/hour. Before tax. And the gross sum is deducted from their welfare check.
Our system looks very good on paper, but like an old medieval Bible having been kept in a damp sacristy, it all falls apart when you try to look inside.
There are quite a lot of "Waldkindergärten" in Germany. Also medical insurance for children is very cheap. The problem around here, it seems to me, is the social stratification. Half of the population (just to invent a figure) is using all these opportunities (Waldkindergarten, sports, regular visits at pediatrician and dentist), the other half is not aware of them or doesn't care.
Some people are waking up, or at least getting uneasy. Three days ago, the Ständige Impfkommission (STIKO, German panel for vaccine matters) recommended aspiration when applying a Covid vaccine (in contrast to all other vaccines). Official explanation is peri-/myocarditis in animal models (when the vaccines are injected into a vein), but we have seen some of this in certain bipeds as well, haven't we?
Denmark recommends aspiration since March 2021. How is this handled elsewhere?
Dunno about Norway, I might have a look later, though.