Commentary
Australia’s Chief Medical Officer has launched a campaign to rehabilitate the AstraZeneca vaccine as a suitable COVID-19 jab.
The vaccine lost much of its reputation when the media revealed that several people died from blood clot problems after vaccination. Blood coagulation problems include thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS).
According to the Therapeutic Goods Department, the total number of TTS cases that may have been identified in Australia is currently 83 out of 5.4 million doses.
Campaign participants point out that the risk of blood clotting is only one in 250,000 AstraZeneca jabs, while blood clotting in contraceptive women is one in 1,000. ..
Professor Adam Taylor, director of the Center for Clinical Anatomy Learning at Lancaster University, said: Conclusion:
With this in mind, some people taking the AstraZeneca vaccine have a small risk of coagulation, but this risk of coagulation is much lower than many others, including contraceptives. It is worth remembering that the risk of coagulation is significantly lower than after COVID-19 infection.
Given the validity of this information, the next question is why people do not trust AstraZeneca.
Of course, the simple answer to this question focuses on the apparent power of the media to instill a particular message in people and the ability to exacerbate the problems experienced with the AstraZeneca vaccine, thereby questioning the masses.
But a better explanation is that people, especially the elderly, have come to believe that there are better and perhaps better vaccines: Pfizer and Modana.
These vaccines have the same potential side effects as other vaccines, but they do not appear to cause blood clotting problems with the AstraZeneca vaccine. Therefore, many people have come to consider Pfizer as the gold standard for the COVID-19 jungle.
More importantly, there is a logical error in comparing the blood coagulation side effects of AstraZeneca and oral contraceptives.
The error is in comparing two treatments that cannot be compared. One is inoculation and the other is tablets used for completely different purposes.
However, in the case of vaccines, both Pfizer and AstraZeneca are used for the same purpose of inoculating people against the COVID-19 virus, so it is possible to compare them.
On the other hand, one of the most frustrating things surrounding the controversial vaccine debate is the presence of many different and inconsistent opinions and advice.
One specialist may tell a person that AstraZeneca is a potentially dangerous vaccine. However, other experts may point out that the risk of taking AstraZeneca jab is negligible compared to its great potential benefits.
It is no wonder that people lose confidence in the effectiveness of vaccines and hesitate if their medical peers do not consistently provide medical advice.
Also, it does not help that the chambolic deployment of the vaccine in Australia is an example of a textbook on how it should not be done.
These issues are hotly debated in Australia and abroad.
When I was discussing this issue with stakeholders rather than medical professionals, he told me that the vaccine had to follow 10 properties in order to be used confidently.
There are five medical requirements: (i) the vaccine must result in a measurable reduction in the number of sick people suffering from the COVID-19 virus, (ii) the vaccine can protect the recipient for a considerable amount of time. Booster shots that must be possible and thus probably need to be avoided, (iii) the vaccine has few negative side effects, (iv) the vaccine is effective against new variants of the virus, (v) Vaccines need to significantly reduce infection rates.
Logistics requirements include (i) low cost to produce vaccines, (ii) rapid production of vaccines on the required scale, (iii) efficient distribution of vaccines, (iv) easy distribution, There are four. Manage.
Perhaps the most important requirement is that the vaccine must have public trust and trust from the medical and political circles.
Obviously, the AstraZeneca vaccine is struggling to meet the final requirements of this trust.
Fortunately for AstraZeneca, “trust” is adaptable and can be influenced by rational discussions on this issue. This is what the Chief Medical Officer is trying to achieve in his current campaign.
But for now, even members of medical fraternity are embarrassed, don’t know what to think about, and give patients conflicting advice.
Of course, this debate is not helped by continued uncertainty about the origin of the vaccine.
NS Report by the US Republican Party On August 2, 2021, it was concluded that “the predominance of evidence proves that the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic leaked from a research facility in China.”
In addition, “Wuhan Institute of Vase … Scientists, with the support of U.S. experts and funding from China and the U.S. government, are working to modify the coronavirus to infect humans, and such operations It may be hidden, “he added.
A World Health Organization-sponsored virus survey also yielded suspicious results, said the WHO director of the mission to investigate the outbreak: believed it Also, the source may be from ongoing research at the Wuhan Institute.
In the end, the virus was more successful than all expected. It has hurt democracy by undermining people’s rights and freedoms and destroying the economy of the free world.
In such an environment, it is no wonder that people have become distrustful of the proposed treatments for COVID-19 infection, especially given that the origin is still unknown.
Gabriël A. Professor MoensAM is an emeritus professor at the University of Queensland and was a vice president, dean, and professor of law at Murdoch University. He published the novel “A Swiss Choice” on the origin of COVID-19 disease and recently published the short story “The Greedy Prospector” in the anthology of the short story “The Outback” (Boolarong Press, 2021).