AZ clotting issue affects mainly women

I wasn't trying to be flippant or patronising giving the heparin example

People are very routinely injected with heparin in hospitals even if they haven't had an op. If you are less mobile than usual it will be recommended and most people blindly accept it with little discussion

People on other threads have had heparin injections after a broken arm and after a C section which are common things that many people might experience. Having heparin injections in hospital is seen as a very normal routine thing that is offered with a pretty low threshold to many, if not most, hospital inpatients.

COVID infection is strongly associated with clotting risk and people who are hospitalised with COVID are routinely injected with heparin so between the heparin and the COVID you'd be at higher risk of HIT of you did get COVID than with the vaccine.

Your risk of catching COVID is so dependent on your personal circumstances, National rates, public policy ie easing of lockdown, how many other people are vaccinated

When we had an outbreak at my work 100% of us caught it. my personal risk of catching it then was 100%

Right now it would be a lot less
Tomorrow it could go up again

It is in no way clear that this is an issue affecting only younger women
The sex and breakdown of the U.K. cases isn't published but the first 5 cases were in men.

With COVID infection you are more at risk than at a normal time

Am I being thick here, but if they've identified that women of a certain age bracket are more at risk from clots from the AZ vaccine then why aren't they being offered the other vaccine with no risks as a routine?

I have had my vaccine even though I am very low risk in terms of health and age group, but was not completely confident to do so as any queries were brushed off. Any other medicine they recognise risk but put it in context in terms of percentage. With this they just seem to loudly deny as risk whatsoever, even as evidence to the contrary comes to light. Surely it would be better to address concerns than ignore them. It makes it look like there is something to hide.

I am pro vaccines. But I am also pro not treating people like idiots.

Comparing the perceived risk to women from the AZ vax to a risk people take when accepting heparin AFTER HAVING HAD AN OPERATION is treating people like idiots. It’s not a fair comparison. After an op you are more at risk of blood clots than normal times. Our appetite to risk is always relative - I’d take all sorts of risks when I’m already lying on an operating table with my body cut open. On a normal day when I’m otherwise fit and healthy? My relative risk calculations are different. That’s why people need to see the actual relative numbers here.

Would be grateful if someone could clarify if the 1 in 100k risk cited from the German numbers is age and sex specific. As almost all the cases in Germany were women, perhaps it would be more appropriate to say the risk is around 1 in 50k (or possibly around 1:60k, as I would guess more women under 60 have had the vax than men, assuming health and care workers have been vaxed first).

We also need to know what the real current risk from covid by sex and age is. One thing is your risk of dying/being hospitalised once you have caught covid, but at this point in the pandemic, with numbers falling each day, I suspect people are also wondering about what their risk of actually catching it is. That may well be viewed as a selfish way to see things - basically piggy backing off the immunity of others (although of course some of us may already have had covid without knowing it, which may convey some immunity and add another dimension to the relative risk calculations. Some of these calculations people are trying to do for themselves may also be short termist - sooner or later a new variant will be along, and cases may sadly rise again - but so too might a new vaccine. But these are calculations people want to do. They are doing them for so many reasons. Given the risk we’re concerned about at present is mainly to women under 55, we’re talking about a lot of mothers, who are fearful about the impact on their children, or others they care for should they be one of the unlucky few. Please let’s not treat people like idiots. Give them the relevant numbers, and if necessary, give them access to an alternative vaccine.

Clotting with low platelets is a very bizarre rare thing. Usually low platelets cause bleeding because platelets make blood clot. This is not the same as normal DVTs and PEs

This rare thing (being called VIPIT) is seen with heparin injections (then called HIT) at a much higher rate than with the vaccine. People accept heparin post op with no questions asked.

It is certainly plausible that it could be a drug related side effect but a very rare one
The flu jab is commonly recognised to have a 1 in a million chance of causing GBS but people still have it
This is that kind of a thing serious but very very rare.

As it is so rare (2-15 per million) it is not known what the risk factors really are

Even IF it is caused by the vaccine (which is not certain)
And IF it's common in younger women (also not certain)
Then the risk is still thousands of times smaller than the risk of dying of COVID
A risk of 1/100,000 which is the highest risk anyone has estimated on the German data is a very very small risk

People keep saying
'But I'm at low risk of COVID as a young woman'
Yes that's right you are
But you are at even lower risk from being vaccinated and still you are obsessed with that tiny risk?
I just don't get it myself.

Does this rare type of clot normally occur in all ages, or older ages, so this specific under 60 age group is atypical? Are we not yet seeing the true level as we have vaccinated by decreasing age plus vulnerable people ? Does this clot normally occur with low platelets or is this an abnormal condition ?

www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/update-on-the-safety-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca.html

*careful review of all available safety data of more than 17 million people vaccinated in the European Union (EU) and UK with COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca has shown no evidence of an increased risk of pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or thrombocytopenia, in any defined age group, gender, batch or in any particular country.

So far across the EU and UK, there have been 15 events of DVT and 22 events of pulmonary embolism reported among those given the vaccine, based on the number of cases the Company has received as of 8 March. This is much lower than would be expected to occur naturally in a general population of this size and is similar across other licensed COVID-19 vaccines. The monthly safety report will be made public on the European Medicines Agency website in the following week, in line with exceptional transparency measures for COVID-19.

Furthermore, in clinical trials, even though the number of thrombotic events was small, these were lower in the vaccinated group. There has also been no evidence of increased bleeding in over 60,000 participants enrolled*

Hormonal cobtraceptives are not the only way to avoid getting pregnant so the comparison is not hormonal contraceptive vs pregnancy

'A lot of medications carry risks like hormonal birth control but we decide whether the benefits outweighs the risk '

Hormonal contraception is seen as a totally normal thing, I'm sure lots of women do no weighing up
I don't remember the risks really being pointed out
Pregnancy is a major thing to avoid. Abortion or having a baby. Both are a big deal.

I find this comparison glib.

Sorry not caught up

News earlier had an expert on saying risk of blood clots with hormonal contraception is higher than this risk.

Felt like a weird take to me. Oh well women take more risks to stop getting pregnant so whatever.

The fact that we take risks to stop getting pregnant is not a reason to say ah well they're used to this sort of shit

@CovoidOfAllHumanity
www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/coronavirus-covid-seven-blood-clots-dead-astrazeneca-vaccine-b927704.html

@CovoidOfAllHumanity thanks for flagging - funny how that keeps happening... I copy the link to an article and the link subsequently changes...hmm. Could be my fat fingers, of course... I'll look out the article again.

@LemonSwan yes, and I'm also concerned that the UK's reaction is starting to look like a cover-up - that will be very counterproductive and risk destroying people's faith in vaccines. Exactly what they don't want.

@LemonSwan haha sorry meant to post that in another thread

Risks need to be judged differently in countries that are very different to our own. Clearly the benefits of ALL the vaccines currently being used outweigh the risks when used in the high risk (priority) cohorts. Surely the focus should be on vaccinating the highest at risk, all around the world? The low risk cohorts can be viewed slightly differently if vaccine side effects / risks are identified and (ideally) other vaccines are available.

Field
Yes I agree that choice and information is really important. I do think "all of the vaccines are safe and effective" is unhelpful. People are not stupid and its better to say 'no medical treatment is 100% risk free - this is the risk of taking the vaccine (0.000x of y happening, 0.0000z of q etc.) and the risk of not taking it is 0.0x. Then everyone can clearly see and have a choice about which statistical group they wish to be in.

Denying any risks at all just makes anti vax rife because there will be cases to point to and instead we all end up in forums arguing over the stats.

@LemonSwan I agree that the issue of choice is key. There has been constant pressure placed on everyone (regardless of their Covid risk) to accept "whatever vaccine they are offered" - as if there could be no possible questioning on the part of individuals, regardless of their own health status or Covid risk. I would also be so much less angry about this if it weren't for the arrogant tone adopted by the government and certain sections of the press, deriding the precautionary principle adopted by other countries on this issue and making our lightning-speed vaccine rollout some kind of Brexit-induced triumph. And when I (or friends) have raised questions with the medical profession we have (generally) encountered a "blanket" party line: "all of the vaccines are safe and effective". It's like the tagline from a dystopian sci-fi film.

@CovoidOfAllHumanity

Yes the news was very tight lipped. Here in particular.

The US had the same issues and their media were much more open in the reporting of the facts so I found out the ages and sexes from there.

The trial in UK was reviewed independently by a commission to give the go ahead for restart. It was linked with MS - but they couldnt prove either way that is was or it wasnt the vaccine. And as this vaccine is so important and still likely to save more lives even if it was linked - they went ahead again. I do think that was the right decision.

I have tried to find the independent commisions report but google is crazy right now if you search those terms.

Perhaps a poster will come along and know where it is so you can read it.

Field of memes is that the wrong link to the Evening Standard article you posted? The article it takes me to is a rather positive one about reduction of transmission in vaccinated people

LemonSwan I took part in the AZ trial so I had a keen interest in those trial pauses given I am a woman under 50 and I had been injected with it voluntarily (actually it was placebo that I had but for all I knew at the time it could have been the experimental vaccine)

One of those transverse myelitis cases was definitely proven to be due to MS which the person concerned did not know they had. Sad for them but 100% not due to the vaccine.

The other case did remain unexplained despite extensive investigation. It was not anything to do with blood clotting.

I was not aware of the age or sex of either of those people who had adverse reactions and I am very surprised that it would be released publicly as it could identify the person since such events are rare.

@Fieldofmemes
Yes I think it was that. I remember loosely it was a really rare spinal cord central nervous system inflammation issue. It was an age ago I wrote to him (or feels like it anyway) - I think November. Obviously I didnt get a reply and clearly they took no notice.

I am not a medic either so my opinion probably is a mute one - it was more that if people were worried and they had a choice then uptake may be higher.

@LemonSwan that's interesting - kudos for writing to Boris about that. Hopefully it was taken on board and is being looked at. Was it the transverse myelitis issue, or am I thinking of another vaccine? (Sorry, not a medic).

@pennylane83 yes.