Canada pauses AZ vaccines for under 55s (and says women most at risk)

[Boringlynormal]

Please tell me this isn’t something to worry about: www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/30/canada-suspends-use-of-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-for-those-under-55

Speaking as a woman in her 30s who was immunised 4 days ago (article tells us the risk is for young women 4 - 20 days after vaccination), I’m panicking now. Yes I know it’s rare but so is dying of Covid in my age group so I’m wondering if I’ve made a huge mistake.

By the way I’m very pro vaccine and leapt on the chance to get one. I’m just feeling so anxious now.

or is there a different reason?

www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/03/astrazeneca-vaccine-doesnt-prevent-b1351-covid-early-trial

This isn’t the actual paper but is a pretty good explanation. Obviously because of the low age of the participants and small sample size, we don’t know about preventing severe infection yet and it is early days, but it doesn’t look great.

People under 40 are very low risk for the virus anyway. I’m not sure why people are so worried about not being able to have a vaccine right now.

The SA variant currently makes up an absolutely tiny portion of U.K. covid infections. This isn’t something that we need to worry about right now, other than making sure that it stays a tiny proportion and not spreading covid around more than we need to.

@MrsFezziwig because this government haven't covered anything up at all during this pandemic, they've been thoroughly transparent and true to their word taking into account scientific evidence from all around the world and acting on it promptly at every opportunity. Ridiculous to be concerned.

Well in general drug reactions happen right after you've had the drug. It's hard to think of how it could have a very delayed effect as the possible mechanism is inducing antibodies to a blood clotting protein.

[quote Fieldofmemes]@MrsFezziwig because this government haven't covered anything up at all during this pandemic, they've been thoroughly transparent and true to their word taking into account scientific evidence from all around the world and acting on it promptly at every opportunity. Ridiculous to be concerned.[/quote]

Are you in England?

@Mumtwoboys90 I want to know why 20 days as well.

Quite a few sources seem to be saying 4 - 14 days for most risky time (I’m day 10) so perhaps beyond that there are a few outliers and they may or may not be related to the vaccine? Just guessing since once again we’ve been given no data in the U.K. on WHEN the U.K. cases got symptoms.

@Fieldofmemes Literally the funniest thing I’ve read all year

@dividedwefall .... it was irony (:

I really honestly don't know of any science that they have covered up.

I am not a Tory voter or a fan of Boris but where are the instances of covering up science?

Cronyism on PPE contracts yes
Not locking down early enough first time (but many agreed with him at the time)
Incompetent commissioning of track and trace
Lots of mistakes were made but none of these are covering up science which it would be hard to do because some scientist would leak it.

(Unless you are going to say Vit D or ivermectin which just don't work rather than being somehow covered up)

What a mess. If they do age restrict it tomorrow then how many otherwise healthy younger women, 30-50 will want it?

I don’t want to be told that the risk of covid for me is worse (low BMI, good health). I want to see the numbers for myself thanks very much

My non knowledgeable feeling is that if it takes 21 days after vaccine for the vaccine to be fully ‘working’ then presumably in this time period your body is ‘doing stuff’. And that stuff is presumably what very occasionally triggers the side effect. I’m not a doctor or scientist (can you tell?! ) but presumably after that time your body has done its thing and will be no different unless Covid comes along so there’s nothing to react to.

Hello again covoid!

Plenty of studies showing worse outcomes in those with lower vitamin D. We shouldn’t be blindly chucking a tiny dose at the population either. We should be testing people’s level and optimising it. Numerous benefits - not just an optimised immune function.

I think that's a reasonable understanding. The stuff it's doing is making antibodies and the possible mechanism is making an antibody to the wrong thing in some people

[quote Fieldofmemes]@MrsFezziwig because this government haven't covered anything up at all during this pandemic, they've been thoroughly transparent and true to their word taking into account scientific evidence from all around the world and acting on it promptly at every opportunity. Ridiculous to be concerned.[/quote]
What part of the world do you live in? Sounds interesting.

@Username198 thank you ((: I'll be here all week. (Well, at this rate I will...)

I agree Vit D levels being optimised is a good thing for general health and I actively test my patients (who are an at risk group) and supplement if low

However on other threads problem have insisted to me that Vit D is a cure for COVID and/ or prevents at least as much COVID as being vaccinated and that is not the case.

I am curious about why the UK cases weren't identified (at least publically) until after the European ones, when presumably at least some happened earlier. Is that because of a delay in checking the yellow card reports, or because hospitals didn't report these events as potential side effects? Or something else (I don't mean a cover-up, more like whether age or medical history could have lead to them being seen as less unusual)?

The MHRA are not the government. Even if the government had been covering up science (and with the exception of schools I’m not convinced), I don’t see the MHRA staking their entire international reputation to protect this government.

I think if they do make a recommendation then they will publish the data with that so you can indeed see for yourself

@CovoidOfAllHumanity I think they covered up early on re masks not being helpful to stopping spread as we didn’t have enough

This has to come down to a risk to benefit assessment. If the vaccine is as likely to cause you to die as COVID is, why take the vaccine?

@nordica

This is the quote from the news story about the MHRA reviewing it: "Two senior sources told Channel 4 News that while the data is still unclear there are growing arguments to justify offering younger people - below the age of 30 at the very least - a different vaccine.

Both sources however emphasised their support for the Oxford jab and their concerns that any restriction of its rollout could damage public confidence in it."

But would that make the MHRA fuckwits?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/4193400-to-think-the-eu-countries-are-utter-fuckwits-over-the-az-vaccine

Is mhra doing any statement tomorrow or is it only channel 4 reporting something that they think will happen ? I can’t see any news about mhra making a decision in the coming days about. Just worried whether there is no statement But people will believe it and won’t take the vaccine if below 30