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.

@MRex I think it's reasonable to have concerns given the picture that's emerging. I would certainly have reservations about taking the AZ vaccine as a woman in my 30s.

However, yes, it is still extremely unlikely that the posters here will experience that side effect. It is frustrating though, when other countries seem to be taking this risk a lot more seriously.

Boring and Rainbow, on the plus side there is still some time to go until you are due your second doses. Investigations will be ongoing during that time and there will be a lot more knowledge on this issue in a couple of months.

@MRex

I think you both need to step away from it all. You've been vaccinated, you have no side effects, you are fine. You're literally just winding yourselves and each other up to no good purpose.

@MRex thank you, you’re absolutely right. It’s just easier said than done when there’s a lot in the media at the moment and the narrative is changing day by day.

@Sakura7 yes I’m hoping there will be much more information once we are due our second doses. It’ll be much easier to step away from the worry once I’m outside of the 20 days. The risk is small but unfortunately it looks like it will effect more people, though I know there is nothing I can do now. Unfortunately I’m naturally anxious so it’s not an easy wait while there’s new information in the media each day.

I'm quite sure it's being taken very seriously @Sakura7, there are named people dedicated to tracking and supporting any case in real time if you look at the treatment protocol in detail. The problem with the "pause certain vaccinations" approach of some other countries is 1) more people will catch covid and the pause risks far more lives than it can hope to save, plus 2) it creates headlines than create anxiety like we see here for many posters. They are genuinely frightened, when they have no need to be. That's not a good effect.

@MRex I should add one of the reasons I’ve headed back to these threads, as and when more information has come out has been that posters such as yourself have provided lots of calm and informative posts that I’ve found to be really helpful and have provided both facts and a voice of reason among the anxiety inducing headlines which has been greatly appreciated.

I'm very glad that I've been able to help a little. I was vaccinated on 16th, so I feel oddly like we're one little group. Shall we have a positive set of dates? From tomorrow, day 22, until my next vaccine on 7th June it has 76% efficacy. When is your day 22?

Hi, I think this is a very interesting topic. From a societal POW governments will of course push vaccination, as long as they cannot be accused of jeopardizing lives. (I am pro vaccination 100% BTW). From an individual POW, the younger and healthier you are, the less certain is your benefit from participating in the vaccination scheme vs the extremely low likelihood of blood clots. But if everyone doesn’t do it, we will continue to live in lock-down...

Governments need to take this blood clot disorder seriously and figure out 1) Who is prone to getting this 2) How do you monitor for symptoms 3) How is it treated. Then use it for the right people.

I myself had the first dose of AZ 2 weeks ago and have been unwell until today.”, day 14. I am 45, all healthy. I got shingles at 5-6 days post vaccination and was told that this is NOT related to the vaccine. But of course it is. Was fully healthy, and now it took me 2 weeks to recover from the vaccine, with the help of anti virals.

I don’t regret taking the vaccine, I am grateful to have taken it. Imagine what this virus would have done to me if this is what the vaccine does! But our UK government needs to establish what is going on with blood clots ASAP, not just go on saying it is nothing. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Germany etc won’t stop a vaccine over nothing.

@MRex you’ve been a huge help. That’s brilliant. I can’t wait to have that level of protection. My day 22 will be 18th April. Thank you for bringing me back to the most important focus. I’ve been so worried about the vaccination I’d lost the focus on the purpose of the vaccination and after a year of worrying about covid to have that level of protection is both amazing and something to get excited about

But if everyone doesn’t do it, we will continue to live in lock-down...

This isn’t true. We were in lockdown to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. We have vaccinated the groups most likely to become seriously ill.

Also, a reaction to the vaccine doesn’t necessarily mean you would react badly to the virus.

@MRex

I'm very glad that I've been able to help a little. I was vaccinated on 16th, so I feel oddly like we're one little group. Shall we have a positive set of dates? From tomorrow, day 22, until my next vaccine on 7th June it has 76% efficacy. When is your day 22?

Sorry @mrex this isn’t how the vaccine works. 76% efficacy means that, in the clinical trial, 76% of the people vaccinated developed what is considered to be a protective level of immunity. It does not mean that you, personally, have 76% protection until your next vaccine.

@bumbleymummy

But if everyone doesn’t do it, we will continue to live in lock-down...

This isn’t true. We were in lockdown to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. We have vaccinated the groups most likely to become seriously ill.

Also, a reaction to the vaccine doesn’t necessarily mean you would react badly to the virus.

if the virus mutates because not enough people have had it, and the virus mutates to a variant that the vaccines aren't good enough with then, it's as if nobody had been vaccinated and it's back t square 1

Easter - the virus will mutate regardless of whether or not enough people have had it. It’s what viruses do. Yes, one of those variants may escape the vaccine. We can’t keep living in fear of ‘what ifs’ though.

@Rainbowsandstorms See my previous post about what 76% efficacy means. Sorry if that disappoints you 😕 You’re still more likely to be protected than not.

The greater the number of transmissions, the greater the variant risk.

We don't have to live in fear of what it's but also we (the UK) don't have to be scientifically illiterate either.

@bumbleymummy - you need to read a little more. Oxford Astrazeneca has 76% reduction in symptomatic disease overall; the USA trial showed 100% efficacy against hospitalisations or severe covid, and this 76% efficacy against mild or moderate symptoms. Read some of the research, you'll find it interesting.

[quote MRex]@bumbleymummy - you need to read a little more. Oxford Astrazeneca has 76% reduction in symptomatic disease overall; the USA trial showed 100% efficacy against hospitalisations or severe covid, and this 76% efficacy against mild or moderate symptoms. Read some of the research, you'll find it interesting.[/quote]
or watch the press conferences as this was mentioned as well yesterday by Whitty I think

The problem with the "pause certain vaccinations" approach of some other countries is 1) more people will catch covid and the pause risks far more lives than it can hope to save, plus 2) it creates headlines than create anxiety like we see here for many posters.

Also, the risk-benefit analysis for each country will be different, these aren't purely safety decisions and media portraying it as a "ban" is unhelpful. Most European countries haven't stopped using AZ so it's not being wasted, they're just redirecting it to different categories. Lots of Europe is much more vaccine hesitant than the UK and AZ is already viewed sceptically for various reasons, so countries have different thresholds for acting depending on the best way to build trust and avoid vaccine refusal in that specific society. And some EU countries have decided that the benefits of vaccinating young people (teachers, police etc) with AZ outweigh the risks and are still doing this for now.

I live in the EU in an area with high Covid rates at the moment and I won't be offered any vaccine whatsoever for months yet. I still find the clotting story scary even though I know, rationally, that my fear is disproportionate compared to the risks of Covid. I am also worried about this issue damanging vaccine takeup where I live if it's not handled right. What I find reassuring is that medics will be looking out for symptoms and sharing treatment protocols now, which means that anyone who has one of these rare reactions has a better chance of getting the right treatment than they did a few days ago, and that information is being gathered and shared. Transparency and not just dismissing fears is so important.

@MRex I’m not trying to be rude here, unlike you, but I’ve read plenty about this and clearly understand it more than you do.

76% efficacy against mild/moderate symptoms does not mean that an individual has 76% protection against mild/moderate symptoms. It means that in the trials, 76% of the participants developed enough protection against mild/moderate symptoms. The other 24% did not.

@bumbleymummy
We can’t keep living in fear of ‘what ifs’ though.

Ironic since that’s what a number of posters on here are encouraging people to do, albeit about having a vaccine rather than Covid.

While I’m on, without wanting to sound stalkerish, a big thank you to @CovoidOfAllHumanity for your sensible and informative posts. I don’t know how you’ve had the patience!

@EasterIssland Whitty would not have been saying that an individual had a certain percentage of protection. That’s just not how it works.

“ Transparency and not just dismissing fears is so important.”

Indeed. I’m a bit hacked off about the government insisting, over and over, that it’s ‘perfectly safe’. Like it’s a non issue.

[quote bumbleymummy]@MRex I’m not trying to be rude here, unlike you, but I’ve read plenty about this and clearly understand it more than you do.

76% efficacy against mild/moderate symptoms does not mean that an individual has 76% protection against mild/moderate symptoms. It means that in the trials, 76% of the participants developed enough protection against mild/moderate symptoms. The other 24% did not.[/quote]
Your constant posts trying to find any angle to put others off vaccination are quite strange.

100% didn't get severe symptoms nor hospitalisation. Vaccines work by people generating antibodies. Some don't generate enough antibodies, especially immune suppressed individuals or more frail elderly people, then they don't get as good a result. Variants can also lead to a slower immune system response; the trial had Peru and Chile with the Brazilian variant to contend with. Any antibodies however will help the body mount a response at the time it encounters covid; it really doesn't matter much if someone gets a mild case (apart from transmission), it's the severe cases that are a problem. It's been shown in trials that people get antibodies from this vaccine; if those vaccine antibodies downgrade a severe case to mild then that's to be celebrated, not sneered at.

While I’m on, without wanting to sound stalkerish, a big thank you to @CovoidOfAllHumanity for your sensible and informative posts. I don’t know how you’ve had the patience!

Agreed, I would add @MRex too.

@MRex

I am not trying to put anyone off vaccination - I literally just said to Rainbows that she is more likely to be protected than not . I’m just trying to explain to you that you, as an individual, do not have a certain percentage of immunity to the virus. The vaccine is not a certain percentage effective against preventing the virus in you. It has either generated enough of an immune response in you to provide protection against mild/moderate disease (as it did for 76% of the subjects in the clinical trials) or it has not.

[quote bumbleymummy]@EasterIssland Whitty would not have been saying that an individual had a certain percentage of protection. That’s just not how it works.[/quote]
This is what it was said. Of course if only one person is vaccinated that singular person won’t have any protection. The more people that are vaccinated the more protection will have.

But I can see you’ve read loads about this and have more knowledge than most of us. So please how does it work if we only vaccinate 50% of the population. What would happen?

I am very well aware that my personal immunity is probably 100% from this vaccine, and that some people may get none. I am trying to address your confusion that the 24% had no protection at all, that is not correct or we would not see the huge reduction in hospitalisations. Immunity is not a simple tick then you're ok or you're not, it is a spectrum.