AstraZeneca - yes or no?

[merrymelody]

Our local pharmacy is offering the AstraZeneca vaccine. I thought I would jump at the chance to be vaccinated but somehow, I don't feel comfortable about this brand. Am I being silky?

[quote EgonSpengler2020]@Sansaplans

It is extremely rare overall. But what we don't know is what the specific risk factors are that, if present, will make it a lot less rare for that individual.

As someone who may have a massive risk factor (past history of immune thrombocytopenia), I'd really like to know more details before making a decision or be offered an alternative vaccine. This is not unreasonable![/quote]
No it's not unreasonable, but it doesn't change the fact that it's very rare. Now it's been 'officially' recognised as a side effect I'm sure there will be a lot going on in the medical community to try and identify risk factors etc and to help those with existing conditions make informed choices.

As a 49 year old that's been told to wait.......I would have it right now if I could

@Dongdingdong

I’m sick to death of people (and it started with the EU) constantly trying to undermine this vaccine. Next time there’s a pandemic you can forget having a vaccine produced at cost. Ain’t gonna happen.

Oh bless. Van Tam has really thrown a spanner into your anti EU agenda hasn’t he.

Yes, you are being silly.

I'm 46, I would take anything I can get at the moment, tired of waiting.

Yes I’m 46 and tired of waiting too

Interesting turn of events, change of policy for those under 30.

Great. Awesome. You had it without issues. Hopefully those who have concerns will now be taken seriously on here without the name calling.

I believe “sheeple” is the vaccine sceptic’s insult of choice.

This will have huge implications for the UK vaccine rollout,potentially as big as the MMR fiasco
You mean the MMR fiasco that turned out to be just lies and scaremongering from a doctor who was subsequently struck off? 🙄

I’ve had it. All my family and friends have had it. It’s a huge relief when you get it.

That relief lasted about 2 days for me before Canada banned it, followed by Germany and the Netherlands and then today’s ‘Oh yeah it’s not 5 cases it’s 79. Oops but that’s still not many so why do you even care’ statement and under 30s ban in the U.K.

@Boringlynormal

I’ve had it. All my family and friends have had it. It’s a huge relief when you get it.

That relief lasted about 2 days for me before Canada banned it, followed by Germany and the Netherlands and then today’s ‘Oh yeah it’s not 5 cases it’s 79. Oops but that’s still not many so why do you even care’ statement and under 30s ban in the U.K.

It's not banned in under 30s, there's guidance to recommend a different jab is offered. We have the luxury of having different ones available, therefore even though the risk is absolutely miniscule, it's one that for this particular risk can be avoided without too much issue. Makes sense.

It's not banned in under 30s, there's guidance to recommend a different jab is offered.

People seem to take exception to the word banned but it is in effect what has happened. Not recommended for under 30s? It comes down to the same thing.

I’m fully vaccinated, as are my kids, and I’ve had a flu jab two year running AND I had my first shot of AZ recently but I tell you what - nothing has made me feel more anti vaccines than some of the comments on this forum. You get very, very jumped on for raising concerns (little trifling things like ‘hey, whole other countries are saying that jab I just had isn’t safe enough for people my age’). The rush to dismiss people’s concerns, label them up as anti vaxxers and shout ‘selfish stupid murderer!’ at them is sort of creepy.

I NEVER thought I’d have sympathy for anti vaxxers. I share memes about those twats. And I still believe in vaccination (if not AZ). But a big part of me is wondering if people in this country drive these extremist views because they don’t bloody listen and discuss, they like to name and label and drive people with real concerns back onto their echo chambers.

@Boringlynormal

It's not banned in under 30s, there's guidance to recommend a different jab is offered.

People seem to take exception to the word banned but it is in effect what has happened. Not recommended for under 30s? It comes down to the same thing.

Not really, banned would suggest it's not fit for purpose and/or any benefits are massive outweighed by the risk, which isn't the case. It's as a very, very, very precautionary measure had its guidance changed. Language is important imo.

@merrymelody

Normally people in my age group will be offered theirs in June. By the government. So yes, it's tempting but I've read that the AstraZeneca shouldn't be given to the under 50s and also, that it's significantly less effective than the others.🤷‍♀️

It’s not significantly less effective than the others. American trials showed a reduction in deaths of 100%!

I’d have it, I’m under 50, had my first dose, looking forward to my second.

Don't remember if I've already answered the question on here but yes, I would have the A Z vaccine as soon as I'm offered the chance. Very early 40's, no underlying medical conditions to be concerned about.

Pfizer and Moderna have had similar incidences recorded regarding the rare blood clotting condition and claim to be monitoring it closely.
In a statement, Pfizer said: “We take reports of adverse events very seriously” and added that it was aware of thrombocytopenia cases in vaccine recipients.

The statement also said: “We are collecting relevant information to share with the FDA. However, at this time, we have not been able to establish a causal association with our vaccine.”

I had my first OAZ vaccine early March before there was any mention of blood clots. It was painless and I suffered no side-effects whatsoever. I was almost disappointed about not having the achy arm, flu type symptons, headaches, etc, because I've seen people saying this shows the vaccine is doing its job.

However, it's not because of the ease of having this vaccine and the lack of any problems afterwards that I'll still definitely be going to my second appointment in May. I'm past the age of needing contraception but I was continuously on the pill from the age of 17 to about 35. The main worry I had with the pill was the risk of it causing blood clots. For me the convenience and reasons I used it outweighed the risk of this.

I don't have any statistics to hand but, from what I remember, I'm sure the risk of developing a blood clot from using the pill was relatively much higher than the incidences of the blood clots recorded during this period of Covid-19 vaccination. I can't help thinking it's no coincidence that the blood clots are occuring in the age group that may well be using the pill, rather than in people in my age group.

For this reason I think it's probably a good idea to pause the vaccination of younger people, but I'm thrilled I've had mine and am counting down the weeks 'til I get the second one. Of course, we're all in new territory here and it'll be long down the line before we can really know what's happening.

Not really, banned would suggest it's not fit for purpose and/or any benefits are massive outweighed by the risk, which isn't the case. It's as a very, very, very precautionary measure had its guidance changed. Language is important imo.

It all adds up to the same thing. They’ve decided it’s not safe enough for under 30s. Other countries have gone further and decided it’s not safe enough for under 55s. Even in the absence of immediate suitable alternatives.

Some countries have now ruled it out for under 60s

I think I want to take it. I have moderate asthma requiring steroid inhalers, am
In my 40s and have a poor immune system...I also have a condition that is at high risk of blood clots. But Covid causes clots too.

I need to think on this but the benefits still seem to outweigh the risks

This is a useful graphic: twitter.com/alex_freeman/status/1379808289278545922?s=21

Get the jab op.

People seem to take exception to the word banned but it is in effect what has happened. Not recommended for under 30s? It comes down to the same thing.

Under 30s will be offered this one if the others aren’t available. That doesn’t mean it’s banned. The fact is that less people will be vaccinated if this one is the only one on offer as they can’t comprehend risk very well so think that one is more riskier than the others.

@toocold54, here we go again. People who can’t comprehend risk I suppose you include numerous European countries as not being able to comprehend risk very well either then!

That relief lasted about 2 days for me before Canada banned it, followed by Germany and the Netherlands and then today’s ‘Oh yeah it’s not 5 cases it’s 79. Oops but that’s still not many so why do you even care’ statement and under 30s ban in the U.K.

You are grossly misrepresenting the situation so you can’t be surprised if people want to disagree. How do you expect the regulatory bodies to have all the information from the outset, including cases that haven’t actually happened yet? It takes time to gather all the facts and analyse them - they can’t just find a few cases (which they don’t know the cause of) and immediately start running round like headless chickens saying everything must be “banned”.

@MrsFezziwig, I think what people are asking is why do other countries interpret the data differently and take a more cautious approach. Why did some countries say there was a link (Norway backed up with data from Norway) when U.K. still said there was no link. U.K. is behind in realising the seriousness of it. My opinion.

@PandoraP Yep exactly. Huge under-reaction from the UK.