Now 79 cases of AZ-related blood clots in the U.K. and 19 deaths *title edited by MNHQ at OP's request*

[Boringlynormal]

How have we gone - in the past 10 days - from:

5 cases - all men
To
30 cases, 7 deaths
To
79 cases and 19 deaths, 2/3 of them are women.

What the hell is going on?!

Yes I know it’s still low compared to overall number than have had the vaccine but that’s not reassuring when they don’t seem to have had a clue about the numbers and let us all continue getting the vaccine with no warning even when Europe was sounding huge alarm bells.

I’m 12 days post AZ, mid 30s and very upset.

But I’m pissed off that this leaves me less protected because I tried to do the right thing and trusted

How are you less protected than before? You've had the 70% less likely to get covid or higher protection already.

@OnwardsAndSideways1 Tbh that’s what I’m trying to establish - has most of the job been done with one jab or am I now going to have to choose a vaccine that I’m unsure about vs much lower protection?

Though to be fair a lot of people over 30 will have this dilemma but worse as they will be deciding to have a first shot of AZ or nothing, unless we have enough that people can be choosy.

@LookAChicken

Op frankly, what you need is a clairvoyant.

@AbsentmindedWoman

Maybe you’re the idiot as those who’ve had children already can still be at risk of serious complications and death in pregnancy and birth.

@toocold54 You're an insensitive piece of shit.

I can't have a safe pregnancy so will never have a child. It's a cheap shot to dismiss women like me, as if we don't exist, when trying to draw some nonsensical parallel between risks of childbirth and vaccine risk to try to shame younger women for being concerned about the AZ vaccine in light of the developing situation with it.

Why are you mentioning ‘young women’ specifically? Young women have contracted CVST were a majority in proportion to the fact that the majority of those who received AZ were also young women. Hence why both EMA and MHRA haven’t distinguished risk based on gender.

@AbsentmindedWoman you seriously need to get a grip!
Many women on here can’t have children or know people who have died during pregnancy and childbirth but they’re not using it as an excuse to be rude to someone who gave OP an opinion she was asking for.

There will be many people on here who have been triggered by the subjects raised and the cause of death through car accidents, the pill, suicide etc but they know it is a fact rather than a personal attack so don’t act offended or act like the poster has purposely personally attacked them.

No-one (sensible) every said there was no risk from taking the vaccine. What they've said - and what they are still saying, very loudly - is that the risk from taking the vaccine is significantly less than the risk from catching Covid. Only in the case of younger adults, and when circulating rates of Covid are very low (lower than they currently are), do the risks start to become comparable. Hence why that group will be offered an alternative.

That's not how I remember it. Back in January I said that as a slim healthy 32-year-old, I was slightly unsure about taking a brand new vaccine and was glad I'm not at the top of the list because I'd rather wait and see how it all plays out.

I was told by many, MANY people that I was stupid and a science denier. That the phase III trials were absolutely conclusive that there is NO risk.

Even if the risk is still smaller, than the risk from COVID for me (which again, is still far from a sure thing), this at least demonstrates that many people on here are too eager to position themselves on one end of a spectrum and insult everyone who lies anywhere else on it.

@Silversun83

I still don't understand why the ban is only for under 30s.. I appreciate that they deem the risks outweigh the benefits (or it's a fine line), but they're saying they will be offered an alternative vaccine...

If it's so unsafe for under 30s that they're banning it, then surely it's unsafe for the rest?

I don’t think it’s necessarily’insafe’ for under 30s, but the risks of serious harm from covid go up the older you get, so there’s more benefit from taking the vaccine.

OP what do you do for a living? I assume you’re offered the vaccination so young due to your job.

I’m a carer as one of my DC has a disability (though not one that should make them more vulnerable to Covid as far as we know).

I have had my first jab and feel like I should be more worried about this than I am! But then again, I was on the pill for absolutely years and have been pregnant twice and didn't live my life then constantly worrying about fatal blood clots, so why would I now I guess?

@Gwenhwyfar

I don't remember hearing that at all. I only remember 'the vaccine is safe' and complete contempt for anyone who was concerned.

The headline that 'the vaccine is safe' has always come with the small print of "the benefits greatly outweigh the risks."

There is no medication which has ever been produced which doesn't have some side effects for some people. Sometimes they are serious, even fatal. But if a medication is approved for use, that means that on the basis of all available information, the benefit outweighs the risk.

When those conditions are met, the scientists will say 'the vaccine is safe." I would hope that people understand what they mean by that, but evidently not. 'Safe' is taken by some to mean 'absolute cast iron guarantee that it will not cause anyone any harm, ever.'

As for the contempt, well, it's an emotive issue and this is the internet after all. That doesn't make it OK, but it does make it unsurprising, in my view. Sadly.

Interesting piece on R4 now /just before- see if you can listen on catchup.

@Tootsey11

I wonder how many of you would still be saying take the vaccine if one of those 19 dead was your child, sister, mother, brother etc.

Irrelevant.

I’m sure the family members of those who disappeared on flight MH370 would advise against flying ever again. That’s sad but doesn’t make it rational advice on a population level.

If you get a new prescription from your doctor, do you read the leaflet with all the possible side effects? They can sometimes run to a small book. The only time I read the leaflet was for the malaria tablets - the side effects listed covered everything from a mild headache to death! If you didn’t take prescriptions because of the very unlikely side effects, you’d never take anything.

@Boringlynormal I don't think that data will be available yet, there will not be enough people who had second AZ in your age group at all. Very few people in their 30's have been vaccinated twice with AZ to detect very rare blood clot risks between the two vaccines. So, you have to make a decision based on the best available evidence.

If you don't have any risk factors yourself, and your child with a disability isn't more at risk, you only really had the vaccine by a quirk of fate, not due to increased risk of covid. You have the same risk then as any one else of your age- most of whom won't even have the protection of one vaccine. You are more protected than other people. That might be another way to view it (and you don't have to have the second if you don't want it- there won't be a relevant all worked out data set to tell you what your chances are as you are in an unusual category anyway).

Why are you mentioning ‘young women’ specifically? Young women have contracted CVST were a majority in proportion to the fact that the majority of those who received AZ were also young women. Hence why both EMA and MHRA haven’t distinguished risk based on gender.

Fair comment. I only saw rates in women were higher, not that that was proportionate.

However, given that women (and when I say young I'm using it as a catch all for under 50) suffer much higher rates of autoimmune disease then I think the demographic data that emerges is important.

Similarly, I wonder if it will turn out not to be advised for people undergoing cancer treatment/ where platelets can be low at times.

@Silversun83

I still don't understand why the ban is only for under 30s.. I appreciate that they deem the risks outweigh the benefits (or it's a fine line), but they're saying they will be offered an alternative vaccine...

If it's so unsafe for under 30s that they're banning it, then surely it's unsafe for the rest?

It’s about the balance of risks & benefits.

Scientists have now decided that for under 30s, who are at low risk from getting covid, the very, very small risks associated with the AZ vaccine mean it’s better to take another vaccine.

For older people, the risks of covid are much, much, much higher than the tiny risks of the AZ vaccine, so they should take it when offered.

Please watch today’s briefing when you get chance, it was very informative. The slides presented by Prof Van Tam have been copied onto the early pages of this thread.

Not irrelevant at all. People generally take more time to consider something if it affects them personally. If an illness or condition has not been in your family, you are very unlikely to give it much thought. This can be seen clearly on here with covid. If it didn't affect you your family or someone close to you, then from responses on here a lot of people were not worried about it.

I’m annoyed really.

Already caught Covid early on, then agonised over having the AZ & decided to go ahead.

Should have just kept faith in my own immune system & really doubtful I’ll have the second dose at this stage. Who’s to say it won’t add just enough extra fuel to the fire to give me a Brain clot?!

[quote PuzzledObserver]@Gwenhwyfar

I don't remember hearing that at all. I only remember 'the vaccine is safe' and complete contempt for anyone who was concerned.

The headline that 'the vaccine is safe' has always come with the small print of "the benefits greatly outweigh the risks."

There is no medication which has ever been produced which doesn't have some side effects for some people. Sometimes they are serious, even fatal. But if a medication is approved for use, that means that on the basis of all available information, the benefit outweighs the risk.

When those conditions are met, the scientists will say 'the vaccine is safe." I would hope that people understand what they mean by that, but evidently not. 'Safe' is taken by some to mean 'absolute cast iron guarantee that it will not cause anyone any harm, ever.'

As for the contempt, well, it's an emotive issue and this is the internet after all. That doesn't make it OK, but it does make it unsurprising, in my view. Sadly.[/quote]
I absolutely get what you’re saying, Puzzled but I think it’s a little different in this case. The government has persistently whipped the U.K. public up into a state of prolonged fear and there have been situations and controls for everyone that have never been seen before in our lifetimes. Then to tell everyone that the vaccine is the way out and that it’s safe does encourage people to blindly take the vaccine, which is really what the government wanted isn’t it?

Our government messed the handling of the pandemic up so badly that the only chance we have is a vaccine. It stands to reason that it is in the governments interest to push vaccination more than perhaps they would have had they handled it better.

It’s like holding the hand of a trusted person when crossing the road and that trusted person saying it’s safe to cross, there’s no need to look. Half way across, that person says oh hang on, you’ve got red shoes on, red car drivers are attracted to red shoes so actually maybe you’d better stop in the middle of the road and think about it yourself.

I’m not anti vax. I’m not even anti covid vax, but I do think they have put people in a difficult position now.

@Tootsey11

Not irrelevant at all. People generally take more time to consider something if it affects them personally. If an illness or condition has not been in your family, you are very unlikely to give it much thought. This can be seen clearly on here with covid. If it didn't affect you your family or someone close to you, then from responses on here a lot of people were not worried about it.

Yes, which is why you neither listen religiously to the anecdotal experiences of those who have suffered, nor to the experiences of those who haven’t experienced any ill effects at all. That goes with covid as well as the vaccines.

You take into account the overall, expert consensus of the risk levels and go from there.

@Boringlynormal I don't think that data will be available yet, there will not be enough people who had second AZ in your age group at all. Very few people in their 30's have been vaccinated twice with AZ to detect very rare blood clot risks between the two vaccines. So, you have to make a decision based on the best available evidence.

If you don't have any risk factors yourself, and your child with a disability isn't more at risk, you only really had the vaccine by a quirk of fate, not due to increased risk of covid. You have the same risk then as any one else of your age- most of whom won't even have the protection of one vaccine. You are more protected than other people. That might be another way to view it (and you don't have to have the second if you don't want it- there won't be a relevant all worked out data set to tell you what your chances are as you are in an unusual category anyway).

@OnwardsAndSideways1 Thank you so much for your very kind post, and positive way of looking at things.

Yes, it was a total quirk of fate in some ways that means I'm vaccinated. At the time I was thanking my lucky stars. Now I'm cursing it. Down to where I live and what my nearest centre was handing out, too, because I'm sure plenty my age have had Pfizer and are feeling very good about that. I had a certain sense of guilt about going earlier than some people older or more at risk than me and when this all emerged I thought 'Oh well, serves me right'. Which is silly!

Some people in here seem to have lost all sense of perspective... The chances of dying as a result of the AZ vaccine are literally less than one-in-a-million based on the data.... As a fit 40-something, the chances of my dying if I catch Covid are 100-1,000 times higher!

Deciding not to take the vaccine based on these stats would be complete insanity! You'd be literally 30 times more likely to die from a car accident this year (1,842 deaths in 2019), yet I expect none of you give a second thought to that.

I was on the fence about getting the vaccine due to crippling health anxiety at the moment. After this announcement, its not for me until there's more information and also choice (which I'd happily pay for). I cant take Pfizer due to allergies and will not take the AZ. I'm over 40, no massive health problems but, and its a big one, I do have a problem with my blood clotting when it's taken for blood tests. DR suggests its an antibody causing this although clotting factor tests come back clear. So right now, I'm making the choice not to take AZ as I cannot see why other countries have a much higher cut off age.

People should have a choice over what they put in their bodies and it should be an informed choice. I don't feel I can do that right now.

@EddieVeddersfoxymop I'm assuming your blood clotting issues might be impacted if you get COVID. I understand it is not an easy decision to make.

@Boringlynormal you don't need to curse having had the AZ vaccine, it's protecting you. You are 12 days from having it, and issues with clotting have been showing within two weeks. You aren't the unlucky one, so all good. Don't have to have the next one if you don't want to (I'll be having mine, but I am older, aged 50, and the risk of not only covid but long covid is quite large in my mind).

@ineedaholidaynow yes, you may be right. Its not an official thing- as I say my tests all came back clear, but there is definitely something that causes weird clotting when my blood is drawn. I just don't feel like I can make an informed, safe choice so right now the best action feels like no action.