Why only under 30’s?

[Tinkling]

I’m hoping someone can explain the logic to me because I don’t understand it AT ALL.

19 people have died from a side effect after the AZ vaccine and only THREE were under 30.

So why is the offer of a different vaccine only restricted to the under 30’s?

@StrawberryLipstickStateOfMind

It's so hard to interpret but I read that of 79 cases, 51 were female and 28 male.

@Screwcorona I'm not particularly worried about dying of coronavirus as feel that at 33 with a healthy BMI and no other health conditions my chance of death is tiny. But it's still far far more than the risk of the Oxford vaccine so i'll happily take the Oxford vaccine.

And not only dying. The risk of long COVID is 20% after catching the virus. Ans this one doesn’t care of age sex or any other health problems, so it’s also a risk

@Aposterhasnoname

It’s all to do with risk vs benefit. So under 39s the risk from COVID is less than the clots, but over 39 it reverses and the risk is higher from COVID than from clots.

The risk to the under 30's from covid is most certainly NOT less than the clots. There's NO way they'd still put the vaccine out there if it was, but it's a lot closer...

As to why only the

It’s nothing to do with younger people being more likely to get a clot. The clots in the 79 people in the UK ranged from ages 18-70. Only 3 who died were under 30. So far more over. For example - my mum in her 60’s has just as much chance of getting a clot as my 25 year old cousin. It’s not age discriminatory. However, my 60 year old mum is far, far more likely to die of COVID than this blood clot. My 25 year old cousin had the exact same chance of getting the clot BUT she isn’t likely to die or be seriously ill from covid. So from a risk perspective, it makes sense to offer her a different jab. For my mum, covid is a far higher risk & so the benefit outweighs the risk.

Being under 30 does NOT make you higher risk of getting this clot. So those whinging about being 31, it’s nothing to do with that. It’s to do with risk. I’m 31 and accept that I have a higher risk of covid than the 20-29 group. Maybe not much being early 30’s but they have to draw a line somewhere. If they drew it at under 40’s, all the 41 year olds would be complaining..

@User5485421134

I think the UK are throwing people in their 30-40s under a bus here

Have a look at the link posted by @rainbowunicorn. For 30-39’s at low risk of exposure to Covid, the risk of harm from the vaccine is 0.8 per 100,000 while the risk of ITU admission with Covid is 2.7, more than 3 times as much.

Having the vaccine means a relative risk reduction of 70%. How is that throwing them under the bus?

Yeah that too @EasterIssland. I had a virus last July, sore throat, dry cough, temperature, generally feeling shit for two weeks. Temperature kept coming back. I tested negative with PCR test twice but I'm not sure... I think the first test was done too soon and the second done too late. I can't say for definite that I had coronavirus, the negative tests make me think probably not but it's just strange that in July last year, when all other viruses were circulating at very low levels, I became unwell....

The other issue is that ever since I get a sore throat very frequently, several times a week, a really weird feeling... sore throat isn't the best way to describe it but can't think of another way... headachey and lethargic too. It's not debilitating by any means but I'd rather not feel like it! No idea if it's mild 'long COVID' or just something else. I guess what I mean is I agree with you that protection from ongoing illness for young people where possible is also very important!

I just believe that whatever happens, we can't live like this, this awful half life with the economy and people's mental health being utterly destroyed. I'd want to get back to normal ASAP anyway but I'm definitely happy to take the Oxford vaccine and the protection it would give me, with only a vanishingly small risk of the vaccine causing any harm.

Before you get so aerated at everyone else’s stupidity HolmeH, perhaps stop to think that the numbers of people in each age group who have had the vaccine are not the same, so the low number of under 30s having side effects can still represent a higher risk, and look at the graphic used by the JCVI which clearly shows a higher risk from the vaccine for the younger age groups. Or have they got it wrong as well?

@Tinkling

I’m hoping someone can explain the logic to me because I don’t understand it AT ALL.

19 people have died from a side effect after the AZ vaccine and only THREE were under 30.

So why is the offer of a different vaccine only restricted to the under 30’s?

Is it maybe to do with the proportion of those 3 deaths, in comparison with the number of people say over 40 who have had the vaccine and died? It'll be a very few number of people under 30 who have had the chance to get the vaccine if the older people have been prioritised.

As a 30 year old woman I find it hard that 6 months ago I would have been offered a choice but will not now. Also a bit worried about living on my own. I know there is only a tiny chance of a clot but and I will probably still have it but will be quite worried for the couple of weeks after.

Also, I don't know how much better it would be having the Moderna. As this has only been used in trials and hasn't yet been rolled out to a large population there may be very rare side effects which could come up in futute

BAME communities locally are being advised differently by the local teaching hospital and young people who don’t have clotting or bleeding issues are being told to take it.

Apparently if you are BAME then the risk of clotting and death with Covid is much higher than the vaccine because we are more likely to get severe and long covid.

For it’s effectiveness in eliminating severe covid AZ is the one recommended in many BAME communities where women don’t take the pill or hrt for cultural or religious reasons.

@EleanorShell

As a 30 year old woman I find it hard that 6 months ago I would have been offered a choice but will not now. Also a bit worried about living on my own. I know there is only a tiny chance of a clot but and I will probably still have it but will be quite worried for the couple of weeks after.

Also, I don't know how much better it would be having the Moderna. As this has only been used in trials and hasn't yet been rolled out to a large population there may be very rare side effects which could come up in futute

If you don’t take the pill or hrt and don’t have CVST risk factors then I’d choose AZ as that’s the only one that eliminates Severe Covid.

I think the UK are throwing people in their 30-40s under a bus here

Urgh I hope when this pandemic is over, the term "thrown under a bus" will be banned forever. So far I've seen comments aledging that pretty much everyone has been "thrown under a bus": the vulnerable, the elderly, the young, care home staff, medical staff, teachers, parents of school children, people aged 50+, people with asthma, people aged 30-40.
Can't we just agree that the pandemic has thrown us all under a collective bus as stop playing competitive misery?

I may be quoting you on that @ChocOrange1

Maybe I'll start a petition 🤔

Few countries like France canada and Germany are only using the AstraZeneca vaccine for 55-65 age group.

What age groups did they vaccinate that made them ended up taking this decision?

I heard they vaccinated more of the younger population than the Uk had, does this mean they have a more reliable data on the side effects of the vaccine given to the under 55s and over 65s? While in the Uk, most of the people vaccinated are obviously over 50s, so the data on side effects on younger people won’t be as reliable as another country’s data with a bigger amount of people being vaccinated under the age group of 50s.

I don't think it matters as the HMRA, like all other national agencies, uses all data available and then applies it to the UK population.

That's another of the oddities of the data. It is reported as being UK data but the scientific analysis will have included a lot more raw data.

@MustBeThin

I'm 31 with a healthy bmi and as far as I'm aware no underlying health issues, I've been on microgynon for probably 10 years so that in theory gives me a high chance of blood clots, (I understand its supposed to be a different type of clot to the covid vaccine clot) My body can't be that much different than a 29-30 year old so how do they work out a cut off point of 30, surely you have to factor in other things? 1 day before your 31st birthday you aren't supposed to have the AZ but the next day or the day after you can.

I'm 30 and thought it was under 30 that shouldn't get the AZ, rather than 31?

@CovidHalloween

Few countries like France canada and Germany are only using the AstraZeneca vaccine for 55-65 age group.

What age groups did they vaccinate that made them ended up taking this decision?

I heard they vaccinated more of the younger population than the Uk had, does this mean they have a more reliable data on the side effects of the vaccine given to the under 55s and over 65s? While in the Uk, most of the people vaccinated are obviously over 50s, so the data on side effects on younger people won’t be as reliable as another country’s data with a bigger amount of people being vaccinated under the age group of 50s.

Uk will have millions of under 50s as well vaccinated with az (few days ago it was 6m for pfizer and az). Even if you go 50-50 and take into account there are more people vaccinated atm with az than pfizer. That’s more than the amount of doses Spain had a few days ago below 50 (2m) id expect other countries would be having similar amounts of numbers. Not that long time ago Germany had only use 25% of the 1.5m vaccines it had received

[quote Tinkling]@User5485421134 that was my view too. They have too many AZ vaccines that need using up so let’s use them on the 30-40 age bracket.

Being early 30’s, I’m less than impressed.

I will still get vaccinated, AZ or not. But I suffer from health anxiety and that first 16 days will worry me.

Thanks everyone for explaining it to me. I get it but I still think it’s nonsense. The age limit should definitely have been higher.[/quote]
There are SO few cases they don't currently have much to work with. Compared to the number vaccinated in each age range 3 in the under 30's is a relatively high ratio compared to other age groups.

@EasterIssland okay, do you know what these countries’ reasoning is behind their choice of giving AZ only to 55-65 age group?

@Easterissland - The risk of long COVID is 20% after catching the virus

As of feb 21, official stats say that 22% of respondents report at least one symptom at 5 weeks, and that this reduces to 10% at 12 weeks.

So how are we defining Long Covid, and how does that compare to seasonal flu?

I had influenza in 2015 and still had symptoms at 12 weeks. It’s not unusual after suffering from a bad respiratory infection.

There does seem to be an additional effect with covid which presents more like CFS/ME, with symptoms lasting for months and this is worrying. But it’s unhelpful to conflate these cases with people who may simply still experience a symptom or two at 6 weeks. Frankly, bandying about statements like “20% of people experience long covid” without any nuance is dangerously close to scaremongering.

It is not yet possible to estimate the prevalence of individual symptoms or age and sex breakdowns at 12 weeks due to insufficient sample sizes at longer follow-up.

The other day I saw this in the news. She’s still having symptoms one year after. would you be willing to have her life if you could have avoided it?
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-56602894

[quote CovidHalloween]@EasterIssland okay, do you know what these countries’ reasoning is behind their choice of giving AZ only to 55-65 age group?[/quote]
They have such a shortage of vaccines for older people that limiting it like this makes a negligible difference to their rollout. So why not.

@Easterissland So if it’s not possible to estimate the true long term prevalence then why are you even throwing around stats like “20% of people experience long covid”?

We’ve all seen the articles about young people who used to run marathons but after covid can’t stand for long periods and jogging is out of the question 6 months later.

This is what people think of when we refer to “Long covid”, and when you say that 20% of people experience this after infection it makes covid seem very terrifying.

When you look at the actual statistics we have right now, which is 22% of people experience at least one symptom 5 weeks later, dropping to 10% at 12 weeks, suddenly it’s not so dramatic. It looks a lot more in line with what we might expect with seasonal flu, for example.

@Circumlocutious not too sure about this claim.
Looking at Canada’s vaccination roll out, they have done 10m jabs so far, their total population is about 38million including under 18 year olds, so 10m people jabs so that about the third of the population.Thats pretty good!
They don’t sound like they are suffering a shortage of vaccines like you claimed.
This still doesn’t answer why they have limited it to 55-65 year olds.

www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/prevention-risks/covid-19-vaccine-treatment/vaccine-rollout.html#a4

It's all about risk/benefits and generalisation.
We should all assess our own risk/benefits individually.
Personally I'll pass/wait and see on the basis that:

• I'm 35, healthy, no risk factor
• not public facing - not meeting vulnerable people on a regular basis
• I had a v bad reaction to a vaccine before (though I've had vaccines afterwards but vaccines that had completed phase 3)

On that basis the vaccine seems to carry potentially more risk than covid at this stage. I'm also hoping our ability to treat covid will improve thus reducing the risk of 'very long covid' issues.