People Refusing Astra Zeneca - What Happens?

[Nootkah]

I've seen an increasing number of people on here and on social media saying they'll go to their mass vaccination centre appointment but if it's Astea Zeneca, they'll refuse. I'm curious as to what actually happens next? They've had an appointment, been offered a vaccine that remains approved for their group, and have declined. Are they "ticked off" the list as "offered" or do they stay at the top of the list for upcoming appointments and continue to be invited?

www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/study-finds-new-evidence-of-sars-cov-2-damaging-brain-blood-vessels

Whether it's exactly the same clot or not, the risk of serious often fatal clotting is way more likely from covid itself than as an extremely rare vaccine side effect.

@TroubleUsedToBeMyBusiness thanks for the links. I know these reports and to be honest I try not to look at them because 1. from what I know anyone can report any reaction following a vaccine without any "proof" it is linked to the vaccine and 2. conversely, people (even doctors) may not think to report a (genuine) reaction if it doesn't occur to them that the vaccine may have caused it. So I'm not sure what to make of them. However, where "patterns" seem to be emerging from the Yellow Card reports, it does beg the question: why? However, the numbers are so difficult to interpret. Looking at the AZ report, for example, apart from the "thrombosis" figures under the section "vascular disorders" (the section right at the end of the report) which lists 14 deaths, 17 deaths are listed on p.51 (nervous system disorders) under cerebral haemorrhages and 18 under cerebrovascular accidents. I'm not sure which of these are the fatalities which the MHRA has reported - and whether deaths can be reported under more than one category, for example? So it's all a bit confusing. Perhaps someone here can explain more.

I agree that the vaccines employ fairly new technologies and we don't yet know what the long-term effects (if any) may be. But I think to speculate on that, with no evidence, is a bit of a step too far. The logical conclusion of that train of thought would be that we all wait for a traditional-style live-attenuated vaccine and I don't even know if one of those is being developed? That said, as the vaccines are all so new, it is surely sensible for countries (if they can) to order a wide "portfolio" of vaccines using different technologies (and not rely too much on any one) in case one or two vaccines start causing serious side effects in certain sections of the population. It seems to me that this is precisely what we DIDN'T do.

@RockingMyFiftiesNot

What makes you think that? Anyone who takes the pill will have a nurse/doctor talk to them about the blood clot risks and what symptoms to look out for before they take it. They will have regular blood pressure checkups and regular appts with a nurse who asks questions about blood clot risk to determine if it’s still the right medication for you.

Whilst I had my blood pressure taken once every 3 months or so, I don't recall EVER being spoken to about clotting risks. But no matter, that wasn't my point, and you are in a way supporting my point: there is a higher risk of clotting from the pill than from the AZ vaccine. Yet some of the people refusing the AZ vaccine continue to take the pill which has a higher clotting risk. Even though you say they are warned about it in one-on-one chats with medical professionals. It doesn't make sense to me to be happy to take a higher risk medication and make a lot of noise about not taking a lower risk medication.

Did you not know why you had your blood pressure taken? Or why they asked about migraines etc each visit? Or even read the patient information leaflet ? Even at 15 I did! Every pill review they went over it.

As for why women take the pill but not AZ. it’s about perceived risk/benefit isn’t it? An individual thinks the benefits of the pill outweigh the risks. Unwanted pregnancy /abortion feel like very real risks to a sexually active twenty-something and they perceive the blood clot chance to be small enough they are happy to risk it to avoid that. Corona? Doesn’t feel like much of a risk to them and statistically it really isn’t.

It’s not really up to you to say they are wrong for deciding contraception is worth that risk but a disease that has a tiny chance of harming them is not. It’s not the same as claiming the risk of blood clot on az is smaller than the pill because you aren’t comparing the same “benefits” of the medications. A more reasonable comparison would be between the different covid vaccines.

I took the pill from age 15 to 30 and I stopped because I recognise the small risk increases as I get older. I’m 31 so just outside the bracket of vaccine variation. I am on the fence about my decision on the AZ vaccine- previously thought it was unlikely to benefit me much but happy to go along and get jabbed for “the greater good” but I am spooked by how this data has been presented /emerged . I would like to wait for more data and ask more questions when it’s there so I can make an informed decision without being called an idiot /selfish for raising concerns. Because I probably still have a while to wait hopefully I will have this chance before I’m called up.

It's not the same kind of clot. This condition has not been found to be caused by Covid at all.

They get offered another vaccine that also has a minuscule risk of causing blood clots?

@Tealightsandd

Whether it's exactly the same clot or not, the risk of serious often fatal clotting is way more likely from covid itself than as an extremely rare vaccine side effect.

Worth repeating as it's so important people realise which is the bigger risk out of covid (and long covid) and an extremely rare possible side effect.

We were told which jab Ds1 was having, before his appointment. He's 17, though, so couldn't have the AZ.

An individual thinks the benefits of the pill outweigh the risks. Unwanted pregnancy /abortion feel like very real risks to a sexually active twenty-something and they perceive the blood clot chance to be small enough they are happy to risk it to avoid that.

Yes, I have also fairly recently stopped taking the pill (and have to say I feel much better off it) mainly because I'm able to avoid pregnancy in other ways, but for me the idea of being unwantedly pregnant would be disastrous so that's why I took that risk.

Worth repeating as it's so important people realise which is the bigger risk out of covid (and long covid) and an extremely rare possible side effect.

I'm not saying that I disagree with you but I think we all just want to see a proper breakdown of the actual risks. As has been said before we can mitigate against many risks and many people have been doing so against Covid too. I want to see what my actual risk as a healthy early 30s woman is, but even after that there are other considerations. What if I live in an area where cases have always been low? I, personally, don't really have many opportunities to catch Covid. All friends and family are too far to see at the moment. I don't work and mostly only go to the supermarket, where I wear a mask and social distance. DS is in preschool, yes, but only in a class of 4 so whilst it still could happen the likelihood is less. Of course it could still happen but I'm young and healthy and it would be extremely unlikely for me to be very ill with it.

I understand that it would also be extremely unlikely for me also to have a bad reaction to the jab but I'd like to know how close it actually is, as I can't mitigate against anything when it comes to having a vaccine. I'm not saying that I wouldn't have it, I just can't see why I'm not allowed to ask the questions and take a bit of time to think about it. I hope that there will be a bit of leeway with those people who are in their 30s to ask for an alternative, it does seem mad to say the risk benefit isn't there if you're 29 but is if you're a year or so older.

@TheOtherMaryBerry1 - it's nice to say that you'd like to see a proper breakdown of the actual risks, but you just see the NHS can't be expected to send everyone an individual letter with details about their expected risks. How would anyone know exactly what exposure risks you have anyway? What about the impact of people moving around on holiday and for work? What if the one asymptomatically infected person in your area is your mate Jeff who you just invited to dinner?

You have always been free to look up:

1. Cases by area and age: coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
2. Deaths by age involving comparability or not (see table 6a): www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsinvolvingcovid19englandandwales
3. Prevalence of long covid symptoms: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandlifeexpectancies/adhocs/12788updatedestimatesoftheprevalenceoflongcovidsymptoms.

So what other information is it that you feel you need? I'm sure one of us can find it for you.

(Should say comorbidity not comparability)

@TheOtherMaryBerry1 - From the statistics MHRA gave, calculated across the whole adult population, the total estimated deaths of vaccinating 100% of UK population would be 70. More people than that died of covid on 21st March 2021 alone.

For those in their 30s it's a 1 in 500,000 risk (18 people). That's assuming no improvement in care even though doctors know what signs to look out for. 635 people aged 30-39 or 1 in 14,000 risk of death up to 15th March 2021, that's why there's considered to be risk to people in their 30s, actual deaths from covid. No, they weren't all known to be vulnerable. Make your own choices, but please look at real data to do so.

I'm not asking for a personalised breakdown at all. Obviously. What I'm saying is that when the risks are compared in a simple way they are saying that young people have an x% chance of dying of Covid vs an x% chance of a blood clot but the x% chance of Covid is including all people with underlying issues, those who are obese etc. So what is a very healthy, fit young person's chance of dying from Covid? Not everyone is able to read and understand the data.

Make your own choices, but please look at real data to do so

That's my issue. The papers and conferences are throwing out vague percentages but not everyone is able to understand the data. And most people are well aware that we don't just tip over into a different category of fitness, risk, etc just because we're a year older than we were in our 20s.

@MRex, your contribution to coronavirus topics is truly admirable. Your calm, fact based approach will definitely help many people.
Thank you.

About 20% below 44 have no comorbidities. 30-39 would be higher than children, but say it's average, 127 of the deaths had no comorbidities. You can't compare to the full population because you have to exclude everyone your age with obesity, asthma, hypertension, diabetes, pregnant etc etc, 30-50% of the population but really hard to calculate with accuracy to not double-count. So possibly between 1 in 30,000 and 1 in 60,000 risk of death from covid, assuming you don't have a risk factor you're unaware of.

No, they weren't all known to be vulnerable.

I think that's the issue. Im not trying to be a pain, I'm trying to understand everything but there's lots of data but then when it comes to how many people were vulnerable it becomes much more vague. I understand that may be because we're still collecting data and learning but I'm unhappy that if I were to want want exercise caution and wait a bit that I'm being labelled selfish or stupid or anti vaxx, which I'm not (not by you obvs).

About 20% below 44 have no comorbidities. 30-39 would be higher than children, but say it's average, 127 of the deaths had no comorbidities. You can't compare to the full population because you have to exclude everyone your age with obesity, asthma, hypertension, diabetes, pregnant etc etc, 30-50% of the population but really hard to calculate with accuracy to not double-count. So possibly between 1 in 30,000 and 1 in 60,000 risk of death from covid, assuming you don't have a risk factor you're unaware of.

Thank you, that's really helpful 😊

*Did you not know why you had your blood pressure taken? Or why they asked about migraines etc each visit? Or even read the patient information leaflet ? Even at 15 I did! Every pill review they went over it.

*I thought they took my blood pressure to check my blood pressure, not clotting risks. If i should have known that blood pressure was take to check for clots then sorry, I didn't know that.
In over 30 years, I was never once spoken to about clotting risks or asked about migraines. Ever.

Unwanted pregnancy /abortion feel like very real risks to a sexually active twenty-something and they perceive the blood clot chance to be small enough they are happy to risk it to avoid that. Corona? Doesn’t feel like much of a risk to them and statistically it really isn’t.
That's fair enough but there has been a lot of complaints on FB about the over 50s refusing AZ and slowing down the vaccine reaching younger people. Many of the over 50s women will have been taking the pill for years without question and now worrying about the much lower clot risk of the vaccine - whilst remaining vulnerable re COVID.

It’s not really up to you to say they are wrong for deciding contraception is worth that risk but a disease that has a tiny chance of harming them is not.

Of course it's not but I can express an opinion. Again I was talking about the whole population refusing the AZ, not just those who are young enough to be less vulnerable.

It’s not the same as claiming the risk of blood clot on az is smaller than the pill because you aren’t comparing the same “benefits” of the medications.

That is also fair enough if you are just talking about young people. You are discounting the older people refusing AZ who may have taken the pill for many years without question but suddenly questioning a much smaller clot risk from AZ. The risk of being seriously affected by COVID is much higher for over 50s but you don't seem to want to include us in your rationale.

Bold fail! First para below was what @Weatherwarnings said

@Lalalablahblahblah yes I do see what you mean. But a lot of talk on social media, including MN, has been around over 50s refusing the AZ so slowing down the vaccination of younger people. My comments really are aimed at those who are currently refusing the AZ I.e. older. Yes, if they are still able to have children pregnancy remains a risk but lower than in younger age group whereas risks from COVID are massively higher if you are over 50.

Worth repeating as it's so important people realise which is the bigger risk out of covid (and long covid) and an extremely rare possible side effect
What if you are one of the (majority of) people though that have had covid either very mildly or with no symptoms at all. A lot of the replies here seem to be based on a fear of contracting covid and being very ill or dying when the likelihood of this, especially in the age groups we are now vaccinating, is tiny. When you have had covid and had it very mildly and also therefore know you already have antibodies you look at the risk of the vaccine side effects very differently.

@Fieldofmemes The logical conclusion of that train of thought would be that we all wait for a traditional-style live-attenuated vaccine and I don't even know if one of those is being developed?

Sinovac is a traditional-style deactivated virus type vaccine, and it's not demonstrating great efficacy.

That's fair enough but there has been a lot of complaints on FB about the over 50s refusing AZ and slowing down the vaccine reaching younger people
How is this slowing down the vaccine reaching younger people? Whatever age you are you are entitled to refuse the vaccine if you don't want it. The vaccine programme doesn't stop and wait for people to change their minds. Its not like 20 year olds will not be vaccinated until every single over 50 has been persuaded to take it.