Alternatives to AstraZeneca vaccine for under 40s “could be considered” amid rise in blood clots

[Whichjab]

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/astrazeneca-vaccine-side-effects-blood-clots-under-40-b931498.html

This is concerning, especially as there is limited research into combining vaccinations. I feel that the trust in vaccination is being eroded. I have always been pro vacc but feeling much less so atm.
I'm not sure I will get my second jab now.

[quote Walkaround]@PlanDeRaccordement - a government choosing to pull supplies against WHO and other expert advice is not the same thing as a manufacturer doing it, though, is it? And frankly, it’s because I have little faith in the Government’s handling of the Covid crisis pre-vaccination that I think vaccination protection is a good idea. And France, where I believe you said you live, is not a good advert for the handling of the covid crisis at the moment.[/quote]
Same. I have decided to not have the jab.

@ConstantlyChanging

If you had no significant problems with your first jab, it would be completely illogical not to get the second one. Your risk from Covid is far, far higher.

I think people would trust this kind of completely unscientific opinion more if they hadn’t heard just a few weeks ago that there was ZERO link to these blood clots, that there was less risk of having a blood clot if you were vaccinated not more and that all of Europe were basically just jealous and trying to malign our great British vaccine.

Agree. How can we trust our regulators?

Can anyone explain why it is 'illogical' to not get the second one or how the risks from 'covid are far higher' considering the majority of people have yet to have their second jab.

Also the reference to Israel is pointless in a thread about AZ as they used Pfizer

How can we trust our regulators?

How can you trust social media?

Who has the expertise and access to all of the data, raw and otherwise?

Question it by all means but be certain that the infrmation you rely on is ^at least' as well infomred as that which you are ignoring.

And that includes comparisons with other countries. Which is bloody diffcult give the logisitics of each of them!

A lot of ppl in Scotland got AZ over Pfizer. A lot in risk groups and over 60s have had 2 x AZ. Not heard about a single clotting case here.

You're risk of death ftom Covid or long Covid syndrome are higher than any risk with the vaccine.

But for those in England theres a study looking into ppl getting a different 2nd injection. Just for ppl over 50. You can look it up on thus link

comcovstudy.org.uk/participate-comcov2

@CuriousaboutSamphire

How can we trust our regulators?

How can you trust social media?

Who has the expertise and access to all of the data, raw and otherwise?

Question it by all means but be certain that the infrmation you rely on is ^at least' as well infomred as that which you are ignoring.

And that includes comparisons with other countries. Which is bloody diffcult give the logisitics of each of them!

I'm pro vax, and I agree you can't trust social media, I have trusted the regulators I don't have a medical degree I got my jab. I dismissed reports of blood clots, I trusted that the vaccine was best however had our regulators paused when other European countries became aware of the problem I wouldn't be where I am now, due a second dose of something which is no longer recommended for my age group.

It's not about trusting social media over the regulators though when it is the scientists who make up that regulatory body who are considering the guidelines. A few weeks back when they held the press conference they explained to us why 30 was picked as the limit. Now more data has come to light and the numbers look different so their original calculations may have changed.

It is also absolutely clear the decision is based on available vaccine stock, too, and not just the clinical risk. If the UK had ordered 100 million doses of Pfizer or Moderna instead of AZ, we would be in a very different situation.

Personally I'm also struggling with it because I'm originally from one of the countries no longer giving AZ to under 65s. Why should I trust the UK regulators more?

As others have said, if you had no reaction to dose 1 you won't have one to dose 2, that is even more vanishingly rare (a once, maybe twice occurence in millions across the world).

I think it helps to remember that the UK is more vaccne compliant. So when there were issues the MHRA had decades of mass acc data to refer to. Other countries don't have that as much. Also that something odd definitely happened in Norway. 3 health workers in the same workplace (and then a few more people elsewhere) and a lot of theories trying to explain it. The Norwegian HA didn't condemn it they wated for the EMA, individual doctors did, as hapened a lot here. And there will have to be a lot of research into Norway's population to see if there is something there that exacerbated the immune system reaction.

That fuelled many countries 'fear' and many reacted without there being any actual measure of the RR.

Now we have that RR measured for te UK population and the various independent health regulators have made their recommendations - which the government will not gainsay!

Argh! there are far too many confounding variables. Basically, the MHRA JCV etc have made their recommendations. I don't see any reason to disbelieve them.

Other countries are taking different steps for an equally wide variety of reason, not least the relative access to various vaccines.

A few weeks back when they held the press conference they explained to us why 30 was picked as the limit. Now more data has come to light and the numbers look different so their original calculations may have changed.

That's because this is happening in real time. More data will constantly change the recommendations. It doesn't mean any previosu recommendation was worng, just that it didn't have the data a lter one did. You'd have to wait for about 5 years to be sure you had the majority of data to inform your choice - and even then there would be more!

They are constantly evaluating data and giving best advice. That should be reassuring. But no, many journos chasing a good headline have chosen to portray that as a scary thing instead!

This is the first time we have ever had a real time response to a pandemic. Hopefully next time their will be a new tye of D notice given to the media. "Thou shalt not publish what you don't actually understand"

Can anyone explain why it is 'illogical' to not get the second one or how the risks from 'covid are far higher' considering the majority of people have yet to have their second jab

Because you had no reaction to the first one. And the risks from Covid are still far higher than even the risks from the first jab.

@Nith

Can anyone explain why it is 'illogical' to not get the second one or how the risks from 'covid are far higher' considering the majority of people have yet to have their second jab

Because you had no reaction to the first one. And the risks from Covid are still far higher than even the risks from the first jab.

But how can anyone know when as a pp said we are seeing it in real time. A tiny percentage of people have had the second dose, it may come out that the second dose is more risky, we don't know

How can we trust our regulators?

The MHRA regulates all medicines in the UK so if you don’t trust them you may as well not consume anything they approve ever again...

@Whichjab - you seem to be confusing what a tiny percentage is - that’s your risk of getting a rare blood clot, not the percentage of people who have now received both jabs. Personally, I would say, so far, it has turned out that the UK regulator has made more intelligent decisions than those of many other countries, including the decision to allow up to a 12 week gap between doses of vaccine. I have seen nothing whatsoever to indicate that the UK regulator is doing anything other than calculate what it truly believes is the best course of action for the UK population and therefore no reason to favour following decisions made in other countries. France, for example, initially decided not to use the AZ vaccine on the over-65s and only to offer it to young people, then had to make an embarrassing reversal of that decision. There is helpful caution and unhelpful panic. Some countries fall into the latter category and that has not worked in their favour to date.

Canada initially suspended AZ for under 55s, but two days ago decided it could be offered to all over 30s. So it’s very much a moving situation all round.

The Times is saying over 30s may be invited this week as well. I do wonder if the government are trying to get those over 30 willing to take AZ through asap so they can have enough other vaccines left for under 30s and those under 40s (if guidance changes) who haven't had AZ

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/chmp-annex/annex-vaxzevria-art53-visual-risk-contextualisation_en.pdf
The latest EMA report for Benefits and Risks for AstraZeneca (now named Vaxzevria in Europe) has been published. The stats for ages 20-29 is now at 1.9 per 100,000 whilst I believe in UK was 1.1 per 100,000 per people. The clotting with low platelets is still a tiny, tiny risk, however in the younger age groups, the charts in the report (very similar to the ones UK did) particularly during times of low infection rates look a bit concerning (side effects of jab v ICU admission/death from Covid).
For the younger cohort concerned about their second AstraZeneca jab there is no conclusion at the moment in this report.
Just wondering whether there are any efficacy reports for one jab only of AstraZeneca v J&J. As J&J is approved as a one off jab would it be possible to get the same level of protection with one AstraZeneca thus not needing the second jab in the younger cohorts who are at the moment concerned about the possible side effects and thinking about not having their second one?
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/astrazenecas-covid-19-vaccine-benefits-risks-context

As others have said, if you had no reaction to dose 1 you won't have one to dose 2, that is even more vanishingly rare (a once, maybe twice occurence in millions across the world).

Since they had no idea these clots would happen, initially totally denied it was happening, now don’t know why it’s happening, aren’t yet sure how often it’s happening and don’t know who is more at risk, I don’t think ANYONE can make these kind of bold statements about the risk from jab 2.

All anyone can say is that the risks of getting a clot with low platelets are exceptionally low. If you are one of the unlucky tiny minority, the majority of the tiny minority survive it. Where everyone has unlimited choice, everyone would choose a vaccine with no risks (these don’t exist), or the one with the least risks, but we aren’t in that situation, we are in a situation where the population as a whole benefits most from vaccinating as many people as possible as quickly as possible. The entire world is competing for vaccines. We are the lucky ones to have vaccines available.

I wouldn’t call one in 50,000 exceptionally low. Low yes, but not exceptionally low.

Given that the data is still being looked at and there are almost daily updates the speed at which we are seeing changes in that data would show any further cases after either jab very quickly.

The occurrence rate is still incredibly low.

Since they had no idea these clots would happen, initially totally denied it was happening, now don’t know why it’s happening, aren’t yet sure how often it’s happening and don’t know who is more at risk, I don’t think ANYONE can make these kind of bold statements about the risk from jab 2.

This is the best summary of this whole AZ situation that I've read so far.

Oh, and it wasn't denied.

It was not evidenced.

Had they denied it they wouldn't have instructed all GPs to go back through their records, having been given a new list of symptoms, to identify any cases that had not been highlighted.

There is a difference between "we have no evidence that suggests causality" and "it is not connected".

@Schulte - I would call it exceptionally low. It’s a far lower risk than dying of covid 19 if you get that in your 20s, yet people constantly poo poo the chances of dying of covid 19 in your 20s, claiming that is exceptionally low and therefore not worth worrying about.

Errrrm what about the initial ‘we haven’t seen ANY clotting cases in the UK’ statement?

We'll find out during the enquiry. Who paid for Boris's flat decoration will be the least of his worries. I'm ashamed to say I actually believed Europe were using AZ to punish us for Brexit. Especially when no cases were being reported here.

@Schulte

I wouldn’t call one in 50,000 exceptionally low. Low yes, but not exceptionally low.

Where did you get that number from?