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.

I agree @Roonerspismed and we need detailed information. If someone stated the risk of prostate cancer and you discovered the figure was based on total population including women who don't have prostates you would think that number is disingenuous.

*should have said women appear to have more risk from the vaccine than men, while men have more risk from COVID

Yes @UsedUpUsername and there will be a lot of people who have already had covid and didn't need medical attention who may want to throw that into their risk pot too.

Agree

@PlanDeRaccordement, exactly that. If the risk of a clot is tiny, but the result of such a clot is potentially death, then I don't wish to take that chance if I don't have to.

Glad to see this issue is being given more consideration and being discussed more widely and (mostly) sensibly.
When this was first reported as a cause for concern by EMA it was condemned by quite a few as just jealous Europeans who were scare mongering. It is vital that we all have as much information as possible so we can make informed decisions.

I agree @RoisinD there definitely feels a shift in attitude to discussion.

The last yellow card data goes up to 14th April. I'm waiting to see what the numbers will look like now we are another 2 weeks further along.

[quote everythingbackbutyou]@PlanDeRaccordement, exactly that. If the risk of a clot is tiny, but the result of such a clot is potentially death, then I don't wish to take that chance if I don't have to.[/quote]
But how about the fact that, if or when numbers go up, the risk of Covid and death or other serious consequences is greater?

[quote Fieldofmemes]@Walkaround
Risk of a healthy 30 year old woman in UK dying of Covid: 1 in 250 000
(data as at 12/4/21 - risk would be higher during a peak)
Risk of healthy 30 year old woman dying following AZ vaccine (on the Norwegian experience ie. worst case scenario): 1 in 40 000

PS the orange and blue dot MHRA graph people keep posting is misleading. It doesn't distinguish between clinically vulnerable and healthy cohorts and is therefore meaningless for a healthy person trying to calculate their risk.[/quote]
@Fieldofmemes - except that’s wrong as a calculation, as getting a rare type of blood clot and dying from it are two different things - same as getting covid and dying from it are two different things.

As for healthy versus less healthy people - why the assumption it’s only healthy people getting blood clots after vaccination, and only people secretly harbouring health weaknesses that are dying from covid? This is like talking to people suffering from an anxiety disorder.

Risk of a healthy 30 year old woman in UK dying of Covid: 1 in 250 000 (data as at 12/4/21 - risk would be this higher during a peak)

To keep this risk low, you need to maintain low incidence of disease, which means you’re relying on everyone else to get the vaccine to make that happen.

Good news, the U.K. has approached Pfizer over the weekend and secured another 40 million doses. They are also discussing extending choice from under30 yr olds to under 40yr olds although the headlines say this would “delay the rollout by as much as a month!” (Their ! not mine...that combined with other articles bragging on how many people per 100 have bee vaccinated and how U.K. is first in the world only reinforces what I posted upthread, that U.K. government has decided that a few extra deaths is worth winning the vaccine race).

Presumably because they now have secured those extra Pfizer doses, they don’t need to coerce as many left to be vaccinated into accepting AZ vaccines to stay #1 in world vaccine race...,so under 40s may be offered a jab other than AZ in coming weeks.

Not sure U.K. has thought through the wider PR/reputational consequences of being First Nation to vaccinate everyone as public sentiment globally is trending towards heavily criticising the U.K. and US for being so far ahead of poorer countries. I know both have been donating to Covax program and have sent millions of doses abroad to poorer countries, but that doesn’t seem to matter to the critics. They are saying there is something morally reprehensible to let your nation get so, sooooo far ahead of everyone else.

@PlanDeRaccordement - well, it is strongly in the political interests of other wealthy countries which are not vaccinating quickly to find a reason to criticise countries which are. Unless the reason for slow vaccination is the donation of your country’s supplies to countries in greater need, that’s a pretty pathetic argument, tbh.

If those 40million doses are available now they should be going to India and Brazil.

The U.K. has promised doses to Covax,I don’t think it’s delivered them. Most of the doses for the developed world were coming from India. It’s morally dubious to be vaccinating under 40s here where there is low incidence of Covid while thousands and thousands of people are dying elsewhere.

Presumably because they now have secured those extra Pfizer doses, they don’t need to coerce as many left to be vaccinated into accepting AZ vaccines to stay #1 in world vaccine race...,so under 40s may be offered a jab other than AZ in coming weeks.

Why do you think everyone has to be coerced into taking the vaccine? I had AZ along with nearly everyone else I know and I don't believe any of us were reluctant, more like happy to be vaccinated.

One thing an already well vaccinated country can do is more reliably provide help to other countries not yet well vaccinated - because it knows any vaccine it sends out now won’t cause it internal political problems from nationals that resent not having been offered the vaccine themselves; and can send supplies and personnel that are unlikely to need to be recalled at short notice to deal with another massive wave at home. No country in the world being well vaccinated is not necessarily a preferable situation.

Raised this question yesterday and
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 considering not having their second one?

Pondering this here as my 25 year old had the AZ jab first time round and is thus down for a second dose.

He has SEN, quite bad health anxiety and OCD. He also had multiple nosebleeds after the first dose (back in Jan, and hasn’t yellow carded it — must ask if he still can).

Risk vs benefit surely shifts once you’ve had Dose 1, but which way?

The U.K. has promised doses to Covax,I don’t think it’s delivered them. ??

I see that said a lot and am not sure I understand it. There are 2 ways of donating to Covax, cash and vaccines.

Cash - the G7 spurred more countres to increase their cash donations giving Covax double the previously promised donations and more ability to order vaccines. Which they have done and have been delivering for 3 months, 45 million doses and counting

Vaccines - when a paying country's population is vaccinated to whatever degree they set, any remaining paid for vaccines will be diverted. Those additional vaccines haven't been manufactured yet, though more are being made daily. So there is no current surplus to send, from any country.

That's how Covax was set up
By joining COVAX, both self-financing countries and funded countries will gain access to this portfolio of vaccines, as and when they prove to be both safe and effective. Self-financing countries will be guaranteed sufficient doses to protect a certain proportion of their population, depending upon how much they buy into it. Subject to funding availability, funded countries will receive enough doses to vaccinate up to 20 per cent of their population in the longer term. Since demand is initially likely to exceed supply once vaccines do become available, allocation will be spread across countries based on the number of doses that are available and increase as that availability increases.

Not sure U.K. has thought through the wider PR/reputational consequences of being First Nation

I’m not sure where this First Nation narrative comes from, since I would have thought everyone knows we’re not?

Also, if we’re looking at it on a global scale, wouldn’t it make sense to continue to vaccinate in any country where there is already an efficient set up to do so? That increases numbers vaccinated worldwide which is surely what we’re aiming for?

Good news, the U.K. has approached Pfizer over the weekend and secured another 40 million doses.

If those 40million doses are available now they should be going to India and Brazil.

(Two separate posters).

If they’ve only just ordered them this weekend then they aren’t going to be available now, are they? I can’t see how any new orders are going to be “available now”. The (presumable) source states that they will be available in the autumn, to be used as booster jabs and the very youngest adults.

Covax is largely reliant on AZ. It doesn’t really matter how much money we give if we won’t export the stuff we’ve produced to them because AZ are fulfilling the Britain first clause for stuff manufactured here. Most of what they have has come from the EU and previously India.

Not that that stopped the U.K. and AZ taking advantage of a clause that allowed it to buy vaccines meant for COVAX from the serum institute to use in the U.K.

@UnkindlyMay if he's had multiple nosebleeds please ask your GP.

Thanks, AppleJane, will do (are you a medic?)

No @UnkindlyMay but another poster said they had done the same with nosebleeds.