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.

What about those who have already had the first jab and are due the second? What would happen to them if the AZ roll out is paused? I've had my first one and worry that I won't be able to have the second when it's due as I don't want to have to start again.

Towards the end is this quote "But the drawback with adenovirus-vectored vaccines, in general, is that one can get a maximum of two doses over a lifetime; any more than that and the immune system could generate neutralising antibodies to attack the vector".

That’s really interesting. So if you’ve had AZ this time you won’t be able to have it as a booster? I wonder why they’re tweaking it to address different variants then?

This is exactly my concern. I don’t know if any younger people who have had a hard time after the vaccine

However several old people I know have had very odd things happen and I’m sure it’s been clocked to “age” and not even discussed let alone reported. My dad’s elderly best friend dropped dead five days after his second vaccine (“old age” on the death certificates), I know of three women with UTIs who never previously had them, two older people with odd seizures, again new. None reported and no questions asked.

Where is the rigour and the diligence? Because if they are just “old” then does it not matter?’

I’m NOT anti-vaccine and am still encouraging my mother to have her second and I understand the risks of covid are higher in this age group. But I have zero faith now I the overall vaccine safety system in the UK

@MrsFezziwig

Towards the end is this quote "But the drawback with adenovirus-vectored vaccines, in general, is that one can get a maximum of two doses over a lifetime; any more than that and the immune system could generate neutralising antibodies to attack the vector".

That’s really interesting. So if you’ve had AZ this time you won’t be able to have it as a booster? I wonder why they’re tweaking it to address different variants then?

They'd either have to use a different adenovirus vector or only give it to people who were initially vaccinated with something else or haven't been vaccinated yet.

Why is the EU still desperate for AZ, if they're so concerned about it?

www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-legal-case-against-astrazeneca-begins-brussels-court-2021-04-28/

EU demands immediate access to UK-made vaccines in AstraZeneca legal battle

@MrsFezziwig

Towards the end is this quote "But the drawback with adenovirus-vectored vaccines, in general, is that one can get a maximum of two doses over a lifetime; any more than that and the immune system could generate neutralising antibodies to attack the vector".

That’s really interesting. So if you’ve had AZ this time you won’t be able to have it as a booster? I wonder why they’re tweaking it to address different variants then?

I'm not sure if interesting is the word. I've not seen this before and tbh if this is true then I'm fucking cross.

@MrsFezziwig

Towards the end is this quote "But the drawback with adenovirus-vectored vaccines, in general, is that one can get a maximum of two doses over a lifetime; any more than that and the immune system could generate neutralising antibodies to attack the vector".

That’s really interesting. So if you’ve had AZ this time you won’t be able to have it as a booster? I wonder why they’re tweaking it to address different variants then?

And what else is a adenovisus-vectored vaccine? Could People already have used up their two doses before the covid vaccs?

The only other adenovirus vaccine that's made it past trials is a recent ebola vaccine made by Jannsen which uses the same vector as their vivid vaccine.

*covid vaccine

That’s really interesting. So if you’ve had AZ this time you won’t be able to have it as a booster? I wonder why they’re tweaking it to address different variants then?

Interesting that at today's press conference, Hancock confirmed we have ordered another 60m Pfizer for the autumn booster programme. Maybe no mention AZ because we already have loads? No idea.

@conkersarebonkers

That’s really interesting. So if you’ve had AZ this time you won’t be able to have it as a booster? I wonder why they’re tweaking it to address different variants then?

Interesting that at today's press conference, Hancock confirmed we have ordered another 60m Pfizer for the autumn booster programme. Maybe no mention AZ because we already have loads? No idea.

I just came here to post exactly that. Enough vaccines for the whole population. So either: It's definitely true and we can't have a top up of AZ or AZ is less effective than thought (I have no proof on this but equally very little proof of it's effectiveness) However that does mean that those that have had AZ have to double the risk of side effects by having AZ and then Pfizer

@Whichjab - or the advantage of better immunity from having a different booster. Nobody knows. It’s all a risk - have AZ, don’t have AZ, have half a dose of AZ and never have anything else, have the full course and then a different booster months later. That’s why most people have concluded it is probably best for their own sanity to follow the advice of their country’s medicines regulator rather than going down the rabbit hole of not really trusting anyone, or trusting only those who disagree with their own country’s decision makers.

@Whichjab
I'm not sure if interesting is the word. I've not seen this before and tbh if this is true then I'm fucking cross.

Why? They have been talking about the possibility of boosters for a while.

AZ is less effective than thought (I have no proof on this but equally very little proof of it's effectiveness).

I would have thought they don’t know its efficacy over an extended period yet, the same as they won’t know it for any other vaccines because they haven’t been around long enough.

Incidentally, I am in a Covid research study and am currently having regular antibody tests. I now have antibodies due to the vaccine. So although I realise I could still be unlucky and die from Covid, I do feel I have some proof of the vaccine’s effectiveness.

Why? They have been talking about the possibility of boosters for a while

Yes, I signed up to this and accepted it would be like the flu jab, but I won't be able to have boosters of the same jab, I will have to have a different one thus increasing the chances of side effects.

Incidentally I agree with your second point, although there is more scientific evidence for Pfizer than published for the AZ jab although much of that is because Pfizer was administered first

That’s why most people have concluded it is probably best for their own sanity to follow the advice of their country’s medicines regulator rather than going down the rabbit hole of not really trusting anyone, or trusting only those who disagree with their own country’s decision makers

A few months ago I would have agreed, I did agree, I got my jab, I trusted the UK regulators. It now appears that a utilitarian principle had been put in place. I'm not saying it's a cover up but there has been a disinclination to report.

[quote Fieldofmemes]@IcedPurple yes, the known risk of death is tiny, but I don't think 1 in 40 000 is THAT tiny when you are vaccinating millions of people. The "1 in a million" level that was being bandied about in the press a week ago has been proven to be far too low (no surprise when you compare it to the data from other countries). Plus the risk of death from Covid if you are a young, healthy person is ALSO tiny. The AZ/VITT figures published by the MHRA have been very heavily massaged to reassure the public (hence the fact that the rates have mysteriously "doubled" in the past week - what a surprise). The point is that people have NOT been fully informed. Patterns started to emerge in Scandinavia and Germany in March and the MHRA did nothing (and said nothing) - meanwhile other countries were restricting AZ use to over 55s. Full information about the side effects has only been handed out to vaccinees in the last two weeks. I have no doubt people have died because the public and doctors simply did not know what to look for and (understandably) refused to believe a vaccine could cause such a reaction. VITT requires very specific treatment as well - normal anticoagulation agents don't work. This was flagged by German researchers weeks ago and should have been immediately publicised here - it wasn't. And yes, other medicines carry risk - but the risks are known and included in the information supplied to the consumer. And you take a medicine to cure a problem that you are suffering - therefore you take the risk. And you usually have a choice - for example, you can take paracetamol instead of ibuprofen if you are worried about the gastrointestinal risks.[/quote]
1 in 40 000 is a lot lower than your Covid risk which is 0.7%.

Why don't some of you sign to a vaccine trial. I've just completed mine. It should be the next one on the NHS. Best efficacy rate , less side effects. Tested on 3 continents. And I've now had 2 vaccines when I've not been offered one yet on the NHS.

1 in 40 000 is a lot lower than your Covid risk which is 0.7%

Can you explain this further Torvean

The latest yellow card data is out.
In the last week the incidence of these particular clots has increased again from 1 in 125k doses (with data up to April 14th) to 1 in 107,500 doses (or, as the MHRA expresses it, 9.3 cases per 1m doses from data up to April 21st.
The death rate is the same as reported last week (ie, the same as the data to April 14) which is 19%.
Average age of the cerebral clots is the same too - 47 years, but the other area clots is 55 (I forget what it was last week - not much different I think).
The report section concludes:
"The data suggest there is a higher incidence reported in the younger adult age groups and the MHRA advises that this evolving evidence should be taken into account when considering the use of the vaccine. These reports have also been analysed by the Government’s independent advisory body, the COVID-19 Vaccines Benefit Risk Expert Working Group, which includes lay representatives and advice from leading haematologists.
On the basis of this ongoing review, the advice remains that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks in the majority of people"

p13 here: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/982468/Coronavirus_vaccine_-_summary_of_Yellow_Card_reporting_21.04.21.pdf

Now I want to see what, if anything, the JCVI is going to say about this. Anyone clocked when their next meeting is?

1 in 107,000?

Crivens. With cases so low is it time to reassess this? That’s an awful lot of people seriously ill from a vaccine

That's total vaccinations across all age groups isn't it? It would be better to see the number of incidents by age out of the number of doses given in those age groups. If the majority of clotting incidents are occurring in the under 60s, for example, then I would just want to know how many doses have been given to the under 60s rather than including all the doses given to over 60s as well.

@Torvean @Whichjab

As per my previous post: risk of dying from Covid as at 12 April 2021 for healthy 30-year-old woman: 1 in 250 000
(source: QCovid official risk calculator).

The report now lists a breakdown of clotting cases and deaths per age group but, unhelpfully, it doesn't say how many AZ jabs were given in each age group. Does anyone know where we might find those numbers so we can do a proper risk calculation per age group?

It looks very worrying tbh.

In their report to April 14th, the MHRA said there had been 168 cases and 21.2m doses.

Report to 21st April says 209 cases and now 22m doses.

So 41 extra cases from 800,000 extra doses. The maths on that looks very worrying (1 in 19,500 doses). Surely that cant be right? Of course, some of the reports of incidents may stem from an earlier period. Not all the cases will stem from the 800k extra doses in the week between the 14th and 21st. I'm out on the school run shortly. Please someone else check this maths.

(Irritatingly the MHRA dont seem to keep their previous yellow card reports online, I just happened to save the one from April 14th. I will paste the relevant section below)

From the MHRA April 14th report:
Thrombo-embolic events with concurrent low platelets
Up to 14th April 2021, the MHRA had received Yellow Card reports of 168 cases of major thromboembolic events (blood clots) with concurrent thrombocytopenia (low platelet counts) in the UK following vaccination with COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca. These events occurred in 93 women and 75 men aged from 18 to 93 years and the overall case fatality rate was 19% with 32 deaths.
One case was reported after a second dose. Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis was reported in 77 cases (average age 47 years) and 91 had other major thromboembolic events (average age 55 years) with concurrent thrombocytopenia.
The estimated number of first doses of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca administered in the UK by 14th April was 21.2 million giving an overall case incidence of 7.9 per million doses. The data suggest there is a higher incidence reported in the younger adult age groups and the MHRA advises that this evolving evidence should be taken into account when considering the use of the vaccine.
These reports have also been analysed by the Government’s independent advisory body, the COVID-19 Vaccines Benefit Risk Expert Working Group, which includes lay representatives and advice from leading haematologists.
On the basis of this ongoing review, the advice remains that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks in the majority of people.

@Schulte hi there, where do you see the breakdown by age? I cant see it in today's report