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.

@Tealightsandd

Matt Hancock has had the AZ jab. Given by Van Tam at the Science Museum.

Not according to the BBC. He had the Pfizer jab!

2: it was done for 16 weeks (normal for these calculations) BUT the vax gives you protection for much longer - so that tips the vaccine over into winning as well

That is interesting as anything I have read so far says they don’t know how long the vaccine protection lasts.

There is talk of an Autumn booster for six months after the second vaccine.

Can you share the link stating it’s now longer?

Matt Hancock definitely had AZ, there's a live video of him having it and he says "And this is the AstraZeneca one?" and JVT confirms "Yes the AstraZeneca." just before jabbing him.

@Rainbowsandstorms
I think I would be tempted to push back a second dose until more information is hopefully available particularly as it looks like a 16 week gap should be ok. I believe there is a JCVI meeting tomorrow to discuss whether to extend the recommendation for advising using alternative vaccines to the 30-40 age group - perhaps they are also looking at the 2nd dose recommendations for the

Hi does anyone have any sources on the 4 who experienced blood clots after a second dose? I can’t find anything online about it.

@nordica

Matt Hancock definitely had AZ, there's a live video of him having it and he says "And this is the AstraZeneca one?" and JVT confirms "Yes the AstraZeneca." just before jabbing him.

Poor reporting from the BBC then. This was on this evening's round up.

No idea where you got that from lonelyplanet

There's a video clip on the BBC of him getting it. He says "I'm getting Astrazeneca".

I'm no good at linking videos but it's on the BBC As It Happened Page.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-56925363

Yes I heard the clip too. He said AZ

Nice he got JVT in the science museum
Reminds me of a board game

I never usually read the Sun but came across this, sounds like we should be hearing something tomorrow if the meeting was today?

www.thesun.co.uk/news/14789203/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-use-over-30s-blood-clots-decision/

@MarshaBradyo

Yes I heard the clip too. He said AZ

Nice he got JVT in the science museum
Reminds me of a board game

Cluedo! Was it JVT in the Science Museum with the AstraZeneca?

Ha yep

Risks of clots from the pill etc is MUCH MUCH MUCH higher and whilst it's a different clot, both can kill you so why does that matter. It's like calculating deaths from being hit by a car & saying buses don't count.

SIGH. For the zillionth time, it matters because:

1. The blood clots you get from the pill are not only different they are much less fatal.
2. People do not get prescribed the pill if they have a very wide range of risk factors
3. We know what those risk factors are.
4. We don't calculate the risk of being on the pill based on a whole bunch of people who aren't at risk whereas the AZ clot stats are calculated based on everyone who has had the vaccine, not just the groups more at risk.
5. There is no societal pressure to take the pill or be called 'selfish'
6. There's no pressure to take the pill if you want to do certain jobs or go to certain places. If there was that pressure, then they'd have to make damn sure it was safe.
7. They KNOW what the risks are from the pill. It's been around for a very long time and there isn't constantly emerging data like there is all the time for AZ right now. For example, a couple of weeks ago there were 'no' reported blood clot cases after the second dose of AZ. Then there was 'one but he was really ill'. Now there are four. How many will there be by next week? The risk factors for the pill won't change after you've taken your first dose.
8. You can choose your brand of pill based on your risk factors or even your personal preferences. For example, I have risk factors that mean I can't take the combined pill because it might give me a blood clot, so I can get the progesterone only pill if I like.
9. One risk factor does not erase another. It's utterly irrelevant whether you can die getting hit by a bus or taking the pill. People make informed and calculated risk choices all the time. That doesn't mean they shouldn't care about any other risk in their lives.

Just seen this on another thread:

www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-examining-heart-inflammation-cases-people-who-received-pfizer-covid-shot-2021-04-25/

@Totalbeach

Risks of clots from the pill etc is MUCH MUCH MUCH higher and whilst it's a different clot, both can kill you so why does that matter. It's like calculating deaths from being hit by a car & saying buses don't count.

SIGH. For the zillionth time, it matters because:

1. The blood clots you get from the pill are not only different they are much less fatal.
2. People do not get prescribed the pill if they have a very wide range of risk factors
3. We know what those risk factors are.
4. We don't calculate the risk of being on the pill based on a whole bunch of people who aren't at risk whereas the AZ clot stats are calculated based on everyone who has had the vaccine, not just the groups more at risk.
5. There is no societal pressure to take the pill or be called 'selfish'
6. There's no pressure to take the pill if you want to do certain jobs or go to certain places. If there was that pressure, then they'd have to make damn sure it was safe.
7. They KNOW what the risks are from the pill. It's been around for a very long time and there isn't constantly emerging data like there is all the time for AZ right now. For example, a couple of weeks ago there were 'no' reported blood clot cases after the second dose of AZ. Then there was 'one but he was really ill'. Now there are four. How many will there be by next week? The risk factors for the pill won't change after you've taken your first dose.
8. You can choose your brand of pill based on your risk factors or even your personal preferences. For example, I have risk factors that mean I can't take the combined pill because it might give me a blood clot, so I can get the progesterone only pill if I like.
9. One risk factor does not erase another. It's utterly irrelevant whether you can die getting hit by a bus or taking the pill. People make informed and calculated risk choices all the time. That doesn't mean they shouldn't care about any other risk in their lives.

Blood clots from the pill occur in 1/1000 women- so far more commonly than from the vaccine. However as you say they are less fatal - typically 1-2%. Let's say just 1%.

Risk from AZ = 0.19 (risk of AZ induced clot being fatal) x 0.000009 (9 per million) = .00000171

Risk from pill = .01 (the 1% from above) x .001= .00001

Relative risk - .00001/ .00000171 = 5.84

i.e. the pill is 5.84 times more likely to kill you.

2. Doesn't affect the above risk calc as the statistics used above are based on what actually occurs. i.e. if we didn't do pill risk assessments, the risk of using the pill would INCREASE with respect to the vaccine risk.

3. See (2)

4. The clots occurred in people aged between 18 and 79 - which particularly group do you believe ISN'T at risk of a clot?? I think you've confused the purpose of limiting the jab to the older people - it's not because they're unlikely to have clots - it's because their risk from covid is far far greater so the urgency of getting them vaccinated takes precedence.

5. Which alternate reality do you inhabit?

6. Irrelevant

7. We know the risks of both - maybe the AZ risk will change as more data approaches, but we already have more than enough data to show that the risk is low, even if it ends up being a comparable risk to the pill

8. Doesn't change the fact that 1/1000 women get clots - see (2)

9. Nobody is trying to erase any risk. People are trying to demonstrate comparable risks because that puts people in a much better decision making position than simple reacting emotively to media scaremongering as you appear to be doing.

The facts are that the AZ vaccine is at least comparably safe with the pill and considerably safer than covid-19.

The only factor that should come into a decision is whether or not you believe you are likely to ever contract covid. But, if you have kids, a job working with other people or like to socialise then it's almost inevitable that at some point you will contract covid unless a miracle occurs and the world wipes it out quickly.

@Totalbeach - it’s very cavalier of you to appear to dismiss blood clot risks from the pill when they are sometimes fatal, if you are going to claim to be outraged by deaths related to vaccination.

thanks for posting the link to the story in the Sun @nordica. I am not seeing this issue very widely reported, despite people claiming journalists are scare mongering. If anything, I worry the opposite is happening and it is being played down. Even that piece in the Sun quotes out of date death figures - using the 168 deaths when the figure as of yesterday was 209. The BBC has been doing something similar too.

I usually very pro vax, and I'm still pro the RIGHT vax. But so many people seem so keen to prove their "science" credentials that they are refusing to see what's in front of their eyes. If the EMA's modelling is right (a big IF, modelling isnt always right) there will be more people under 50 dying as a result of getting the AZ vaccine over the next few weeks than there will be under 50s dying from Covid. THAT is a problem, and it needs to be talked about. It doesnt mean under 50s shouldnt be vaccinated, it just means they should have an alternative. If that means a small delay to Boris's back-to-normal plans, then that needs to be looked into. If that means overseas holidays cant happen this summer, for example, then personally I think that is a small price to pay for saving the lives of 100s. All lives are important, but the demographic we are talking about here is one that is possibly most likely to have younger dependents. Killing off a few 100 40-50 year olds means killing off a few hundred parents and carers. The socio-economic impact of that will be significant. It's what's in the forefront of my mind: I dont want to leave my DC without a mother. Sure I dont want to die from Covid too, but if I have to, I can continue being really careful about not catching Covid. Once I've presented my arm to be jabbed with AZ, it seems what happens next is out of my control. I write this conscious of how lucky I am that I do have the ability to protect myself from Covid btw - I dont work on a factory production line, or in a hospital. But that doesnt mean I somehow want to compensate for my good luck there by now submitting to a vaccine that the data currently tells me poses more risk to me than covid.

It looks though the FT have reported a more accurate update today. In order to promote ongoing transparency with the outcome of the JCVI meeting today it would be so useful if the charts produced on the 7th April were updated - these are so understandable and allow the majority to weigh up the risks v benefits

I’m really tired of the BCP argument. I don’t take the pill because I don’t want to take those risks...

The JCVI were reportedly meeting yesterday to discuss an alternative for the under 40s. A few members were quoted about how it’s a really difficult a decision. I don’t envy them.

But am I right in thinking we won’t really know the rates of these clots in the 40+ group for several weeks? There’s the lag in reporting and also the delayed onset of these events up to 20 days after injection. How can they make a decision without that information?

I completely agree Carefulvulvadriver!

The FT and Reuters seemed to be the only news outlets reporting on yesterday’s updates statistics. I understand the aversion to scaremongering, but people have the right to know the facts.

@Bunbury952
That’s a good point. To give a more accurate assessment I wonder if the JCVI look at events reported to date v actual amount of first doses given by age group 10 days ago? (have used 10 days as a measure as I believe the average time for onset of symptoms is 10 days). I presume there will be some sort of report/statement showing how the stats are collated and whether this criteria is taken into account.

As I said earlier I'm not convinced there has been any due diligence re case review of all clotting cases over the last 6 months to see if any potential link with receiving the AZ vaccine across all age ranges. Much easier to dismiss a clot as more likely if you are older / have underlying health conditions ...

Good post @Carefulvulvadriver. Fingers crossed they make a decision today about raising the age limit.

I’m astonished there isn’t more about this in the British press. Who still believed they were independent?

The press can be gagged if it's a matter of national security.

The big problem is that millions of people now have had the AZ jab, the ramifications for now saying its not recommended for under 40s (50s) will be massive in terms of trust and uptake of second vaccination.

@bookworm1632
LOL that's exactly what I meant when I quoted the figure and that's why I included the DATE - 12 April.

Of course the risk of Covid will change if rates go up - but we're comparing the risks of taking the AZ vaccine NOW versus WAITING in order to get a different vaccine. And don't tell me that isn't possible - I should know because that's exactly what I did and others have done who have managed to get Moderna.