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.

Why was AZ ever approved if they didn't know this and still don't know if another type of vaccine can be given to anyone who has had AZ?

Well if France’s health advisors have said that under 55s who have had AZ should be given a different second dose despite the clinical trials on mixing not being completed, I imagine they’ll know pretty soon.

@TruelyWonder

How many biology degrees have you got? I would imagine fewer than me. I'm referring to the real life SA study where AZ was shown to have only 10% efficacy.

*I was also talking about the South Africa trial. Which proves my point you don't know the facts or don't understand at all.

The virus was mixed in with blood samples in a dish. This was done with too short a gap. Oblvoiusly no immune system help too. The body doesn't use just antibodies to fight a virus. The vaccines also help build a immune system memory. Our bodies are an amazing thing. That is why the vaccines are all appearing to work better than some lab data showed in real life.*

No, I am talking about the actual real life clinical trial that you must surely be aware of where the AZ vaccine had only 10% efficacy against mild to moderate disease in young study participants.

This study.

www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2102214

The one that was all over the papers and this board a couple of months back.

No that was blood drawn from real life people that had the vaccine of course. However it is not real life data. It examined the antibodies in a dish. A lab based test. Looking only at transmission. So only worth the acknowledgement as such. Whereas the data studied from the roll out in Scotland etc is real world data. How the examine transmission, hospitalisation and death. The stuff that actually matters. In the time frame recommended to uses. So far we have no results of that type of study with the South African variant for AZ.

There is the original trial data by oxford in south Africa but that was the original variant. Not the mutation. So it would be guess work to use that. Until we have data from an AZ rollout where the south African variant is dominant we can't say much about transmission. Maybe the fact the south African variant has not taken over here is the proof. However that would be a stretch to say as no proof.

You must have attention span if a gnat. Finish reading the abstract at least.

"In the primary end-point analysis, mild-to-moderate Covid-19 developed in 23 of 717 placebo recipients (3.2%) and in 19 of 750 vaccine recipients (2.5%), for an efficacy of 21.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], −49.9 to 59.8). Among the 42 participants with Covid-19, 39 cases (95.1% of 41 with sequencing data) were caused by the B.1.351 variant; vaccine efficacy against this variant, analyzed as a secondary end point, was 10.4% (95% CI, −76.8 to 54.8). The incidence of serious adverse events was balanced between the vaccine and placebo groups."

@QueenStromba

This study.

www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2102214

The one that was all over the papers and this board a couple of months back.

Like I have said not the recommended 8 to 12 week gap. They used 21 to 35 days. It clearly says there.

We are not using the longer gap just to get more people vaccinated. As said all the time it works better for the AZ.

@QueenStromba

"In the primary end-point analysis, mild-to-moderate Covid-19 developed in 23 of 717 placebo recipients (3.2%) and in 19 of 750 vaccine recipients (2.5%), for an efficacy of 21.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], −49.9 to 59.8). Among the 42 participants with Covid-19, 39 cases (95.1% of 41 with sequencing data) were caused by the B.1.351 variant; vaccine efficacy against this variant, analyzed as a secondary end point, was 10.4% (95% CI, −76.8 to 54.8). The incidence of serious adverse events was balanced between the vaccine and placebo groups."

I know the results they got🤷‍♀️ Haven't argued about that. I have explained as clearly as possible why the experts think that happened.

It is that seems dead keen not to analysis information and just go on one small trial only do to establish isf health workers should get the vaccine. As the jab was never going to work with a short gap needed for health workers it was abandoned in favour of Janssen. I believe it was the south African PM himself that said that in an interview about it

@QueenStromba

You must have attention span if a gnat. Finish reading the abstract at least.

I won't argue with you there. On a lot of pain medication and only got two hours sleep last night 🤪

This stuff was all over the news and widely analysed at the time though so I don't need to overly concentrate on examining any of it now. Unless you have new data or information that has been released from somewhere. I would real like and not in a sarcastic way to see more on the subject.

It's like watching ping pong 😂but I'm finding it fascinating.

"Like I have said not the recommended 8 to 12 week gap. They used 21 to 35 days. It clearly says there."
Even if extending the gap doubled the efficacy (it doesn't) then it would still only have 20% efficacy against the SA variant. That is still not good enough to counteract the effects of behaviour changes.

@AppleJane

It's like watching ping pong 😂but I'm finding it fascinating.

It's starting to feel like kicking a puppy.

Glad to entertain. Even if it is probably a couple of us Tracey's from Facebook and now nothing to do with your topic. So long as people are smiling 😂

One of my adult sons has just got me delivered a very large box of marshmallows. The big sweet heart. So I am now off to see how many I can eat without being sick. For scientific research reasons of course 😉

Have a good clot debate and information share but try not to panic at the way the information is released etc. There are reasons and experts will be constantly on the watch to slam the breaks if needed. Which they have done with the under 30s. So we know are very willing to do. The government has no say in that discussion. It is experts only with vaccine approval and which age ranges.

Unfortunately vegan marshmallows are expensive so I can't join in with that experiment 😊

@QueenStromba

"Like I have said not the recommended 8 to 12 week gap. They used 21 to 35 days. It clearly says there." Even if extending the gap doubled the efficacy (it doesn't) then it would still only have 20% efficacy against the SA variant. That is still not good enough to counteract the effects of behaviour changes.

Read my posts again and maybe you will get it. Though if you haven't by know I doubt it. You seem only wanting to discredit one vaccine. Which is proven to work well against all the other variants and has crappy data from one trial that wasn't designed to check transmission for our schedule. Plus you are obviously using the now redundant old trial data for your calculations. AZ has had very similar transmission data to Pfizer in Scotland etc

I would check out how well the other vaccines work against the different variants and their hospitalisation and death data. You will find AZ is actually worth having. The issue here is clots. Which is a concern but again it is how the risk assessments weigh up. I actually think as cases are getting so low we could end up altering the age range again. Not because of the amount of extra clots. They are still within what is acceptable according to who and ema but because of other factors changing.

@AppleJane

Unfortunately vegan marshmallows are expensive so I can't join in with that experiment 😊

Have you tried Halal sweet sellers online or shops 🥰

Anyway I am going now honestly. Good luck with it all lovely people ❤

I actually think as cases are getting so low we could end up altering the age range again. Not because of the amount of extra clots. They are still within what is acceptable according to who and ema but because of other factors changing.

I agree with that, which is why I'm waiting week by week before deciding. I'll check out your sweetie idea too!

Hi, I've been following on here for a while as am anxious about the vaccines. I can find the yellow card information for the UK but does anyone know how to see the equivalent for the US? I would like to see what's been reported regarding the Moderna vaccine - apologies if this has been shared elsewhere already. Thanks.

@dummyfairy55

Hi, I've been following on here for a while as am anxious about the vaccines. I can find the yellow card information for the UK but does anyone know how to see the equivalent for the US? I would like to see what's been reported regarding the Moderna vaccine - apologies if this has been shared elsewhere already. Thanks.

I believe it’s VAERS... www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vaers/index.html

Thank you

TrulyWonder - I understand what you are saying, I did a PhD in virology. You're the one who doesn't understand. I don't know why you're so wedded to the idea that AZ is just as good as Pfizer. It really isn't. It's less efficacious against the original variant, it's worse than useless against the SA variant, it almost certainly can't be used for boosters in people who've already had it and it's less safe than Pfizer. If we weren't in the middle of a pandemic then they wouldn't be giving it to anyone. If there was limitless supply of Pfizer and Moderns then they wouldn't be giving it to anyone. At the current rates of infection in the UK they shouldn't be giving it to anyone under a certain age. I don't have access to the MRHA's data so I don't know what that age is but it's certainly higher than 30.

I think they will go for the greater good argument in still recommending it.

I am astonished at it all TBH. None of us wants continued restrictions but knowingly inducing this issue in several hundred young people not otherwise at risk of covid? That does not sit well with me. We won’t see pictures of these people in the daily mail like we did covid deaths, that’s for sure. What will be the compensation for them or their families?

I have to say that I'm really confused by the reporting yesterday on vaccinating teenagers with Pfizer in the autumn if the uptake in the 30-39 group is low. Why save the Pfizer to vaccinate teenagers? If they offered it as an option to the 30s group then the uptake is bound to be higher. It feels like a bit of a veiled threat through vague sources and I don't like it. I'm 32 and very healthy so I don't feel comfortable with the risk of AZ and if I'm not going to be offered a choice then I won't be having anything as I have no need to rush into a decision. It just seems like they're cutting off their nose to spite their face.

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/vaxzevria-previously-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca

This is the European Medicines Agency page for Vaxzevria (new name for Astrazeneca)

In the section 'what are the risks associated with Vaxzevria' it states:

Thrombosis (formation of blood clots in the blood vessels) in combination with thrombocytopenia occurred in less than 1 in 10,000 people.

I thought the official stat was 1 in 126,000? Can anyone explain the difference to me please?

This New Yorker piece is from last week, but I don’t think it’s been posted here.

It talks about how the US authorities have dealt with a similar issue with the J&J vaccine (which uses a similar technology to AZ).
Tldr: although the risk with the J&J looks a bit lower than with AZ, they are recommending young women (