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.

Thanks TruleyWonder very amusing name for him!

@pinkmagnolias

How long do you think it will be before people can pay for the vaccine they want?

I reckon in another couple of months they will ge so desperate to vaccinate everyone they will offer you whatever you want.

It doesn't matter if they are desperate to vaccinate everyone if there aren't enough of certain vaccines .They will offer whatever people want as soon as they have enough to do that.

German preprint paper on incidence of cerebral blood clots post vaccine:

“We estimated an incidence rate of CVT within one month from first dose administration of 17.9 per 100,000 person-years for ChAdOx1 vaccine and 1.3 per 100,000 person-for BNT162b2.”

www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.30.21256383v1

A PP on this thread mentioned the Twitter account of Michael Makris and it makes very interesting reading.

Michael Makris is a Professor of Haemostasis and Thrombosis at The University of Sheffield, UK

Recent tweets:

“There is an inverse relationship between the risk of death from COVID and the risk of VITT. Both are strongly age related but in opposite directions. Where you set the age cut-off for AZ vaccination depends on these two risks.

In the UK the risks of death from #COVID19 by age are widely available from national statistics. Unfortunately the risks of VITT by age are not available because the number of persons vaccinated with AZ in the

[quote IndigoC]German preprint paper on incidence of cerebral blood clots post vaccine:

“We estimated an incidence rate of CVT within one month from first dose administration of 17.9 per 100,000 person-years for ChAdOx1 vaccine and 1.3 per 100,000 person-for BNT162b2.”

www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.30.21256383v1[/quote]
Interesting, thank you. So that's an extra 14 CVTs per million people vaccinated with AZ versus Pfizer (and the Pfizer numbers fall within the expected background range).

It's even worse when you include all cerebrovascular events (e.g. strokes and cerebral hemorrhages).

"This incidence rate was 24.6 (95% CI, 17.3 to 33.8) per 100,000 person-years for ChAdOx1, 1.6 (95% CI, 0.53 to 3.8) per 100,000 person-years for BNT162b2, and 0.00 (95% CI, 0.00 to 17.4) per 100,000 person-years for mRNA-1273".

That's about 19 extra events per million for the AZ versus the Pfizer (zero cases in Moderna is likely due to the lower number of doses given rather than any real effect).

Michael Makris is saying what a handful of us have been saying for weeks - just more succinctly

I have realised nothing will stop this government in its relentless pursuit away from covid. If this means the death or serious illness of a few hundred middle aged people then so be it. I think it has gagged the press and it has got the MHRA in its back pocket. There is no independence and no scrutiny

I think it has the UK public on side too, who are too exhausted and fed up to care. The U.K. has always been a compliant country with vaccines and this is being well used again here

Who knows - maybe it’s right. But they are using fear to do it - again through the press. With daily pictures on india, reports on long covid and now children.

My real worry is after the event when numbers come out. Will people lose faith and trust in vaccines altogether and the MHRA?

Queen - those figures would suggest 1/5,000 then for the AZ. That can’t be right surely - it’s well above any other I have seen?

I'm finding the German preprint difficult to analyse. Could someone more educated than me break down a few numbers please?

I saw a retweet of the article stating it found women were at 3x higher risk. Is that correct?

@Roonerspismed

Queen - those figures would suggest 1/5,000 then for the AZ. That can’t be right surely - it’s well above any other I have seen?

50,000!

@Roonerspismed As always, I agree with everything you said. I've tried a number of times to google information and it's alarming just how little is showing up from our press.

@AppleJane

I'm finding the German preprint difficult to analyse. Could someone more educated than me break down a few numbers please?

I saw a retweet of the article stating it found women were at 3x higher risk. Is that correct?

Yeah. The rate of CVTs was about 20 per million in women under 60 versus about 7.4 per million in men under 60.

Yeah. The rate of CVTs was about 20 per million in women under 60 versus about 7.4 per million in men under 60.

Thank you. It will be interesting to see what the latest yellow card data shows. IIRC last weeks 41 cases broke down into 14 men and 27 women.

Ok, rough calculation here. If the graph that JVT showed a month ago was correct about the distribution of risk amongst the age ranges then the numbers remain the same for men and triple for women. So the vaccine risks for women become:

20-29: 3.3
30-39: 2.4
40-49: 1.5
50-59: 1.2
60-69: 0.6

But, the actual observed rate in women over 60 was 1.7 so it probably looks more like:

20-29: 2.4
30-39: 2.2
40-49: 2
50-59: 1.8
60-69: 1.7

@QueenStromba are those numbers per 100,000?

What time does the new data usually come out? Feeling less and less confident about second dose!

@whataballbag

What time does the new data usually come out? Feeling less and less confident about second dose!

I think last week it was after lunch. Just after I gave up looking!

https://globalnews.ca/news/7835081/alberta-woman-death-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine/

Following the death of a Canadian woman (AZ blood clot) the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) issued a statement about its recent “preferential recommendation” for mRNA vaccines.

“What we are asking is for people to evaluate their individual risk of catching COVID-19 over the next few weeks, as there should be enough mRNA vaccine doses for people to access a dose between now and the next five weeks or so,” she said.

“Depending on where one lives and of what one does, risk of catching COVID varies. If your risk of COVID is moderate to high, get the first vaccine available now. If not, then one needs to balance out the risk of COVID complications against the risk of VITT (Vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia) that, although rare, does exist and may lead to severe complications.”

[quote AppleJane]@QueenStromba are those numbers per 100,000?[/quote]
Yeah, it's based on this graph.

Thank you @QueenStromba it explains perfectly why the age cut off should be 50/60, especially for women, rather than 30.

I completely agree @Roonerspismed. I’ve lost all confidence in the British press. It’s frightening.

Has anyone been following what’s happening in Canada? It seems like they are in a similar situation with the government pushing AZ as they also bet on the wrong horse. Proponents are using our outdated statistics to downplay the risks.

But the Canadian NACI (their JCVI) has recently changed their advice to say take AZ if you have to, but wait for an mRNA option if you can.

Just following the conversation on Twitter, it seems many Canadians still support AZ, but there’s a more open discussion about the risks. And Canadian news outlets have been publishing stories about those who have died from the vaccine...

The 20 cases in one million is in line with other stats I’ve seen. I saw the German study too and in addition to women under 60 being three times more at risk than men, it concluded that women over 60 are also more at risk than men. But the yellow card report probably won’t tell us that.

@Bunbury952 yes, upthread I've put a link to an article talking about the NACI's decision.

I think it has a lot of relevance to us here in the UK when it talks about calculating your own individual risk.

Decisions to forge ahead should not be made on supplies alone.

It's Election Day today. I wonder if they'll try and bury any updates among the election noise?

Meanwhile in Germany they are talking about making AZ available for all age groups, and then people will likely have a choice of getting the AZ jab now or waiting for an mRNA one.

For women i think it should move to at least 50+.
In case it might be hormonal.
Even something like periods making you anaemic.
Also non medically at least 50+ people's kids are likely more independent at say over 10yo.

Also risk in the uk is being determined largely by gov choices

Exposure due to kids in primary without masks eg where other parents will be at the pub in 2w....

There's a Twitter account called Stella J who has perfectly summed up how I'm feeling about all this right now:

"We know risks likely outweigh benefits up to age 50 in some scenarios (like the one the UK is in now), because of data from the EU and Canada.

They're playing a dangerous game with public confidence if they're not planning to break the silence anytime soon. This will blow up."