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.

@Schulte

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.

It'll be interesting to watch how that one plays out @Schulte

Sorry @AppleJane I somehow missed that! Yes, it’s very helpful!

No worries @Bunbury952 better for it to appear twice than not at all 😉

Thanks apple. It’s good to know we aren’t alone! I do think this is a big deal as it goes to the heart of role of government and Individual freedoms versus the greater good.

My mum gets her second AZ today and on balance I think it’s probably right she does but she is actually very low risk for covid despite her age (75).

My other issue is the data. I don’t believe current numbers are picking up the full picture and there is under reporting and more minor cases going in noticed.

I like the Canadian approach of assessing individual risk. This makes total sense to me.

[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]
This is misleading. First the study has not been accepted for publication and may never be as it's not peer-reviewed and not good. Secondly, 100,000 person years means that if 100,000 people were followed for one year then there would be 17.9 cases but they didn't follow them for one year or at all. It is a "descriptive" study and they collected data via questionnaire which would hardly be accurate.

They've looked at a month post vaccination and converted that to years. I really don't see what your problem is with that. We simply then need to divide by 1.2 to get the events per million.

Yes, the data collection method is flawed, but it's likely to undercount rather than overcount. Bar doing a prospective cohort study with subjects in the millions (which would be deeply unethical at this point), this is the best data we're likely to get.

@Roonerspismed

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?

I strongly disagree they have got the MHRA in its back pocket. They are reporting the results as they see them. They have not provided advice on exactly who should and shouldn't get AZ but have said benefits outweigh risks overall. Age and individual risk of clotting should be taken in consideration and that this is evolving evidence. What else do you expect them to say? Nobody is forcing you to have the AZ vaccine. You can choose not to be vaccinated at the moment and risk covid instead if you think it is the better option.

Actually they asked neurologists from all major hospitals to respond with details of cases they had treated so I don’t think the data collection can be called inaccurate. And yes they are talking about person years, this confused me too but the way I understand it it basically compares the likelihood of developing a clot without vaccination in the course of an entire year with the likelihood of developing a clot after having the jab, which is a one-off event (as you’re in a risk zone for up to 28 days afterwards).

They are not plucking data out of thin air. By all means take it with a pinch of salt, but since it confirms once again what we’re already seeing I wouldn’t dismiss it either.

@QueenStromba

They've looked at a month post vaccination and converted that to years. I really don't see what your problem is with that. We simply then need to divide by 1.2 to get the events per million.

Yes, the data collection method is flawed, but it's likely to undercount rather than overcount. Bar doing a prospective cohort study with subjects in the millions (which would be deeply unethical at this point), this is the best data we're likely to get.

Given the media coverage it's likely to over count with AZ. The authors say about themselves. They don't have to do a prospective cohort study to get better data. They can do a retrospective cohort study and use actual medical records.

Ah, @QueenStromba has already said it un a much better way

@Schulte

Actually they asked neurologists from all major hospitals to respond with details of cases they had treated so I don’t think the data collection can be called inaccurate. And yes they are talking about person years, this confused me too but the way I understand it it basically compares the likelihood of developing a clot without vaccination in the course of an entire year with the likelihood of developing a clot after having the jab, which is a one-off event (as you’re in a risk zone for up to 28 days afterwards).

They are not plucking data out of thin air. By all means take it with a pinch of salt, but since it confirms once again what we’re already seeing I wouldn’t dismiss it either.

It will be inaccurate because not everyone will respond, and it will be prone to bias (under or over reporting). Quantitative data is not normally collected in this way and the authors refer to their study as "descriptive". It does point to a link but we already know that. I don't think it gives a very good idea of the actual numbers.

Well the reason for undercounting is firstly based on anecdotal cases I have heard. Secondly I’m not sure it’s only the clotting issue I am concerned about. Older people seem be suffering a wide variety of issues and again I don’t know how much there are being investigated. All anecdotal but brought to bigger me hugely

I decided long ago I didn’t want the AZ vaccine for now - or indeed any vaccine - as I don’t think we have adequate safety data to vaccinate people whose personal risk from covid is low. The greater good argument doesn’t wash with me at all and I think it’s unethical. Yes I think it’s marvellous we can vaccinate the vulnerable and elderly - if they want it.

The swine flu vaccine was pulled for safety issues way smaller than these numbers. If the numbers were fully published I would feel happier. But why aren’t they? Why aren’t we seeing a breakdown per age and gender? It can only be because they are hiding it and yes that would implicate the MHRAtoo

Sorry - I also mean I don’t want any covid vaccine - for now. I’m generally supportive of vaccines provided the safety data is adequate and there is full disclosure

That’s right, not everyone did respond and therefore the number of captured cases will be lower than the actual number that occurred. However, that doesn’t stop you analysing the data you’ve got. We’re always just looking at a snapshot of data in time as the situation changes daily.

@Roonerspismed

Well the reason for undercounting is firstly based on anecdotal cases I have heard. Secondly I’m not sure it’s only the clotting issue I am concerned about. Older people seem be suffering a wide variety of issues and again I don’t know how much there are being investigated. All anecdotal but brought to bigger me hugely

I decided long ago I didn’t want the AZ vaccine for now - or indeed any vaccine - as I don’t think we have adequate safety data to vaccinate people whose personal risk from covid is low. The greater good argument doesn’t wash with me at all and I think it’s unethical. Yes I think it’s marvellous we can vaccinate the vulnerable and elderly - if they want it.

The swine flu vaccine was pulled for safety issues way smaller than these numbers. If the numbers were fully published I would feel happier. But why aren’t they? Why aren’t we seeing a breakdown per age and gender? It can only be because they are hiding it and yes that would implicate the MHRAtoo

This is how I feel. Everyone else I know pretty much has had it or is getting it. Quite a few have had side effects and some seem to be longer lasting. Could there be a reason they are not making the age and gender breakdown public? Do they actually have that information? The trouble is I have very little faith in anyone in charge esp after this year. It just seems to me that no one really knows much and mistakes are made time and time again from those who should be in charge and are getting told what to do by top scientists?

@Schulte

That’s right, not everyone did respond and therefore the number of captured cases will be lower than the actual number that occurred. However, that doesn’t stop you analysing the data you’ve got. We’re always just looking at a snapshot of data in time as the situation changes daily.

Not necessarily. It depends on what denominator they used and why . They don't give details on that apart from saying they collected data on vaccination from nine German states. No detail on what the vaccination numbers were or why they only used nine states rather than 16. Maybe if they had used all (they say they sent a questionnaire to everyone ) lower rates would have been calculated . They also don't give details on how many departments responded to the survey or the number of total vaccinations. There is a lack of detail on numbers.

If you're going to try to pick apart a paper at least bother to read it in its entirety first. The data you day is missing is in the data and figures section and they say that they only included nine states because the others had no breakdown of vaccination data by age and sex.

@Schulte

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.

This would be a great approach and likely to increase uptake. I know a lot of people in all age groups still absolutely happy to take AZ - some even prefer AZ and don't want the mRNA ones. The drop-in vaccination clinics and vaccination buses in local areas seem to be working really well and AZ is ideal for that. Then they could set up Pfizer and Moderna clinics at larger centres for those who are willing to travel and happy to wait a few weeks.

Spoke to my GP this morning regarding severe anxiety over second jab due to clot risk. Advised that the risks remain low (still too high for my liking), and to postpone until I've seen a psychiatrist.

Don't see how that's going to help, but it's something I guess.

Wonder if they are advising others with the same fears to postpone the vac until further info becomes available

@AppleJane who is "Stella J" and how does she back up "we know risks likely outweigh benefits" that makes you so sure? Have you seen any data or is this just a random Twitter account saying stuff? I think people are completely overreacting to this.

I had my first az in February at 30 and due my second Atlantic day at 31. For me the first one was hell and put me in hospital. I’ve also had constant headaches and vertigo since it so much that I’m having an MRI tomorrow to rule anything out. Once I get the ok I’ll see how I feel about getting the 2nd vaccine. It’s a hard choice. I wouldn’t get it again personally after the 2nd one no chance.

@CharlotteRose90

I had my first az in February at 30 and due my second Atlantic day at 31. For me the first one was hell and put me in hospital. I’ve also had constant headaches and vertigo since it so much that I’m having an MRI tomorrow to rule anything out. Once I get the ok I’ll see how I feel about getting the 2nd vaccine. It’s a hard choice. I wouldn’t get it again personally after the 2nd one no chance.

That should say any day not Atlantic day. 🙈

[quote Movisoul]@AppleJane who is "Stella J" and how does she back up "we know risks likely outweigh benefits" that makes you so sure? Have you seen any data or is this just a random Twitter account saying stuff? I think people are completely overreacting to this.[/quote]
I have no idea who Stella is but the most recent EMA graphs did show that risks outweigh benefits for under 50s when COVID case numbers are low. It’s nothing new.

@CharlotteRose90 sorry you’ve had such a bad experience, fingers crossed they find the cause of your headaches and you’re better soon. I know a lady who’s also had headaches since her AZ, she has been told it’s meningitis caused by the jab and she’ll just have to ride it out. Apparently there is a known link in people with bee or wasp allergies, I haven’t read anything about it myself but that’s what she was told.

I have no idea who Stella is but the most recent EMA graphs did show that risks outweigh benefits for under 50s when COVID case numbers are low. It’s nothing new.

But what happens if cases start to rise again (hopefully they won't)? If there's a whole bunch of under 50s who aren't vaccinated surely that will mean they are at risk.

Personally I'm pleased to be vaccinated, especially as DH is 66 and therefore at a higher risk (possibly) than me. He's been vaccinated but I'm so much more comfortable that we both are as I wouldn't want to put him at increased risk.