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.

So maths isn't the best but 1:250,000 is 0.0004%. Versus 2% risk for long Covid. So the risk of long Covid is much higher. And before anyone says we currently have lowish rates, the majority of the experts are predicting another wave in the autumn. We've already got the Indian strain spreading.

The Danish found a risk of 1/40,000

On another note I’m very pissed off it took so long to stop travel in from india. So bloody obvious this would result in the strain spreading here

EMA reported a 1 in 100,000 risk iirc.

Norway had 6 clots in 130,000 doses.

Fuck me. The AZ trial used only 1100 odd volunteers and only up to age 55 and the control was a different vaccine?

That’s a bloody joke! And we are rolling this vaccine out to millions? No wonder the platelet issue wasn’t seen.

I appreciate we are in a pandemic and the vaccine is a godsend for many but as I have said many times before, my own risk assessment for covid means I need to see more data before taking it myself

The AZ trial had over 40,000 volunteers in different countries. Still, it's not surprising the issue wasn't picked up then as most countries' stats currently put the clot risk somewhere between 1:40000 to 1:150000.

@Roonerspismed

The Danish found a risk of 1/40,000

On another note I’m very pissed off it took so long to stop travel in from india. So bloody obvious this would result in the strain spreading here

I’m sure the travel was for family reasons so not so easy to stop in practical terms

@PlanDeRaccordement

Well, my dear, you believe what you want to, there’s lots of more recent stuff on the internet about Pfizer and modern a causing clots as well

Fact remains that the possibility of getting clots via the pill is more likely than from any covid jab

Ok my dear

@minniemomo

The only stats I believe usually are on More or Less (radio 4). They explained the whole clot risk benefit situation. The bottom line is that at 30 the risk of serious disease from covid falls below the risk of the vaccine. Ultimately it's 1:250000 and every day I do far more dangerous things like driving on the motorway to work, at weekends I ride on a motorcycle even do I had my jab as did our 20 something year old DD's (had health risks/sn putting them into group 6). We are now 8 weeks out and fine btw.

If you are worried, it's not compulsory but don't go complaining you aren't vaccinated

I don't understand why so many people are still talking about a 1:250000 risk. It's higher. Germany for example had 63 cases in 4,777,293 first jabs of AZ. The data can be found on the website of the Paul-Ehrlich Institute, and they helpfully provide more information in terms of age and sex:

www.pei.de/EN/service/press/latest-news/latest-news-node.html;jsessionid=5807E60D745878821BB9597C598CCA11.intranet221

I am mid 30s, had AZ as a carer and believe I shouldn’t have been given it. The government had access to information that they didn’t investigate early enough which meant I was given a potentially harmful vaccine without being given all the facts. You can shout all you like about how it still protects me from Covid, Covid is worse, small risk etc but I wasn’t given the choice. Their negligence took my decision away from me. I won’t be having my second jab. I don’t believe they know anything like enough about this vaccine now. Even this week the risk has ‘doubled’. It’s an emerging situation and I’m furious to have unwittingly been part of their experiment. I won’t be having an alternative second vaccine even if offered. The trust is shattered.

If they want to protect the NHS they can stop giving vast sums of money to their mates and build a better bloody NHS.

Yes, of course it is much lower, but the risk of long Covid at an individual level is 2% multiplied by probability of catching Covid. When prevalence is low (like it is now), the overall number also goes down.

Equally, the more people who refuse AZ, the more prevalence of Covid will grow, along with your chances of catching it and having long term consequences.

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@Tealightsandd
I’m also cynical and am wondering if the decision to carry on despite these deaths is linked to the fact that the average age of AZ deaths from blood clots is 47 and them being (so far) majority women dying might reflect general societal sexism- the disposable, worthlessness and invisibility of middle aged women past child bearing age.[/quote]
And that's the bollocks you have to contend with.

Those stated facts are not meaningful, which is why the MHRA and EMA are so bloody reluctant to publish the raw data. There aren't enough cases to make any conclusions.

More women than men have been vaccinated, so a count of people affected was most likely to be women Had it been men, that would have been of significance.

Average age of people affected is what? Mean, mode? 2 people happen to have been the same age? Means nothing with so few people.

And that's the sacremongering bollocks that many lazy journalists like to tout!

@Roonerspismed

The Danish found a risk of 1/40,000

On another note I’m very pissed off it took so long to stop travel in from india. So bloody obvious this would result in the strain spreading here

In all honesty, as Denmark only appears to have used the AZ vaccine on 80,000 people, and two people got a thrombosis, I would not put as much credence on that statistic as those of countries that have given millions of Astra Zeneca doses and found a lower rate of unusual clotting as, with an exceptionally rare risk, you aren’t going to get an accurate idea of how exceptionally rare it is until you’ve got into the millions of vaccinations. Denmark is also in a different position to that of the UK - it’s not an international transport hub and has kept better control over covid rates without vaccination and therefore is thinking it can get away with delaying vaccinations a bit and getting hold of vaccines that it thinks are more effective and don’t have the risk of thrombosis. One thing I know for sure is that the UK has not been good at keeping adequate control over covid without the help of vaccination and has had a far higher death rate than Denmark from covid, so I’m all for swift roll out of the vaccination programme and not fannying about in the pretence we have the luxury of time and choice.

@User135644

It's already been decided that the risk to the under 30's from vaccine complications outweighs the risk from covid.

But they do still need the vaccine to protect the elderly and vulnerable. It's not just about them.

So young, healthy people should die from an unnecessary medical invention to save elderly people who have somehow not been vaccinated yet? Am I hearing this correctly?

Why can’t we just encourage the vaccine for those in certain categories and emphasize that it’s a personal choice for everyone else?

Why can’t we just encourage the vaccine for those in certain categories and emphasize that it’s a personal choice for everyone else?

Because that probably’t enough to take sufficient pressure off the NHS to end restrictions and get people back to normal life.

Isn’t enough

Seriously though, why is there no talk of actually improving the bloody NHS rather than locking down (and now risking our lives) to prop it up?

So young, healthy people should die from an unnecessary medical invention to save elderly people who have somehow not been vaccinated yet? Am I hearing this correctly? I think that may be what that poster meant, in the same way as others upthread have said that now there isn't so much covid here in the UK, because all those old and vulnerable people have been vacinated and we all stayed at home for a year, younger people don't need to get vaccinated.

It's a matter of perception. Not actual fact!

@TheKeatingFive

Why can’t we just encourage the vaccine for those in certain categories and emphasize that it’s a personal choice for everyone else?

Because that probably’t enough to take sufficient pressure off the NHS to end restrictions and get people back to normal life.

How do you figure? If you vaccinate the high-risk, you just have to deal with the odd outlier, how can you say there’s probably not enough capacity for this?

Seriously though, why is there no talk of actually improving the bloody NHS rather than locking down (and now risking our lives) to prop it up?

Well I totally agree with you there. I expect the ideology of the Tory government is part of it, but it’s bonkers.

There’s an element of short term-ism too. It would be a while before results are realised. That doesn’t mean isn’t the right thing to do, but really it should have been a priority from this time last year.

@UsedUpUsername - it’s a choice for everyone. Nobody is forcing the elderly to take the risk of a rare thrombosis either. The risk to society of not having enough people vaccinated to enable the restarting of the semblance of a normal social, educational and working life without covid rates threatening healthcare and everyone being locked down again, is a risk for the whole of society - and one more keenly felt by the young. We don’t actually know if enough people have been vaccinated with effective enough vaccines which will last for long enough to be certain we can open up again forever, but the more people who have recently been vaccinated, the higher the chances of society reopening going well.
I look at it this way: with only a small fraction of the population getting covid at any one time, our hospitals buckle. With millions of people being vaccinated, our hospitals can cope with a tiny number of rare blood clots. I know which the bigger threat is to the whole of society, both young and old.

If you vaccinate the high-risk, you just have to deal with the odd outlier, how can you say there’s probably not enough capacity for this?

Hospitalisation rates for the lower risk are still high enough that letting it rip through this cohort, unvaccinated, isn’t really an option.

Then you’ve got those unable to be vaccinated to worry about and of course, the emergence of new variants.

Proper control of this requires as many vaxxed as possible, as soon as possible and being on the ball with regards to borders.

I wish MNHQ would clamp down on these threads. There is nothing wrong with discussing issues around vaccination, but these threads bring out all the scaremongering and fact distorting posters.

In real life, most people seem content to have the AZ vaccine, thankfully.

@TheKeatingFive

If you vaccinate the high-risk, you just have to deal with the odd outlier, how can you say there’s probably not enough capacity for this?

Hospitalisation rates for the lower risk are still high enough that letting it rip through this cohort, unvaccinated, isn’t really an option.

Then you’ve got those unable to be vaccinated to worry about and of course, the emergence of new variants.

Proper control of this requires as many vaxxed as possible, as soon as possible and being on the ball with regards to borders.

I don’t think there’s any proof of this. Do you have a source for the hospitalisation rates still being too high for the NHS to handle?

After all, the younger vulnerable would be vaccinated as well.

I don’t think there’s any proof of this. Do you have a source for the hospitalisation rates still being too high for the NHS to handle? I think you misread that!

We don’t actually know if enough people have been vaccinated with effective enough vaccines which will last for long enough to be certain we can open up again forever

The data from Israel looks pretty good to me. Also, loads of US states are not locked down and they are not seeing overcapacity. I know the NHS may not be comparable to, say, Florida’s health system, but the decision to vaccinate the elderly while letting the younger population live normally has worked out well.

I look at it this way: with only a small fraction of the population getting covid at any one time, our hospitals buckle

But the most vulnerable are protected now, so it seems doubtful this would happen.

With millions of people being vaccinated, our hospitals can cope with a tiny number of rare blood clots. I know which the bigger threat is to the whole of society, both young and old

You’ve not established that COVID is a threat to the younger population though? Haven’t the most vulnerable already been vaccinated?

Dying from a medical intervention that is meant to save others is ethically not okay.