Alternatives to AstraZeneca vaccine for under 40s “could be considered” amid rise in blood clots 2

[Whichjab]

Just starting another thread as so much information still coming out. Interesting that Germany have just allowed AZ for all that want it.

Note, this is not an Anti-Vaccs thread. It is just a discussion about alternatives.

Nobody is saying it hasn't been an effective vaccine. Of course it has saved lives. But the risks should not be minimised and the full information should be made available. People are entitled to feel uncomfortable taking it when there are safer alternatives for their age group.

@Cherrycee

Nobody is saying it hasn't been an effective vaccine. Of course it has saved lives. But the risks should not be minimised and the full information should be made available. People are entitled to feel uncomfortable taking it when there are safer alternatives for their age group.

I think full information is being made available . How do you know they aren't? Why assume there's some massive conspiracy ? All the regulatory agencies including the EMA have said the benefits outweigh the risks for most people at the moment . If you disagree you don't have to take the vaccine and nobody has that otherwise. In fact people who have said that have been accused of "shutting down the argument ".

that said

Joining in with the second dose scepticism. If first doses started being given early Jan, then second doses started being given early April. Which means only the first week’s worth of second dosers are past their “3-4 week window” for clot risk. If it’s 6 incidents out of that many it’s probably roughly 6 in a million, not 6 in 6 million.

Of course these may be naturally occurring incidents but impossible to know especially as MHRA are so selective with their info sharing.

I noticed in the latest guidance it says no risk from second doses before saying “a small number of cases so far”. If it’s really no risk then we need an explanation of why they think that - otherwise it sounds like they’re being selective to avoid discouraging people taking up second doses...

PS regarding selective data sharing an example is “how many AZ doses given to 40-49yo’s AND how many VITT incidents” so people can see the real “rate” - they are just sharing the latter and an overall rate for over 40s.

I don’t think the risks have been minimised, I think they have become clearer as more data has been collected. I still think the risks are being found to be extremely low for all age groups, and I object to comments referring to safer alternatives for a particular age group, as there are safer alternatives for every age group if wanting to avoid that particular blood clot risk. The risks of the vaccine and the risk-benefit analysis for different age groups are two different things. It is aggravating when people mix them up, thus seemingly taking no interest whatsoever in the vaccine risks being taken by all age groups. Nobody particularly wants to take a risk they do not have to take, that’s not confined to young people. The only reasons for anyone taking the risk at the moment relate to issues of availability of alternatives and the fact we are in the middle of a pandemic.

@Belladonna12

Why are you suggesting I'm a conspiracy theorist? I find that very insulting. I lost a parent to covid and I can't stand anti-vaxxers. I want safe, effective covid vaccines to get us out of this. I appreciate the role AZ has played so far, but it's clear that there are safety issues for younger cohorts.

If you read the last two pages of the thread you'll see the MHRA are omitting data on the number of AZ vaccines administered by age group. It's not 'assuming a massive conspiracy' to simply note that this information is not provided.

Belladonna all the EMA briefings I have seen have been quite nuanced. The form of words is along the lines of benefits outweigh the risk at the moment for those being offered. Put that together with recommendations and alternatives offered in individual countries and the picture is different from the UK. Until it became untenable due to comparisons with elsewhere the UK approach was very much what's good for one is good for everyone. Even now the underlying messaging is take what you are offered unless you want to be difficult.

I still think the risks are being found to be extremely low for all age groups, and I object to comments referring to safer alternatives for a particular age group, as there are safer alternatives for every age group if wanting to avoid that particular blood clot risk.

It's quite clear that the clotting risk decreases as you move up the age groups, and moves closer to the rates seen in the unvaccinated population. And of course the risk v benefit question comes into it at older age groups, where the risk of covid is far, far higher than the risk from AZ.

Based on the latest data, anyone under 50 should really be offered an alternative. Many other countries have already come to this conclusion weeks ago. Of course it's too late for many people under 50 who have already had their first dose.

@MiniMaxi - the EMA doesn’t appear to have shared the data on the precise numbers of 40-49 year olds who have received the AZ vaccine, either, yet people keep referring to their data as superior and more transparent, and also seem happy with their risk ratios, despite the same lack of full information they accuse the MHRA of? How about considering the fact there are millions of people being vaccinated, so colossal amounts of data to wade through and analyse before accurate and comprehensible reports can be made for public consumption? It seems to me, there is only a problem with the MHRA data being given if you are convinced they are deliberately lying to everyone because they want people to die unnecessarily.

@Cherrycee - you don’t get that specific type of rare blood clot occurring naturally, so all age groups have been shown to have a specific vaccination risk.

[quote Bunbury952]@MrsFezziwig do you know when that information was dated?

If you look at the most recent Winton Centre graphics they have the risk for 40-49 at 1.2 per 100,000 slightly higher than the rate for 50-59. And even higher for women in their 40s. These graphics are only based on the data up to 28 April before many in their 40s had their jabs and before sufficient time had passed to see the onset of adverse effects.

The government are not releasing information about how many in each age group have received AZ. The Winton centre have even said they were given that data to calculate the risks, but aren’t able to share it.[/quote]
Is that based on the number of clots in the specific age group out of the overall total of vaccines given to all age groups or that specific age group?

[quote Cherrycee]**@Belladonna12

Why are you suggesting I'm a conspiracy theorist? I find that very insulting. I lost a parent to covid and I can't stand anti-vaxxers. I want safe, effective covid vaccines to get us out of this. I appreciate the role AZ has played so far, but it's clear that there are safety issues for younger cohorts.

If you read the last two pages of the thread you'll see the MHRA are omitting data on the number of AZ vaccines administered by age group. It's not 'assuming a massive conspiracy' to simply note that this information is not provided.[/quote]
I haven't said you are a conspiracy theorist. I am talking about the fact that you seem to think there is a conspiracy not to give full information on the risk of blood clots. Why would there be?

@MiniMaxi

Joining in with the second dose scepticism. If first doses started being given early Jan, then second doses started being given early April. Which means only the first week’s worth of second dosers are past their “3-4 week window” for clot risk. If it’s 6 incidents out of that many it’s probably roughly 6 in a million, not 6 in 6 million.

Of course these may be naturally occurring incidents but impossible to know especially as MHRA are so selective with their info sharing.

I noticed in the latest guidance it says no risk from second doses before saying “a small number of cases so far”. If it’s really no risk then we need an explanation of why they think that - otherwise it sounds like they’re being selective to avoid discouraging people taking up second doses...

Six incidents of blood clotting which considering many of those people would have been over 80 is hardly surprising. I haven't seen data suggesting that these people had antibodies to platelets which is the concern with AstraZeneca.

To ensure that people continue to have it perhaps? For the ‘greater good’ rather than worrying about their own individual personal risk.

You don’t get that specific type of rare blood clot occurring naturally

CVSTs occur in the general population, though they are rare. According to the German researchers about 2 or 3 per million is the typical rate.

I am talking about the fact that you seem to think there is a conspiracy not to give full information on the risk of blood clots.

What?

Pointing out a lack of information does not equate to claiming a conspiracy.

@SempreSuiGeneris

Belladonna all the EMA briefings I have seen have been quite nuanced. The form of words is along the lines of benefits outweigh the risk at the moment for those being offered. Put that together with recommendations and alternatives offered in individual countries and the picture is different from the UK. Until it became untenable due to comparisons with elsewhere the UK approach was very much what's good for one is good for everyone. Even now the underlying messaging is take what you are offered unless you want to be difficult.

The EMA have always said the benefits outweigh the risks for all age groups which is true in just about every European country apart from the UK and that is because our cases are much lower at the moment. If you are in Germany, France, Italy, Spain the benefits would certainly outweigh the risks if you are over 40. Remember also that the charts only show your risk of ending up in ICU with Covid in the next 16 weeks but your risk will continue beyond that if you haven't have a vaccine. If you have the vaccine the risk will only be a short period of time and hopefully only after the first one.

@Cherrycee

I am talking about the fact that you seem to think there is a conspiracy not to give full information on the risk of blood clots.

What?

Pointing out a lack of information does not equate to claiming a conspiracy.

There is information though. You just seem to think that they are holding some back. How do you know that?

The vast majority of 80+ age range were in first 10m and given Pfizer afaik. This also applied to all the front line NHS staff I know. Very many doctors etc are advocating for a vaccine they did not and will not be in the position of making a decision about for themselves.

@bumbleymummy

To ensure that people continue to have it perhaps? For the ‘greater good’ rather than worrying about their own individual personal risk.

They have looked at people's risks based on age though and decided that the benefits outweigh the risk for those over 40 and those with a medical condition that puts them at high risk from Covid. What else do you expect?

@SempreSuiGeneris

The vast majority of 80+ age range were in first 10m and given Pfizer afaik. This also applied to all the front line NHS staff I know. Very many doctors etc are advocating for a vaccine they did not and will not be in the position of making a decision about for themselves.

Most people I know (in primary care) received AstraZeneca not Pfizer. I received both doses ages ago as did most of my colleagues.

All my friends (mostly hospital based) had Pfizer before Christmas and before the AZ roll out even began. This could be a difference in policy for different areas though?

@Belladonna12 yes indeed and to people like me - due to have second dose next week - if it is true they aren’t typical VITT then it would be reassuring to be specifically told that. Fingers crossed eh.

EU hasn't renewed deal for AstraZeneca vaccine after June, commissioner says

f7td5.app.goo.gl/Up7Gsr

Sent via @updayUK

Interesting article, also links to a rare nerve disorder linked to vaccine