Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

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

981 replies

Whichjab · 06/05/2021 21:50

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.

OP posts:
Cherrycee · 10/05/2021 10:58

People at the vaccination centre are busy vaccinating and are following the protocols they have been given. They are going to want to spend time "debating".

It seems to entirely depend on the person you get. LondonWFuck had a totally different experience where she was actually listened to.

I think many people (including some vaccinators) are not fully aware of the level of the risk and just see anyone with concerns as being difficult. They've been told the benefit outweighs the risk and they go by that, even though the data shows the benefit does not outweigh the risk for women in their 40s.

Belladonna12 · 10/05/2021 11:06

@AppleJane

Perhaps you should read my posts

After calling me a hypocrite @Belladonna12 I'm not interested in reading your posts or engaging any further with you. I'll be back when the data is released again so... see you next Thursday.

You are engaging in my posts though. Whatever the data says on Thursday is irrelevant to the point that you are being hypocritical for complaining that they are not offering alternatives to AstraZeneca for your age group because they say benefits outweigh the risks but at the same time you are happy for them to only offer AstraZeneca to those over 50.
Belladonna12 · 10/05/2021 11:16

I very much doubt it depends on individual vaccinators- they will be following the guidance in their area. It would be dependent on local policy and what vaccines are available in that area.

Cherrycee · 10/05/2021 11:24

I really don't see how AppleJane is being hypocritical. Confused

Also belladonna, why are you saying you had a choice of vaccine? It appears from your posts that AZ was allocated to you back in March.

TheVolturi · 10/05/2021 11:30

I booked my vaccine through the NHS website, I travelled 20 miles because the appointment time was more convenient, when got there today I was given the Pfizer one. I am relieved to be honest, I am 40 this month and was under the impression that the Pfizer one wasn't being given anymore?

Belladonna12 · 10/05/2021 11:35

@Cherrycee

I really don't see how AppleJane is being hypocritical. Confused

Also belladonna, why are you saying you had a choice of vaccine? It appears from your posts that AZ was allocated to you back in March.

You don't think it is hypocritical to say that it is okay to offer no choice to people over 50 if the benefits of AstraZeneca are considered to outweigh the risks for that age group but it is "wrong" to apply the same rule to those between the ages of 40 and 49?

I didn't say AstraZeneca was "allocated" to me in March. I had the first dose in January.

Cherrycee · 10/05/2021 11:53

Belladonna you said you had a choice of vaccine - is that the case or not?

From my reading of her posts, AppleJane is questioning why other countries are looking at the data and applying a higher age cut-off when the UK are not. I don't see what's unreasonable about that. You seem to be making assumptions about her age.

Schulte · 10/05/2021 11:54

I am not sure that’s what @AppleJane is saying? Risk benefit calculations aside, the simple truth is that the majority of over 50s had already had their jab by the time the blood clotting link became clearer. So it would have been too late for many of them anyway.

Schulte · 10/05/2021 11:55

My post was in reply to Belladonna, just to be clear.

Belladonna12 · 10/05/2021 11:58

@Cherrycee

Belladonna you said you had a choice of vaccine - is that the case or not?

From my reading of her posts, AppleJane is questioning why other countries are looking at the data and applying a higher age cut-off when the UK are not. I don't see what's unreasonable about that. You seem to be making assumptions about her age.

I said I had a choice because the vaccine I received depended on where I went to get it.
Cherrycee · 10/05/2021 12:05

I said I had a choice because the vaccine I received depended on where I went to get it.

So you were told that you could have AZ in one location and Pfizer in another? If that's the case, you were in an unusual situation, as the general public is not being told what they're getting. They book an appointment and find out when they turn up.

I could say it's hypocritical for you to claim that others shouldn't have a choice when you had one yourself (going down the same line of thinking that you're using on AppleJane).

Belladonna12 · 10/05/2021 12:07

@Cherrycee

Belladonna you said you had a choice of vaccine - is that the case or not?

From my reading of her posts, AppleJane is questioning why other countries are looking at the data and applying a higher age cut-off when the UK are not. I don't see what's unreasonable about that. You seem to be making assumptions about her age.

She hasn't just questioned why other countries have applied a higher age cut-off though. She also seems to think that it is "wrong" to not offer a choice to people between 40 and 49 even if data shows that the benefits of AstraZeneca outweigh the risks for that age group (as advised by the EMA) but fine to not offer a choice for people over 50. That is the part I find hypocritical.
Belladonna12 · 10/05/2021 12:17

@Cherrycee

I said I had a choice because the vaccine I received depended on where I went to get it.

So you were told that you could have AZ in one location and Pfizer in another? If that's the case, you were in an unusual situation, as the general public is not being told what they're getting. They book an appointment and find out when they turn up.

I could say it's hypocritical for you to claim that others shouldn't have a choice when you had one yourself (going down the same line of thinking that you're using on AppleJane).

It wasn't an "unusual situation" in January if for healthcare professionals.

The fact I could effectively choose in January does not make me hypocritical. I would only be hypocritical if I said that I should have a choice but not everyone else can choose which is pretty much what AppleJane is saying (she thinks it wrong not to give people in her age group a choice but okay if over 50).

Belladonna12 · 10/05/2021 12:28

@Schulte

I am not sure that’s what *@AppleJane* is saying? Risk benefit calculations aside, the simple truth is that the majority of over 50s had already had their jab by the time the blood clotting link became clearer. So it would have been too late for many of them anyway.
In which case, why state that there should be a age cut-off? Either benefits/risks/supply should be taken into account or it shouldn't.
Schulte · 10/05/2021 12:37

‘ In which case, why state that there should be a age cut-off? Either benefits/risks/supply should be taken into account or it shouldn't.’

There should be a cutoff because of the known risks, absolutely. There is clearly some disagreement over where exactly the cutoff should be, and most countries are playing it safer than the UK, and the EMA graphs I linked to earlier largely support that approach.

My point was that because of the fast rollout in the UK, a change in advice would have come too late for most over 50s. I am not saying that there shouldn’t have been a change in advice.

We seem to be going round in circles.

Cherrycee · 10/05/2021 12:46

She also seems to think that it is "wrong" to not offer a choice to people between 40 and 49 even if data shows that the benefits of AstraZeneca outweigh the risks for that age group.

It doesn't though, at least not for women in their 40s.

Based on the latest set of data released last week, the risks and benefits were equal for women in their 40s. This was illustrated in the slide from the Winton Centre that was posted previously on this thread. This is why so many of us are saying that those in their 40s should be offered a choice. It's based on the data!

Belladonna12 · 10/05/2021 12:51

@Cherrycee

She also seems to think that it is "wrong" to not offer a choice to people between 40 and 49 even if data shows that the benefits of AstraZeneca outweigh the risks for that age group.

It doesn't though, at least not for women in their 40s.

Based on the latest set of data released last week, the risks and benefits were equal for women in their 40s. This was illustrated in the slide from the Winton Centre that was posted previously on this thread. This is why so many of us are saying that those in their 40s should be offered a choice. It's based on the data!

I don't agree that shows the benefits and risks are equal. The risk of ending up in ICU with Covid depends on cases remaining very low which is unlikely to be the case now everything is opening up. It also only shows your risk for the next 16 weeks. In reality, if you are not vaccinated your risk will continue well beyond that. In contrast, the risk from the vaccine is only for 28 days, and is a one-off.
Cherrycee · 10/05/2021 13:04

The risk of ending up in ICU with Covid depends on cases remaining very low which is unlikely to be the case now everything is opening up.

We don't know that. Also bear in mind that the ICU stats did not take into account whether people had underlying conditions (which would be the case for many younger people ending up in ICU), so it is likely overstating the risk for the general population in that age group.

It also only shows your risk for the next 16 weeks. In reality, if you are not vaccinated your risk will continue well beyond that.

It's unlikely anyone in their 40s who wants a vaccine (even if not AZ) will not have one in 16 weeks time.

In contrast, the risk from the vaccine is only for 28 days, and is a one-off.

Twice actually, there are cases being reported after the second dose.

Belladonna12 · 10/05/2021 13:18

We don't know that. Also bear in mind that the ICU stats did not take into account whether people had underlying conditions (which would be the case for many younger people ending up in ICU), so it is likely overstating the risk for the general population in that age group.

I think we to know that cases are going to rise! Also, if you want to argue that the risk of ending up in ICU will be lower for those between 40 and 49 if they don't have underlying conditions then you shouldn't ignore the fact that the same is true of those over 50. Again, why should people over 50 be treated differently?

It's unlikely anyone in their 40s who wants a vaccine (even if not AZ) will not have one in 16 weeks time.

If they are going to have a vaccine anyway, then they might as well have it now.

Twice actually, there are cases being reported after the second dose.

I haven't seen cases of blood clotting reported that are associated with the autoimmune response. Whilst it is possible it may happen with the second dose even if it didn't with the first, we don't know that it will and it seems less likely.

FergoMcFergFace · 10/05/2021 13:33

"The risk of ending up in ICU with Covid depends on cases remaining very low which is unlikely to be the case now everything is opening up. It also only shows your risk for the next 16 weeks. In reality, if you are not vaccinated your risk will continue well beyond that."

But wouldn't that argument also apply to the 20 to 39 cohort who are being offered alternative vaccines, @Belladonna12? If cases rise to moderate or high levels, the benefits start to outweigh the risks for them too, according to the EMA data.

MiniMaxi · 10/05/2021 14:17

@Belladonna12 a question about the second doses - you’ve mentioned you haven’t seen any that have autoimmune traits. Can you point me towards the evidence for that pls? (Not being snarky, am interested if it is true)

empod · 10/05/2021 14:28

Had my first jab today, didn't find out until I got there that it was AZ. I'm 42.

SempreSuiGeneris · 10/05/2021 14:34

With almost 70% of the adult population already vaccinated and 40% of the remainder lowest risk cohort having previous exposure to the virus itself even Prof Ferguson and co no longer think opening up will lead to us all ending up in ICU.

Interesting comments on attitudes to questions at vaccine centres.

Walkaround · 10/05/2021 15:36

@SempreSuiGeneris - yes, but nearly 70% have only been vaccinated already because of Astra Zeneca. Now you have the luxury of waiting around for a vaccine you prefer, because not everyone did. If everyone had waited around, we wouldn’t be in that position. And not being overwhelmed doesn’t mean we won’t end up with enough cases to move on to the medium levels of covid risk chart, thus changing the risk-benefit analysis again. There is a limit to how many people can be vaccinated per day, so you can choose to risk waiting and still being able to get the jab you want at the time you want. It is not unreasonable not to organise an entire vaccination programme around the hope you will get away with delaying everyone’s vaccinations until they can all be offered an alternative, though.

Walkaround · 10/05/2021 15:40

@bumbleymummy - “ Do you think the vaccine program isn’t going to plan? We’ve vaccinated the most vulnerable groups - most have had their two doses now. And we’ve seen a reduction in hospitalisations and deaths. What else did you think the vaccine program was meant to achieve?”
I think the vaccination programme is going to plan thanks to most people accepting the AZ vaccine. If only the vulnerable groups were protected by the time society fully opened up, I am 100% certain the risks of covid for 40-49 year olds would very rapidly outweigh the risks of the Astra Zeneca vaccine.