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.

@Lakes74 - thank you. I’m glad we actually agree!

@Walkaround

And as for cases being low, I have never said that is because of the vaccine. Cases remaining low while we reopen society and let people travel will largely be down to the vaccines, though, so isn’t it great that nearly 70% of adults have already had at least one dose of the vaccines available up until now before we start opening up further and being encouraged to hug each other? Let’s hope they provide enough protection.

Hopefully we’ve cleared that up then.

Yes it is great so many have been vaccinated, especially those who are at risk, and I really hope they are still effective against the new variants. I still won’t be hugging anyone for a while yet but that’s each person’s own decision aswell isn’t it.

I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested the vaccine is the entire reason for the drop in cases (it certainly isn't which is why they will rise again) or that people should feel guilty for wanting to wait for more data before deciding whether to be vaccinated. There aren't enough of vaccines available for everyone to have them at the moment anyway.

Reading back over the thread I do feel some of the comments could have been interpreted that way and have been unnecessary tbh. Let’s just wait for the emerging data and hopefully that will give us more facts.

Apologies if this has already been answered.

Do we know if any of the vaccines protect against long Covid?

I'm guessing perhaps Pfizer. I've seen reports suggesting it prevents nearly all infections? With AZ, I'm hearing talk of it being successful at preventing most hospitalisations and deaths - but long Covid can develop after a mild infection.

I wonder if this is behind the recent preference for Pfizer?

Given women in their 40s seem to be particularly at risk of developing long Covid, it might be a good idea to prioritise those who've had AZ for a Pfizer booster.

@Lakes74 - “Yes it is great so many have been vaccinated, especially those who are at risk, and I really hope they are still effective against the new variants. I still won’t be hugging anyone for a while yet but that’s each person’s own decision aswell isn’t it.”. Indeed it is. A lot of people will be hugging each other, though. It is neither unreasonable to want to wait for more data about a vaccine and think that is less risky either personally or for everyone on a national level, nor is it unreasonable to not want to wait to be vaccinated, because you think the vaccine risk is lower than the personal or societal risk presented by the expected forthcoming behaviour of others. Nobody is definitely right or wrong in this, it’s all based on personal interpretations of the risks and personal predictions of the future. Not even the experts have all the answers - nobody does, we are all making the best judgements we can with the information we have. My biggest fear is total loss of trust in the information we are given and in those expected to advise both us and our politicians, which is why I object to posts that appear to be encouraging people to mistrust the advice they are given and the motives of those giving that advice.

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

You do understand that vaccinators are a very diverse population? They include, for example, retired hospital consultants and airline cabin crew. I’m not dissing the cabin crew in any way (as I’d be totally reliant on them in the event of an aircraft emergency!) but I would very much doubt that they are trained to have a long discussion about risk/benefit analysis of the vaccine in a changing situation.

@MrsFezziwig

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

You do understand that vaccinators are a very diverse population? They include, for example, retired hospital consultants and airline cabin crew. I’m not dissing the cabin crew in any way (as I’d be totally reliant on them in the event of an aircraft emergency!) but I would very much doubt that they are trained to have a long discussion about risk/benefit analysis of the vaccine in a changing situation.

It wasn't a long discussion, it was about one minute. I said I am not comfortable with AZ, she let me know when they would be giving out Pfizer, and said she'd make some notes to the effect that I don't consent to AZ. The end. She was absolutely lovely too, which certainly helped.

You do understand that vaccinators are a very diverse population?

Yes, which ties in with the point I'm making...

I will continue to object to statements of anger from people about the way the roll out is being done and about the fact the AZ vaccine is still being offered to anyone under 50, and to claims of deliberate cover ups and obfuscations, as I do not find those statements helpful to anybody whatsoever - they just stir up distrust and panic in people who have already been fully or partially vaccinated and in people who have not yet been vaccinated.

This x 1 million. Have the vaccine, don’t have it, I don’t care. But I would prefer the scientists collating the data to be able to do so methodically without having to rush to conclusions before proper evidence has been obtained and without having their integrity called into question by a clique of sneery posters on here.

So I take it nobody knows the answer to my question. Is Pfizer better for preventing long Covid?

Just because the benefits outweigh the risks for people over 50, that doesn't actually make us safer from the vaccine clot risk, and funnily enough we'd really like to avoid it too. Yes, there's a slightly lower clot risk by age, but it's a tiny reduction, not enough to be particularly reassuring.

In practice most over 50s couldn't be protected from that risk until recently because having a jab, any jab, was more urgent, but that doesn't mean we're now any less deserving of a chance to avoid it than 40 somethings are, if we're reaching a point where there may be more of a choice.

In a shipwreck we might well push the people who can't swim into lifeboats with holes, because they're better than nothing. If we get to a point where there's a choice of lifeboat and the situation is a bit less urgent, though, we don't say oh the people who can't swim are more desperate, they can keep getting into the boats with holes because for them the benefits outweigh the risks, but I can swim so I'm not desperate, so I should get a seat in a safe lifeboat. That seems to be what some people here are arguing when they say the age cut off should be just above their own age.

There might be good pragmatic public health reasons for an age cut off, to get the population vaccinated one way or another. Its a fact that older people are more at risk of covid and to some extent it's any port in a storm. But don't go round suggesting there's a magic cut off at that age that means those older people have nothing to worry about with the vaccine, and it's only younger people with any reason to feel anxious.

@Tealightsandd - nobody knows the answer to your question, because the partial lockdown plus vaccination have been so successful at dramatically lowering covid cases to date that there are not enough people who have been fully vaccinated and have nevertheless caught covid and then gone on to develop long covid to be able to have the foggiest notion whether one vaccine is better than another at preventing a long term condition nobody fully understands. All the vaccines in use at the moment have been shown using “real world data,” rather than trial data, to be extremely successful at dramatically reducing the chances of transmission of the virus to others even if you get it, though, which one way or another makes a colossal contribution to the avoidance of long term covid in the population, because fewer people will be catching the virus in the first place.

Ok. If you truly believe that we have always been given all the available information in a timely manner, then please explain all of the following to me:

When several countries had already stopped using AZ because of blood clots, the UK insisted no such clots had happened here.

Then suddenly it turned out there had been dozens.

When several European countries had said the risk was clearly related to age, the UK insisted it wasn’t.

Then it admitted it was after all.

When European countries said the risk was higher for females, the UK maintained that it wasn’t.

Now it looks very much like it is.

When the JVCI decided to stop giving AZ to under 40s, it waited a whole week before telling us. There may be valid practical reasons for this but in the meantime, thousands of under 40s were jabbed with AZ.

Why did they not show an updated risk benefit graph at their most recent press conference? As we know because someone helpfully posted it on this thread, it doesn’t look that favourable for 40-49s and especially not for women.

Apparently the organisation that produces this graph had to go ask the MHRA for the detailed figures as they weren’t forthcoming.

Etc.

And btw some of you who keep defending the UK’s strategy on this sound a lot angrier than those of us who question it 🤷‍♀️

Yawn.

@Schulte - how about starting a conspiracy theory thread instead, if that is what you want to talk about?

I take it you don’t have the answers then so stop saying we’re wrong about questioning the lack or delay of information. We will keep asking questions.

Nothing to do with conspiracy theories.

I agree. It's not a conspiracy. They are important questions. Throwing the "you are an anti vaxx tin foil hat wearer" to people with enquiring minds is just lazy.

I mean asking questions doesn't automatically make someone a conspiracy theorist, despite how much some people might want to label them as such.

Why are they important questions? It’s either incompetence, a conspiracy or not wanting to draw conclusions before there is enough data. Take your pick. In what way does that help you?

If certain posters find it important, why do you care if you don't find it important? Why try to shut it down?

@LondonWFuck - have you not read any of my posts?! I make it crystal clear why I object to it.

Posting that you think we should not trust our regulators and think we are being lied to isn’t just a problem that confines itself to Astra Zeneca, it brings everything we are told into question. Why trust any of the vaccines? Why trust any type of vaccination? Why trust medical advice?