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.

@Walkaround I also hope as many people as possible will get a vaccine. Unfortunately public trust and confidence has been undermined by the UK dilly dallying on this matter. Not by a handful of people asking questions on Mumsnet.

@Schulte

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.

You are not asking questions to people who can give you the answers. There have been assertions on this thread that they are deliberately hiding the figures on adverse events so that people think the benefits outweigh the risk and there have also been claims that there are plenty of alternative vaccines but for some reason they don't want to use them. Both are conspiracy theories far as I'm concerned. The fact that the same people also seem to think that it is all right to offer only AstraZeneca to people over 50 but at the same time of outraged that there is a policy to only offer AstraZeneca to those between 40 and 49 makes the argument even more objectionable.

And what, pray, is wrong about considering to what degree you trust the things you’re being told? In the situation we’re currently in, so many statements are based on data modelling, on assumptions and extrapolations. Just take the ‘the UK will be COVID free by August’ or ‘we will have a normal Christmas’ as an example. You seriously wonder why people are forming their own opinions?

[quote Schulte]@Walkaround I also hope as many people as possible will get a vaccine. Unfortunately public trust and confidence has been undermined by the UK dilly dallying on this matter. Not by a handful of people asking questions on Mumsnet.[/quote]
There has been less "dilly dallying" in the UK regarding AstraZeneca and if anything public confidence in the vaccine has been higher than in other countries.

@Schulte

And what, pray, is wrong about considering to what degree you trust the things you’re being told? In the situation we’re currently in, so many statements are based on data modelling, on assumptions and extrapolations. Just take the ‘the UK will be COVID free by August’ or ‘we will have a normal Christmas’ as an example. You seriously wonder why people are forming their own opinions?

There is nothing wrong with considering whether you agree with modelling or extrapolation and you are welcome to form your own opinion on whether you want the vaccine. What is wrong with insisting that there is some conspiracy to hide details of actual adverse events or to be outraged that they are not offering a choice to those between 40 and 49 while at the same time think it's okay for those over 50.

‘ there have also been claims that there are plenty of alternative vaccines but for some reason they don't want to use them. ’

Nope. People have been saying that there are more alternatives coming and that therefore it might make sense to wait.

‘ the same people also seem to think that it is all right to offer only AstraZeneca to people over 50 but at the same time of outraged that there is a policy to only offer AstraZeneca to those between 40 and 49’

Please show me one post that says this. You keep banging on about it but I don’t remember a single person saying that all over 50s should only have AZ.

I’m starting to think that you’re deliberately misreading posts.

@Schulte - why do you object to being called a conspiracy theorist, when you are posting conspiracy theories and wanting to discuss them? Do you, like most conspiracy theorists, think they are conspiracy facts?

@Walkaround

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?

Exactly. If people think that they are being lied to regarding the Astra Zeneca side effects why are they not questioning whether there are adverse effects of the Pfizer vaccine that we haven't heard about or any other drug.

The simple facts are, you think we can all now afford to wait for different vaccines and stop using Astra Zeneca, and the regulator disagrees with you. You are not being stopped from following your own beliefs.

When you run out of arguments, you call people conspiracy theorists? Please.

@Schulte

‘ there have also been claims that there are plenty of alternative vaccines but for some reason they don't want to use them. ’

Nope. People have been saying that there are more alternatives coming and that therefore it might make sense to wait.

‘ the same people also seem to think that it is all right to offer only AstraZeneca to people over 50 but at the same time of outraged that there is a policy to only offer AstraZeneca to those between 40 and 49’

Please show me one post that says this. You keep banging on about it but I don’t remember a single person saying that all over 50s should only have AZ.

I’m starting to think that you’re deliberately misreading posts.

Nope. People have been saying that there are more alternatives coming and that therefore it might make sense to wait.

Some people have actually said there are alternatives now.

Please show me one post that says this. You keep banging on about it but I don’t remember a single person saying that all over 50s should only have AZ.

So what are you/others saying when you argue for an age limit on the AstraZeneca vaccine? If you feel that everybody should be able to choose which vaccine they want regardless of age why mention an age limit?

@Schulte

When you run out of arguments, you call people conspiracy theorists? Please.

When you run out of arguments, you refuse to explain how you differ from a conspiracy theorist?

@InSpaceNooneCanHearYouScream

The last thread was really useful- it's a shame this one has descended into petty squabbling between two or three people

This.

I find it bonkers that people (two people) think that challenging the reporting of data counts as a conspiracy theory. I don’t think anyone has said MHRA is lying to the public - but I do think it’s fair to say the reporting has been slightly opaque on a couple of points. Other than those points it’s very transparent, IMO. Maybe they simply don’t have the day yet - but obviously they don’t want people who aren’t already questioning the data to start doing so, so they’re going to write the comms in a way that sounds convincing. If people want to analyse the data or question whether there is full transparency that doesn’t make them a conspiracy theorist or “dangerous”. Nobody has mentioned Bill Gates yet, anyway ;)

*data not “day”

@Schulte

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 🤷‍♀️

@MiniMaxi - you think the above is not tantamount to accusations of lying?

I agree @MiniMaxi.
The constant vitriol aimed at people discussing their concerns about AZ is exhausting.
Maybe the two schools of thought would be better off breaking into different discussion threads for all concerned.

Certainly an accusation of being selective with timing, intentionally or otherwise, as the Gov has been all along. Whether or not you see that as a conspiracy theory depends on personal perspective.

I think there may have been strategic choices made for sure. Not due to any ill will against individuals or age groups, but to preserve the success of the vax campaign. UK can’t afford to just stop, or have loads of second dosers pulling out.

Agreed, @pingalinga! Let’s have a thread for concerned people to share their concerns, and another for others to slag them off

@MiniMaxi

I find it bonkers that people (two people) think that challenging the reporting of data counts as a conspiracy theory. I don’t think anyone has said MHRA is lying to the public - but I do think it’s fair to say the reporting has been slightly opaque on a couple of points. Other than those points it’s very transparent, IMO. Maybe they simply don’t have the day yet - but obviously they don’t want people who aren’t already questioning the data to start doing so, so they’re going to write the comms in a way that sounds convincing. If people want to analyse the data or question whether there is full transparency that doesn’t make them a conspiracy theorist or “dangerous”. Nobody has mentioned Bill Gates yet, anyway ;)

The data has been pretty well analysed by the Winton Centre. You posted a graphic yourself. However, where the risk that equal for women between 40 and 49 at this very moment in time. It will continue though as cases will go up once everything opens next week. The graphic also doesn't give the whole picture. As noticed in the text underneath "A vaccinated person will keep accruing this benefit over the lifetime of the vaccine’s protection. The risk from vaccination occurs only at the point of vaccination. This means that over time, the benefits will increase but the risks will not."

and "It is also important to note that the benefits illustrated are only for ICU admission due to COVID-19. For every 1 person shown as being saved from ICU admission, there are many more who might be being saved from suffering hospitalization and ‘long COVID’. "

I find it bonkers that people (two people) think that challenging the reporting of data counts as a conspiracy theory. I don’t think anyone has said MHRA is lying to the public - but I do think it’s fair to say the reporting has been slightly opaque on a couple of points.

Exactly this.

I also agree with Schulte that comments are being deliberately misinterpreted by certain posters. Many of us are being accused of saying things we never said. If you're confident in your position then argue it in good faith, stop making things up.

This thread is not now not worth reading as it has been totally taken over by about 4 posters having a never ending argument. Other people do exist you know!

@Belladonna12 I didn’t post any charts actually.

Though just on that risk comparison for age groups, at the moment it’s something like “1 in 50,000 for under 40s” and “1 in 100,000 for over 40s”. On that basis I think people IN their 40s are entirely justified in worrying about how that ramps up as age decreases. It simply will not be exactly the same for an 80yo and a 40yo.

Given that other countries have said alternatives are available for under 50/60 - including for second doses - I think it’s entirely reasonable for anyone under say 60 to think “hang on...”

[quote MiniMaxi]@Belladonna12 I didn’t post any charts actually.

Though just on that risk comparison for age groups, at the moment it’s something like “1 in 50,000 for under 40s” and “1 in 100,000 for over 40s”. On that basis I think people IN their 40s are entirely justified in worrying about how that ramps up as age decreases. It simply will not be exactly the same for an 80yo and a 40yo.

Given that other countries have said alternatives are available for under 50/60 - including for second doses - I think it’s entirely reasonable for anyone under say 60 to think “hang on...”[/quote]
It must have been another poster. Anyway, here is a link to the graphics which were updated four days ago. I think they provide pretty detailed information of what we know so far. I appreciate some people may want to wait for further information, but disagree that what is known so far is being withheld or that known information is "opaque".

wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/news/latest-data-mhra-blood-clots-associated-astra-zeneca-covid-19-vaccine/

I agree there was some really helpful and sensible discussion on the first thread but the constant bickering now is a shame. I used to like mumsnet about 9 years ago but these days it’s not a supportive place. I can understand fights between anti vax and pro vax people but fights between people with slightly different views on public information ? As a 41 yo who has had covid extremely mildly and been exposed into it since without getting ill I do not think it’s unreasonable to question the use of AZ in the 40-50 age group and I have appreciated finding a place where there was for a time a sensible discussion about it. Thanks to those posters who have taken the trouble to analyse the yellow card stats and to post about women’s risk/ benefit profiles being different to men’s.