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.

There were a lot of charts posted on a different thread. This was one of them.

Is there anyone still following this thread who has wrangled with this decision and ultimately decided to just go for the AZ? I'm 43 and still can't get comfortable with having it based on the Winton Centre graphics and the EMA data that Schulte shared.

But I want someone to convince me because I think it's going to be really difficult to find an alternative! I just want to get it over with.

Really disappointed to come back to a thread that’s been a great source of information to find that it’s been taken over by bickering. Can we please get back to what it was. I’d found so many useful sources of information shared on here that will help me to draw a conclusion about whether to go ahead with my second AZ dose when it’s due. I think it’s important that there is somewhere for information to be shared and discussed and to help people to make an informed choice.

Agreed. And I apologise, I will try to not rise to any more bait that’s thrown at me. I’ve been beaten up enough

I agree that the information should be shared and discussed in a respectful way. I certainly didn't intend to derail the thread in any way, but it really got to me that people with valid concerns were being dismissed as conspiracy theorists and the like, and with some vitriol too. So yes I did react to that, but I will try not to engage with those posts any further.

@FergoMcFergFace and others: am 40 and think I will almost certainly go ahead with my second but I want to see a week or two more data first. Means having it 14 weeks ish after my first but I’m not overly concerned about that.

Comments have been made such as “they [the MHRA] are absolutely hiding facts”. I think that’s pretty close to accusing them of lying.

Maybe the two schools of thought would be better off breaking into different discussion threads for all concerned.

It’s not really going to be a discussion thread with only one school of thought, is it? That’s fine for people who have made up their minds, but for posters who wander onto this thread who have concerns but aren’t familiar with the issues then surely it’s better to hear all opinions? Plus the “we don’t want you on our thread” attitude is not really how Mumsnet works. There are plenty of other SM platforms for private groups.

Thanks @Schulte 😊 I totally understand it’s an emotive and divisive subject and we all feel differently but this thread has been one of my best sources of scientific info and links to experts on the topic and I really hope it can continue to be so as more data emerges.

@LondonWFuck

There were a lot of charts posted on a different thread. This was one of them.

Yes, that is one of the many graphics in the link I posted. You do also have to take the text into account when weighing up the benefits and risks though. e,g,

""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’. "

[quote MiniMaxi]@FergoMcFergFace and others: am 40 and think I will almost certainly go ahead with my second but I want to see a week or two more data first. Means having it 14 weeks ish after my first but I’m not overly concerned about that.[/quote]
That sounds really sensible in your situation, @MiniMaxi. Thank you for replying.

"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."

Was going to let sleeping dogs and all that but this is a bizarre statement. It is true that the side effect under discussion happens at a point in time and then is not relevant. However it is not true that this is part of the calculation of risk because you cannot know whether you will be one of the very few very unlucky until after you have made the decision.

It is also far from clear that vaccination protection will remain constant and unlikely that it will increase beyond a certain point in time post vaccination. Future boosters are already being mooted. In fact much of the debate has been predicated on the notion infection rates will inevitably rise. While I don't think this is a given it is assumed in the above quote.

An equally plausible suggestion is that the vaccine programme so far is so successful that the virus can no longer sustain community transmission. In such an event the usefulness of vaccination of further cohorts is questionable.

The corollary to the quote would be to suggest that if you don't take the vaccine when offered you have the highest risk of catching Covid the day after your appointment and the net benefit diminishes over time. Clearly nonsense.

"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’. "

This quote is even more problematic. "Might be" is doing a lot of speculative work. For this to be a balanced statement you would need to factor in all the other less severe vaccine side effects and a much less speculative definition of hospitalisation and long Covid. Long vaccine is also a thing especially with a 2 shot regimen spread over a 12 week period.

@FergoMcFergFace

Is there anyone still following this thread who has wrangled with this decision and ultimately decided to just go for the AZ? I'm 43 and still can't get comfortable with having it based on the Winton Centre graphics and the EMA data that Schulte shared.

But I want someone to convince me because I think it's going to be really difficult to find an alternative! I just want to get it over with.

I have antiphospholipid syndrome which I feel really does increase my risk of clotting from the AZ vaccine. I'm lucky that my GP has allowed me to have Pfizer instead. If I didn't have that underlying condition, I would probably accept the very small clot risk and have the jab. I don't know if that's any help to you

Well said Cherrycee and Shulte

"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."

This is of course true but I think for many (me included) there's something about a feeling of being in control or not... There is lots I could do to reduce my personal covid risk but no one can do anything to reduce their clot risk from the vaccine other than not having the vaccine.

Generally though I don't think there is any great conspiracy. It's not surprising the MHRA is not giving a running commentary on all the data, though. Partly it just takes time to verify the cases, and on balance it wouldn't be in anyone's interest if vaccine confidence in general was affected. My friends in their 50s are having their second doses just now and if those AZ second doses were not administered, having hundreds of thousands of partially vaccinated people would be a problem, too. We don't get know if mixing vaccines is better or worse overall.

@SempreSuiGeneris

"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."

Was going to let sleeping dogs and all that but this is a bizarre statement. It is true that the side effect under discussion happens at a point in time and then is not relevant. However it is not true that this is part of the calculation of risk because you cannot know whether you will be one of the very few very unlucky until after you have made the decision.

It is also far from clear that vaccination protection will remain constant and unlikely that it will increase beyond a certain point in time post vaccination. Future boosters are already being mooted. In fact much of the debate has been predicated on the notion infection rates will inevitably rise. While I don't think this is a given it is assumed in the above quote.

An equally plausible suggestion is that the vaccine programme so far is so successful that the virus can no longer sustain community transmission. In such an event the usefulness of vaccination of further cohorts is questionable.

The corollary to the quote would be to suggest that if you don't take the vaccine when offered you have the highest risk of catching Covid the day after your appointment and the net benefit diminishes over time. Clearly nonsense.

This statement is based on what we know at the moment. There are few certainties at the moment . If you don't agree with their estimations/assumptions then there is not much point looking at their graphs are either.

@FergoMcFergFace

Is there anyone still following this thread who has wrangled with this decision and ultimately decided to just go for the AZ? I'm 43 and still can't get comfortable with having it based on the Winton Centre graphics and the EMA data that Schulte shared.

But I want someone to convince me because I think it's going to be really difficult to find an alternative! I just want to get it over with.

I had rebooked for the vaccine for next week on the thinking that I could push it back again if new data emerges. However I've since had an email from the gp offering appointments at their Pfizer clinic so I've gone for that instead.

Well I'm 41 but for personal reasons not related to health but to increased occupational risk (due to work travel) my surgery slotted me in for Pfizer rather than AZ. I have to say I am mighty glad, mostly not because of the clot risk but because I didn't fancy the after-effects of AZ!

That's interesting Nearly - is that to do with the clotting risk from flying? Never heard that before, but it's great you were able to get Pfizer.

No not flying, but travelling where other variants not covered by AZ are endemic.

Ah ok, that makes more sense!

@NearlyAlwaysInsane

No not flying, but travelling where other variants not covered by AZ are endemic.

And this is the icing on the cake, not only are we more at risk, it's not as good.

Oh - you're really lucky! I think ours only does Pfizer or AZ and I won't know until Saturday what's on offer. I suspect they'll be holding back Pfizer for the under 40s but that's purely speculation.

Thanks for replying.

Glad you were offered the Pfizer, @InSpaceNooneCanHearYouScream.

@FergoMcFergFace

Oh - you're really lucky! I think ours only does Pfizer or AZ and I won't know until Saturday what's on offer. I suspect they'll be holding back Pfizer for the under 40s but that's purely speculation.

Thanks for replying.

Forgot to @PositiveLife