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.

@EducatingArti

It isn't just about risk to an individual though. If insufficient people get vaccinated then there is an increased risk of Covid for everyone plus more risks of people being hospitalised and dying.

If large portions of the population are vaccinated with AZ then we're massively vulnerable to the SA variant.

@EducatingArti

It isn't just about risk to an individual though. If insufficient people get vaccinated then there is an increased risk of Covid for everyone plus more risks of people being hospitalised and dying.

Yes this. It's how mutated strains could develop.

It looks like the Winton Centre have updated their graphic...

@EducatingArti

It isn't just about risk to an individual though. If insufficient people get vaccinated then there is an increased risk of Covid for everyone plus more risks of people being hospitalised and dying.

I do want to be vaccinated, which is why I want to be offered an alternative that I am more comfortable with having.

"If large portions of the population are vaccinated with AZ then we're massively vulnerable to the SA variant."
But still less than if they aren't vaccinated at all
There's an interesting situation in Bolton at the moment. Cases of one of the Indian variants has shot up so that they are now over 100 people per 100000 with Covid compared to 22 in England as a whole. However these high rates exactly correlate to the areas that have been significantly lower in uptake of vaccines.

If large portions of the population are vaccinated with AZ then we're massively vulnerable to the SA variant.

This is my concern. Do we know yet if AZ is sufficiently effective against the South African, UK, and Indian strains?

Bearing in mind, hospitalisation even without death means potential overwhelmed NHS again - and more long Covid, with the possible heart, lung, and other damage associated with it.

I remain suspicious that it's this, rather than very rare blood clots, that is behind the change in policy wrt under 40s.

Fingers crossed, the government is planning boosters for those who received AZ. I understand AZ is working on tweaked vaccines, which is at least good news. We'll have to get the tweaked ones as boosters.

The anger on here and claims that under 50s are effectively being forgotten or sacrificed by not being offered a choice of vaccine is, imvho, OTT and based on a very blinkered focus on a single issue. And I say that as one of the “sacrificed.” It’s all very well coming up with mathematical models that show that the benefit versus the risk changes as covid rates go up or down in a community, but that model doesn’t take everything into account that actually has to be taken into account to conclude what the best course of action is for different countries - there appears to be no thorough analysis on here of the possible speed of change of a situation and what may affect the speed of change; nor of the increased danger of taking a riskier vaccine when rates of covid are high, if the waiting for an alternative risk doesn’t pay off (I wouldn’t want a rare blood clot when hospitals are overwhelmed); nor of the logistics of genuinely offering choice on a massive, countrywide scale, especially when vaccines cannot be wasted due to massive global demand; nor of the issues of uncertainty of supply of vaccines ordered; nor of the risks of reducing restrictions on activities before everyone is vaccinated. Not only do we not know the precise risks for every age group for every vaccine, we also don’t know the precise risks of slowing down the vaccination programme whilst opening up the country. Everything is a risk, and not everything can be modelled fully to conclude for certain what the best course of action is. To be angry that decision makers have made different decisions to the ones you would have made and to assume this is due to a conspiracy to kill healthy 40-somethings unnecessarily, is therefore plain wrong. It’s fine to disagree with others’ decisions, but to feel some kind of righteous anger is misplaced.

That chart! I dont understand how they can say benefits outweigh risks for 40 to 49. There's 0.5 difference

@Bunbury952

It looks like the Winton Centre have updated their graphic...

Massive increase in the risk of ICU admission from Covid for 40+. They absolutely must be included in group 9 for any new phases, i.e. boosters.

Late to the table here (snowed under for the past 2 days) but I am SO over the moon that FINALLY the powers that be have seen sense!!! Of course they won't give the real reason - that would be admitting defeat. But lives will be saved and that's what matters.

To the Odd Group @Schulte @Roonerspismed @AppleJane and everyone else who has been banging their head against a brick wall on this and other threads THANK YOU so much for keeping this going. I really thought I was going mad so many times (I know my posts got rather angry at times - sorry!) but it has been so good to feel like I am not the only one deeply concerned at what has been going on.

PS. It might amuse you to hear that I was so livid that I wrote to my MP about this last week (a rather high-profile Tory who you will all have heard of) quoting the EMA report, Germany, Norway etc. and asking for thirty-somethings to be offered an alternative vaccine. He replied to me TODAY as follows (he clearly didn't get the memo hahaha)
"Thank you for your email. I certainly appreciate your concerns about this issue but all the evidence from the UK, EU and US regulators show that there is a very small risk of blood clots even for those under 30. It is right that we take a cautious approach and offer that age group a different vaccine but for everyone else the risk of getting COVID is far worse."

I will enjoy responding :D

@ScarlettSunset

I'm pleased for the 30-39 age group who had been waiting and watching, but also sad that this has been announced after so many have already been jabbed, without being given a choice of vaccine and told it is AZ or nothing.

I do wonder what will happen to those of us in our 40s (or over), who still haven't had it though. After all, if it's about reducing hesitancy, then they should open the choice to all ages.

I don't know how many of us over 40 are still left waiting, but given the way they have pushed it, I doubt there's all that many. I'm concerned what the data may look like in a few weeks, and I don't feel at all reassured. Even if the risk is 1 in 100,000, that's still quite a number of people who will be affected, and I personally suspect it's a higher risk than that (of course I have no evidence, but I've also no reason to think that won't change again )

I'm also feeling fed up with people comparing the risks to other things. Even if I choose to take certain other risks, it doesn't mean I want to take this one. If at some point in the future, the data convinces me it would be a good idea to take it, then I will then, but right now, I'm just trying to make the best decision for me, based on the information I have at the moment

It is "AstraZeneca" or nothing if there is no other vaccine though. We don't have much Pfizer or Moderna at the moment so the alternative is Astra Zeneca or nothing for the time being.

It's up to you whether you want to take the risk of having it but remember there is also a risk with not having it particularly over the age of 40.

@Dementedswan

That chart! I dont understand how they can say benefits outweigh risks for 40 to 49. There's 0.5 difference

And we won’t know the real rates for that age group for several weeks. Many had jabs this week and the onset of any symptoms could be weeks later.

Walkaround you could argue that case were it not for the position that societal risk is being prioritised over individual risk in all the messaging coming from Govt, NHS and PHE.

If you as an individual have a lower than average Covid risk, regardless of prevalence, due to health and lifestyle factors but a higher than average vaccine risk then you need much more transparent messaging around Covid risks and vaccine risks to make an informed choice.

Even the age stratified data from a couple of weeks back didn't bother to differentiate "Covid risk" in under 30s between M/F and underlying risk factor/no underlying risk factor. Information is openly available but regularly ignored in public briefings. This is despite them giving multiple versions of prevalence stats.

@Bunbury952 I'm due my second jab on Wednesday. Really don't know what to think now.

@SempreSuiGeneris

Walkaround you could argue that case were it not for the position that societal risk is being prioritised over individual risk in all the messaging coming from Govt, NHS and PHE.

If you as an individual have a lower than average Covid risk, regardless of prevalence, due to health and lifestyle factors but a higher than average vaccine risk then you need much more transparent messaging around Covid risks and vaccine risks to make an informed choice.

Even the age stratified data from a couple of weeks back didn't bother to differentiate "Covid risk" in under 30s between M/F and underlying risk factor/no underlying risk factor. Information is openly available but regularly ignored in public briefings. This is despite them giving multiple versions of prevalence stats.

They don't know who has a higher than average vaccine risk though.

People who are usually screened out of vaccine programmes and were not selected to participate in trials due to perceived extra risks from any vaccine have all been told the vaccine is "safe for them". That is hardly the "abundance of caution" JVT and co are so fond of referencing is it?

@Dementedswan

That chart! I dont understand how they can say benefits outweigh risks for 40 to 49. There's 0.5 difference

Looks like for women aged 40-49 there maybe no difference at all...

I'm 32 and had my first AZ vaccination two weeks ago. I know I'm meant to have my second dose when offered but this news has worried me.

@letsallbemermaids

I'm 32 and had my first AZ vaccination two weeks ago. I know I'm meant to have my second dose when offered but this news has worried me.

The risk is even lower with the second dose as the fact you didn't react the first one suggests you don't have the antibodies that cause the clotting.

@Belladonna12 do we know the risk is lower with the second vaccine though? Given that the vast majority of those who have received a second AZ dose will still be within the 28 days?

[quote whataballbag]@Belladonna12 do we know the risk is lower with the second vaccine though? Given that the vast majority of those who have received a second AZ dose will still be within the 28 days? [/quote]
This is what I would like to know too. In my area they have just started group 6 second doses. Was Pfizer this week and az second doses are next week. I know this as dh was Pfizer and I'm az.

[quote whataballbag]@Belladonna12 do we know the risk is lower with the second vaccine though? Given that the vast majority of those who have received a second AZ dose will still be within the 28 days? [/quote]
That's what I'm wondering as the recommendations have changed so much in the space of just a few weeks.

@QuietLurker - that’s making the massive assumption that covid rates stay conveniently low until all 40-49s can be offered something other than AZ. Because until all people and be offered an alternative, some people simply won’t have a choice. As for the notion that every part of the country can have an array of choices available for everyone at this point in time or probably for the next few years, given this is a global situation that’s just ludicrous.

Just to add - I'm in Wales and my area has been routinely vaccinating those in their 30s. I'm not at any increased risk of Covid-19 due to my occupation or circumstances.

My local vaccine centre is a relatively small leisure centre (although covers a reasonably large area). They had over 100 no-shows for vaccines yesterday - yet - to be the best of my knowledge (from people I know who have been there over the past 2 weeks for their first dose) only one day each week has been AZ, the other four days have been Pfizer.