I for one would like to say a big thank you to Oxford and Astra Zeneca

[MarcelineMissouri]

Oooh I hate the tone of so many of the threads on here about this vaccine.

I’m 41 and I had my first dose last week. I am incredibly grateful to have had it.

Let me be clear, I’m not a diehard patriotic fan of the British vaccine. It’s not the best vaccine that’s been created, that is clear. But it is a highly effective and safe vaccine. The main reason people are turning away from it is because we are so incredibly fortunate that the other even better vaccines were also created. If we didn’t (which was a high possibility) then I rather imagine people would be able to better put the tiny risks into perspective. But we have alternatives and we are so lucky to be in that situation. If you want to wait for Pfizer or moderna then go for it but please stop being so incredibly dramatic over the risks relying to the Oxford vaccine!!!

This vaccine is one of the main reasons we are now in such a good position as a country, and it will go on to help many other countries get out of this as well. If we’d been relying on Pfizer and moderna we would be so much further behind. I can well foresee in this country that Astra Zeneca will end up getting phased out as the immediate danger of the pandemic passes and that’s ok. But it did a job and it did it well, and it is needed in many other countries.

And I for one would like to acknowledge what an amazing job they have done. The work and pressure involved must have been immense. And now to see people acting like they’d be getting a dose of poison and guaranteed death if they get this vaccine must be so hard. Never have we been in this situation were millions and millions of people are getting the same dose of something in such a short period of time. If we’d been seeing the tiny number of clots come in over the course of years, again I think it would be much easier for people to rationalise the numbers.

So thank you to the team that created this. I appreciate all you have done. Thank you for getting us to this position where we can hopefully begin to put our lives back together again. Thank you for being willing to supply this amazing vaccine so cheaply that poor countries can afford to use it unlike the others. Thank you.

Well said OP!

Well said OP. I'm very grateful to the Oxford and Astrazeneca teams who pushed it all through. They have saved countless lives.

If there hadn't been Oxford Astrazeneca available to give to older generations and if so many hadn't had it in the UK, then the "risk profile" for young people would look entirely different, because those in their 20s would still have significantly higher risk of catching covid and therefore significantly higher risk of severe illness or death from covid this year. It's sad that's not understood by some who so glibly say "my risk is low...".

The lack of understanding and acceptance of the effect of small numbers and reporting bias with these cases is bizarre to me, especially against the backdrop of real covid deaths every day. While there have sadly been a few deaths from clots, there is still no difference in actual post-vaccine death numbers between each vaccine; they all have tiny risks to some individuals, like all other medications. We've all been a little more anxious and bored this year, which can't help those getting swept up with the drama.

"Demand in Germany for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine has been so high since the government opened up to everyone that supplies are reportedly running out. Doctors have had to cancel appointments."

Well apparently the Germany people are pretty grateful for the AZ vaccine too. Which is good to see after all the headlines and guidance changes across Europe.

Don’t be stupid OP - this is far too measured, sensible and fair a post for mumsnet

@MRex

Well said OP. I'm very grateful to the Oxford and Astrazeneca teams who pushed it all through. They have saved countless lives.

If there hadn't been Oxford Astrazeneca available to give to older generations and if so many hadn't had it in the UK, then the "risk profile" for young people would look entirely different, because those in their 20s would still have significantly higher risk of catching covid and therefore significantly higher risk of severe illness or death from covid this year. It's sad that's not understood by some who so glibly say "my risk is low...".

The lack of understanding and acceptance of the effect of small numbers and reporting bias with these cases is bizarre to me, especially against the backdrop of real covid deaths every day. While there have sadly been a few deaths from clots, there is still no difference in actual post-vaccine death numbers between each vaccine; they all have tiny risks to some individuals, like all other medications. We've all been a little more anxious and bored this year, which can't help those getting swept up with the drama.

The risk profiles, if you have looked at them, are done for each prevalence level of Covid. This isn't a matter of inability to understand statistics -- unless you genuinely think that the JCVI have made official recommendations on the basis of not understanding the statistics presented to them too.

The exact point IS that AZ should be offered to older people in order to bring down the prevalence level - but once this has happened, as it has, this affects the safety profile of the vaccine offered to younger cohorts. It is not ethical to then continue to offer a vaccine which carries a risk of more harm at the current time than benefit. That in itself would be irresponsible, and one of the reasons for the JCVI recommendation to switch vaccines for younger cohorts is precisely because of this, and because not to do so would risk creating a level of vaccine hesitancy which would affect the uptake of the whole of the rest of the vaccination programme.

Take a look at the analysis here, for example:
wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/news/latest-data-mhra-blood-clots-associated-astra-zeneca-covid-19-vaccine/

Agreed. And the only reason we are aware of the incredibly rare blood clotting side effect is that it has been tested on millions, I say that again MILLIONS of people. How many of the normal prescription drugs we take every day have incredibly rare fatal side effects that we have never become aware of, because it takes a cohort of this size to become aware of a 1 in 100000 side effect?

I'm 39 and kind of annoyed I don't get to choose AZ, I want my vaccination asap and as someone who works with statistics I would be happy to have AZ if I could be vaccinated sooner.

Totally agree with you OP. What a fabulous contribution to humanity.

I’m very grateful to them for being so quick out of the blocks and keeping an optimistic tone up in the early autumn, when things were getting hairy. They pulled out all the stops and knowing it was coming down the line at that point helped my MH considerably.

Thank you Astra Zeneca. Thank you for making me and friends and family safe from serious covid illness. Thank you for selling at cost at far far cheaper per dose than other vaccine companies who are raking it in off the back of a deadly pandemic

Same! I had my first jab this week, I'm 40.5 years old. Super happy to get it.

Sorry thank you to Oxford Uni too for developing it. Amazing.

Well said. I am so happy to have had my first vaccine and grateful for all the hard work and scientific brilliance that went into it.

👏 we are so so fortunate.

Thank heavens for the genius scientists

@irresistibleoverwhelm - thank you for proving my point that you decide to simply ignore the inconvenient risk of high exposure. High covid exposure leads to dramatically higher risk of going into ICU due to covid just in the following 4 months than vaccine risk, whereas the vaccine looks likely to protect you for years. Who at JCVI picked 4 months? They could have done a year and presented entirely different numbers to show a different case.

The JCVI already have a large vaccinated population to work from and want younger people to get vaccinated against a backdrop of mass global panic based on tiny numbers; those factors affected their decision on vaccine type. Lower dose might also have resolved the issue, or more investigation into what links people with this autoimmune response. The route chosen by the JCVI is pragmatic, but these numbers are tiny so that doesn't make offering the vaccine to younger people "not ethical" and it's needlessly dramatic to suggest that.

I read the French news site Le Monde (which translates to English on your phone) for about a year as I thought it was good, but they are absolutely obsessed with slagging off AZ on there. It's daily. How it doesn't work, it's dangerous, gleefully reporting every time a new country bans it. Today saying it's unsaleable. Yes, no wonder with your reporting. It's an.absolute hate figure on there. It's like something a tabloid would do.

[quote MRex]@irresistibleoverwhelm - thank you for proving my point that you decide to simply ignore the inconvenient risk of high exposure. High covid exposure leads to dramatically higher risk of going into ICU due to covid just in the following 4 months than vaccine risk, whereas the vaccine looks likely to protect you for years. Who at JCVI picked 4 months? They could have done a year and presented entirely different numbers to show a different case.

The JCVI already have a large vaccinated population to work from and want younger people to get vaccinated against a backdrop of mass global panic based on tiny numbers; those factors affected their decision on vaccine type. Lower dose might also have resolved the issue, or more investigation into what links people with this autoimmune response. The route chosen by the JCVI is pragmatic, but these numbers are tiny so that doesn't make offering the vaccine to younger people "not ethical" and it's needlessly dramatic to suggest that.[/quote]
I think both those things you say are not exactly true - the 4 month window is chosen because there is not actually evidence that the vaccine is likely to protect you for years. There is substantial evidence that we will be moving into a rolling vaccination programme of boosters (probably mRNA boosters) in the autumn and next year.

Fundamentally, you offer a vaccine based on the actual risk at the time - and the data is still emerging in this cohort. If you don't take account of the moving risk according to prevalence, you threaten the whole take-up of the vaccine programme. The UK currently has an extraordinarily high vaccination take-up. Why threaten that by ignoring emerging evidence of serious safety risks? That isn't how we expect evidence-based medicine to work. Those low numbers still translate into, say, 40 deaths of healthy young adults from serious brain events. Try telling those people's families that for the sake of the wider population their children are an acceptable sacrifice - when there is an equally good vaccine available to us that avoids that specific risk. The key thing is that it's not AZ or nothing - we have enough vaccine stocks to switch to mRNA for younger cohorts. In other countries the risk skews dramatically the other way and AZ will probably prove to be far and away the best option for the whole population. The risk balance here is however different, and there is significant evidence to be cautious. It isn't acceptable to characterise that caution as whinging or baseless - the JCVI certainly don't think so.

Look at the recommendations for pregnant women, for example - who are recommended Pfizer as a precaution, not because there is evidence of specific harm from AZ, but because there is wider safety data pertaining to Pfizer. But presumably you don't object to this recommendation?

All of that does not mean that the AZ vaccine isn't great and a fantastic achievement, just that the moving risks/benefits are complex and not easy to dismiss.

Thank you so much Astra Zenca. The number of lives already saved is amazing. History will applaud you but until then I shall.

@Catmuffin

I read the French news site Le Monde (which translates to English on your phone) for about a year as I thought it was good, but they are absolutely obsessed with slagging off AZ on there. It's daily. How it doesn't work, it's dangerous, gleefully reporting every time a new country bans it. Today saying it's unsaleable. Yes, no wonder with your reporting. It's an.absolute hate figure on there. It's like something a tabloid would do.

They prefer more lockdowns?!

Totally agree. I’m in an age group which will be offered an alternative when my turn comes along, but having looked at the statistics, I’d already decided that as someone who has taken the contraceptive pill, flies on aeroplanes, and has participated in various other risky activities from time to time that I was more than willing to hedge my bets and have it if it was allocated to me.

The media has once again utterly failed in its responsibility to report news accurately and fairly, to the detriment of the population as a whole.

Yes OP, I think credit where it’s due. The mass vaccinations in the early part of the year have contributed to the fact that we’re able to think about emerging from lockdown with a degree of confidence, and also to offer the population who is at a slightly higher (though still tiny) risk a choice of vaccines. I’m in a priority group and when I got my first dose things looked very different to how they do now.

@TruelyWonder

"Demand in Germany for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine has been so high since the government opened up to everyone that supplies are reportedly running out. Doctors have had to cancel appointments."

Well apparently the Germany people are pretty grateful for the AZ vaccine too. Which is good to see after all the headlines and guidance changes across Europe.

A German friend told me that yesterday. Apparently they have taken some of the vaccines Denmark won't be using as well.

@irresistibleoverwhelm - it's fine for the JCVI to make the decision, it's normal with any drugs that one or another might be determined a better fit for some groups. It's the over-reaction of the media and public deciding that this one particular tiny risk is huge and no other risk matters that is irritating.
11.4m Pfizer doses and 370 deaths, 23.3m AZ doses and 756 deaths. Deaths have been occurring post vaccine at the same rate the whole way through data collection. What actual excess of deaths overall do you see with AZ, tell me?

Absolutely agree. It's not only the fact that it works, but that they had thought through a whole plan in advance about how to make a vaccine quickly, have stock for trials, scale it up fast... the deliberate choice of a platform that could be distributed in the developing world... that they insisted on a not-for profit rollout. It's genius.

I'm a scientist myself and if I achieved anything 1% as clever or important as that in my whole life, I'd die happy.

I did dress my daughter as Sarah Gilbert for superhero day at nursery too!

I think it's been an incredible effort so thank you to all the scientists and others involved at Oxford and Astra Zeneca. Not for profit too ! The risk is absolutely tiny and I get really pissed off at the negative press there has been. I'm not sure if anyone else has mentioned this but have a watch of "Jabbed! Inside Britain's Vaccine Triumph" on All 4. It's astonishing and makes me feel proud that this happened here in the UK (not proud of the rest of the shitshow obviously).

[quote MRex]@irresistibleoverwhelm - it's fine for the JCVI to make the decision, it's normal with any drugs that one or another might be determined a better fit for some groups. It's the over-reaction of the media and public deciding that this one particular tiny risk is huge and no other risk matters that is irritating.
11.4m Pfizer doses and 370 deaths, 23.3m AZ doses and 756 deaths. Deaths have been occurring post vaccine at the same rate the whole way through data collection. What actual excess of deaths overall do you see with AZ, tell me?[/quote]
MRex I'm not sure what you mean here, because the analysis of the specific AZ blood clot risk excess deaths is exactly what the JVCI are using?

I actually just received a text about 5 minutes ago from my GP practice saying that my 19 May (AZ) appointment has been cancelled because they are cancelling all AZ clinics and moving to a Pfizer only clinic, and to rebook my appointment.

Now that is presumably partly because they're reaching the 39 and below cohort and it might easier to operate a clinic for one vaccine than both. But clearly the vaccine switch is driven by the JVCI advice: so are you suggesting they are making this decision on the basis of no data but purely to humour people?