I refused the AZ vaccine, now being judged for it

[cosmoswithcovids]

My husband's friend is a Dr, he called yesterday to tell my DH they had spare vaccine and to come over if we wanted one (DH is 33, I'm 30).

We got there and he told us it was AZ, I said I wanted to wait until I was offered the alternative that under 40s are advised to have. My DH looked at me as though I had two heads.

We joined them for drinks at the pub last night where Dr and a couple of other friends were discussing anti-vaxers and I was referenced as one of them. I did reiterate that I'm very keen to be vaccinated but not with AZ. It was then mansplained to me that discrediting the AZ jab (which they've all had and are fiiiiiiiiiiine) was the behaviour of an anti vaxer. I was just meant to feel a bit like an uneducated idiot (I'm not, I'm a solicitor, I'm quite bright) and although my husband says he understood why I didn't want it, the risk is "theoretical" (is it?!)
For the sake of another couple of weeks, I'd rather just wait and have the one which is safer! I'm just feeling a bit rubbish about it all really, I felt quite bounced into it when we got there and it was quite a stress for me having to justify why I didn't want it once we arrived.

@Kittykaboodle I referred to independent scientists who were reviewing the data a while ago, not the more recent announcements of mhra etc. mhra haven't followed the science advice incidentally, as the science advice (at the time i was reading it) was female under 55

@kittykaboodle sorry, name change fail! i agree the mhra isn't likely to be indendent, but as i say, their announcements were not what i was referring to in my response to you. i quoted mhra and jcvi upthread because that was govmt advice

Pfizer coats 20£ a jab, AZ 4£- go figure ..

[quote cosmoswithcovids]@ajmouse it's not a pointless discussion- I'm 30 and was offered the AZ vaccine (and no alternative) three days ago. And I was made to feel fairly ridiculous and foolish by a GP for refusing it. And refusing it on govt advice that I should get an alternative. [/quote]
Far as I know you shouldn't have been, and your GP should frankly be struck off for trying to pressure you into it. So it's a worthy discussion about poor medical ethics, but in theory it's moot because they shouldn't be offering AZ to under 40s.

Having just heard about a 30y/o friend of a friend dying from AZ (brain haemorrhage) I feel a bit different about it myself to be honest. I know that really it's extremely rare, but your mind doesn't work that way when it's someone that "close to home".

[quote wotzallthisnow]@Kittykaboodle I referred to independent scientists who were reviewing the data a while ago, not the more recent announcements of mhra etc. mhra haven't followed the science advice incidentally, as the science advice (at the time i was reading it) was female under 55[/quote]
So under 55’s ( female ) shouldn’t have it either?
I kept being offered my vaccine at a ridiculous locations from my home / finally got one & l am 49.
I’m in good health and have been a key worker during the pandemic/ l am now scared to be finished off by a bloody vaccine.
I don’t know what to do.
I am genuinely worried.

@cosmoswithcovids out of interest were all the doctors berating you men? Just curious.
The fact you went there with the intention to have the jab shows you’re not an anti vaxxer. The fact the jab offered was one not recommended to people your age means you made a decision based on the facts provided by the scientists who have recommended under 40s don’t have the AZ. Your body your choice and as medics they should respect that.
Go with your gut and don’t feel you have to explain yourself to them.

@withlotsoflove if you want to avoid being offered AstraZeneca by the online system you can tick the 'pregnant' box which will then show you centres doing alternative jabs. Make a note of them and the dates and then go back in and see if you can book there (if that makes sense)

Some people when it comes to the subject of vaccines are really ridiculous.
@NeedNewKnees

Your not an antivaxxer, your allowed to be fearful of something which has caused issues in other people, not sure I would want mRNA in me either to be honest. At your age you stand a great chance of brushing it off, too little known about the long term affects for me. I’m a similar age and cannot fathom why younger people are being offered one at all.

You were following the current advice, you shouldn't have been offered astrazeneca on the basis alone so YANBU at all.

[quote AppleJane]@withlotsoflove if you want to avoid being offered AstraZeneca by the online system you can tick the 'pregnant' box which will then show you centres doing alternative jabs. Make a note of them and the dates and then go back in and see if you can book there (if that makes sense) [/quote]
That’s really helpful, thank u. :)

Ignore it. I'm 36 and had the AZ vaccine before they knew about the increased risks in the under 40s. If I had a choice and knew about the risks I'd have had a different vaccine too.

not sure I would want mRNA in me either to be honest.

All of your cells are producing mRNA right now in order to function.
It carries the information from DNA to make proteins that are essential for cell life, including to maintain its structure, and for pretty much every chemical reaction, to take substances in and out of the cells, and to, gasp, even fight disease.

It is temporary and is destroyed in a fairly short time, without integrating in the genome, due to its structure. It basically has signals at the start and end that mark it as mRNA.

The AZ vaccine isn't even based on mRNA, the Pfizer is, which the OP is happy to take.

The AZ is based on a viral carrier, which is an adenovirus, and carries DNA, although it will result in mRNA production using the cell machinery, which routinely produces large numbers of mRNA anyway... and quite often of various viruses that infect us naturally too. Of any virus that infect us, really, because they all need our cell machinery to replicate and produce new proteins to make new viral particles.

@noblegreenk

Ignore it. I'm 36 and had the AZ vaccine before they knew about the increased risks in the under 40s. If I had a choice and knew about the risks I'd have had a different vaccine too.

Again, it's not so much that the risk is much more increased, but that the cost benefit relationship is less favourable. It's been explained throughout the thread and by Health authorities. And it's a recommendation if there are alternatives.

Plus, the medical community is much more alert to the blood clot issues and will be better equipped to diagnose it and treat it.

You're welcome @withlotsoflove good luck on a thread called alternatives to astrazeneca.... we are supporting people like yourself who are worried so pop your head in and let us know how you get on!

@AppleJane ~ thank you again, l will take a look ✨

it's not so much that the risk is much more increased, but that the cost benefit relationship is less favourable.

Some people keep saying this but the reports showed a higher incidence of clots in younger people based on the number who had been vaccinated.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/dfaff95b-8f64-4963-9483-494498c55863

“The data suggest there is a higher incidence reported in the younger adult age groups and the MHRA advises that this evolving evidence should be taken into account when considering the use of the vaccine,” - MHRA

Well, according to the numbers on the article, the incidence of blood clot cases (not deaths) is 0,8 per 100 000 vaccines in the 50s and 1,4 per 100 000 below 50. (my calculations)
While it is almost double, it is still pretty low, and the case fatality rate is less than 20% overall (so divide those numbers by five to give an idea of the risk of death). I have not found a breakdown of deaths per age, and that would be useful, but I'm not sure the small numbers would allow for any statistical inferrence. And I'm sure it becomes higher when we consider the background population risk of blood clots by age group.
The risk associated with the vaccine will still be very low and, the main decider, as pointed out, is the risk in relation to the disease itself, which is much lower in under 50s, particularly women (but I have seen statements that the risk from the disease is still higher than the risk from the vaccine), along with considering that there are other vaccines.

I have also not seen any analysis of whether the women affected by the vaccine are in higher covid susceptibility groups or not.

So, it all goes back to the best advice that can be given to the OP:
As she expects to be offered another vaccine soon, then she probably made the right call in not accepting it this time (other than the possibility that the shot might be wasted, but the best decision for herself).
But, that if she had to wait several months, then she should have accepted it, particularly had she been in a higher risk group for covid.

Why do we equate these risks to DVT clots? Can anyone explain to me except perhaps that the words are similar?
These issues with the AZ vaccine are essentially strokes and we also have no idea what long term recovery is like even if you survive

Those numbers are high - far higher than “vanishingly rare”. Are these people collateral damage of our covid get out?

@bumbleymummy I cannot answer the question, but I have read comments from leading scientists whose analysis based on their expertise and greater access to information than we mere mortals, and in summary it was that it makes sense at this stage to limit the AZ for women under 55.

None of those leading scientists are here on the thread, however, and the individual analysis of individuals here based on limited information is not going to be of value.

The govmt advice in the UK is based on the scientific advice but have applied it for under 40s; I am in France and they have stopped giving AZ to anyone under 55, including males which goes beyond scientific advice - and so there is a slight mismatch between scientific advice and political decisions, on the face of it, as ever.

Those numbers are high - far higher than “vanishingly rare”.

What do you consider "high"?

I don't think anyone has used the expression “vanishingly rare”. There is a risk, which is quantifiable, but must be evaluated against other background risks, as well as the risk from the disease, which, by your definition, then seems to be "high" as well.

They were certainly taken seriously enough to warrant a change in vaccination policy. Still, not a recommendation to avoid the AZ vaccine at all cost.

it was that it makes sense at this stage to limit the AZ for women under 55.
I think you mean to limit to over 55s, and avoid under 55.

The govmt advice in the UK is based on the scientific advice but have applied it for under 40s; I am in France and they have stopped giving AZ to anyone under 55, including males which goes beyond scientific advice - and so there is a slight mismatch between scientific advice and political decisions, on the face of it, as ever.
Scientific advice is rarely consensual, and needs to be weighed against practicallities. It may also depend on specific risks for specific populations. It would be interesting to know what led to the slightly different policies.

I think the government used that term.

Bloody liars.

Here is a suggestion. If you offer full compensation to those affected, I might consider taking your crappy vaccine. But you don’t. It’s a vanishingly rare effect we are just meant to live with, even if it destroys our lives

actually i think i got the words right first time lweji

Scientific advice is rarely consensual, and needs to be weighed against practicallities. It may also depend on specific risks for specific populations. It would be interesting to know what led to the slightly different policies. there have been a number of scientists here drawing the same conclusions about this specific issue from the look of it but I agree in relation to politics there will be the things you mention at play and [possibly other political factors too. Yes it would be interesting to know what led to the individual decisions. There have been other small variations between european countries.

@Lweji

not sure I would want mRNA in me either to be honest. All of your cells are producing mRNA right now in order to function. It carries the information from DNA to make proteins that are essential for cell life, including to maintain its structure, and for pretty much every chemical reaction, to take substances in and out of the cells, and to, gasp, even fight disease.

It is temporary and is destroyed in a fairly short time, without integrating in the genome, due to its structure. It basically has signals at the start and end that mark it as mRNA.

The AZ vaccine isn't even based on mRNA, the Pfizer is, which the OP is happy to take.

The AZ is based on a viral carrier, which is an adenovirus, and carries DNA, although it will result in mRNA production using the cell machinery, which routinely produces large numbers of mRNA anyway... and quite often of various viruses that infect us naturally too. Of any virus that infect us, really, because they all need our cell machinery to replicate and produce new proteins to make new viral particles.

Thank you for sharing this. It’s very interesting. Are you by chance, a virologist?

Thank you for sharing this. It’s very interesting. Are you by chance, a virologist?
Biologist. Although my field is not virology, it covers a range of infectious diseases, and sometimes viruses too.