Why the Pfizer Preference over AZ

[theonlyoneiknow]

Hi All,

Both DH and I have had our first dose. He was given AZ and I was given Pfizer (both late 40s). Same clinic just different days.

From what I can gather the majority of the 'bad' press and concerns on MN is about the AZ blood clots with less flagging up about Pfizer concerns (although there has been the a few articles in the press - heart inflammation etc).

So, this is a genuine question - sorry if it has been badly worded. Is it just that people don't want to have the AZ vaccine but would happily have Pfizer? Which is a 'new' type of vaccine (grateful to receive anything that might reassure me here).

DH had zero side effects after his AZ. I developed tinnitus shortly after having my Pfizer vaccine. Neither of us have had second doses yet. But, just really trying to get my head around it all. Still in delayed shock sometimes that this is the current situation in the world (but that's a different matter!)

Thank you.

Pfizer and moderna are completely new though in the style of vaccine as they are mrna based

I think that's part of what puts me off, I know that sounds pathetic, and I believe in science and find it incredible, but as its completely new I don't know, irrationally feel uncomfortable. Would still have had it though if it was the one I was offered.

@Peppapeg

Pfizer and moderna are completely new though in the style of vaccine as they are mrna based

I think that's part of what puts me off, I know that sounds pathetic, and I believe in science and find it incredible, but as its completely new I don't know, irrationally feel uncomfortable. Would still have had it though if it was the one I was offered.

AZ is also a new type of vaccine! I really don't know where people got the idea that it's a traditional vaccine from. There are six viral vector vaccines that have been authorised for use in any country - four of those are covid vaccines. The other two are Ebola vaccines which were only used during Ebola outbreaks.

@Peppapeg

Pfizer and moderna are completely new though in the style of vaccine as they are mrna based

I think that's part of what puts me off, I know that sounds pathetic, and I believe in science and find it incredible, but as its completely new I don't know, irrationally feel uncomfortable. Would still have had it though if it was the one I was offered.

I think there is a lack of information though just because they are new to the market does not mean that they haven't been researched and studied for long time periods in laboratories. They have worked on this style of vaccine for years, many hours, many tests. It's not a quick thing at all but media picks up on the scaremongering headline of never seen etc without giving the background of how pharmaceutical companies develop new vaccines and drugs.

Unfortunately AZ is not as good a vaccine as Pfizer and that is even more concerning with Indian variant.

Professor Christine Pagel of University College London, and a member of the Independent SAGE group of scientists, notes that the PHE report says AstraZeneca vaccines was 60% effective against the Indian variant after two shots.

This compares with 66% effectiveness against the Kent variant. This, she points out, is considerably lower than the efficacy for AstraZeneca in Public Health England's 13 May report, which said two doses of the vaccine were 85%-90% effective against the Kent variant.

PHE says it takes longer for the AstraZeneca vaccine to build up immunity after each dose, and it takes four to five weeks to reach 80% effectiveness.

Which is normally fine, but not if the variant you are trying to contain is doubling infections every week.

The time lag for the AstraZeneca vaccine to give full protection, and the time lag between doses increases the opportunity for a very fast moving variant like this one to infect more people.

Not really sure why posters here are wanting a vaccine that leaves them more vulnerable for longer rather than the one that gives them most protection because they don’t like the company

@oneglassandpuzzled

The second dose of Pfizer is double the strength of the first,

Really?

No. That’s nonsense.

@QueenStromba @Scottishskifun I know, I acknowledged it wasn't rational, and that I trust science, its just a feeling for me personally. Others have formed opinions/thoughts around different vaccines also.

51QueenStromba

Devastatedandlost

This is the link

www.research.ox.ac.uk/article/2021-04-15-risk-of-rare-blood-clotting-higher-for-covid-19-than-for-vaccines

They just lifted the AZ clotting rate out of the EMA data at the time - as that paper is more than six weeks old, it's massively out of date now

@QueenStromba Can you post the more recent figures that you've seen that discount the Oxford Uni stats?

[quote Peppapeg]**@QueenStromba* @Scottishskifun* I know, I acknowledged it wasn't rational, and that I trust science, its just a feeling for me personally. Others have formed opinions/thoughts around different vaccines also.[/quote]
It's understandable when you're bombarded with media going on and on about never seen before, brand new etc etc.

What I mean is that actually there are many years of research behind them but that isn't publicised probably because it's not as a exciting headline!

@Scottishskifun yes that is very true, and reassuring to hear :)

@LeafCutterAnt

51QueenStromba

Devastatedandlost

This is the link

www.research.ox.ac.uk/article/2021-04-15-risk-of-rare-blood-clotting-higher-for-covid-19-than-for-vaccines

They just lifted the AZ clotting rate out of the EMA data at the time - as that paper is more than six weeks old, it's massively out of date now

@QueenStromba Can you post the more recent figures that you've seen that discount the Oxford Uni stats?

www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting

Most recent yellow card data has the rate as 13 per million (and rising every week).

A study of Norwegian and Danish vaccine recipients has the rate as high as 25 per million.

www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1114

@Ipsofacto1

Not really sure why posters here are wanting a vaccine that leaves them more vulnerable for longer rather than the one that gives them most protection because they don’t like the company

Personally, I’m not vulnerable, the only vulnerable people in my life are now fully vaccinated.

I’m 35 and I have a strong immune system, i fully researched the vaccines and made an informed decision based of the published research.

I have avoided phizer products for several years and will continue to do so because I do not believe that they they care an iota about preserving human life, their only motive is their profit, and I don’t want to in any way support that kind of company.

@JollyAndBright you are more vulnerable than someone your age with your similar immune system who got Pfizer.

Why do you think that @Ipsofacto1?

There's a rare clot risk with AZ (and J&J) but actually there's been clots with Pfizer! I've had AZ, no choice. Ultimately it's for the greater good we are vaccinated - I had covid and didn't get sick so I didn't have the vaccine to protect me.

I understood there were less side effects??

Professor Christine Pagel of University College London, and a member of the Independent SAGE group of scientists, notes that the PHE report says AstraZeneca vaccines was 60% effective against the Indian variant after two shots.

I take anything said by a member of 'Independent' Sage with a massive pinch of salt.

@Ipsofacto1

Unfortunately AZ is not as good a vaccine as Pfizer and that is even more concerning with Indian variant.

Professor Christine Pagel of University College London, and a member of the Independent SAGE group of scientists, notes that the PHE report says AstraZeneca vaccines was 60% effective against the Indian variant after two shots.

This compares with 66% effectiveness against the Kent variant. This, she points out, is considerably lower than the efficacy for AstraZeneca in Public Health England's 13 May report, which said two doses of the vaccine were 85%-90% effective against the Kent variant.

PHE says it takes longer for the AstraZeneca vaccine to build up immunity after each dose, and it takes four to five weeks to reach 80% effectiveness.

Which is normally fine, but not if the variant you are trying to contain is doubling infections every week.

The time lag for the AstraZeneca vaccine to give full protection, and the time lag between doses increases the opportunity for a very fast moving variant like this one to infect more people.

I don't think we would have enough Phizer to replace all of the AZ due to be given, so this argument against AZ doesn't stack up.

Even if AZ takes a bit longer to go from 60% to 80% efficacy, that's better than leaving people unvaccinated and waiting longer for supplies of Phizer which may or may not come. Unless we now have much more Phizer than I'd previously read about.

Thanks for the posts. Lots of people I know are shortly receiving their second doses so wonder if those who had Pfizer will be more affected second time around

Because AZ is not for profit and Pfizer make a load more money when AZ is trashed in the press

I get mine tonight, really couldn't care less what one I get.

@Fishandhips

I don't (personally) know anyone who has felt ill after their 1st Pfizer dose

The second dose of Pfizer is double the strength of the first, effects seem to be opposites for both jabs; AZ more side effects after first one and Pfizer more after the second one.

"The second dose of Pfizer is double the strength of the first"

This is absolute poppycock and another example of how misinformation spreads so easily.

Look it up.

If we're honest, Pfizer is the better vaccine. AZ has been absolutely crucial in filling a gap but its less effective, causes worse after effects by far and is associated with VITT. I expect rich countries to start phasing out AZ eventually unless its improved to the same level because why would you use that over a better option!? Pfizer seems utterly without ethics though, but its not really about the company - the technology itself seems the preferable option. I'm sure there will be similar alternatives to Pfizer in the future.

AZ is better for those with heart problems over Pfizer.