AZ clotting issue affects mainly women

[womanity]

According to Germany.

The German medicines regulator, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, has found 31 cases of cerebral sinus vein thrombosis (CSVT) among people who received AstraZeneca in Germany.
Almost all the cases are reportedly in younger and middle-aged women.

Covid: Germany limits use of AstraZeneca Covid jab for under-60s www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56580728

It would be interesting to know if, for example, Canada was able to give us similarly clear statistical evidence by sex.

Covid-19: Seven UK blood clot deaths after AstraZeneca vaccine www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56620646

Here's the BBC link

I think a balanced article
Doesn't give age or sex of the 7 people in the U.K. who died

It's 7/ 18 million ie 1/2.5 million
Vs chances of dying of COVID under 40 of 2,500/2.5 million
That's for both sexes. They did not report separately for men and women
Natural occurrence of the condition is 2-16/million so not necessarily increased frequency post vaccine.

There were 2 cases of CVST with Pfizer/ 10 million also (vs 22 cases with AZ) but not accompanied by the low platelets

I think it probably is a real side effect but a very very rare one
Jury is still out for me on whether younger women are more affected or not.

Either way it's way less likely to kill or hospitalise you than COVID that remains very clear.

I guess in an ideal world maybe Pfizer and Moderna would be used as they don't have this risk but a) we don't have anywhere enough of those and b) something could yet come up with them that sways the balance the other way.

They quote in the article that the flu jab has a 1 in a million occurrence of GBS which is a very nasty life threatening thing. I have my flu jab every year and have never been warned of that but I wouldn't expect to be as a 1 in a million risk.

I would still be happy to have any of the licensed vaccines myself.

Why don't they say the sex and age of the people who have died?

They include the German data which says younger women.

I do wonder if the trials focussed on the covid at risk groups.

The clots seem to be of a type, very rare, and pretty killy. They're in the brain.

The trials were across all age groups. I'm an under 50 female and I was in the AZ trial although it turned out I had placebo.

In order to be licensed the trials had to include all ages and sexes to be sure risk is greater than benefit at each age. That's what regulators look at

If you were unlucky enough to get a CVST it's a very bad thing. One of the 7 people in the U.K. died

But it's a 1 in 2.5million chance of getting the blood clot on the U.K. data or 1 in 100,000 for the German data

As compared to 2,500 in 2.5 million for an under 40 year old to die of COVID.

The risk of COVID very clearly outweighs the risk of the vaccine by many times. Explained well here:

Covid-19: Seven UK blood clot deaths after AstraZeneca vaccine www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56620646

@SirVixofVixHall no - only 2 cases of CVST post Pfizer and they didn't have the additional unusual low platelet count - so more likely a "normal" CVST.

They are saying that the benefits of AZ outweigh the risks. I'm not sure that is the case if you are a 20 year old woman whose risk of severe Covid is very low indeed.

Totally unacceptable to me that the UK thinks it's ok to keep forcing this AZ vaccine on young women - they should get stocks of another vaccine and FAST. But forget my opinion, or any other anecdotal evidence you might have heard about vaccine side effects. Just ask yourselves why so many other countries have STOPPED giving AZ to young people. And ask yourselves whether you are happy for teenagers to receive AZ because that will be next thing.

I’m certainly no scientist, but as well as the possible connection to hormonal birth control, I did wonder if there was any link to the vaccinated people who suffered these blood clots having previously had COVID, knowingly or not? I did read a while ago that Drs were seeing “clotting complications” in people suffering with Covid (Link to article from last year - www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/22/coronavirus-blood-clots/ )

My phone, totally unscientific, thought was that whether in someone who has already had Covid the immune response could, in rare cases, kick off one of these complications?

Happy to be corrected by those who know better!

The risk of COVID very clearly outweighs the risk of the vaccine by many times. Explained well here

Statistics are all well and good.....unless you happen to be the person who suffers from the side effects from the vaccination. It is a risk no matter how small the statistics suggest. Especially if you have a family history of strokes and heart issues etc

Right at the beginning of Covid we were told the risks of serious illness were also small; that most people recover; and many do not even have any symptoms at all. That children and young people were at very little real risk at all - unless they had severe underlying conditions.

There has definitely been mission creep, and now babies are being used in trials for the Moderna vaccine.

Catching covid or flu is a risk involved in the process of living, but willingly being vaccinated is not a necessary or unavoidable part of living. That is the difference.

I've had my first jab by the way ( I felt compelled, on account of the suggestion of vaccine passports to travel and so on...). I had the A.Z. That was two weeks ago, and I have been having heart pains since ( new for me, never has them before) and had to attend the hospital for an ECG on Thursday. I've also suffered from a recurrence of post menopausal bleeding ( I'm 55).

I know of someone who had a stroke within two hours of the jab. He was fit and healthy, but now may never work again.

My father has had two strokes ( one in his 50's), and my mother died of a heart event in November - neither linked to covid or vaccines.....but it is natural to feel a little anxious about taking a vaccination when it can have such reported side effects. Statistics don't mean much at that point.

@Fieldofmemes Anyone can say no to the vaccine. A lot of medications carry risks like hormonal birth control but we decide whether the benefits outweighs the risk collectively and individually. In terms of cognitive bias people are often less happy with a risk that they actively take on eg the vaccination than one that they see as existing in the background that they don’t control eg covid.

In terms of cognitive bias people are often less happy with a risk that they actively take on eg the vaccination than one that they see as existing in the background that they don’t control eg covid

This is true.

However, this is a vaccine which does not offer 100% life time protection, and the evidence is not there that it can stop you passing Covid on, either. Next year there will be new jabs in response to new mutations, just as with flu jab.

There is evidence that it reduces your chance of passing on covid after a single dose www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/02/single-dose-of-astrazeneca-vaccine-could-cut-transmission-by-67

@CovoidOfAllHumanity
(Before I write this I am not anti-vax: I have had both my jabs - pfizer.)

Technically its not fully licensed - its approved for emergency use.

The trial was paused a few times. Every time it was the same issue affecting the same sex of childbearing age.

It was always a rare central nervous system reaction. The report when it was resumed stated they could not prove it was caused by the vaccine - but they could not prove that it was NOT proved by the vaccine either.

It was unexplained.

At the time I was concerned about this so I actually wrote to Boris Johnson to say that as this vaccine was near compulsory for those working with vulnerable people that they should have a choice of vaccine and they potentially err on the side of caution for women of child bearing age and should not be offered the Oxford.

I read (can't remember where) that because Europe initially prevented older ppl from getting AZ, it was given to younger ppl such as teachers, police officers etc whereas here it has so far mainly been administered to the older population and this is why Europe have seen more concerning data despite the millions of doses the UK has dished out. When we vaccinate the younger population we could well start to see a similar pattern emerging unless they switch to one of the other vaccines we have on order in the younger population.

www.standard.co.uk/news/health/covid-vaccine-30-reduction-transmission-b923760.html

Finally UK expert admits causal link is likely.

@pennylane83 yes.

@LemonSwan that's interesting - kudos for writing to Boris about that. Hopefully it was taken on board and is being looked at. Was it the transverse myelitis issue, or am I thinking of another vaccine? (Sorry, not a medic).

@Fieldofmemes
Yes I think it was that. I remember loosely it was a really rare spinal cord central nervous system inflammation issue. It was an age ago I wrote to him (or feels like it anyway) - I think November. Obviously I didnt get a reply and clearly they took no notice.

I am not a medic either so my opinion probably is a mute one - it was more that if people were worried and they had a choice then uptake may be higher.

LemonSwan I took part in the AZ trial so I had a keen interest in those trial pauses given I am a woman under 50 and I had been injected with it voluntarily (actually it was placebo that I had but for all I knew at the time it could have been the experimental vaccine)

One of those transverse myelitis cases was definitely proven to be due to MS which the person concerned did not know they had. Sad for them but 100% not due to the vaccine.

The other case did remain unexplained despite extensive investigation. It was not anything to do with blood clotting.

I was not aware of the age or sex of either of those people who had adverse reactions and I am very surprised that it would be released publicly as it could identify the person since such events are rare.

Field of memes is that the wrong link to the Evening Standard article you posted? The article it takes me to is a rather positive one about reduction of transmission in vaccinated people

@CovoidOfAllHumanity

Yes the news was very tight lipped. Here in particular.

The US had the same issues and their media were much more open in the reporting of the facts so I found out the ages and sexes from there.

The trial in UK was reviewed independently by a commission to give the go ahead for restart. It was linked with MS - but they couldnt prove either way that is was or it wasnt the vaccine. And as this vaccine is so important and still likely to save more lives even if it was linked - they went ahead again. I do think that was the right decision.

I have tried to find the independent commisions report but google is crazy right now if you search those terms.

Perhaps a poster will come along and know where it is so you can read it.

@LemonSwan I agree that the issue of choice is key. There has been constant pressure placed on everyone (regardless of their Covid risk) to accept "whatever vaccine they are offered" - as if there could be no possible questioning on the part of individuals, regardless of their own health status or Covid risk. I would also be so much less angry about this if it weren't for the arrogant tone adopted by the government and certain sections of the press, deriding the precautionary principle adopted by other countries on this issue and making our lightning-speed vaccine rollout some kind of Brexit-induced triumph. And when I (or friends) have raised questions with the medical profession we have (generally) encountered a "blanket" party line: "all of the vaccines are safe and effective". It's like the tagline from a dystopian sci-fi film.

Field
Yes I agree that choice and information is really important. I do think "all of the vaccines are safe and effective" is unhelpful. People are not stupid and its better to say 'no medical treatment is 100% risk free - this is the risk of taking the vaccine (0.000x of y happening, 0.0000z of q etc.) and the risk of not taking it is 0.0x. Then everyone can clearly see and have a choice about which statistical group they wish to be in.

Denying any risks at all just makes anti vax rife because there will be cases to point to and instead we all end up in forums arguing over the stats.

Risks need to be judged differently in countries that are very different to our own. Clearly the benefits of ALL the vaccines currently being used outweigh the risks when used in the high risk (priority) cohorts. Surely the focus should be on vaccinating the highest at risk, all around the world? The low risk cohorts can be viewed slightly differently if vaccine side effects / risks are identified and (ideally) other vaccines are available.

@LemonSwan haha sorry meant to post that in another thread

@LemonSwan yes, and I'm also concerned that the UK's reaction is starting to look like a cover-up - that will be very counterproductive and risk destroying people's faith in vaccines. Exactly what they don't want.

@CovoidOfAllHumanity thanks for flagging - funny how that keeps happening... I copy the link to an article and the link subsequently changes...hmm. Could be my fat fingers, of course... I'll look out the article again.