Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Possible serious side effects from the Astra Zeneca vaccine discussion

Riklet

procrastinación
First all, I just want to state that despite the various reports, nothing seems certain and this thread is definitely not meant to discourage anyone from getting vaccinated. The EMA says the benefits outweigh any risks and that seems to be the approach a lot of countries are taking.

However, I think this topic deserves a thread of its own, principally as I'm not sure it's the right discussion to be having on threads for people just getting their vaccines or who are feeling a bit poorly afterwards. Also it seems to be a continuing issue.

It does look like there are more possible reports of unusual bloodclots here in the UK however, 30 reported so far apparently. Germany is limiting AZ to over 60s and today, the Netherlands has done the same, apparently.

Obviously huge political considerations at play here, with governments not wanting to be to blame or to undermine confidence in covid vaccines. Clearly the UK government has invested heavily in AZ and has its own considerations too. Anyway what should we make of all this?
 
Had mine on Tuesday night. Felt rough Wednesday morning but had to work. Had sweats and aching muscles all day. Went straight to bed when I got home, but was in agony all night. Didn’t sleep, couldn’t eat, it was like having Covid all over again. I understand from reading up since that the AZ side effects affects are much worse if you’ve already had the virus! Still feeling weak now!
 
I posted and then deleted this on the "Possible vaccines/treatment(s) for Coronavirus" thread ... still unsure as I don't have the brain to digest this - I've picked up bits about viruses but I have no understanding of haematology.

The Adenovirus vectors also used in gene therapy and apparently this is a well-documented effect.
But they must have been sure that ones with the reproductive gubbins removed would not do the same.
Doubtless a lot of attention will be paid to the Russian Sputnik vaccine that uses two different (human) adenoviruses.

 
This is a thread to discuss possible SERIOUS side effects, can people avoid discussing normal side effects here, and keep those to the 'Which jab did you have - Astra Zeneca or Pfizer? And what side effects?' thread, otherwise this becomes a duplicate & pointless thread.

Where are you drawing the line for this criterion?

It looks like you’re responding to [USER=18282]Riklet[/USER] ’s 1927 ’s post just behind yours.

Plenty would say that feeling rough as fuck and as if you’ve got Covid all over again isn’t a serious effect. And I get that, it’s not life threatening.

But for some people, it’s enough to cause worry and hesitancy. Or enough to use as an excuse not to get jabbed..

So I’m wondering if it might be an idea to define the parameters of “serious”.








As an aside, I tend to avoid the term “side effects”. It’s all efffects. Pharmaceutical intervention causes effects. Some are looked for and desired/ intended, while others are unwanted. They’re all effects though.
 
Last edited:
Where are you drawing the line for this criterion?

It looks like you’re responding to Riklet ’s post just behind yours.

I was referring to 1927's post regarding normal side effects, which are being discussed on the other thread, why would we need a duplicate thread for that? :confused:

Riklet's OP is clear that this thread is designed to discuss the issue of blood clotting, and associated deaths.
 
I was referring to 1927's post regarding normal side effects, which are being discussed on the other thread, why would we need a duplicate thread for that? :confused:

Riklet's OP is clear that this thread is designed to discuss the issue of blood clotting, and associated deaths.


Sorry, yes. I meant 1927 ’s post.

Will go back and correct that.
 
We’re talking blood clots leading to death, right? I’m not not concerned, but more for my 20 something daughters who – following rationale from those European countries who’ve suspended vaccines for under 60s – appear to be more at risk than older recipients of the vaccine. But the % of deaths to numbers vaccinated still seems miniscule doesn’t it, like one in a million or more, but yh, keeping half an eye on it. Personally, had my first jab a month ago and I guess I'm fine, but anything that could potentially impact on my daughters' health is going to make me irrationally twitchy.
 
Here’s the Lancet report from two days ago.


C&P below


Thromboembolism and the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine: side-effect or coincidence?
By mid March, 2021, vaccination against COVID-19 using the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine from Oxford–AstraZeneca, was paused in a number of European countries due to reports of thromboembolic events in vaccinated individuals. According to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), 30 cases of thromboembolic events (predominantly venous) had been reported by March 10, 2021, among the approximately 5 million recipients of the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in the European Economic Area. The EMA subsequently stated that “The number of thromboembolic events in vaccinated people is no higher than the number seen in the general population”. To inform the ongoing discussion on the safety of the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, we analysed nationwide population-based data from Denmark to estimate the natural incidence of venous thromboembolism.
Denmark has a tax-supported universal health-care system, in which all hospital contacts are registered in the Danish National Patient Registry. We first used the Danish Civil Registration System to identify all Danes who were at least 18 years old between Jan 1, 2010, and Nov 30, 2018. Using data from the Danish National Patient Registry, we then identified all first-time cases of venous thromboembolism in the general adult population in this period (corresponding to the available data period). We focused on venous thromboembolism because the thromboembolic events reported in relation to the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine by March 10, 2021, were predominantly venous, according to publicly available data on EudraVigilance. We followed all individuals from Jan 1, 2010, or their 18th birthday (whichever came first), until their first incident venous thromboembolism (see definition below), death, emigration, or Nov 30, 2018. Individuals with a diagnosis of venous thromboembolism before Jan 1, 2010, or their 18th birthday were not included in the analyses. Incident venous thromboembolism was defined as the first primary or secondary inpatient hospital diagnosis or outpatient clinic diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. Specifically, the following diagnoses were included in the outcome definition: deep vein thrombosis (International Classification of Diseases version 10[ICD-10]: I80.1–3), pulmonary embolism (ICD-10: I26), portal vein thrombosis (ICD-10: I81), hepatic vein thrombosis (ICD-10: I82.0), thrombophlebitis migrans (ICD-10: I82.1), embolism or thrombosis of vena cava (ICD-10: I82.2), embolism or thrombosis of renal vein (ICD-10: I82.3), mesenteric thrombosis (ICD-10: K55.0H), cerebral infarction due to non-pyogenic cerebral venous thrombosis (ICD-10: I63.6), and non-pyogenic thrombosis of intracranial venous system (ICD-10: I67.6)., The diagnoses of venous thromboembolism in the Danish National Patient Registry have a documented high positive predictive value.
We then calculated incidence rates for venous thromboembolism (any of the diagnoses listed above) for all Danish adults (aged 18 years or older censored at the 100th birthday) as well as for Danes aged 18–64 years. The 18–64-year age group represents the age group in which the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, due to initial perceptions of limited evidence on its efficacy among those aged 65 years and older, has predominantly been used in most European countries—with the exception of the UK, where the vaccine has also been administered among those aged 65 years and older from the outset., We repeated the analysis restricting outcomes to deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, as they account for more than 95% of all diagnoses, and stratified by sex. All incidence rates were calculated by dividing the number of incident venous thromboembolisms during follow-up by the sum of person-years during follow-up and reported per 1000 person-years. Subsequently, using these incidence rates for venous thromboembolism, we estimated the number of cases that would be expected over the course of 1 week and 1 month, respectively, in a population with the same size as that having received the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in Europe by March 10, 2021. This was done by rescaling the incidence rates to the weekly (7 days) and monthly level (30·5 days) per individual, and multiplying them by 5 million. An example of the calculation carried out for this estimation is provided in the appendix.
The study population aged 18–99 years included 4 915 426 individuals, with a total follow-up time of 38 449 703 person-years. The study population aged 18–64 years included 3 963 153 individuals, with a total follow-up time of 29 537 310 person-years. Equivalent sex-stratified numbers are provided in the appendix.
The number of venous thromboembolic events, as well as the incidence rates in the Danish population in the period from 2010 to November, 2018 are also provided in the appendix. The incidence rate per 1000 person-years was 1·76 (95% CI 1·75–1·78) for venous thromboembolism among Danes aged 18–99 years, and 0·95 (0·94–0·96) among Danes aged 18–64 years. When restricting to deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, the incidence rate per 1000 person-years was 1·70 (95% CI 1·68–1·71) among Danes aged 18–99 years and 0·91 (0·89–0·92) for those aged 18–64 years. The results were consistent for women and men (appendix).
In a population of 5 million people (ie, size matching the approximate number of people having received the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in Europe by March 10, 2021), this incidence would correspond to approximately 169 expected cases of venous thromboembolism per week, or 736 expected cases per month (if based on the incidence rate among the 18–99-year-old Danes). Similarly, if estimated based on the incidence rate among 18–64-year-old Danes, one would expect 91 cases of venous thromboembolism per week, or 398 cases per month.
The Danish data provided here cannot rule out the possibility that some venous thromboembolic events reported in relation to the use of the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine are caused by the vaccine. However, although affected by several limitations, these data suggest that the reported number of thromboembolic events among Europeans who have received the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (at least those reported as deriving from the venous system) does not seem to be increased relative to the expected number estimated from incidence rates from the entire Danish population before the introduction of the vaccination programme.

Our findings should be interpreted in the context of their limitations. The number of cases of thromboembolism reported in relation to the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine cannot be directly compared to the numbers estimated based on the incidence rates from the Danish population for several reasons. First, data on the sex and age distribution from those who received the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine are not yet publicly available. In Denmark, about 99% of those having receiving the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine are health-care workers (Valentiner-Branth P, Statens Serum Institut, Denmark, personal communication). The median age of all COVID-19 vaccinated health-care workers in Denmark is 47 years (IQR 36–57), and 82·2% of health-care workers are women. Second, data on the duration of the period during which the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccinated population developed the reported thromboembolic events are also not publicly available, making it impossible to estimate incidence rates for this population. Third, detailed clinical descriptions of the thromboembolic events reported in relation to Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccinations are still lacking. We are, however, aware that although a substantial fraction of the thromboembolisms seem to be venous, reports are emerging of rare types of multiple thrombosis, bleeding, and thrombocytopenia, apparently similar to disseminated intravascular coagulation, occurring in otherwise healthy individuals shortly after receiving the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. These outcomes are not included in the present analysis. Fourth, as even the most efficient spontaneous reporting of adverse events is unlikely to capture all cases, the true incidence rate of thromboembolic events in relation to the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine is unknown, and the 30 reported cases by March 10, 2021, is probably an underestimate. Finally, our estimated weekly and monthly venous thromboembolism case numbers in the population of 5 million individuals are based entirely on incidence rates from Denmark and might not be representative of the other countries where the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine has been used. However, previous studies of the incidence rate of venous thromboembolism in other countries have found numbers within range of the Danish rates., ,
When making decisions on the use of drugs based on pharmacovigilance, it is important to take into account the natural incidence of illnesses, such as venous thromboembolisms, that might be interpreted as serious adverse events. Here, based on pre-pandemic incidence rates from the entire Danish population, we report that the number of venous thromboembolisms reported in relation to the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine does not seem to be increased beyond the expected incidence rate. Nevertheless, recent reports of thrombocytopenia-associated cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, multiple thrombosis, and bleeding within a short timeframe after receipt of the vaccine are concerning and are receiving due attention from health authorities. On March 18, 2021, with reference to the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, the EMA concluded that “benefits still outweigh the risks despite possible link to rare blood clots with low blood platelets”.
SDØ received the 2020 Lundbeck Foundation Young Investigator Prize. All other authors declare no competing interests. The Department of Clinical Epidemiology is involved in studies with funding from various companies as research grants to (and administered by) Aarhus University. Author contributions and funding details are provided in the appendix.



Click the link for references,
 
Last edited:
When the story first came out, the UK scientists were saying that the number of blood clot deaths was no higher than you'd expect for that type of thing normally. Have they rowed back on that opinion now?
 
When the story first came out, the UK scientists were saying that the number of blood clot deaths was no higher than you'd expect for that type of thing normally. Have they rowed back on that opinion now?
Not sure. They (very rare but) seem to be happening really soon after vaccination & in otherwise healthy people.
 
I gather other countries have different priorities in terms of who they’re vaccinating first, so younger groups are getting the jab earlier there than they are here. If more than a few 20/30/40-year olds start keeling over in the UK when they do get their jab, we may not be so relaxed about it…but, still, fingers crossed, the chances still sound miniscule. Touch wood and all that.
 
When the story first came out, the UK scientists were saying that the number of blood clot deaths was no higher than you'd expect for that type of thing normally. Have they rowed back on that opinion now?

It's a bit confusing, as it appears blood clots are fairly common, with about 3,000 a month in the UK, equal to around 1 in 22.6k of the population.

The concern here seems to be about a certain rare type of blood clot, 'cerebral venous sinus thrombosis' associated with an extremely rare brain clotting

UK regulators have found 30 cases of blood clots after use of the AstraZeneca vaccine - 25 more than previously reported. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said on Thursday it had received no such reports of clotting events after use of the vaccine made by BioNTech and Pfizer.

Health officials said they still believe the benefits of the vaccine in the prevention of Covid far outweigh any possible risk of blood clots.

And, with about 3,000 blood clots occurring in the UK every month on average, it is not clear if the cases in people to have had the AstraZeneca vaccine are linked to the jab at all.

The agency said in a report: "The benefits of the vaccines against COVID-19 continue to outweigh any risks and you should continue to get your vaccine when invited to do so."

On Thursday, it put the count at 22 reports of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, an extremely rare brain clotting ailment.

There were a further eight reports of other clotting events associated with low blood platelets.

The cases were from a total of 18.1 million doses given - working out as one blood clot event per 600,000 doses administered.

 
This is starting to look like a very rare complication caused by the vaccine. At least that's what I'm betting on. Hopefully they'll figure out what pre condition makes it likely soon (just like other medicines have contraindications). I have zero expertise in the area 😉 but I like to play armchair doctor.
 
Last edited:
This BBC report is worth reading in full, but in particular this bit -

All medicines, from vaccines to paracetamol, have the potential to cause severe side effects.
The seasonal flu jab has around a one-in-a-million chance of causing the nerve disorder Guillain-Barre syndrome.
So, the real question is: Are the risks worth the benefits?
Even if the vaccine was the cause, and this is still not proven, the numbers suggest around one death in every 2.5 million people vaccinated.
However, this has to be weighed against the known threat posed by coronavirus.
If 2.5 million 60-year-old people caught coronavirus then around 50,000 would die. If they were all 40-year-olds then around 2,500 would die.
This balance of risk and benefit will continue to be assessed as more safety data comes in and as the vaccine programme moves into younger people, who are at lower risk of dying from Covid-19.

 
But the challenges here are far deeper than this blizzard of commentary allows. The risk of a dangerous vaccine reaction could be very real, if also very rare—and major European vaccine authorities have not, in fact, been overcautious, political, or innumerate in responding to this possibility. Rather, they’ve been faced with something of a nightmare scenario for vaccine communication. We’re in the midst of a global public-health crisis, and regulators must address the possibility (still unproved) that perhaps one in every 1 million vaccinated people could have a potentially fatal drug reaction—as more than 1 million vaccine doses are being injected each day in Europe alone.

It seems as though anything the regulators say about this problem could serve to reduce trust in vaccination, and thus increase the toll of the pandemic. And yet if there does turn out to be a vaccine reaction, even a vanishingly infrequent one, keeping mum won’t make the problem go away. Indeed, it could serve to worsen the effects of the fearmongering about vaccines that will surely grow from here.
 
From this it does look like nobody is actually sure whether the vaccine and these rare blood clots are definitely linked, which is interesting. I was wondering how they know, the numbers being so small.

Yeah there will be a much lower bar for suspecting something compared to really confirming it. And its not so hard to find things when actually looking properly, and authorities are more likely to look properly for things when doing vaccine surveillance compared to what is noticed when doing routine healthcare.

I do not have much knowledge about these sorts of clots or various vaccine details which may give those in the know reason for suspicion. I think its been clear for a while that there are some things which raised authorities suspicions, it wasnt just part of the vaccine politics of the EU etc, and now a little more of the picture is slowly emerging.

And this BBC story about the deaths does seem to indicate two things that raised suspicions in this particular direction. My bold:

Two issues are raising suspicions. The first is the unusual nature of the clots which, including low levels of platelets and rare antibodies in the blood that have been linked to other clotting disorders.

"This raises the possibility that the vaccine could be a causal factor in these rare and unusual cases of CVST, though we don't know this yet, so more research is urgently needed," said Prof David Werring, from the UCL Institute of Neurology.

The other issue is the difference between the Oxford-AstraZeneca and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.

There have been two cases of CVSTs after Pfizer in the UK, out of more than 10 million vaccinated, but these did not have the low platelet levels.

 
This BBC report is worth reading in full, but in particular this bit -




Exactly, just need people to understand this and continue vaccination.

I think the initial denial was a bad move, I wish they just said what the report above said instead, that there could be a link, that rare, very bad side effects can happen with any medication. This sort of outright denial gives pharma a bad name.
 
I suspect there was some wishful thinking involved.

Not entirely. C19 by itself causes blood clots, so it wouldn't be out of the realms of believability for the vaccinated population to have lower rates of blood clots than the rest of the population.

Differentiating between "regular" blood clots and the "rare" blood clots that are now the topic of study is a different thing and even if the potential link is proven you're still more likely to die of C19 than the AZ vaccine.
 
Where are you drawing the line for this criterion?

It looks like you’re responding to [USER=18282]Riklet[/USER] ’s 1927 ’s post just behind yours.

Plenty would say that feeling rough as fuck and as if you’ve got Covid all over again isn’t a serious effect. And I get that, it’s not life threatening.

But for some people, it’s enough to cause worry and hesitancy. Or enough to use as an excuse not to get jabbed..

So I’m wondering if it might be an idea to define the parameters of “serious”.








As an aside, I tend to avoid the term “side effects”. It’s all efffects. Pharmaceutical intervention causes effects. Some are looked for and desired/ intended, while others are unwanted. They’re all effects though.
I think the term side effects is used for unintended effects. Of course, vaccinations have effects, otherwise what would be the point? But I think it's common parlance and well understood that the intended effects of vaccines are to protect people from contagious diseases and the 'side effects' are the unintended, and sometimes harmful, effects of vaccinations.
 

I've read that article in full now. I fully recommend it to anyone interested in this benefits vs harms discussion.

The article is also pretty clearly written, even with 'all that science' ;) :oops: in it.

(and the words 'Cochrane Collaboration' in the author's credits, add further confidence IMO :) )
 
Some references.




And the figure 1 in 1,000,000 is incorrect.

It is now 1 in 100,000 .
See the EMA article above.
"The total cases show that about 1 in 100,000 receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine are seeing these rare and severe events in Europe, although a causal or associative link between the vaccine and the events has not been established, according to Peter Arlett, head of the pharmacovigilance and epidemiology department at the EMA."
 
Last edited:
Deleted.

Just seen Sugar Kane's situation. So very sorry to hear that. No more from me on this.
 
Last edited:
<deleted by request>
I suppose that the alternative presents other issues - "ha, they don't want to talk about it, they MUST be covering something up"

I take your point about anti-vaxxers, but they're a thing, and they're not going to go away. Indeed, trying to shut them up is likely to be counterproductive. I think the fact-based line that is being taken is about right.

And yes, as someone who's just had the AZ vaccine, I'll admit to frissons of irrational anxiety while reading about these blood clots, and it's taken a bit of a sit down and a think to put it in proportion. Some people - and, I imagine, lots of anti-vaxxers - will not know, or want to be bothered, to do that. They will want cast iron assurances that the vaccine is 100% safe - assurances that can't be given for anything. And if those assurances are forthcoming, they will use that concern to justify not having it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom