Possible serious side effects from the Astra Zeneca vaccine discussion

[Aladdin]

She's being very logical, but, blimey that must be hard under the circumstances.

Good for her. Strength of principles and character.

Her medical training as a doctor is the prevailing motivation here.
Not her strength of principles or character.
It doesn't really make sense to discuss "personalities"...because there will be people affected who wont have the same reaction. They're no less strong...and their personalities are not inferior because of that.

 

[sparkybird]

Was looking at the El Pais twitter today, and so many comments about how Spaniards were not going to take the AZ vaccine, despite the risks of them dying of Covid being so much greater. People saying - 'well I'll just make sure I don't get it then', which must mean living a hermit life for some time. Then I started to think that this might be a good thing - if those unwanted AZ are then sent to countries in eg Latin America, they can get started on immunising people who CAN'T live a hermit life as they have to work and in countries where the healthcare system can't treat them if they do get sick (unlike in Europe, where at least you have a chance). Do you think this could happen? If a country can't get rid of the AZ vaccines, what happens to them????

 

[cupid_stunt]

Now the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen vaccine is under investigation.

The EU’s drug regulator is reviewing reports of rare blood clots in four people who received Johnson & Johnson’s Covid-19 vaccine and has expanded its inquiry into AstraZeneca’s shot to include reports of a bleeding condition.

Of the four serious cases of clotting and low platelets, three occurred in the US during the rollout of J&J’s vaccine from its Janssen pharmaceuticals unit, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) said on Friday, adding that one person had died and one case was reported in a clinical trial. It was the first news of EMA’s inquiry into the J&J vaccine.

EU agency examines reports of blood clots with J&J Covid vaccine

EMA says four serious cases reported, one fatal, and also expands inquiry into AstraZeneca vaccine

www.theguardian.com

 

[gentlegreen]

so another viral vector vaccine - I wonder how the Sputnik will fare ...

A casual googling suggests there are known problems with adenovirus vectors ...

 

[elbows]

Now the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen vaccine is under investigation.

Yep, this issue is now being taken seriously in the USA.

Johnson & Johnson vaccine paused over rare blood clots

Following rare blood clots, the US, South Africa and EU have suspended the jab.

www.bbc.co.uk

Federal health authorities in the US are calling for a pause in the use of the Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine, following reports of extremely rare blood clotting cases.
The US FDA said it was acting "out of an abundance of caution".
It said six cases of severe blood clotting had been detected in more than 6.8 million doses of the vaccine.
The recommendation follows similar rare cases in the AstraZeneca vaccine, which has prompted some curbs in its use.

And Ireland is taking a pretty tough and cautious approach with the AZ vaccine:

Ireland to stop giving AstraZeneca vaccine to most under 60

Jab had been slated for use in a fifth of upcoming appointments.

www.politico.eu

A government official told POLITICO that at least 50,000 people who have received a first dose of Vaxzevria — the brand name for AstraZeneca’s product — could receive a different vaccine as their second dose.

The new policy specifies that second doses of Vaxzevria should be restricted to those aged 60 and older, or with high-risk conditions, while others will have their second scheduled dose delayed for four weeks.

 

[elbows]

Johnson & Johnson statement includes:

In addition, we have been reviewing these cases with European health authorities. We have made the decision to proactively delay the rollout of our vaccine in Europe.

Johnson & Johnson Statement on COVID-19 Vaccine

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J., April 13, 2021– The safety and well-being of the people who use our products is our number one priority. We are aware of an extremely rare disorder involving people with blood clots in combination with low platelets in a small number of individuals who have received our...

www.jnj.com

 

[Border Reiver]

Clinically there is no rational reason to not use the vaccine. Politically it is rational because of the inability of people to measure risk rationally.

I am having my second dose of AV on Friday. I am more likely to die in a car crash on the 20 mile return journey than from the vaccine.

 

[nagapie]

So how come the J and J vaccine is being considered carefully and AZ is still a goer if the incidence of blood clots is similar?

 

[8ball]

Clinically there is no rational reason to not use the vaccine. Politically it is rational because of the inability of people to measure risk rationally.

I am having my second dose of AV on Friday. I am more likely to die in a car crash on the 20 mile return journey than from the vaccine.

Especially if you black out cos of the vaccine.

 

[8ball]

So how come the J and J vaccine is being considered carefully and AZ is still a goer if the incidence of blood clots is similar?

Costs more, I think.

 

[8ball]

<disclaimer: above posts not to be taken seriously- get the damn jab!>

<disclaimer 2: I AM NOT A DOCTOR>

 

[elbows]

So how come the J and J vaccine is being considered carefully and AZ is still a goer if the incidence of blood clots is similar?

Amount of data is one reason. And the current status of the AZ vaccine is not simply 'a goer', many nations have attempted to respond to the data so far by imposing various age restrictions.

 

[LDC]

So how come the J and J vaccine is being considered carefully and AZ is still a goer if the incidence of blood clots is similar?

They're still both being looked at rather than it being decided there's definitely a link, and different countries have different responses (some have restricted usage to certain age groups for example) and J&J have delyed the European roll-out themselves.

 

[Border Reiver]

Especially if you black out cos of the vaccine.

I see you do not understand the subject.

 

[nagapie]

Amount of data is one reason. And the current status of the AZ vaccine is not simply 'a goer', many nations have attempted to respond to the data so far by imposing various age restrictions.

Yes, I know. It is an issue for me, a woman in her 40s who is supposed to get AZ soon, that countries like Germany and Canada have suspended its use for my population. But that apparently makes me sound like an anti vaxxer.

 

[8ball]

I see you do not understand the subject.

Back on the ignore list I go...

 

[elbows]

Clinically there is no rational reason to not use the vaccine. Politically it is rational because of the inability of people to measure risk rationally.

No, clinical decisions often involve risk-reward equations and this is a vivid demonstration of that in action.

Thats certainly the basis of the current age-related decisions, they do various sums (and also take into account current infection rate, vaccination programme pace and supply issues as part of both the risk and reward sides of the equation). It is inevitable with with a disease that has a higher burden on older people, the reward-risk balance ends up having a cut-off age, below which their sums do not come out with straightforward 'carry on using this vaccine' answer.

 

[elbows]

Yes, I know. It is an issue for me, a woman in her 40s who is supposed to get AZ soon, that countries like Germany and Canada have suspended its use for my population. But that apparently makes me sound like an anti vaxxer.

Well for what its worth I would never label you an anti-vaxxer on that basis.

Personally I do my own risk-reward calculations, as a man in my 40's. But a lot of what I feed into that calculation is personal to me, eg I am in a position where I can survive mentally and financially without leaving the house at all for at least several more stages of this pandemic. So if I wanted to, I could easily end up reaching a decision to delay, to wait for a more complete picture to emerge. Perhaps I wouldnt even get to that stage of thinking because I might decide that actually going to get a vaccine of any sort will be the biggest risk I have taken in the pandemic so far, not on the basis of any health impact of the vaccine, but in terms of going to the vaccination centre, placing myself in a situation where transmission is possible in a way it isnt when I just stay in my house.

But then I am also cautious that there is a difference between me making a personal decision, and me talking about that decision in strong terms in a manner that may influence others. But I clearly do like to share my frank thoughts about all matters relating to this pandemic.

 

[Border Reiver]

No, clinical decisions often involve risk-reward equations and this is a vivid demonstration of that in action.

Thats certainly the basis of the current age-related decisions, they do various sums (and also take into account current infection rate, vaccination programme pace and supply issues as part of both the risk and reward sides of the equation). It is inevitable with with a disease that has a higher burden on older people, the reward-risk balance ends up having a cut-off age, below which their sums do not come out with straightforward 'carry on using this vaccine' answer.

Perhaps you could give an accurate measure of the risk of a female aged thirty being vaccinated with the AV vaccine compared with other actuarial risk of death. I have seen it compared with the risk of dying on a 250 mile return journey within the UK. Politically unacceptable but probably not clinically. You also have the problem that newer vaccines just being administered may be even more risky when they have been used for several months as the current ones have been. Known knowns, known unknowns, unknowns unknowns.

 

[Border Reiver]

Back on the ignore list I go...

Only if you use abuse. Just being wrong is no problem.

 

[nagapie]

Well for what its worth I would never label you an anti-vaxxer on that basis.

Personally I do my own risk-reward calculations, as a man in my 40's. But a lot of what I feed into that calculation is personal to me, eg I am in a position where I can survive mentally and financially without leaving the house at all for at least several more stages of this pandemic. So if I wanted to, I could easily end up reaching a decision to delay, to wait for a more complete picture to emerge. Perhaps I wouldnt even get to that stage of thinking because I might decide that actually going to get a vaccine of any sort will be the biggest risk I have taken in the pandemic so far, not on the basis of any health impact of the vaccine, but in terms of going to the vaccination centre, placing myself in a situation where transmission is possible in a way it isnt when I just stay in my house.

But then I am also cautious that there is a difference between me making a personal decision, and me talking about that decision in strong terms in a manner that may influence others. But I clearly do like to share my frank thoughts about all matters relating to this pandemic.

The issue is very personal. For example I don't feel at all at risk from Covid as 2 people in my household have had it, one being my son who cuddled on the sofa with me for 10 days while he isolated, and I didn't get it or was asymptomatic. So now getting a vaccine seems like more of a risk. Yeah, I might be more likely to die in a car crash but I have a choice as to whether to get it or not.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Perhaps you could give an accurate measure of the risk of a female aged thirty being vaccinated with the AV vaccine compared with other actuarial risk of death. I have seen it compared with the risk of dying on a 250 mile return journey within the UK. Politically unacceptable but probably not clinically. You also have the problem that newer vaccines just being administered may be even more risky when they have been used for several months as the current ones have been. Known knowns, known unknowns, unknowns unknowns.

The only relevant comparison here, surely, is risk of harm from the vaccine with the risk of harm from Covid. And with infection levels across the country now at very low levels, comparatively, that does change the equation. At the very least, it changes the urgency.

Balanced against that is the need to get up to levels of community protection that will guard against future infection levels, so it's not quite as straightforward as just looking at risk today. But that raises the question 'Is it morally ok to ask someone to do something that carries a net risk to them for the greater good?' My answer to that, is 'yes, sometimes, in an emergency, but possibly not right now'.

These aren't straightforward calculations, and there isn't one right answer.

 

[Aladdin]

Perhaps you could give an accurate measure of the risk of a female aged thirty being vaccinated with the AV vaccine compared with other actuarial risk of death. I have seen it compared with the risk of dying on a 250 mile return journey within the UK. Politically unacceptable but probably not clinically. You also have the problem that newer vaccines just being administered may be even more risky when they have been used for several months as the current ones have been. Known knowns, known unknowns, unknowns unknowns.

What's the AV vaccine?

Only if you use abuse. Just being wrong is no problem.

God you're a right tit.

 

[bimble]

Clinically there is no rational reason to not use the vaccine.

You think that all the countries suspending use below a certain age are doing it why?

 

[8ball]

I got my vaccine early, due to health stuff. Didn’t do any heavy calculations but had access to enough trial data for it to be a no-brainer.

Also didn’t fancy infecting someone more vulnerable, which is hard to factor in.

 

[elbows]

The issue is very personal. For example I don't feel at all at risk from Covid as 2 people in my household have had it, one being my son who cuddled on the sofa with me for 10 days while he isolated, and I didn't get it or was asymptomatic. So now getting a vaccine seems like more of a risk. Yeah, I might be more likely to die in a car crash but I have a choice as to whether to get it or not.

The fact that we get to actively choose whether to have the vaccine is a big reason why the risk-reward issue for an individual can end up getting very complicated in their mind. Many of the risks it would be balanced against still involve some degree of personal choice, but not in highly concentrated form where it all clearly boils down to one decision at one moment in time.

 

[Aladdin]

The only relevant comparison here, surely, is risk of harm from the vaccine with the risk of harm from Covid. And with infection levels across the country now at very low levels, comparatively, that does change the equation. At the very least, it changes the urgency.

Balanced against that is the need to get up to levels of community protection that will guard against future infection levels, so it's not quite as straightforward as just looking at risk today. But that raises the question 'Is it morally ok to ask someone to do something that carries a net risk to them for the greater good?' My answer to that, is 'yes, sometimes, in an emergency, but possibly not right now'.

These aren't straightforward calculations, and there isn't one right answer.

Border Reiver would have everyone line up and bejabbed and tattoed to prove their bejabbing.

 

[8ball]

You think that all the countries suspending use below a certain age are doing it why?

I think BR is correct that not every decision is purely clinical tbf.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I got my vaccine early, due to health stuff. Didn’t do any heavy calculations but had access to enough trial data for it to be a no-brainer.

Also didn’t fancy infecting someone more vulnerable, which is hard to factor in.

And infection levels were really high back then. That changes the calculation a lot as well.

My motivation for getting jabbed was mostly to do with not infecting others combined with wanting to get us closer to herd immunity, and also, more selfishly, wanting to get out of fucking lockdown.

 

[bimble]

I think BR is correct that not every decision is purely clinical tbf.

I'm not totally sure what 'clinical' means here.