Possible serious side effects from the Astra Zeneca vaccine discussion

[Border Reiver]

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

Politics- trying to defend the reputation of the medication to ensure herd immunity. One purely clinical statistical basis the risk is probably acceptable, but there is more than simple clinical safety. Political reasons can be as important as political ones.

By acting ultra-cautiously the eventual uptake will be higher. Which is the important measure.

 

[Border Reiver]

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

The actual statistical risk of the unwanted effect.

 

[bimble]

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.

Yep. I asked my friend to talk me through the numbers today, because i know i'm bad at that (analysing risk), and in the end whilst it wasn't all that clear covid v vaccine (for my age group & sex etc), he did point out that i'm some 500 times more likely to get a blood clot due to my smoking, so he reckons if i were to stop smoking whilst i wait for more info to come out on the vaccine, then that would be reasonable.

 

[Border Reiver]

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.

I did not say there was.

 

[Aladdin]

A&Es ‘swamped’ with patients over fears of AstraZeneca blood clots

Emergency doctors report ‘huge numbers’ of patients concerned about headaches after jab

www.google.com

People are turning up to A and E depts in the Uk and also over here...with headaches...worried about clots after the AZ vaccine.

Don't quote this..but my sister has been able to put together a 6 word sentence today. We are over the moon.
Her ct scan showed a lot of permanent damage so we are just really happy she is managing to communicate in some way.

I've heard enough Drs privately talking about AZ vaccine and the side effects including the serious ones.
I'm glad the vaccine has been limited to over 60s here.

 

[cupid_stunt]

God you're a right tit.

You need to try harder to get on his ignore list, try - God you're a right fucking tit.

 

[elbows]

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

Well theres a thing where factors that are not purely clinical to start with still end up affecting clinical judgements for good reasons.

Supply of different sorts of vaccines, and expectations about vaccination timetable and unlocking timetable clearly factors into the thinking. But this still ends up looping back into clinical judgements, both on an individual and broader public health basis.

Taking only sensible factors into account at this stage still inevitably leads to an awkward fudge that may be expected to evolve further over time as more data comes in, and as vaccine uptake and supply realities change.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Politics- trying to defend the reputation of the medication to ensure herd immunity. One purely clinical statistical basis the risk is probably acceptable, but there is more than simple clinical safety. Political reasons can be as important as political ones.

By acting ultra-cautiously the eventual uptake will be higher. Which is the important measure.

Is that true? Britain has been one of the least cautious countries in Europe. Probably the least cautious. And uptake has been very high thus far.

 

[bimble]

Is that true? Britain has been one of the least cautious countries in Europe. Probably the least cautious. And uptake has been very high thus far.

For reasons that I don't understand, the UK is far more 'pro-vaccine' than most of Europe, like 90% here against 60% on average there, who are expected say yes without hesitation i mean. That might be a part of the story too.

 

[elbows]

By acting ultra-cautiously the eventual uptake will be higher. Which is the important measure.

It is certainly true that vaccine confidence is something authorities are keen to protect, and is part of the current mix.

I do not have the risk number you asked me about to hand, and I'm not a huge fan of such numbers at this relatively early stage. Its not so much that I mistrust that sort of number, just that some push that way of looking at things a bit too hard to the exclusion of other angles. At worst this can lead to vulgar propaganda which actually causes a lot of suspicion rather than easing concerns in the way it might. I never liked the way Fukushima 'risk from radiation' was crudely compared to risk from flying or having an x-ray. Which is not to say its an invalid angle, but it should not be the only angle considered. It should be part of the mix of information that people are given, but treated with care, especially when the amount of data its based on is still relatively small.

 

[Border Reiver]

Is that true? Britain has been one of the least cautious countries in Europe. Probably the least cautious. And uptake has been very high thus far.

The political response is related to the level of political opposition to the health goals. The UK experience has been the successful roll out to over fifties with minimal opposition because experience of the public has been a surprisingly trusting one. Other countries' populations have been more sceptical despite the scientific risk being identical and so those governments will need to be more risk averse to try to win back public opinion.

 

[Oula]

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.

I'm a woman in my 40s and the day after I had my AZ vaccine all the worries about it in Europe came out. I'd been unsure about having it and didn't book the first time it was offered but everyone told me to just get it. I was surprised to be offered it so early and had recently had covid so felt I probably still had some protection from that.

One thing I find annoying is that people keep saying things like "Just get it. It doesn't matter what the side effects are. It's better than the alternative", but which they mean getting Covid. But I've had covid. It's not an either/or situation for everyone.

 

[elbows]

The political response is related to the level of political opposition to the health goals. The UK experience has been the successful roll out to over fifties with minimal opposition because experience of the public has been a surprisingly trusting one. Other countries' populations have been more sceptical despite the scientific risk being identical and so those governments will need to be more risk averse to try to win back public opinion.

Thats part of the mix but I wouldnt like to think about it in isolation from other pressing factors. eg need to add 'available supply of AZ vaccine' to the UKs equations, which is quite a different number to some other countries at this stage. I expect that if we had a really large quantity of alternative vaccines available imminently, the cut-off age decision in the UK would quite possibly have settled on a higher age than 30.

 

[Border Reiver]

I'm a woman in my 40s and the day after I had my AZ vaccine all the worries about it in Europe came out. I'd been unsure about having it and didn't book the first time it was offered but everyone told me to just get it. I was surprised to be offered it so early and had recently had covid so felt I probably still had some protection from that.

One thing I find annoying is that people keep saying things like "Just get it. It doesn't matter what the side effects are. It's better than the alternative", but which they mean getting Covid. But I've had covid. It's not an either/or situation for everyone.

Worth remembering that you do not just "get Covid". You get the current strain. New strains may affect you more seriously. Vaccination gives a wider protection than simply being infected.

 

[planetgeli]

One thing I find annoying is that people keep saying things like "Just get it. It doesn't matter what the side effects are. It's better than the alternative", but which they mean getting Covid. But I've had covid. It's not an either/or situation for everyone.

It's not just about protecting yourself from Covid. It's about transmission and protecting others too.

 

[elbows]

There are for example bits of this article, by a risk management professor, that I like, and some bits that I am not as keen on.

On Covid vaccine safety, how do we close the gap between risk perception and reality?

The chance of getting a blood clot from the AZ jab are minuscule – but we all have trouble squaring our fears with the facts, says professor of risk management Ragnar Löfstedt

www.theguardian.com

We must put the risk in context. Currently, the risk of developing blood clotsfrom the AstraZeneca vaccine in the UK is one in 250,000. For women taking oral contraceptive pills, the risk is at a much higher, at one in 2,000 annually. As Stephen Reicher, a member of the Sage subcommittee SPI-B, put it on BBC Newsnight, you are more likely to die falling down the stairs or eating your breakfast than as a result of the AstraZeneca vaccine.

There is some sense there, but in some ways I hate comparisons to things like falling down the stairs or eating breakfast, because these are activities we do a large number of times, as a matter of routine, and thats why there is more chance of them happening! And frankly if I consider the risk of those other things properly, I may well decide to take measures to reduce my own risk from them.

The end of the next bit I'm quoting is more useful in terms of why the UK authorities equations came out with the cut-off age they did at this stage:

That said, looking from a risk-benefit perspective, it looks more rational. The Covid-19 pandemic primarily affects older age groups and individuals with underlying conditions. It is not a disease that leads to many deaths or much severe ill-health in healthy people under 30. This was well displayed in the press briefing on the AstraZeneca vaccine by Prof Van-Tam, where it was shown that the risks of the side-effects from the AstraZeneca vaccine were higher than the chances of being admitted to the ICU as a result of Covid-19 for the 20-29 age group.

 

[Oula]

Worth remembering that you do not just "get Covid". You get the current strain. New strains may affect you more seriously. Vaccination gives a wider protection than simply being infected.

Potential future protection is one of the reasons i went ahead with getting vaccinated. I thought i should get it whole it was being offered to me. I haven't really kept up with if it seems the current vaccines will protect against future strains.

 

[Oula]

It's not just about protecting yourself from Covid. It's about transmission and protecting others too.

People don't tend to say that to me as a reason. It would be a more compelling one for me.

 

[bimble]

If I have covid antibodies (confirmed by an antibody test) do they provide comparable protection against reinfection & transmission (as a dose of vaccine would) or not?

 

[elbows]

Worth remembering that you do not just "get Covid". You get the current strain. New strains may affect you more seriously. Vaccination gives a wider protection than simply being infected.

There is a lack of data in regards the extent to which certain new strains that may have a worse burden on the young are able to escape much of the protecting effect of the current vaccines, or particular vaccines. The Brazilian P1 variant is still quite infuriating to read about due to some indications of a greater propensity to make younger people much sicker, and some signs of less protection via natural immunity from catching an older version of the virus, and concerns about vaccine immunity escape potential of this strain. But not enough data for me to get a proper sense of the full extent of these. And to do the risk-reward calculations properly, we do need a clearer sense of both of those aspects.

Its not the first time I have been left with possible vaccine facts that have complex or uncomfortable implications. For example last year SAGE had to judge whether the risk of influenza vaccine possibly temporarily increasing susceptibility to Covid-19 was outweighed by the risk of having a large flu epidemic burden on hospitals at the same time as another Covid19 wave. And I think I've seen studies in the past which suggest that having a flu vaccine every year may reduce its effectiveness. Those are not easy subjects to discuss without potentially undermining peoples attitudes towards vaccination, especially since instead of numbers we can have reasonably high confidence in, the limited research on the underlying topics are often filled with wide ranges of numbers with low confidence, and far more questions than answers.

 

[elbows]

If I have covid antibodies (confirmed by an antibody test) do they provide comparable protection against reinfection & transmission (as a dose of vaccine would) or not?

I think it would be risky to attempt to give a nice simple answer to that.

There have been some studies about reinfection rates, eg I think there was one in the UK or England that made use of healthcare workers. I dont have time to look for it right now, but I will remember your question when I do.

Effects on reducing transmission are also complicated to figure out, they cant do that much in the way of highly controlled experiments on that. Its the sort of thing they tend to infer from broader data, eg by looking at the nationwide state of transmission during a wave of infection thats also taking place at the same time as a vaccination programme, and seeing if the real data ends up better than would have been expected from past experience with a wave where nobody had been vaccinated.

Having said that, given that some hospital studies involved looking at the genomics of viruses caught within the healthcare environment, and how they aimed to use that data to learn stuff about direct examples of transmission between specific people, they may have been able to learn some stuff about transmission directly rather than having to infer it in other ways.

Also need to take into account various unknowns about how long both naturally acquired immunity and vaccine-based immunity lasts. And consider that if they think we'll need booster vaccines to maintain immunity and respond to evolving strains, the same sort of logical also applies to naturally acquired immunity too.

Plus even if all the data was sitting there neatly and conclusively, they may hesitate to deliver it in a form that would directly answer your question. Because they dont want people to assume that because they've caught Covid-19 once that they can behave differently, either in terms of the risk of catching it again, or of whether to get vaccinated.

 

[Border Reiver]

If I have covid antibodies (confirmed by an antibody test) do they provide comparable protection against reinfection & transmission (as a dose of vaccine would) or not?

No.

 

[LDC]

If I have covid antibodies (confirmed by an antibody test) do they provide comparable protection against reinfection & transmission (as a dose of vaccine would) or not?

As has been said there's not an easy yes/no answer, but the advice is to get the vaccine even if you have had covid, so that should tell you something.

 

[8ball]

Is that true? Britain has been one of the least cautious countries in Europe. Probably the least cautious. And uptake has been very high thus far.

A British vaccine, for British flag-shaggers!
GAWD SAVE THE QUEEN!!

 

[Aladdin]

The political response is related to the level of political opposition to the health goals. The UK experience has been the successful roll out to over fifties with minimal opposition because experience of the public has been a surprisingly trusting one. Other countries' populations have been more sceptical despite the scientific risk being identical and so those governments will need to be more risk averse to try to win back public opinion.

"Other countries" didnt have access to vaccines or as speedy a delivery system as the UK. Dont forget that AZ and other vaccines were not in short supply in the UK.
They got vaccines into people very quickly...so there wasn't a time lag.

Also, the worst reactions were not documented quickly in the UK. I mean where was the data? Dont tell me that people in the UK did not suffer blood clots or other adverse effects.

Drs over here are all asking the same question. Where was the UK data all this time?
Was there a deliberate witholding of data on severe reactions to AZ? And if so...why?

 

[Supine]

Drs over here are all asking the same question. Where was the UK data all this time?
Was there a deliberate witholding of data on severe reactions to AZ? And if so...why?

The data is published on the gov website and always has been. The U.K. has advanced tracking and analysis capability. Where are you getting these ideas from?

 

[Aladdin]

The data is published on the gov website and always has been. The U.K. has advanced tracking and analysis capability. Where are you getting these ideas from?

When did they release figures on clotting issues?

 

[existentialist]

I see you do not understand the subject.

I see you haven't learned not to be a patronising twat.

 

[Border Reiver]

I see you haven't learned not to be a patronising twat.

Onto ignore again fi

"Other countries" didnt have access to vaccines or as speedy a delivery system as the UK. Dont forget that AZ and other vaccines were not in short supply in the UK.
They got vaccines into people very quickly...so there wasn't a time lag.

Also, the worst reactions were not documented quickly in the UK. I mean where was the data? Dont tell me that people in the UK did not suffer blood clots or other adverse effects.

Drs over here are all asking the same question. Where was the UK data all this time?
Was there a deliberate witholding of data on severe reactions to AZ? And if so...why?

Do you have links for your above assertions?

 

[Supine]

When did they release figures on clotting issues?

regularly