Possible serious side effects from the Astra Zeneca vaccine discussion

[IC3D]

If their post is giving fuel to anti vaxxers, why are you leaving the quote up as It only exists in your post Border Reiver?

 

[girasol]

Currently under investigation is not proof.

The force behind the investigations is more often political than scientific. It remains recognised as safe in most jurisdictions.

Have you any idea how ignorant your post sounds?

But there's also a political case to keep vaccinating as people (i.e. voters) are sick and tired of lockdown and restrictions and want it to be over. Rare side effects, rare as they may be, should not be ignored/swept under the rug because of that. It seems odd that you think just because the investigations haven't yet been concluded and no announcement has been made it means it's safe??? I had the AZ vaccine and will still have the second dose, but it doesn't mean I don't think rare side effects need to be identified as soon as possible. Quite the opposite. I'd expect a thorough investigation. They've already added warnings to the vaccine pamphlets according to the article posted by Zahir We Need to Talk About the AstraZeneca Vaccine (did you read that? Or any of the other articles posted here?)

In the meantime, the agency has added a warning to the vaccine’s drug leaflet for the European Union. “Seek immediate medical attention if you develop shortness of breath, chest pain, leg swelling, or persistent abdominal pain following vaccination,” it says. “Also, seek immediate medical attention if you experience after a few days severe or persistent headaches or blurred vision after vaccination, or experience skin bruising or pinpoint round spots beyond the site of vaccination.” Similar warnings have been issued in Canada and Australia.

edit: I think that our part in this is to undertake a level of risk to stop the pandemic by being given vaccines that haven't been around for long. It's ironic that the vaccine which COULD BE causing the most worrying side effects, is the one using the most traditional method and it's also the one being done at cost, and one of the easiest to transport/store. So, you could argue there's, not so much political, but an industrial motive (from the other pharma companies) for doubt to be cast upon it, but then you are entering into conspiracy theory territory and I don't go down those rabbit holes.

 

[Supine]

The AZ vaccine has literally saved thousands of lives already. Signals from the data need to be examined to determine if there is any causal relationship between the jab and getting ill. It's still far safer to get vaccinated than to get covid though.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Border Reiver for god's sake show a bit of decency and humanity. Take SK's post off quote, as they asked.

 

[Border Reiver]

But there's also a political case to keep vaccinating as people (i.e. voters) are sick and tired of lockdown and restrictions and want it to be over. Rare side effects, rare as they may be, should not be ignored/swept under the rug because of that. It seems odd that you think just because the investigations haven't yet been concluded and no announcement has been made it means it's safe??? I had the AZ vaccine and will still have the second dose, but it doesn't mean I don't think rare side effects need to be identified as soon as possible. Quite the opposite. I'd expect a thorough investigation. They've already added warnings to the vaccine pamphlets according to one of the articles.

edit: I think that our part in this is to undertake a level of risk to stop the pandemic by being given vaccines that haven't been around for long. It's ironic that the vaccine which COULD BE causing the most worrying side effects, is the one using the most traditional method and it's also the one being done at cost, and one of the easiest to transport/store. So, you could argue there's, not so much political, but an industrial motive (from the other pharma companies) for doubt to be cast upon it, but then you are entering into conspiracy theory territory and I don't go down those rabbit holes.

Follow the science, not the politics. Fear of the AZ vaccine generated in the EU is going to lead to thousands of unnecessary deaths. Politicians are doing the damage, not the scientists.

 

[Border Reiver]

If one were really cynical one might question why the only vaccine being sold at cost rather than for profit is getting such a bad press

 

[girasol]

Follow the science, not the politics. Fear of the AZ vaccine generated in the EU is going to lead to thousands of unnecessary deaths. Politicians are doing the damage, not the scientists.

You made this a black and white issue. It is not. Life, science and politics are complicated and intertwined. And I am following the science. Anyway, said all I could say on the subject. One lesson I learned from the internet is that going around in circles is pointless.

 

[girasol]

If one were really cynical one might question why the only vaccine being sold at cost rather than for profit is getting such a bad press

It feels like you didn't even read my post and then you posted something I actually make mention of in my previous post. It's hard to engage with someone when they don't actually seem to pay attention to what you say. Have a nice day.

 

[bimble]

If one were really cynical one might question why the only vaccine being sold at cost rather than for profit is getting such a bad press

This is not cynicism it’s stupidity.

 

[kabbes]

It really is a fucking low move to quote somebody‘s personal information who has three times within the post itself asked for it not to be quoted. It’s an even lower fucking move to then double-down on doing it by pompously asserting your truths.

 

[gentlegreen]

Is it a returner ?

It's really taking the piss as a n00b ...

I'm guessing another one with no intention of staying very long.

 

[8ball]

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.

Perhaps you could use a different word to “aside”. Consistency and all that...

 

[Border Reiver]

This is not cynicism it’s stupidity.

When you look at covert PR campaigns by tobacco, recycling and food industries, not so stupid.

 

[Border Reiver]

Is it a returner ?

It's really taking the piss as a n00b ...

I'm guessing another one with no intention of staying very long.

If the level of abuse versus debate remains so high, it may not be worth staying..

 

[bimble]

When you look at covert PR campaigns by tobacco, recycling and food industries, not so stupid.

You're on Ignore so i cant see this post sorry.

 

[SheilaNaGig]

Perhaps you could use a different word to “aside”. Consistency and all that...

Can’t find anything else in my post to argue with so taking issue with my grammar now?

You must be so fucking bored,

 

[ska invita]

I read on urban that all concerns about the vaccine were by EU remoaners playing politics.

 

[8ball]

Can’t find anything else in my post to argue with so taking issue with my grammar now?

You must be so fucking bored,

Also object to the term “side reactions” in chemistry, I assume.

Actually was just a side point that this is standard usage and objecting to it seems kind of odd.

Side point. Oh, shit, did it again!

 

[Supine]

I read on urban that all concerns about the vaccine were by EU remoaners playing politics.

there is some right old shit posted on urban tbf

 

[SheilaNaGig]

Also object to the term “side reactions” in chemistry, I assume.

Actually was just a side point that this is standard usage and objecting to it seems kind of odd.

Side point. Oh, shit, did it again!

I don’t object to it.

That’s not what I said.

I avoid it.

I personally avoid using the term. I tend to say unwanted effects.
Because physiological effects of medicines, whether they are looked for or unwanted, are all significant.

I’m not a chemist so don’t chat on about chemistry in general conversation, so it’s not language that’s familiar to me, so I don’t feel comfortable enough to make distinctions about how to talk about it. I’m usually just asking questions and listening if chemistry is being spoken about.


This is totally irrelevant to the larger discussion. Which is why I said “as an aside”.

 

[8ball]

“Unwanted effects” is good. I’d be a bit wary, though, because people tend to understand “side effects” as often very rare, and the lists including really bad things that almost never happen.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If the level of abuse versus debate remains so high, it may not be worth staying..

There are many ways to be offensive in posts, some much worse than others.

You're the most offensive poster here by a distance.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I have banned the poster from this thread.

 

[kabbes]

I think there is a problem with the way we represent risk in communication generally. People can't grasp the idea of something like "1 in a million" -- it's literally meaningless to them (and me -- I'm not special in this regard!) When I say "meaningless", I am in part referring, for example, to the fact that people can't meaningfully distinguish between 1-in-10000, 1-in-100000, 1-in-1 million and so on. It's all just represented in our heads as "really unlikely".

I think it's more helpful to relate abstract risks to the kind of concrete risks we take every day. For example, 644 people in the UK die every year from falling down stairs. That's about 10 times more than the risk from a 1-in-a-million one-off event! And you take that risk every year. If you were to halve the amount of stairs you climb just for one year, the effect on your safety would be five times greater than the effect of avoiding a 1-in-a-million one-off risk*. But, of course, you won't avoid half the stairs, or even 10% of stairs (for the equivalent risk balance). Because you have a concrete sense that climbing stairs doesn't feel "risky" to you, and any risk it poses is comfortably balanced by the benefit you get from not having to avoid stairs.

I think the communicators of risk would do better to try to find good (better than this) analogies for the marginal risk being posed, rather than just saying "1 in a million!" Like, for example, "If you are concerned then balance the risk up by just once avoiding the walk to your local shop to buy a chocolate bar" (because I'm guessing this presents a similar risk of death on the road). This kind of angle helps to make the risk concrete and understandable as well as highlight the context that life is risk -- we take bigger risks than this every day of our lives, for less benefit too.

*I checked the related health benefits of stair climbing, just to be sure -- I think that this paper suggests that the marginal health gain of the stair-climbing doesn't compensate for its marginal risk. But take it for the sake of argument anyway, as it's just an illustrative example.

 

[8ball]

I think there is a problem with the way we represent risk in communication generally. People can't grasp the idea of something like "1 in a million" -- it's literally meaningless to them (and me -- I'm not special in this regard!) When I say "meaningless", I am in part referring, for example, to the fact that people can't meaningfully distinguish between 1-in-10000, 1-in-100000, 1-in-1 million and so on. It's all just represented in our heads as "really unlikely".

I think it's more helpful to relate abstract risks to the kind of concrete risks we take every day. For example, 644 people in the UK die every year from falling down stairs. That's about 10 times more than the risk from a 1-in-a-million one-off event! And you take that risk every year. If you were to halve the amount of stairs you climb just for one year, the effect on your safety would be five times greater than the effect of avoiding a 1-in-a-million one-off risk*. But, of course, you won't avoid half the stairs, or even 10% of stairs (for the equivalent risk balance). Because you have a concrete sense that climbing stairs doesn't feel "risky" to you, and any risk it poses is comfortably balanced by the benefit you get from not having to avoid stairs.

I think the communicators of risk would do better to try to find good (better than this) analogies for the marginal risk being posed, rather than just saying "1 in a million!" Like, for example, "If you are concerned then balance the risk up by just once avoiding the walk to your local shop to buy a chocolate bar" (because I'm guessing this presents a similar risk of death on the road). This kind of angle helps to make the risk concrete and understandable as well as highlight the context that life is risk -- we take bigger risks than this every day of our lives, for less benefit too.

*I checked the related health benefits of stair climbing, just to be sure -- I think that this paper suggests that the marginal health gain of the stair-climbing doesn't compensate for its marginal risk. But take it for the sake of argument anyway, as it's just an illustrative example.

The issue with avoiding 50% of the stairs is that you are now half way up the stairs and have to walk back down again, meaning you have done 100% of the stairs, and you don’t have whatever it was you wanted to go upstairs for.

 

[Supine]

The current list of reported events after AZ vaccination is currently 79 pages long. Statistically almost all of these would have occurred anyway.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/975786/COVID-19_AstraZeneca_Vaccine_Analysis_Print.pdf

 

[SheilaNaGig]

“Unwanted effects” is good. I’d be a bit wary, though, because people tend to understand “side effects” as often very rare, and the lists including really bad things that almost never happen.

In my experience and observation, people tend to dismiss the side effects as less important, or something they can ignore, or something they should try to ignore, or something they should just try to live with. Especially if they are fairly low key, like constipation or sleeplessness or dry mouth. Even when it impacts on their sense of well being, they’ll try to live with it. Even sometimes quite serious side effects get ignored or they just try to deal with it silently. Instead of trying to didn’t a solution, they’ll suffer.

When reframed as unwanted effects they’re more likely to seek help, support, tell their GP about it.



Once again 8ball you've pulled me up for something with the apparent assumption that I’m talking bollocks, or making shit up, getting things wrong, being a bad actor, some kind of dangerous thoughtless charlatan. I’m really fed up with it.

 

[8ball]

I now have a nice counter to people who chunter about me always taking the lift at work though, so cheers for that.

 

[Yossarian]

I think the communicators of risk would do better to try to find good (better than this) analogies for the marginal risk being posed, rather than just saying "1 in a million!" Like, for example, "If you are concerned then balance the risk up by just once avoiding the walk to your local shop to buy a chocolate bar" (because I'm guessing this presents a similar risk of death on the road). This kind of angle helps to make the risk concrete and understandable as well as highlight the context that life is risk -- we take bigger risks than this every day of our lives, for less benefit too.

There's also the issue of fear of the unknown, and the pandemic circumstances are new, even if getting vaccinated isn't - people afraid of flying might get told that they're statistically more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the airport than in a plane crash, but I think that sometimes just makes them more nervous on the way to the airport as well.

 

[8ball]

Once again 8ball you've pulled me up for something with the apparent assumption that I’m talking bollocks, or making shit up, getting things wrong, being a bad actor, some kind of dangerous thoughtless charlatan. I’m really fed up with it.

I’ll try to avoid it. It’s the addictiveness of being right on the internet. You should have seen my masterful takedown of kabbes’ stair avoidance schemes.