Possible serious side effects from the Astra Zeneca vaccine discussion

[T & P]

Under 30s being given a choice to have an alternative feels like quite a strange announcement. What if you’re 30. (Not that I am)

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm 43 and will happily take it. My g/f is mid 30's and is happy to have it, though she is a scientist herself so has perspective on this.

Aspirin will make me very ill because of an allergic reaction. There are many deaths each year to really common medication such as ibuprofen yet they are still eaten like smarties. Show me a medication with zero unwanted effects and I'll show you something that is totally inert.

This is my view. It is obviously right though as the risk of covid is reduced by age the risk of unwanted effects become greater and this should be taken into consideration.



There is no guarantee years and years of testing would have reached this conclusion. It is the scale of the situation that has flagged this up.

Some of these fears aren't particularly rational, of course. For someone like me, given the range of powders of dubious origin that I've shoved up my hooter over the years, it's pretty ridiculous in many ways to be concerned about this problem. But if the pattern is a clear one of younger women getting the clots, I'd be saying 'Pfizer please' if given the choice.

 

[gentlegreen]

I recall at one point all the vaccine deaths involved patients on Heperin but this may be out of date info.

It's just a way of describing it ...

The EMA said that one plausible explanation was an "immune response, leading to a condition similar to one seen sometimes in patients treated with heparin (heparin induced thrombocytopenia, HIT)".

 

[Spymaster]

Under 30s being given a choice to have an alternative feels like quite a strange announcement. What if you’re 30. (Not that I am)

If you're 30, you're not under 30.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If you're 30, you're not under 30.

Exactly. So you don't get the choice!

 

[Teaboy]

Exactly. So you don't get the choice!

Nor did all those people who died of covid.

Gotta be a cut off somewhere.

 

[bimble]

If you're 30, you're not under 30.

This is true! To spell it out, my query is why is this the line they’ve drawn, 29 and under get a choice.
I think the reasoning will need to be explained if we expect take up of the AZ by, for instance 30 yr olds, to be unaffected.

 

[bimble]

I don’t get it

 

[bimble]

Spoke to a friend in canada today and she said that AZ is being halted for under 55s there, in germany its under 60s. Its going to have to be explained i think, the reasoning, is all.

 

[JimW]

I don’t get it

Shows the vaccine's working.

 

[Teaboy]

I think the reasoning will need to be explained if we expect take up of the AZ by, for instance 30 yr olds, to be unaffected.

This pure speculation on my part but it might be to do with the way age cohorts work and they way they tend to be grouped together in round numbers. We know the number one risk factor for Covid is age. 30 down is where they deem the risk / reward calculation to not be quite right at this moment in time.

 

[T & P]

I don’t get it

It's a film about a dystopian future society where reaching 30 years of age is also quite the landmark...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Nor did all those people who died of covid.

Gotta be a cut off somewhere.

Given where we're at, with cohorts 1 to 9 basically done first jab-wise, so only healthy under-50s left, and other vaccines in the pipeline - and with infections, hospitalisations and deaths now at a pretty low level - I would say that some caution might be justified where there exist doubts.

We're in the fortunate position of having already first-jabbed almost all the high-risk groups.

Priority for this month was always going to be second jabs anyway. Hopefully we'll know more by the end of the month.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Spoke to a friend in canada today and she said that AZ is being halted for under 55s there, in germany its under 60s. Its going to have to be explained i think, the reasoning, is all.

It was explained, whilst a slide was being shown of the benefits-to-risks factor for different age groups, I can't currently find it from a google search, but when I pops up, I'll post it here.

 

[bimble]

It was explained, whilst a slide was being shown of the benefits-to-risks factor for different age groups, I can't currently find it from a google search, but when I pops up, I'll post it here.

I do get the basic idea (risk analysis) but if you come across anything about why the UK has drawn the line so differently to other countries I'd be interested.

 

[gentlegreen]

 

[bimble]

I must be really getting old, or drunk (your charts are blurry gentlegreen )

In the guardian thing on this is a sentence which seems to be quoting the MHRA and says 'Those who have any history of blood clots should not have the AstraZeneca jab'. Which is probably important info. That would include people who have had strokes etc?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Bit blurred, GG, but yeah, the basic point is clear. I don't know how they define exposure risk, but given current infection levels in the UK, I'd say that we must be near the 'low exposure risk' category right now. That changes the calculation hugely.

 

[gentlegreen]

I must be really getting old, or drunk (your charts are blurry gentlegreen )

In the guardian thing on this is a sentence that says 'Those who have any history of blood clots should not have the AstraZeneca jab'. Which is probably important info. That would include people who have had strokes etc?

It was so you can just about read them in the thumbnails without them filling the screen.
you can click on them for high res

 

[Teaboy]

I do get the basic idea (risk analysis) but if you come across anything about why the UK has drawn the line so differently to other countries I'd be interested.

I guess one factor will be is that the UK is so much further advanced in the vaccination program in turns of age and is heavily reliant on the AZ vaccine. There will be loads of people out there in their 30's & 40's who have had their first jab. Getting people back for their second is important.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I guess one factor will be is that the UK is so much further advanced in the vaccination program in turns of age and is heavily reliant on the AZ vaccine. There will be loads of people out there in their 30's & 40's who have had their first jab. Getting people back for their second is important.

There is that. But there is also the ethical imperative of full disclosure. We're entitled to know everything they know about the risks.

 

[gentlegreen]

someone needs to make a 3D plot of that data ..

 

[bimble]

It was so you can just about read them in the thumbnails without them filling the screen.
you can click on them for high res

Thanks those charts do help.
Looking at them though tbh i feel like my risk of ending up in intensive care for covid, whilst it is 10 times higher than getting 'serious harm' from the vaccine, both those risks are both really very small, as numbers out of 100,000, and not vastly different enough to be massively reassuring when you see them in that context.
(I've not had my 1st dose yet & would be happy if more info comes out soon).

 

[Teaboy]

Bit blurred, GG, but yeah, the basic point is clear. I don't know how they define exposure risk, but given current infection levels in the UK, I'd say that we must be near the 'low exposure risk' category right now. That changes the calculation hugely.

Until we're suddenly not at low risk again by which time...

Well, we know because we've been here before.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Thanks those charts do help.
Looking at them though tbh i feel like my risk of ending up in intensive care for covid, whilst it is 10 times higher than getting 'serious harm' from the vaccine, both those risks are both really very small, as numbers out of 100,000, and not vastly different enough to be massively reassuring when you see them in that context.
(I've not had my 1st dose yet & would be happy if more info comes out soon).

Looking at those stats, if they're accurate (big if, of course), then the absolute rather than relative risk of the jab is about the same for anyone over 40, then increases below that age. Just from those stats and nothing else, I think a cut-off of 40 could be justified at this point.

One complication in that calculation is that infection risk isn't an independent variable - the more people are jabbed, the better the chance of keeping the infection risk low in the longer term. That's a factor that creates a pressure to keep jabbing.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Until we're suddenly not at low risk again by which time...

Well, we know because we've been here before.

Well yes. My post just after yours addresses that. It's why I've been happy with the UK's relatively gung-ho approach so far.

 

[bimble]

I have to admit i've tuned out of covid-news for quite a while, but is it correct that - in general - if you're in your early 40s and end up in intensive care for covid you are quite likely to have some other contributing vulnerability / condition whilst, as far as they know so far, perfectly healthy people are as likely as anyone to get the (very rare) clots?

 

[magneze]

The other thing from the press conference that I thought was useful to know was that all the clots were on the first jab. So if you've already been jabbed then your risk of clots from the second is even less.

 

[Spymaster]

The other thing from e press conference that I thought was useful to know was that all the clots were on the first jab. So if you've already been jabbed then your risk of clots from the second is even less.

Do we know how soon after the first jab the clots have occurred?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The other thing from e press conference that I thought was useful to know was that all the clots were on the first jab. So if you've already been jabbed then your risk of clots from the second is even less.

Important message to get out. There are millions of us in that situation right now!