Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Which jab did you have - Astra Zeneca or Pfizer? And what side effects?

What jab? What side effects?

  • I had the Pfizer

    Votes: 66 18.6%
  • I had the Astra Zeneca

    Votes: 125 35.2%
  • I don't know what I had

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Pfizer + no side effects

    Votes: 65 18.3%
  • Pfizer + some side effects lasting less than/about 48 hours

    Votes: 38 10.7%
  • Pfizer + side effects lasting more than 2 days

    Votes: 6 1.7%
  • AZ + no side effects

    Votes: 51 14.4%
  • AZ + some side effects lasting less than/about 48 hours

    Votes: 121 34.1%
  • AZ + side effects lasting more than 2 days

    Votes: 37 10.4%
  • Something else (explain yourself)

    Votes: 13 3.7%

  • Total voters
    355
  • Poll closed .
Bloody hell. You and @killer b other halves experiences are showing the Oxford/AZ hits some people hard!
I just remembered that she was also withdrawing from the steroids she's been on since her operation nearly two years ago, which might have had some impact...
 
Jesus fucking christ, you were big sick!
Mate I was having periods of feeling muddled, it was awful. 48 hours later after O2, dex and some normal saline and I was on the road to recovery. I may curse it, but God bless Jimmies!
I just remembered that she was also withdrawing from the steroids she's been on since her operation nearly two years ago, which might have had some impact...
Maybe, yes. Sounds awful though. Keep a watch when she has the second xx
 
Pfizer/BioNTech. Ticked no side effects as had a headache for a few hours about 20 hours after, but obviously no idea if it was related - although I never get headaches. Also studies show there's a huge psychological/expectation impact with side effects so meh, I dunno.
In a past life I dealt with safety data from clinical trials, and "headache" is so indistinguishable from placebo generally that it's rarely considered significant. (Also "nausea" and "sleep disturbance".)
 
AZ Weds evening - no problems at all so far. I was a bit disappointed that I didn’t get offered a little sit down after - but you only get that with the Pfizer....
AZ here, they asked if I had driven, then recommended I sit in my car for 15 minutes before driving off.
 
Front line medical staff in Ireland are up in arms at the fact they're being administered the AZ vaccine, as it only has a 60% efficacy, compared to the 95% efficacy that the other two approved vaccines boast.


What do these efficacy figures actually refer to? I'm struggling to find references to anything other than 'attack rate' online.

There are at least five different things I can think of:
  • percentage reduction in PCR cases vs the control group
  • percentage reduction in asymptomatic individuals
  • percentage reduction in severe cases
  • percentage reduction in deaths
  • percentage reduction in transmissibility

I think it's the second one (reduction in asymptomatic individuals), is that right?
 
What's the "layman's efficacy" of the two vaccines? My understanding is that these figures (if we take them to be as given) are essentially saying that the AZ vaccine offers 60% protection against any symptoms, whereas Pfizer gives 95%.

But surely, at least as an individual, the relevant figures are % protection against severe illness and/or death?

I don't think that anyone is saying that 40% of those who take the AZ vaccine end up in the same situation as if they hadn't had a vaccine at all, right?
I have no idea how they've reached those figures.
 
I have no idea how they've reached those figures.

Fair enough (sorry, I edited the original post to add a bit of clarity to what I'm on about).

The best I can find online are quotes like "What the 95% actually means is that vaccinated people had a 95% lower risk of getting COVID-19 compared with the control group participants, who weren't vaccinated."

But what "getting COVID-19" means is left up to interpretation.
 
Fair enough (sorry, I edited the original post to add a bit of clarity to what I'm on about).

The best I can find online are quotes like "What the 95% actually means is that vaccinated people had a 95% lower risk of getting COVID-19 compared with the control group participants, who weren't vaccinated."

But what "getting COVID-19" means is left up to interpretation.
I'd guess the key thing is how much does a given vaccine reduce the risk of severe disease/hospitalisation/death. If it resulted in a person catching it but not becoming particularly ill that's a good enough outcome. Ideally it'd stop someone catching it entirely, but anything is better than nothing.
 
I was a bit disappointed that I didn’t get offered a little sit down after - but you only get that with the Pfizer....
Didn't know that - I thought it was just a general precaution across the board as they're new vaccines. I remember them insisting everyone waited for the same time when I first starting getting flu jabs (15 years ago?) - but they no longer do that, at least with me.
 
I'd guess the key thing is how much does a given vaccine reduce the risk of severe disease/hospitalisation/death.

I tend to agree that this is probably the best number to use if we're going to pick one, but I'd rather know for sure rather than guessing!

If it's a 60% vs 95% chance of being asymptomatic, then I'd say anyone rejecting one over the other is just being an arse, deal with it.

But if it's a 60% vs 95% reduction in transmissibilty, or as you say severe disease, then yeah it really matters for a healthcare worker who is basically 100% guaranteed to get the virus given enough time.

I guess they're probably all correlated anyway since that's how viruses work innit. Personally I'll take whatever I'm given!
 
Last edited:
IIRC the efficacy refers to preventing symptomatic infection, i.e. a positive test + symptoms of some sort. I don't think any hospitalization/serious cases were reported for either vaccine (maybe 1 for Pfizer?), but given the relatively low numbers of infections in the vaccine group, I don't know to what degree they can rule out some serious cases
 
Zeneca. It was hell. Only for about 24 hours, but man, it was bad. My heart rate still hasn't recovered and I'm concerned - I have an underlying heart condition and I've been ignoring it for a while, because it's just so fucking tiresome. Had an op and it wasn't all better, but good enough. And it had been good enough for years, literally till the day of the vaccine. 128BPM plus 70 oxygen, man.

Apparently an increased heart rate is not unusual as a reaction, esp for people who've had covid.

Not sure if I should get the second dose. I'm leaning towards yes because surely my body has given up fighting against this by now, but I'll check with my GP.

I'd still recommend getting the vaccine as opposed to getting or spreading the disease.
 
I tend to agree that this is probably the best number to use if we're going to pick one, but I'd rather know for sure rather than guessing!

If it's a 60% vs 95% chance of being asymptomatic, then I'd say anyone rejecting one over the other is just being an arse, deal with it.

But if it's a 60% vs 95% reduction in transmissibilty, or as you say severe disease, then yeah it really matters for a healthcare worker who is basically 100% guaranteed to get the virus given enough time.

I guess they're probably all correlated anyway since that's how viruses work innit. Personally I'll take whatever I'm given!
This article has some efficacy figures which look pretty good.

 
Had the Oxford yesterday 9am and felt nothing except a slightly odd feeling runny nose (apparently in there as aside effect according to the sheet I was given).
I had a pretty restless night and ache all over, (played a major part in my dreams) a bit like, but not quite the same as if I had done a big workout and a run yesterday (which I didn't). My back is especially bad. My injection arm is definitely feeling pain now just below where the injection was. Mild headache.
At this point I wouldn't be anything was crazy out if the ordinary if I hadn't had the vaccine.
 
Didn't know that - I thought it was just a general precaution across the board as they're new vaccines. I remember them insisting everyone waited for the same time when I first starting getting flu jabs (15 years ago?) - but they no longer do that, at least with me.
They still do it with flu jabs round these parts and ply you with coffee/juice and biscuits :thumbs:. (Not this year though obvs.)
 
There are still 'availability' issues with Pfizer second doses, according to daughter's London hospital. She should have had her 2nd dose this week.
 
Just over 24hrs after the Oxford jab.

Slickly managed so in and out in less than 5 minutes ...
Barely felt the actual jab (apparently something to do with long needles for intra-muscular injections).

Had a bad night, but 90% of that was because I had a bout of IBS [mine is the result of a sudden drop in stress, especially a period of long-term stress - I think waiting for my covid jab counts as I have been staying at home since this time last year. Additionally, a new project arrived at work a couple of days ago, that we've been trying to get delivered for over six months]
Today, I'm feeling washed out, very tired and I can't concentrate. Temperature regulation isn't working too well, either! I woke up with a bad headache - two ibuprofen fixed that, but I've some general aches and pains, and my arm is less sore than it was with this year's flu jab.
I might have another nap ...
 
Back
Top Bottom