The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll

[zing]

So if I got the first shot of AZ and no blood clots. Am I safe to take the 2nd shot without worrying about blood clots or is the risk still the same?

Good question. The EMA seems to think okay but I’m not sure if that’s due to lack of data. Curious if others have more info.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Irish AZ clots update. No CVST’s out of >200k doses. Due to AZ delays our HCW’s (biggest young cohort vaccinated so far) almost all got Pfizer/Moderna, with AZ going to the more elderly. Which could be a factor here. Although recently the most clinically vulnerable 18-65 year olds have been getting AZ (I think?) which is worth keeping an eye on.

 

[africanspur]

Would there not be significant risks to the rest of the population in not vaccinating young women though?

This is totally fair to say if AZ was our only vaccine. It may still be fair to say, we may need more figures. It may also still be true in many LEDCs, who will not necessarily be able to afford Pfizer/ Moderna.

But if in Europe/North America etc there are other options, then it isn't necessarily the best option.

I will trust the various licencing authorities as they get more data and update their guidance!

 

[Simbo]

So undoubtedly there's gunna be a lot of cancelled appointments, is this a good time to be emailing our GP's asking for a dose others don't want?

 

[horsechoker]

So undoubtedly there's gunna be a lot of cancelled appointments, is this a good time to be emailing our GP's asking for a dose others don't want?

Doesn't hurt to try.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

So undoubtedly there's gunna be a lot of cancelled appointments, is this a good time to be emailing our GP's asking for a dose others don't want?

Why? They've explained the situation, the very minor risks involved overall, the risk v reward the younger you are, and the fact that under 30's will be offered an alternative, so you'd have to be mad to turn it down if you are offered it, but if it opens the door for some people getting the vaccine sooner than they would have normally then go for it.

 

[Simbo]

Why? They've explained the situation, the very minor risks involved overall, the risk v reward the younger you are, and the fact that under 30's will be offered an alternative, so you'd have to be mad to turn it down if you are offered it, but if it opens the door for some people getting the vaccine sooner than they would have normally then go for it.

Cos lots of people are a bit mad and Facebook exists.

 

[Enigma_87]

Why? They've explained the situation, the very minor risks involved overall, the risk v reward the younger you are, and the fact that under 30's will be offered an alternative, so you'd have to be mad to turn it down if you are offered it, but if it opens the door for some people getting the vaccine sooner than they would have normally then go for it.

If EMA has recognized blood cloths even in this small percentage on a short term(severe) side effect, I'm really scared to think what long term effects might this jab have, considering the cycle of vaccines that are usually tested is couple of years.

Why not pull the plug on it before there is a bigger sample size and use the other vaccines if available? Yes, there is a shortage of vaccines worldwide, but who can guarantee the side effects AZ jabs might have are not severe after 5 months or 10 months or even 2 years?

We all remember how the swine flu vaccine from 76 ended and how much time it was needed to see the long term effects of those jabs.

 

[Penna]

There's discussion in the Italian press that the government here might only give it to the over-65s (people under 70 who are healthy can't get a vaccine here yet, just based on their age). This may cause a problem, as they have already been vaccinating teachers and military etc with the AZ, and they are all under 65, of course.

It seems that the AZ is increasingly being refused, with a significant number of people not turning up for their appointments.

 

[Snowjoe]

If EMA has recognized blood cloths even in this small percentage on a short term(severe) side effect, I'm really scared to think what long term effects might this jab have, considering the cycle of vaccines that are usually tested is couple of years.

Why not pull the plug on it before there is a bigger sample size and use the other vaccines if available? Yes, there is a shortage of vaccines worldwide, but who can guarantee the side effects AZ jabs might have are not severe after 5 months or 10 months or even 2 years?

We all remember how the swine flu vaccine from 76 ended and how much time it was needed to see the long term effects of those jabs.

If you’re going by that logic you don’t know the potential severe side effects of any of the vaccines after longer time frames so shall we pull them all?

 

[::sonny::]

 

[Enigma_87]

If you’re going by that logic you don’t know the potential severe side effects of any of the vaccines after longer time frames so shall we pull them all?

Pfizer, Moderna so far haven't shown severe side effects or side effects that can be lethal.

Difference is that EMA has come out and said there is acknowledged link between blood clots and AZ and it can be proven to be lethal. There are other vaccine makers that are on the brink of getting cleared so it would raise supply, yet not lead to such severe side effects. Yes, all vaccines haven't had a proper clinical trials and cycles, but when such things happen with AZ, surely you need more testing on that particular vaccine?

Why would you still promote a vaccine that even in a tiny percentage can kill a young healthy individual?

 

[Snowjoe]

Pfizer, Moderna so far haven't shown severe side effects or side effects that can be lethal.

Difference is that EMA has come out and said there is acknowledged link between blood clots and AZ and it can be proven to be lethal. There are other vaccine makers that are on the brink of getting cleared so it would raise supply, yet not lead to such severe side effects. Yes, all vaccines haven't had a proper clinical trials and cycles, but when such things happen with AZ, surely you need more testing on that particular vaccine?

Why would you still promote a vaccine that even in a tiny percentage can kill a young healthy individual?

I was more referring to your post in saying that it has you worried for long term safety, just because we’ve seen no lethal side effects in the others doesn’t mean long term side effects won’t surface and just because this has surfaced with AZ doesn’t mean we will see any longer term ones.

Plenty of medicines we use have lethal side effects in very rare cases which are used on a similar risk/reward basis, but that being said no reason why not to use other vaccines when available as they are suggesting for people whom are less at risk for covid related problems.

 

[golden_blunder]

I think some of you need to read the side effects of prescriptions you may take. Some of my meds side effects would have you put of a coffin

Most of them say: death

Sure it’s under very rare but it’s still there yet I don’t hear about anyone turning down heart meds

 

[Wibble]

Humans are generally terrible at balancing risk and reward.

 

[zing]

Humans are generally terrible at balancing risk and reward.

I see we’ve shifted the goal posts now.

 

[Wibble]

I see we’ve shifted the goal posts now.

No we haven't. Broadly the considerations are.

• Risk above random chance is the first consideration.
• If elevated risk then consider less risky alternatives for those potentially affected if any
• Then compare the risk of acting vs the act of not acting

In all cases it is only the risk part of the risk vs reward consideration that people tend to worry about.

 

[zing]

No we haven't.

We went from ‘perfectly safe’ which you were shouting from the roof tops to ‘cost benefit analysis’.

The cost benefit analysis isn’t an easy one to nail down in any case. There’s a generalised probability for broad age groups but it doesn’t have enough nuance in it - are the people dying between 30-40 the ones with comorbidities? Is the vaccine issue more likely to be more random? It is entirely possible that the vaccine is riskier for sub-groups if you have enough information to describe them.

Probability isn’t just based on information available today.

As it stands, I genuinely don’t know whether the vaccine is higher risk for me. I have no conditions that predispose me to severe COVID but the truth is I don’t have enough information to decide.

 

[Liver_bird]

So undoubtedly there's gunna be a lot of cancelled appointments, is this a good time to be emailing our GP's asking for a dose others don't want?

Definitely, I’m 23 and that’s how I got mine.

 

[jojojo]

As it stands, I genuinely don’t know whether the vaccine is higher risk for me. I have no conditions that predispose me to severe COVID but the truth is I don’t have enough information to decide.

The fact is that the numbers are so low that we don't know the predispose calculation for the vaccines reactions either. We're stuck ultimately with the gross stats.

For the adult population of Europe and the Americas any of the approved vaccines given today will give you better odds than waiting 6 months (or even six weeks) for a different one. Personally (though I'm sure @Wibble would disagree) I'd be much more dubious about making that statement in Australia or New Zealand.

The UK has a case rate that's dropping along with the deaths. On a national level, we're getting a tantalising glimpse of what herd immunity might be able to do in terms of breaking infection chains.

So personally, I'd take the AZ just to avoid the feeling that I might pass it on to family/friends/co-workers/clients. But that's probably because I imagine I'm indestructible - that I won't get seriously ill with covid and that I'll be treated rapidly and effectively if I have a reaction to the vaccine. Hence why I'm taking part in a placebo blinded vaccine trial of an unapproved vaccine. I can't expect everyone else to read the numbers the same way though.

 

[11101]

There's discussion in the Italian press that the government here might only give it to the over-65s (people under 70 who are healthy can't get a vaccine here yet, just based on their age). This may cause a problem, as they have already been vaccinating teachers and military etc with the AZ, and they are all under 65, of course.

It seems that the AZ is increasingly being refused, with a significant number of people not turning up for their appointments.

It's been confirmed they will only give it to over 60s. People who have already had the first dose are safe to get the second. You are right about people not turning up for it, we have about 50% administered vs delivered compared to 96% for Pfizer. We cant get rid of the doses and with J&J arriving from the 16th there is less reliance on it.

I'm glad about it really. I would have taken it, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with my wife taking it.

 

[Wibble]

We went from ‘perfectly safe’ which you were shouting from the roof tops to ‘cost benefit analysis’.

Everything involves some risk. Drinking a glass of water has a risk attached. It is minuscule but it exists. Of course the risk of stopping drinking water is far greater.

The cost benefit analysis isn’t an easy one to nail down in any case. There’s a generalised probability for broad age groups but it doesn’t have enough nuance in it - are the people dying between 30-40 the ones with comorbidities? Is the vaccine issue more likely to be more random? It is entirely possible that the vaccine is riskier for sub-groups if you have enough information to describe them.

It could be batch related but if I had to bet I'd say not. Young women seem to be the group that stand out and caution would dictate that they get an alternative if available at least until the issue is fully examined. If there is no alternative the individual risk is one thing (and the medic who first raised the issue says the risk is so low that continuing is the best idea) but the risk to all of us, economic and health wise, is defined by us reaching HIT, or as close as possible, so everyone's individual risk is increased if other individuals decline the vaccine.

The numbers are so low that if there is no potentially even safer alternative then it is a no brainer that we should continue. Of course if groups that have elevated risk (potentially younger women) can be given an alternative then that is also a no-brainer.

Probability isn’t just based on information available today.

It has to be as you can't use guesses to make decisions. That doesn't mean that you can use sensible caution if you balance the relative risks while awaiting further data.

As it stands, I genuinely don’t know whether the vaccine is higher risk for me. I have no conditions that predispose me to severe COVID but the truth is I don’t have enough information to decide.

Particularly if you are male the best vaccine is the one in your arm. Society needs us all to be vaccinated for all of our economic well-being and health. Think of it as you taking a minuscule risk for the greater good (and likely your personal good) not forgetting some people can't get vaccinated and you are protecting them. For example, you take a flu vaccine without stressing that you will get Guillain-Barre syndrome despite you (assuming you are young) having a low chance of dying from the flu. There is an elevated risk but flu causes an even greater incidence except for a small at-risk group. With the solution being we don't immunise at risk groups for at least another six months just as we may avoid AZ for young women in this case.

 

[Wibble]

The fact is that the numbers are so low that we don't know the predispose calculation for the vaccines reactions either. We're stuck ultimately with the gross stats.

For the adult population of Europe and the Americas any of the approved vaccines given today will give you better odds than waiting 6 months (or even six weeks) for a different one. Personally (though I'm sure @Wibble would disagree) I'd be much more dubious about making that statement in Australia or New Zealand.

The UK has a case rate that's dropping along with the deaths. On a national level, we're getting a tantalising glimpse of what herd immunity might be able to do in terms of breaking infection chains.

So personally, I'd take the AZ just to avoid the feeling that I might pass it on to family/friends/co-workers/clients. But that's probably because I imagine I'm indestructible - that I won't get seriously ill with covid and that I'll be treated rapidly and effectively if I have a reaction to the vaccine. Hence why I'm taking part in a placebo blinded vaccine trial of an unapproved vaccine. I can't expect everyone else to read the numbers the same way though.

I wouldn't disagree. Although Australia has given itself little option in that AZ will be our main option for quite some time. We looked at the data from Europe and saw nothing that would warrant a delay (ironic given our glacial roll-out) but it would be nice if we could get enough of another vaccine for groups of concern. Maybe we keep what little Pfizer we are getting for young women for e.g. although the government is getting hammered (quite rightly) for their vaccine incompetence so I doubt they want to be accused of holding supply back. They have treated it like a party political broadcast since day 1. Thank feck the State governments have been here to be the adults in the room.

Our roll-out is so slow that the data is likely to be far more conclusive by the time our domestic AZ production comes online in the next month or so.

And I'm totally with you on the last paragraph. I recently applied to be part of phase 3 trail of a local DNA (not mRNA) vaccine. Not heard a thing so no idea if I will be included but I thought I should put my money were my mouth is given the opportunity.

 

[Brwned]

I'm very confused by the examples given as the one highlighted is with levels "somewhat lower than in the community" and the following slide shows levels "a little higher". The ICU admissions are double the vaccine risk at 2.2 per 100,000 on the second example and he doesn't make it clear if we're nearer the 1st or 2nd rates.

It would be good to know the infection rates he's picked as examples (I might have missed them but can't see it on the tweets). The last one which is "high exposure risk" has 20 per 10,000 but the other two don't seem to be have the info.

The calculations were done by these folks, and the classification is: low = 2 cases per 10k per day, medium = 6 cases, high = 20 cases. We were around the low level in March and things have held steady since then.

 

[11101]

So if I got the first shot of AZ and no blood clots. Am I safe to take the 2nd shot without worrying about blood clots or is the risk still the same?

Here they are saying it's ok to get the second shot. All the blood clot cases in the country have been after the first doses, none have shown up after the second dose.

 

[berbatrick]

Here they are saying it's ok to get the second shot. All the blood clot cases in the country have been after the first doses, none have shown up after the second dose.

can you link to any source?

 

[Snowjoe]

can you link to any source?

I think as Hancock has said so far there’s no evidence of it happening after the second dose but they are keeping an eye out.

He also said it’s a similar chance of getting a blot clot to getting one on a long haul flight. I’m happy to get my second dose

 

[lynchie]

Good news on the French rollout. Seeing something about a big AZ delivery now becoming available, so things should continue to speed up now.

 

[Snowjoe]

A good reminder of risks compared to some things we would do without even thinking about the risk

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19...neca-vaccine-and-how-does-it-compare-12268572

 

[groovyalbert]

Good news on the French rollout. Seeing something about a big AZ delivery now becoming available, so things should continue to speed up now.

That's great to see - impressive turn around on numbers too! Hopefully mainland Europe/EU states can get their most vulnerable vaccinated (even if it's just first shot) over the next month or so. The effects of just one jab seem to be having huge impacts on serious cases/deaths.

 

[Ødegaard]

I think some of you need to read the side effects of prescriptions you may take. Some of my meds side effects would have you put of a coffin

Most of them say: death

Sure it’s under very rare but it’s still there yet I don’t hear about anyone turning down heart meds

This 100%

The meds i go on have pages of side-effects, loads of death warnings. Nothing new.

 

[Penna]

It's been confirmed they will only give it to over 60s. People who have already had the first dose are safe to get the second. You are right about people not turning up for it, we have about 50% administered vs delivered compared to 96% for Pfizer. We cant get rid of the doses and with J&J arriving from the 16th there is less reliance on it.

I'm glad about it really. I would have taken it, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with my wife taking it.

I'll be 63 by the time I get to book, and with my chequered medical history I won't risk the AZ. If I was healthy, I'd think differently as the risk is tiny - but maybe not tiny for me.

 

[Hammerfell]

I’m still getting AZ if/when it’s offered to me, no hesitation.

 

[11101]

can you link to any source?

Only Italian press I'm afraid. It was on the news yesterday.

 

[Penna]

Only Italian press I'm afraid. It was on the news yesterday.

@berbatrick https://www.thelocal.it/20210408/italy-restricts-use-of-astrazeneca-covid-jab-on-under-60s/

 

[RoyH1]

I'm sorry if what I write sounds very stupid, but I'm an absolute dumbass when it comes to medicine. Please be gentle.
Would it be possible to give some kind of anti- blod clot medication to people taking Astra as a preventive measure? It just seems like an awful waste not to use a vaccine that seems to be very effective against hospitalization/death.

 

[golden_blunder]

I'm sorry if what I write sounds very stupid, but I'm an absolute dumbass when it comes to medicine. Please be gentle.
Would it be possible to give some kind of anti- blod clot medication to people taking Astra as a preventive measure? It just seems like an awful waste not to use a vaccine that seems to be very effective against hospitalization/death.

Good question

 

[Snowjoe]

I'm sorry if what I write sounds very stupid, but I'm an absolute dumbass when it comes to medicine. Please be gentle.
Would it be possible to give some kind of anti- blod clot medication to people taking Astra as a preventive measure? It just seems like an awful waste not to use a vaccine that seems to be very effective against hospitalization/death.

It’s not stupid and I’m also not a dr but I know that there can also be some significant side effects from these drugs so you might open up another can of worms just to prevent a tiny one

I think the route they’re going of using other jabs when they can for younger people is probably the sensible option

 

[Penna]

I'm sorry if what I write sounds very stupid, but I'm an absolute dumbass when it comes to medicine. Please be gentle.
Would it be possible to give some kind of anti- blod clot medication to people taking Astra as a preventive measure? It just seems like an awful waste not to use a vaccine that seems to be very effective against hospitalization/death.

Anti-clotting meds have their own risks, would be difficult to organise and also expensive. I took a 3-week course of Heparin injections last year for venous thrombosis, and some people have a bad reaction to that medication.

A lot of older people (including myself) take daily aspirin to lower their risk of stroke and myocardial infarction and I'm wondering if that is a possible protection?

 

[Mihai]

Definitely, I’m 23 and that’s how I got mine.

Don't you have to be 18 to register on redcafe?