The vaccines | vaxxed boosted unvaxxed? New poll

[Classical Mechanic]

Ugly rhetoric from VDL. Trying to drum up nationalistic sentiments where there are none to cover for her own gross failings. It looks like summer could be cancelled in many EU countries with another year of economic disaster is on the horizon. She's scrambling as she knows the blame will be landing at her door from many quarters whilst EU citizens will rightly grumble if the UK is open.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I am a physician in USA. I have been under the impression this clots in vaccinated people issue has been overblown. Are medical people in Europe really thinking otherwise?

A good tweet as to why I think this is overblown.




I will try to be more active in this thread.

To me it seems overblown because the risk of clots in covid is way way higher anyway.

That tweet is a gross over-simplification (which she wrote based on newspaper reports ). Here’s a good article on the finer details behind the decision. Yes, it is “safe” overall but there might be some people in whom the risk outweighs the benefit. This pause is about not giving this particular vaccine (while others are available) to any more of those people while we make absolutely sure that isn’t the case.

 

[devilish]

It was discussed many times in this thread back in January, have a search through the thread. The contract that the EU have with AZ's agreement has the delivery down as 'best efforts' which is why the timeframes of delivery can't be litigated, and why VdL is having to use article 122 to invoke some form of control/power over AZ. If the legal agreement with AZ was watertight, then we wouldn't have seen anything public on this, it would have just gone straight to a court

Italy have already blocked an export of AZ vaccines to Australia, so yes the banning of exports is happening already.



Take heed of your own advice please. "Won't end well." Have a word with yourself. Do you struggle to debate?



The EU haven't done the same in their contract with AZ, which is the issue and point here. Their whole contract with AZ has so many holes within it that essentially it reads more like an EU directive, than a contract on procurement. The EU contract aims for something similar on domestic production like the UK contract has but is less specific and precise about manufacturing capacity. This is purely why we're seeing VdL having to look at invoking article 122 of the treaty. Contract is here for reference - https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_302

Your point on grace periods, although linked because of the parties in the discussion, are nothing to do with vaccine distribution and the contracts surrounding it, it's probably best to keep that to the Brexit thread as the rabbit hole has been well and truly opened in there. This isn't a EU vs UK point of discussion here might I add, it's EU vs AZ. I'm firmly on the side of AZ here, that they're in a hugely difficult position of supplying a market where supply is limited, and demand is sky high, combined with providing something at cost (which is a rarity for such a developed territory), and they are performing to the terms of the contract that has been agreed, I struggle to see why VdL has any complaints. Here is an interesting opinion piece, on Germany specifically, which broadly covers my view/position on the situation.

As said. The UK put natio interest first by putting it in contact. The EU will do the same by activating article 122. What is wrong with that? No one is breaking international law here. Actually the UK is through extending grace periods to NI because of some empty shelfs

 

[F-Red]

As said. The UK put natio interest first by putting it in contact. The EU will do the same by activating article 122. What is wrong with that? No one is breaking international law here. Actually the UK is through extending grace periods to NI because of some empty shelfs

What's wrong? EU using treaties as a fall back for negotiation negligence in a supply contract. I don't get why people think it's necessary personally, when they can actually work with the manufacturer, like how a normal supplier relationship works.

 

[devilish]

What's wrong? EU using treaties as a fall back for negotiation negligence in a supply contract. I don't get why people think it's necessary personally, when they can actually work with the manufacturer, like how a normal supplier relationship works.

My father is 70 years old. He suffered from a stroke few years ago and he's got a list of comorbidities as long as an arm. He hasn't been vaccinated yet.

So tell me as an EU citizen why I should be happy that a vaccine produced in the EU would go to a British instead when it's not happened viceversa. If my dad dies Will moral high ground and contract loopholes bring my dad back from the dead? Its not as if the UK or AZ cares about fairness, us EU citizens and international law. They made that quite obvious

What pisses me off is that the EU hasn't activated article 122 earlier. Once that happens then AZ can negotiate with the EU to its hard content. But put EU citizens first. That's what the UK is doing

 

[jojojo]

Unfortunately I'm not as well informed as others in this thread regarding the whole AZ vaccine malarkey and I look forward to reading future responses in this thread.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but whilst 'statistically significant' (in regards to the blood-clot allegation), isn't the consequence of withdrawing the vaccine - albeit temporarily likely to cost more lives? The media effect especially will further hinder the general public opinion in terms of their confidence towards vaccination and manufacturing brands. For example I have a few German mates who are adamant about the Pfizer vaccine only and will not take any other alternative.

We take a risk when taking a flight, drinking and smoking etc. Surely the risk of clots is significantly lower than catching, transmitting and dying as a result of Covid-19?

You're right in general terms. The statistics for most of Europe suggest that with the current case rate postponing vaccines even by a few days, will lead to more deaths than the possible deaths observed due to adverse reactions.

But ethically and morally, when you give vaccines to healthy people, especially those who have a low personal risk from the disease, you have to set your standards higher. The ones who die from an adverse reaction are not necessarily people who were going to die from covid.

The holds arise from small numbers of unusual cases appearing in a short period. With incidents being monitored more carefully than normal, odd coincidences can happen. Equally though, something real may be happening.

If it turns out that a production batch, or the distribution and dispensing system was faulty in some way, then the lessons could be important globally. If we can find out more about the people affected, then we might discover something that allows us to predict adverse reactions and steer some people to a different vaccine or no vaccine.

Lots of people are vulnerable to blood clots and to platelet damage, and it clearly doesn't affect all of them - else the UK would have seen it. If it turns out that the effect gets magnified if you're low on vitamin B12, take the contraceptive pill and gets migraines, or something equally random, then it becomes the starting point for discovering a whole lot more about the vaccines and beyond.

 

[11101]

What's wrong? EU using treaties as a fall back for negotiation negligence in a supply contract. I don't get why people think it's necessary personally, when they can actually work with the manufacturer, like how a normal supplier relationship works.

Negligence? Naivety maybe, in thinking that helping other countries would be reciprocated. The EU has always maintained the line that the world needed to get out of this together and has been happy for vaccine manufacturers to export millions of doses. Now they are in a supply crunch of their own and seeing those same countries are not willing to help in return. I'm not sure it's the EU who come out of all that in a bad light...

 

[Brwned]

As said. The UK put natio interest first by putting it in contact. The EU will do the same by activating article 122. What is wrong with that? No one is breaking international law here. Actually the UK is through extending grace periods to NI because of some empty shelfs

The problem with that is the UK paid a premium to have preferential domestic supply, while the EU didn’t. The priorities and guarantees were embedded into the contract; the EU wanted cost price, the UK wanted preferential supply, and the cost of the agreement was designed around those priorities.

Activating article 122 at this stage is trying to have the best of both worlds; the cheapest price and preferential supply. And they are not doing that by renegotiating their contract with AZ, but by manipulating an international agreement. The direct consequence of which would be to harm the other member of that international agreement, despite that member having played no part in this predicament. Naturally the party that loses out in that scenario would see that as a bit of a problem.

 

[devilish]

The problem with that is the UK paid a premium to have preferential domestic supply, while the EU didn’t. The priorities and guarantees were embedded into the contract; the EU wanted cost price, the UK wanted preferential supply, and the cost of the agreement was designed around those priorities. Activating article 122 at this stage is trying to have the best of both worlds; the cheapest price and preferential supply. And they are not doing that by renegotiating their contract with AZ, but by manipulating an international agreement. The direct consequence of which would be to harm the other member of that international agreement, despite that member having played no part in this predicament. Naturally the party that loses out in that scenario would see that as a bit of a problem.

Still what does that has anything to do with me or my father? If the EU has the means to divert more vaccines to us then it should. The UK is ready to break international law because of a couple of empty shelfs. We are talking about thousands of European dying here

Ps Activating article 122 is not breaking international law

 

[F-Red]

Negligence? Naivety maybe, in thinking that helping other countries would be reciprocated. The EU has always maintained the line that the world needed to get out of this together and has been happy for vaccine manufacturers to export millions of doses. Now they are in a supply crunch of their own and seeing those same countries are not willing to help in return. I'm not sure it's the EU who come out of all that in a bad light...

There was a perfectly good agreement sat there prior to the EU 'negotiating' as a bloc, I use negotiating lightly as the contract originally to the one signed in late August had no significant variations according to AZ. So they could of had a contract done in May/June time but lost 2 months, to me that's negligence especially with the lives currently being lost. If speed really was of the essence, then their actions didn't match the ambition.

 

[Brwned]

Still what does that has anything to do with me or my father? If the EU has the means to divert more vaccines to us then it should. The UK is ready to break international law because of a couple of empty shelfs. We are talking about thousands of European dying here

Ps Activating article 122 is not breaking international law

What it has to do with you and your father is that the contract your country signed up to, in the interests of EU solidarity, is the only reason you are in this predicament. If the EU had put less of a priority on getting the cheapest deal, and instead prioritised getting a deal that guarantees the quickest supply of doses to their members first, then you and your father wouldn’t be in this position. The UK is evidence of that.

The UK moved more quickly, paid more to boost domestic supply, and took more risk, that’s why they have gotten more doses. Not because of a political priority but because of a very specific choice about vaccine priorities enshrined in a legal agreement. If the vaccines they paid for earlier and more for turned out not to work, they would have suffered for it.

Why should the UK be punished for the EU’s misplaced priorities? If the agreements between countries and vaccine providers count for so little, then we’re better off asking why anyone in Europe should get the doses before those in Sub-Saharan Africa? The answer is because the European countries paid for it, and put it in a contract. The morality of it isn’t on the side of any of the rich countries, the legality is. You can’t just pick and choose when they apply.

 

[devilish]

What it has to do with you and your father is that the contract your country signed up to, in the interests of EU solidarity, is the only reason you are in this predicament. If the EU had put less of a priority on getting the cheapest deal, and instead prioritised getting a deal that guarantees the quickest supply of doses to their members first, then you and your father wouldn’t be in this position. The UK is evidence of that.

The UK moved more quickly, paid more to boost domestic supply, and took more risk, that’s why they have gotten more doses. Not because of a political priority but because of a very specific choice about vaccine priorities enshrined in a legal agreement. If the vaccines they paid for earlier and more for turned out not to work, they would have suffered for it.

Why should the UK be punished for the EU’s misplaced priorities?

Again why should the EU care about third country interests especially when concerning countries who put their own interest first ahead of international law? We are talking here of thousands of Europeans at risk of dying not some empty shells.

Vdl should be fired for this mess but the priority is to save European lives first. The EU should focus on that not moral high grounds or to look good with some company. A bloc who doesn't put her people's interest first and foremost shouldn't exist

 

[golden_blunder]

Yes, let's imagine we never had all the restrictions, or a much milder form. COVID-19 would have spread like wildfire, killing off most of the oldest generation, completely overburdening hospitals, causing people to not receive the interventions or screening they need, killing even more people that would have lived had they been treated for COVID-19 or whatever other condition they have but isn't place for in the hospitals anymore, and in the process completely shutting down the economy anyway.

You're singular focus on mortality rates is disingenuous (since its fallacy has been pointed out before), and the way you're hammering on economic issues suggests that you know better than every single government in the world. Are you at least running for office next time round? (I'm also in Ontario, FYI.)

Why bother, he’s set in his ways

 

[Pogue Mahone]

You're right in general terms. The statistics for most of Europe suggest that with the current case rate postponing vaccines even by a few days, will lead to more deaths than the possible deaths observed due to adverse reactions.

But ethically and morally, when you give vaccines to healthy people, especially those who have a low personal risk from the disease, you have to set your standards higher. The ones who die from an adverse reaction are not necessarily people who were going to die from covid.

The holds arise from small numbers of unusual cases appearing in a short period. With incidents being monitored more carefully than normal, odd coincidences can happen. Equally though, something real may be happening.

If it turns out that a production batch, or the distribution and dispensing system was faulty in some way, then the lessons could be important globally. If we can find out more about the people affected, then we might discover something that allows us to predict adverse reactions and steer some people to a different vaccine or no vaccine.

Lots of people are vulnerable to blood clots and to platelet damage, and it clearly doesn't affect all of them - else the UK would have seen it. If it turns out that the effect gets magnified if you're low on vitamin B12, take the contraceptive pill and gets migraines, or something equally random, then it becomes the starting point for discovering a whole lot more about the vaccines and beyond.

Excellent post. Was on Twitter again yesterday for the first time in a while and genuinely shocked at how many (invariably British) physicians seemed absolutely determined to ignore the subtleties of this decision.

Obviously Twitter brings out the worst in people but this pandemic seems to be amplifying that effect, even amongst the most educated and rational. No wonder the more gullible are falling into some sort of mass insanity.

 

[redshaw]

Pfizer is an American company with a plant in the EU as is J&J. These are international contracts that the EU was slow on. India is a manufacturing base just like the EU. India shouldn't be seizing vaccines they're contracted to make.

Israel got in first, paid up and got a lot of Pfizer vaccines before anyone. These vaccines aren't being supplied to the world out of some good nature, it's a manufacturing base for American firms.

The EU should really be making these with EU companies and locking down deals before anyone, the pfizer vaccine was developed in Germany but is in US hands now. J&J is an American firm using a Belgium designed vaccine.

EU invested in EU based plants to supply them the AZ vaccine but these have fallen short.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

It was discussed many times in this thread back in January, have a search through the thread. The contract that the EU have with AZ's agreement has the delivery down as 'best efforts' which is why the timeframes of delivery can't be litigated, and why VdL is having to use article 122 to invoke some form of control/power over AZ. If the legal agreement with AZ was watertight, then we wouldn't have seen anything public on this, it would have just gone straight to a court

Italy have already blocked an export of AZ vaccines to Australia, so yes the banning of exports is happening already.



Take heed of your own advice please. "Won't end well." Have a word with yourself. Do you struggle to debate?



The EU haven't done the same in their contract with AZ, which is the issue and point here. Their whole contract with AZ has so many holes within it that essentially it reads more like an EU directive, than a contract on procurement. The EU contract aims for something similar on domestic production like the UK contract has but is less specific and precise about manufacturing capacity. This is purely why we're seeing VdL having to look at invoking article 122 of the treaty. Contract is here for reference - https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_302

Your point on grace periods, although linked because of the parties in the discussion, are nothing to do with vaccine distribution and the contracts surrounding it, it's probably best to keep that to the Brexit thread as the rabbit hole has been well and truly opened in there. This isn't a EU vs UK point of discussion here might I add, it's EU vs AZ. I'm firmly on the side of AZ here, that they're in a hugely difficult position of supplying a market where supply is limited, and demand is sky high, combined with providing something at cost (which is a rarity for such a developed territory), and they are performing to the terms of the contract that has been agreed, I struggle to see why VdL has any complaints. Here is an interesting opinion piece, on Germany specifically, which broadly covers my view/position on the situation.

So the EU should have made a contract with AZ to get all the first vaccines and if they didn't then sue AZ and stop the UK from getting theirs, right OK. Silly EU.
The problem is that they do not have a problem with Pfizer and are getting their deliveries.

Are you the self-appointed spokesman of AZ , maybe you can tell why there are delays.
The last deliveries to the UK , not just the last one, of AZ seem to have come from India and the UK government announced there would be delays whereas AZ and Pfizer have both said there are no delays to the supply to the UK but Jenrick said there will be delays because of India.

The Italy delay to Australia was already covered by others and Australia has nothing to do with article 122 - not an EU or ex-EU country.

My advice to you is not to use condescending terms like.. to make it simple for you...

So for the seventh or eight time of asking, what is this political decision made by 5 or 6 states of the EU and 5 or 6 other states throughout the world.

Each nation had it's own vaccination plan, I don't know what the others, in the EU, or elsewhere, are but in France it was to get all the most vulnerable people vaccinated first and all the care homes vaccinated, in my department 99.8% have been vaccinated, in the neighbouring department 100%. Most of the vaccines have been from Pfizer.

The next stage which started a couple of weeks ago or so was to supply the various vaccination centres. Locally it was announced that our local town, we live in a very rural area, will be supplied with Pfizer and the next town about 30km away will be supplied with AZ. Hence probably why you think there is stockpiling, They started delivering these vaccines to the centres and it seems that there will be a shortfall of AZ

Timewise the French PM announced on 14th, four days ago that he was not delaying the AZ rollout, on the 15th it was delayed with an announcement expected today as to whether the pause will be stopped.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I know I’m the master of pointless arguments but is anyone else finding the bickering about EU vs UK procurement strategies unbelievably tedious ? Maybe a separate thread would be best for that? I think one was started a while back?

Then we can keep this thread for discussing the actual vaccines?

 

[OleBoiii]

Breaking news from Norway(news only in Norwegian, so no point in posting): the AZ vaccine was the cause for the 3 nurses who were hospitalised(one of them, a healthy woman in her 40's, died).

 

[redshaw]

Good news for Canada and Mexico is they might be getting some of the US AZ stockpile. US have around 30-40 million AZ vaccines with 50 million by April unused as AZ have not been approved, it's still going through US trials so AZ haven't applied yet.

It's a shame the EU couldn't have secured these, could do with them right now.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Breaking news from Norway(news only in Norwegian, so no point in posting): the AZ vaccine was the cause for the 3 nurses who were hospitalised(one of them, a healthy woman in her 40's, died).

Post it anyway. Google translate is pretty smart these days.

 

[OleBoiii]

Post it anyway. Google translate is pretty smart these days.

Overlege og professor Pål Andre Holme ved OUS Rikshospitalet sier til VG at de har funnet årsaken til hvorfor tre innlagte helsearbeiderne fikk blodpropp.

Han forteller at AstraZeneca-vaksinen utløste en kraftig immunrespons.

– I samarbeid med seksjon for avansert trombocytt ved UNN har vi nå påvist spesifikke antistoffer mot blodplater som kan gi et slikt bilde, som vi kjenner fra andre deler av medisinen, men da med medikamenter som utløsende årsak, forklarer overlegen overfor VG.

Holme har ledet arbeidet med å undersøke om de mistenkte bivirkningene har en sammenheng med koronavaksinen til AstraZeneca.

https://www.nrk.no/nyheter/vg_-har-funnet-blodpropparsak-1.15422678

EDIT:
More detailed: https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks...tenkte-vaksinebivirkninger-aarsaken-er-funnet

 

[711]

I know I’m the master of pointless arguments but is anyone else finding the bickering about EU vs UK procurement strategies unbelievably tedious ? Maybe a separate thread would be best for that? I think one was started a while back?

Then we can keep this thread for discussing the actual vaccines?

You're right. It would be better separated.

 

[redshaw]

In Denmark they're theorizing sometimes the vaccine could be injected wrongly, supposed to be skin spread out but often it's just pinched between finger and thumb and can go wrong very rarely. You would think other vaccines would show this possibly though but perhaps with AZ used for younger people it could be harder to see the vessels.
Dansk professor har teori: Forkert vaccineteknik kan udløse blodpropper | BT Samfund - www.bt.dk

 

[Pogue Mahone]

https://www.nrk.no/nyheter/vg_-har-funnet-blodpropparsak-1.15422678

EDIT:
More detailed: https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks...tenkte-vaksinebivirkninger-aarsaken-er-funnet

Interesting. Thanks. This is the key section (in English)

Our theory that this is a strong immune response that most likely comes after the vaccine, has been found. In collaboration with the section for advanced platelet immunology at UNN, we have now detected specific antibodies against platelets that can give such an image, which we know from other parts of medicine, but with drugs as the triggering cause.
- You say most likely?
- We have the reason. And there is no other thing than the vaccine that can explain that we have received that immune response, says Holme.
- Why is it nothing more than the vaccine?
- Because we have no other history in these patients that can give such a strong immune response. I'm pretty sure it's these antibodies that's the cause, and I see no other reason than that it's the vaccine that triggers it.

The only proviso I would add is that the “strong immune response” might be undiagnosed covid.

 

[OleBoiii]

Interesting. Thanks. This is the key section (in English)

No problem!

Google Translate has become really good!

 

[NinjaFletch]

Interesting. Thanks. This is the key section (in English)



The only proviso I would add is that the “strong immune response” might be undiagnosed covid.

Can you translate from English into medical dummy English?

 

[Phil]

I know I’m the master of pointless arguments but is anyone else finding the bickering about EU vs UK procurement strategies unbelievably tedious ? Maybe a separate thread would be best for that? I think one was started a while back?

Then we can keep this thread for discussing the actual vaccines?

Please god yes. They go on and on with some absolutely terrible points being made, I would very much enjoy not having to see it.

 

[Dumbstar]

Interesting. Thanks. This is the key section (in English)



The only proviso I would add is that the “strong immune response” might be undiagnosed covid.

Wouldn't the doctors have checked if these patients were covid positive? Genuine question, did they overlook this?

 

[redshaw]

Looks like Norway will drop AZ.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Can you translate from English into medical dummy English?

All these patients had low platelets, which are involved in blood clotting. They’ve found antibodies against platelets in all of them. So they concluded that they got sick because of a vigorous immune response against things other than the virus. And the vaccine is the most likely cause of that vigorous immune response.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Wouldn't the doctors have checked if these patients were covid positive? Genuine question, did they overlook this?

Would have thought so, yes.

 

[11101]

All these patients had low platelets, which are involved in blood clotting. They’ve found antibodies against platelets in all of them. So they concluded that they got sick because of a vigorous immune response against things other than the virus. And the vaccine is the most likely cause of that vigorous immune response.

So the next step is to understand why those patients had that response? And whether they would have had it to the actual virus too?

Though i suppose neither of those things help the vaccine's case much.

 

[Dumbstar]

All these patients had low platelets, which are involved in blood clotting. They’ve found antibodies against platelets in all of them. So they concluded that they got sick because of a vigorous immune response against things other than the virus. And the vaccine is the most likely cause of that vigorous immune response.

This is not good. Would other vaccines (anti bodies from vaccines) not also attack these platelets? Is this a stop to all vaccines until further studies?

 

[Mickeza]

The only proviso I would add is that the “strong immune response” might be undiagnosed covid.

Could help explain why it was younger people. Could this not also be a potential issue with other vaccines if it’s linked to antibody production? Or do the vaccines produce different antibodies? Now we know about it I wonder what we can do to mitigate the risk of that strong immune response. Certain signs to look for etc.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Could help explain why it was younger people. Could this not also be a potential issue with other vaccines if it’s linked to antibody production? Or do the vaccines produce different antibodies? Now we know about it I wonder what we can do to mitigate the risk of that strong immune response. Certain signs to look for etc.

The vaccines all work by using our own protein manufacturing mechanisms to churn out viral spike proteins, so you would worry about a common mechanism. But the mRNA vaccines use a fundamentally different mechanism. There is no viral vector. Which might make a significant difference. Feck knows though. I’m starting to get quite worried

 

[NinjaFletch]

All these patients had low platelets, which are involved in blood clotting. They’ve found antibodies against platelets in all of them. So they concluded that they got sick because of a vigorous immune response against things other than the virus. And the vaccine is the most likely cause of that vigorous immune response.

Thank you! Same question as below, and is there any speculation why there's a relatively high number of these events clustered in Norway vs virtually no evidence of this elsewhere?

So the next step is to understand why those patients had that response? And whether they would have had it to the actual virus too?

Though i suppose neither of those things help the vaccine's case much.

 

[lynchie]

If there's a specific antibody that they've identified as the cause, then how practical would it be to screen people who recently had the AZ vaccine for those antibodies? Seems like that would give a good picture of whether this is a general thing, or batch specific.

 

[jojojo]

Wouldn't the doctors have checked if these patients were covid positive? Genuine question, did they overlook this?

I guess they could be past the stage where it shows up on PCR. But presumably they would still show antibodies to covid (not just to the spike protein).

I did wonder if the adenovirus that AZ uses might be the thing that makes it different. People will react to that as well as to the spikes.

It still doesn't quite get past the question of "why Norway" where the number of AZ vaccines used so far must be quite low. I guess it might even be that the 12 week delay between jabs has helped protect UK recipients. I wonder if these reactions occurred on jab 2? Just a thought.

 

[NinjaFletch]

I guess they could be past the stage where it shows up on PCR. But presumably they would still show antibodies to covid (not just to the spike protein).

I did wonder if the adenovirus that AZ uses might be the thing that makes it different. .

It still doesn't quite get past the question of "why Norway" where the number of AZ vaccines used so far must be quite low. I guess it might even be that the 12 week delay between jabs has helped protect UK recipients. I wonder if these reactions occurred on jab 2? Just a thought.

But three weeks was the spacing used in the trial, right? So if that was the issue presumably you'd expect to see it then as well.

It's definitely wishful thinking but is there any chance it might be to do with improper storage?

 

[Dumbstar]

So once this news hits mainstream UK media in the next few hours there will be many calls to delay or cancel vaccinations. My jab is on Monday and I'm still looking forward to it.

But if I heard about this a few weeks ago when my mum was about to get her's there is no way I would have opted the AZ for her. She has compromised platelet production. Thankfully the AZ she got doesn't seem to have affected her and the second dose is 6 weeks away by which time we should have more clarity.