Astra Zeneca

sketchy

Winger
Some expert on the radio was quoting 1 in a million for someone under 30 to die of COVID and 4 in a million to get a blood clot. Both very statistically small events, but still makes you think twice. Worth noting too that the blood clots seem to occur more frequently in women than men for whatever reason.

I did say ages ago on here mind that I was happy to be 31 and at the back of the vaccine queue, so they can be effectively tested on everyone else first. Looks like a good position to have taken - god knows how this will change by the time I get offered a vaccine

This is a very fair and valid point. Think this’ll develop a lot more on all fronts by the time the younger ones are vaccinated anyway and we’ll have a different picture again

I think it's been said it's not more common in woman it's just that more woman had been vaccinated so it skewed those figures. Can't remember where I read that though.
 


At the start of this thread the story was that the regulators were saying there’s no link between Astra Zeneca jabs and blood clots. Politicians appeared to disagree, despite being advised differently, and not being scientists or regulators and were consequently introducing curbs on vaccines to certain age group. It’s ‘political’ we all said.

And now; the regulators are saying that the evidence points to the ‘political driven’ concerns actually being correct and that there IS a link with blood clots.

Were the politicians prescient? Were the regulators being rigidly reliant on data when ordinary non-scientists were interpreting likelihood in a less protocol driven fashion? Were we being lied to?

We’ve all heard and understand the statements that the incidence of blood clot side effects is extremely low. And we understand that’s based on evidence and statistical analysis. But people remember. That the previous statements were founded on the same principles. Regardless of this, if you’re one of the very few people who had the most serious form of this side effect you are 100% dead.

There’ll come a time when we know as little about brands and formulations of covid vaccine as we (think) we know about flu vaccine. Very few people, I’d guess, ask about flu vaccine manufacture, different types, incidence of serious side effects ...those who get it, just accept what we’re told. But then flu, despite being deadly for some, is less contagious and, currently, less deadly that covid. And it’s been part of our lives for centuries.

I’m not making any particular point here except that we perhaps need to accept that ‘science’ isn’t precise because scientists aren’t infallible and we are still figuring out exactly what the virus is and how the vaccine works. It’s understandable that people are sometimes reluctant to accept that what were perceived as ‘facts’ sometimes actually aren’t. They are possibilities and probability.

I get my second jab in May. The probability is that I’ll be protected. That’s ok with me.
 

DEfromBC

Midfield
I think it's been said it's not more common in woman it's just that more woman had been vaccinated so it skewed those figures. Can't remember where I read that though.
Its just been stated on BBC. More under 30 health workers are women so they have received the majority of the AZ vaccine. However 20 women v 10 men is not a huge sample to base a statistic on
 
At the start of this thread the story was that the regulators were saying there’s no link between Astra Zeneca jabs and blood clots. Politicians appeared to disagree, despite being advised differently, and not being scientists or regulators and were consequently introducing curbs on vaccines to certain age group. It’s ‘political’ we all said.

And now; the regulators are saying that the evidence points to the ‘political driven’ concerns actually being correct and that there IS a link with blood clots.

Were the politicians prescient? Were the regulators being rigidly reliant on data when ordinary non-scientists were interpreting likelihood in a less protocol driven fashion? Were we being lied to?

We’ve all heard and understand the statements that the incidence of blood clot side effects is extremely low. And we understand that’s based on evidence and statistical analysis. But people remember. That the previous statements were founded on the same principles. Regardless of this, if you’re one of the very few people who had the most serious form of this side effect you are 100% dead.
Iirc at the time some politicians were saying there were problems with the AZ vaccine both MHRA and the European equivalent were saying the evidence wasn’t there. All that has happened in the meantime is that evidence has come to light as more people have been vaccinated and the regulators have both issued new advice on its use

This shows two things, the regulators are doing their jobs properly and politicians are self centred gobshites
 
I think it's been said it's not more common in woman it's just that more woman had been vaccinated so it skewed those figures. Can't remember where I read that though.
That's true... Mainly because more under 50s women are likely to have the jab because they work in social care
 

bahtat

Striker
At the start of this thread the story was that the regulators were saying there’s no link between Astra Zeneca jabs and blood clots. Politicians appeared to disagree, despite being advised differently, and not being scientists or regulators and were consequently introducing curbs on vaccines to certain age group. It’s ‘political’ we all said.

And now; the regulators are saying that the evidence points to the ‘political driven’ concerns actually being correct and that there IS a link with blood clots.

Were the politicians prescient? Were the regulators being rigidly reliant on data when ordinary non-scientists were interpreting likelihood in a less protocol driven fashion? Were we being lied to?

We’ve all heard and understand the statements that the incidence of blood clot side effects is extremely low. And we understand that’s based on evidence and statistical analysis. But people remember. That the previous statements were founded on the same principles. Regardless of this, if you’re one of the very few people who had the most serious form of this side effect you are 100% dead.

There’ll come a time when we know as little about brands and formulations of covid vaccine as we (think) we know about flu vaccine. Very few people, I’d guess, ask about flu vaccine manufacture, different types, incidence of serious side effects ...those who get it, just accept what we’re told. But then flu, despite being deadly for some, is less contagious and, currently, less deadly that covid. And it’s been part of our lives for centuries.

I’m not making any particular point here except that we perhaps need to accept that ‘science’ isn’t precise because scientists aren’t infallible and we are still figuring out exactly what the virus is and how the vaccine works. It’s understandable that people are sometimes reluctant to accept that what were perceived as ‘facts’ sometimes actually aren’t. They are possibilities and probability.

I get my second jab in May. The probability is that I’ll be protected. That’s ok with me.

As time goes by the vaccines will be refined and become safer than they are currently

Many on SMB have mentioned that blood clots are a side effect of the pill, We were married when the pill first came on the market and woman dying from clots was if not common certainly not rare back then. since then and based on experience the pill has been refined and whilst clots are still a side effect they are considerably less likely now than they were back in the 1960s
 

FootballFan

Striker
In Catalunya they have decided to suspend AZ for all of those under 60 years of age.

Seems a reasonable decision in the circumstances.
 
Last edited:

S.S.R..

Winger
I had two blood clots in the heart four years ago and am on heart meds for life. Regardless of what any possible new findings show one way or another am I fuck getting this one. I didn't want it in the first place and there is no chance am getting it now. I prefer one of the other two. That isn't politics or anything else shouted about willy-nilly in these freds, it's personal. If that makes me a snowflake or whatever, fine.

Same. I'm not having unnecessary medical treatment for the placebo effect it has on other people.
 
In Catalunya they have decided to suspend AZ for all of those under 60 years of age.

Seems a reasonable decision in the circumstances.
It depends if they have a replacement vaccine or not.

The statistics say there is a far greater chance of contracting COVID than there is of developing blood clots, the latter being a miniscule number. I’d suggest therefore it’s a bad decision that will only increase deaths and further encourage the anti vaccine idiots
 

FootballFan

Striker
It depends if they have a replacement vaccine or not.

The statistics say there is a far greater chance of contracting COVID than there is of developing blood clots, the latter being a miniscule number. I’d suggest therefore it’s a bad decision that will only increase deaths and further encourage the anti vaccine idiots

Its a pretty good decision IMO, if you are one of those that dies of a blood clot you are 100% dead no matter what the odds.

Meanwhile the vaccinations can roll on with AZ for the over 60's and the other two for the under 60's.
 
Some expert on the radio was quoting 1 in a million for someone under 30 to die of COVID and 4 in a million to get a blood clot. Both very statistically small events, but still makes you think twice. Worth noting too that the blood clots seem to occur more frequently in women than men for whatever reason.

Interesting. If you're more likely to suffer serious side effects from the jab than serious consequences of just getting Covid then I don't think you can blame young and healthy people for refusing to take the jab IMO - in fact it would make logical sense to do so.
 
Its a pretty good decision IMO, if you are one of those that dies of a blood clot you are 100% dead no matter what the odds.

Meanwhile the vaccinations can roll on with AZ for the over 60's and the other two for the under 60's.
Statistically you are far more likely to die of COVID than from a vaccine induced blood clot. Not taking the vaccine is akin to believing you are at risk of dying in a car accident so walking down the motorway instead
 

FootballFan

Striker
Statistically you are far more likely to die of COVID than from a vaccine induced blood clot. Not taking the vaccine is akin to believing you are at risk of dying in a car accident so walking down the motorway instead

Not at all, thats a completely spurious analogy. Firstly its the AZ vaccine only that is being limited to over 60's, not the others. The risk factor aligns with age and also behaviour.
 
Statistically you are far more likely to die of COVID than from a vaccine induced blood clot. Not taking the vaccine is akin to believing you are at risk of dying in a car accident so walking down the motorway instead
That’s not true at all though is it? Like I quoted before, some expert on the radio said that the expected death rate from clots from the vaccine is around 4 in a million. The expected death rate from covid itself in under 30s is around 1 in a million - so why would a young person increase his/her likelihood to die by 4 times? By contrast, death rates amongst the elderly, above 80, has been quoted somewhere in the region of 1 in 100, or 10,000 in a million. Obvious benefit to the vaccine for those, of course, but that isn’t true for all age groups of people. Would be interesting to see the risk profile for the intermediary age groups to see where it is and isn’t worth having the AZ vaccine
 
Not at all, thats a completely spurious analogy. Firstly its the AZ vaccine only that is being limited to over 60's, not the others. The risk factor aligns with age and also behaviour.
That’s not the view of the EMA though who yesterday said that Clotting as a very rare side effect and that the benefits of the vaccine outweighed the risk. Also that there was no proven causal link between the AZ vaccine and blood clotting as yet

MHRA advice now is that younger persons take another vaccine, but that’s only because we have vaccine options.
That’s not true at all though is it? Like I quoted before, some expert on the radio said that the expected death rate from clots from the vaccine is around 4 in a million. The expected death rate from covid itself in under 30s is around 1 in a million - so why would a young person increase his/her likelihood to die by 4 times? By contrast, death rates amongst the elderly, above 80, has been quoted somewhere in the region of 1 in 100, or 10,000 in a million. Obvious benefit to the vaccine for those, of course, but that isn’t true for all age groups of people. Would be interesting to see the risk profile for the intermediary age groups to see where it is and isn’t worth having the AZ vaccine
I wasn’t talking specifically about young people, the post I replied to mentioned the under 60’s. Where do you get the one in a million figure from btw?
 
Last edited:
That’s not the view of the EMA though who yesterday said that Clotting as a very rare side effect and that the benefits of the vaccine outweighed the risk. Also that there was no proven causal link between the AZ vaccine and blood clotting as yet

MHRA advice now is that younger persons take another vaccine, but that’s only because we have vaccine options.

I wasn’t talking specifically about young people, the post I replied to mentioned the under 60’s. Where do you get the one in a million figure from btw?
BBC were quoting it yesterday on both tv and radio. Haven’t been able to find a written version, but think it demonstrates the point even if it isn’t quotable. I’m 31, so would like to know whether the AZ is actually less risky for me than COVID or not, sure it’ll all change again before it’s my turn in the queue mind
 

Wild Card

Central Defender
BBC were quoting it yesterday on both tv and radio. Haven’t been able to find a written version, but think it demonstrates the point even if it isn’t quotable. I’m 31, so would like to know whether the AZ is actually less risky for me than COVID or not, sure it’ll all change again before it’s my turn in the queue mind

It is unlikely that covid will kill you at your age but scientists are discovering additional lasting impacts of covid.


Something to factor in when making your decision rather than just chance of death (low in both scenarios for yourself).
 
It is unlikely that covid will kill you at your age but scientists are discovering additional lasting impacts of covid.


Something to factor in when making your decision rather than just chance of death (low in both scenarios for yourself).
Yes of course. Suspect things will move on rapidly in this front in the coming weeks anyway, and I won’t be getting a vaccine before June/July anyway
 

Top