Astra Zeneca



Jap Stammer

Winger
We also don’t know potential long term effects of the vaccine itself
Look on it as an altruistic gesture towards your fellow man.

If you have the vaccine you are far less likely to contract the disease therefore far less likely to pass it on to someone else who may die from it. Also you reduce the transmission rate, reducing the chance of possible, more dangerous, mutations.

From that perspective it would be as selfish not to have the vaccine as it is to refuse to wear a mask and 'social distance' to protect others.
 

janiep

Striker
We also don’t know potential long term effects of the vaccine itself
True, but we can make educated projections for both. There have been studies of survivors from the 2003 SARS outbreak (another form of corona) about the impact on their medium to long term health, for example.
 
Look on it as an altruistic gesture towards your fellow man.

If you have the vaccine you are far less likely to contract the disease therefore far less likely to pass it on to someone else who may die from it. Also you reduce the transmission rate, reducing the chance of possible, more dangerous, mutations.

From that perspective it would be as selfish not to have the vaccine as it is to refuse to wear a mask and 'social distance' to protect others.

The people who may die from Covid should have already been vaccinated.

There is no need to vaccinate young and healthy people as far as I can tell - the risk of getting a serious side effect from the jab is greater than the risk of actually getting the virus for people in that age bracket, based on what we know at this point.
 
Last edited:
Look on it as an altruistic gesture towards your fellow man.

If you have the vaccine you are far less likely to contract the disease therefore far less likely to pass it on to someone else who may die from it. Also you reduce the transmission rate, reducing the chance of possible, more dangerous, mutations.

From that perspective it would be as selfish not to have the vaccine as it is to refuse to wear a mask and 'social distance' to protect others.
Not sure the families of those that have died from such clots would agree
 
The people who may die from Covid should have already been vaccinated.

There is no need to vaccinate young and healthy people as far as I can tell - the risk of getting a serious side effect is greater than the risk of getting the actual virus for people in that age bracket.

It looks like it stops transmission so it’s very important for fit and healthy people to have it in order to stop spread and more potent strains emerging which could prove a problem if the current vaccines were ineffective against it.
 

Jap Stammer

Winger
Not sure the families of those that have died from such clots would agree
There was one on the BBC news tonight - she understood that it was a tiny, tiny chance and that her brother who died was desperately unlucky to do so. She stated on camera that she would still encourage people to get the AZ vaccine if offered it.

Risk versus reward is a part of normal life.

If you don't get vaccinated and reduce the lines of transmission you could be one of the reasons for the emergence of a vaccine-busting variant that f@cks the lot of us.
Not sure the families of those that have died from such clots would agree
There was one on the BBC news tonight - she understood that it was a tiny, tiny chance and that her brother who died was desperately unlucky to do so. She stated on camera that she would still encourage people to get the AZ vaccine if offered it.

Risk versus reward is a part of normal life.

If you don't get vaccinated and reduce the lines of transmission you could be one of the reasons for the emergence of a vaccine-busting variant that f@cks the lot of us.
The people who may die from Covid should have already been vaccinated.

There is no need to vaccinate young and healthy people as far as I can tell - the risk of getting a serious side effect from the jab is greater than the risk of actually getting the virus for people in that age bracket, based on what we know at this point.
Hang on. We've been told for months now on here that it still affects younger people - ie. 'The majority of people in ICU are under 50', 'Long Covid affects younger people', etc.

You can't have it both ways.

It was stated on the news tonight that you have more chance of getting dangerous blood clots from a transatlantic flight than from the AZ vaccine. Are people going to stop flying now?

A quick google found this - "Exact figures are not available, but if you are healthy and having a non-emergency surgery, the risk of dying is 1 in 100,000 from general anaesthetics. For every 100,000 Caesarean sections, one death happens due to the anaesthetic alone."

Are we now going to stop operations and C-sections because of those roughly comparable odds?
 
Last edited:
There was one on the BBC news tonight - she understood that it was a tiny, tiny chance and that her brother who died was desperately unlucky to do so. She stated on camera that she would still encourage people to get the AZ vaccine if offered it.

Risk versus reward is a part of normal life.

If you don't get vaccinated and reduce the lines of transmission you could be one of the reasons for the emergence of a vaccine-busting variant that f@cks the lot of us.

There was one on the BBC news tonight - she understood that it was a tiny, tiny chance and that her brother who died was desperately unlucky to do so. She stated on camera that she would still encourage people to get the AZ vaccine if offered it.

Risk versus reward is a part of normal life.

If you don't get vaccinated and reduce the lines of transmission you could be one of the reasons for the emergence of a vaccine-busting variant that f@cks the lot of us.

Hang on. We've been told for months now on here that it still affects younger people - ie. 'The majority of people in ICU are under 50', 'Long Covid affects younger people', etc.

You can't have it both ways.

It was stated on the news tonight that you have more chance of getting dangerous blood clots from a transatlantic flight than from the AZ vaccine. Are people going to stop flying now?

A quick google found this - "Exact figures are not available, but if you are healthy and having a non-emergency surgery, the risk of dying is 1 in 100,000 from general anaesthetics. For every 100,000 Caesarean sections, one death happens due to the anaesthetic alone."

Are we now going to stop operations and C-sections because of those roughly comparable odds?
It’s all about the risk versus reward part of it though. For an 80 year old for instance, the reward is clearly there. For a woman having a baby that is having certain issues and a section is needed, the reward of the c-section is clearly there. For a person having an essential operation like getting cancer removed, the reward is clearly there.

As stated on the bbc report based on the governments research, the reward isn’t there for younger people to get the vaccine and accept the, granted minimal, risk. It’s akin to me asking if you want to bet £10 on Sunderland winning League One, on one hand I’ll give you 10p if we win and on the other I’ll give you £10k. One bet you’d take and the other you wouldn’t.

What I’d like the government to do is to start being truthful about this so we can actually make our own decisions on this ourselves. On Monday, it was all politics by the EU, now it’s banned for 29 year olds but fine for 31 year olds to have it. Seems a rather arbitrary cut off.
Why not. I have an opinion. If you can’t handle it put me on ignore. I didn’t reply to you. As I said I’m not arsed. It’s time people made decisions for themselves.
Hard to make your own decisions when your own government change their story every week, which is my point. Put the information out there and I can decide for myself, instead of this hypocritical rhetoric they keep coming out with
 
Last edited:
It’s all about the risk versus reward part of it though. For an 80 year old for instance, the reward is clearly there. For a woman having a baby that is having certain issues and a section is needed, the reward of the c-section is clearly there. For a person having an essential operation like getting cancer removed, the reward is clearly there.

As stated on the bbc report based on the governments research, the reward isn’t there for younger people to get the vaccine and accept the, granted minimal, risk. It’s akin to me asking if you want to bet £10 on Sunderland winning League One, on one hand I’ll give you 10p if we win and on the other I’ll give you £10k. One bet you’d take and the other you wouldn’t.

What I’d like the government to do is to start being truthful about this so we can actually make our own decisions on this ourselves. On Monday, it was all politics by the EU, now it’s banned for 29 year olds but fine for 31 year olds to have it. Seems a rather arbitrary cut off.

Hard to make your own decisions when your own government change their story every week, which is my point. Put the information out there and I can decide for myself, instead of this hypocritical rhetoric they keep coming out with

It isn't banned for under 30s since you're so keen on being clear and truthful. It's a recommendation.
 
Nothing to do with grammar, you can't ask for clarity while also continually twisting a recommendation into a ban. It's two different things.
The government acted on a recommendation and instigated a ban on the vaccine for under 30s in England. They are not to be given the vaccine.
 

Jap Stammer

Winger
There was one on the BBC news tonight - she understood that it was a tiny, tiny chance and that her brother who died was desperately unlucky to do so. She stated on camera that she would still encourage people to get the AZ vaccine if offered it.

Risk versus reward is a part of normal life.

If you don't get vaccinated and reduce the lines of transmission you could be one of the reasons for the emergence of a vaccine-busting variant that f@cks the lot of us.

Hang on. We've been told for months now on here that it still affects younger people - ie. 'The majority of people in ICU are under 50', 'Long Covid affects younger people', etc.

You can't have it both ways.

It was stated on the news tonight that you have more chance of getting dangerous blood clots from a transatlantic flight than from the AZ vaccine. Are people going to stop flying now?

A quick google found this - "Exact figures are not available, but if you are healthy and having a non-emergency surgery, the risk of dying is 1 in 100,000 from general anaesthetics. For every 100,000 Caesarean sections, one death happens due to the anaesthetic alone."

Are we now going to stop operations and C-sections because of those roughly comparable odds?

It’s all about the risk versus reward part of it though. For an 80 year old for instance, the reward is clearly there. For a woman having a baby that is having certain issues and a section is needed, the reward of the c-section is clearly there. For a person having an essential operation like getting cancer removed, the reward is clearly there.

As stated on the bbc report based on the governments research, the reward isn’t there for younger people to get the vaccine and accept the, granted minimal, risk. It’s akin to me asking if you want to bet £10 on Sunderland winning League One, on one hand I’ll give you 10p if we win and on the other I’ll give you £10k. One bet you’d take and the other you wouldn’t.

What I’d like the government to do is to start being truthful about this so we can actually make our own decisions on this ourselves. On Monday, it was all politics by the EU, now it’s banned for 29 year olds but fine for 31 year olds to have it. Seems a rather arbitrary cut off.

Hard to make your own decisions when your own government change their story every week, which is my point. Put the information out there and I can decide for myself, instead of this hypocritical rhetoric they keep coming out with
I tend to agree with most of what you're saying but the more people vaccinated reduces the chance of transmission and reduces the chances of a new variant emerging that could be used as an excuse to extend restrictions.
 
I tend to agree with most of what you're saying but the more people vaccinated reduces the chance of transmission and reduces the chances of a new variant emerging that could be used as an excuse to extend restrictions.
Yes, sure that is correct. However, it’s not as if the choice is AZ or no vaccine - there are other vaccines available that can be given to individuals without the same evidence of blood clot risk. Like I said, I just want them to be truthful about it. Something is not right when half of Europe has banned it for use on under 60s (roughly, chances slightly per country), but it’s only under 30s here. I suspect they’ll change their advice several more times in the coming weeks
 
The government acted on a recommendation and instigated a ban on the vaccine for under 30s in England. They are not to be given the vaccine.
In fairness I was convinced it said recommendation, but I now can't find anything that clears it up either way, some places are saying ban, some are saying "should be offered an alternative", so fair enough, I could be wrong.
 

sambantam82

Midfield
In fairness I was convinced it said recommendation, but I now can't find anything that clears it up either way, some places are saying ban, some are saying "should be offered an alternative", so fair enough, I could be wrong.

I also misinterpreted 'offered an alternative' as being asked. It seems 'offered an alternative' as in given something else.

Either way it is a good idea as inevitably the media attention over the last few days will mean that take up could be seriously affected. I reckon the decision to offer an alternative is not borne out of safety concerns but rather fears that the media attention will mean that young people won't take the AZ vaccine.
 
Last edited:

Hyltonian

Midfield
In fairness I was convinced it said recommendation, but I now can't find anything that clears it up either way, some places are saying ban, some are saying "should be offered an alternative", so fair enough, I could be wrong.
I’ve also understood it to be recommendation rather than an outright ban, most articles say under 30s should be offered an alternative where available, which implies to me they can still have the AZ if they’re comfortable with that.
 
I also misinterpreted 'offered an alternative' as being asked. It seems 'offered an alternative' as in given something else.

Either way it is a good idea as inevitably the media attention over the last few days will mean that take up could be seriously affected. I reckon the decision to offer an alternative is not borne out of safety concerns but rather fears that the media attention will mean that young people won't take the AZ vaccine.
The only thing I worry about is it gives legitimacy to anti-vaxxers.
I’ve also understood it to be recommendation rather than an outright ban, most articles say under 30s should be offered an alternative where available, which implies to me they can still have the AZ if they’re comfortable with that.
Does read that way but I think @sambantam82 above is right, when they say "offered an alternative", they mean there will be no offer of AZ and something else in it's place.
 
Last edited:

Top