If it was just one batch then I’d want to know what was different from other batches and how is that going to be screened out going forward?
It makes it sound like the vaccine triggered the same immune response that covid does in some people.
If it was just one batch then I’d want to know what was different from other batches and how is that going to be screened out going forward?
It makes it sound like the vaccine triggered the same immune response that covid does in some people.
I don’t see anything in the data that suggests there is a legitimate reason to investigate. The data simply doesn’t show any rate of blood clotting over and above an unvaccinated population. The data does not suggest a bad batch either.
If they pause for this non-signal then the risk is that there will be a call to pause for every other non-signal for any and every vaccine. Public perception of safety is harmed as a result.
The latest estimate I’ve heard is that the pausing of the AZ jab will cost, at a minimum, 15 lives a day and many,many more cases of severe clotting brought on by not being vaccinated (because clotting is a very present risk of severe covid)
Absent any huge rise in adverse effects there should be a continuation of the program with an ongoing investigation into all adverse effects. Which is, exactly what is going on anyway.
Can you share the data you’ve seen, specific to batch?
The small number of observations are spread across multiple batches, the thinking about a “bad batch” rose from an Austrian observation but that has not been borne out by observations elesewhere. Believe me, the system in place for tracking and mapping adverse events is very robust.
I’m not qualified to say, but it does sound like they should not pause, because of the vaccine’s benefits. But to say they shouldn’t even investigate, when there is some concerning data also makes no sense.
According to your link, Germany has seen a rate if cerebral clots that is above expected numbers. It’s still a low risk, but warrants investigation.
And there is a disconnect in the data. It’s been pointed out that the clot incidence is lower in the vaccinated population, and that the monitoring is very close. But clot incidence is 1/1000. That would mean that clots are 300x less likely in the vaccinated population. That suggests that there’s either a big data collection problem or very different populations.
And in Germany at least, the reports are of multiple instances of a very rare type of cerebral thrombosis, at a greater rate than expected.
And, again, I’m not qualified and don’t have access to the data that the experts making these calls do. And I doubt anyone here does either. Certainly not enough to pronounce that experts are wrong to even investigate a risk.
I am in favor of whatever gets the most people vaccinated. If pausing use of the AZ vaccine for a few weeks puts the public at ease and results in more vaccinated people in the long run, I am in favor of that. If, in fact, not that many people would reject the AZ vaccine were it still available, and keeping it available would result in more vaccinated people in the long run, I am in favor of that.
However, I am slightly skeptical of data that suggests statistically significant lower rates of clots in the vaccinated population. Vaccinated people are probably more likely to see doctors on a regular basis, and therefore probably more likely to be on bloodthinners if they need them. In the unvaccinated (but eligible) population, you probably have more people who need bloodthinners but are not on them.
And yes, I realize that nearly all the countries that have paused the vaccine have socialized medicine; there are still going to be lots of people who don’t see doctors on a regular basis. Not for the same reasons as in the US, but still, lots of people.
There is an ongoing investigation anyway, it is part of any emergency usage roll-out to closely monitor any and all adverse effects. No-one has said don’t investigate, my advice would be “don’t pause”. Even if there proves to be a link you will be hurting more people than you harm.
Are they above expected numbers? Remember that the population being vaccinated is not a fair representation of the population as a whole.
Can you show how you worked that out and where the figures come from? You are right that the vaccinated and non-vaccinated populations are very different and that needs to be considered when calculating relative risks and occurrences.
They aren’t wrong to investigate (and again, just for emphasis…no-one is saying that and the data for all of these adverse effects get analysed) but even based on an optimistic reading of the numbers seen they are wrong to pause the use. In the few days already far more people have been harmed by this action than will be affected by vaccine-caused clotting issues, even if a causal link is shown.
And the general mood-music I’m hearing in the media is that it is having a chilling effect on vaccine uptake in some places and that can’t be good. As I said previously, it sets a damaging precedent.
I’ve just got my first appointment for this Sunday. I don’t know what I’m getting and I don’t care. I have zero concerns about the AZ jab.
That is what I was responding to. I see that at the end, you say they should continue to investigate, so I guess I misunderstood.
An article that had numbers: Does Pfizer vaccine cause more blood clots than the AstraZeneca Covid jab? | Express.co.uk
Your own linked article is the one that says the German cerebral thrombosis numbers are higher than average.
That’s not what it says, the only reference I can find is this comment
The health minister, Jens Spahn, said seven cases of cerebral vein thrombosis had been reported.
While this was a “very low risk” compared with the 1.6m jabs already given in the country, Spahn said, it would be above average if a link to the vaccine was confirmed. “The decision today is a purely precautionary measure,” he said.
The boldened bit makes no sense. If a link to the vaccine were proved then “average” ceases to have any relevance you’ve already established the link. In any case it does not show what population averages are being compared which is crucial to understanding what is going on, especially when you are dealing with tiny rates of occurrences.
I think you may have mixed up blood clot incidence in contraceptive pill users compared to the risk of blood clots from the vaccine, from the article
Even the women’s contraceptive pill, which is known to directly contribute to clots, is linked to blood clots in about one in 1,000 women per year.
This is considered a “very small risk”, according to the National Blood Clot Alliance in the US.
Even if all the blood clots reported in the UK so far were definitely linked to the AstraZeneca vaccine, the risk would be about one in every 323,000 people – equating to 323 times less than risks with the pill.
The Polish PM’s Chief of Staff is going all conspiracy theory, espousing that there’s a concerted disinformation campaign against the AZ vaccine. Ooh, I love a thickening plot.
From Newsweek
“Most countries that have temporarily suspended [AstraZeneca] vaccinations have given in to panic caused by media-fueled information about alleged complications,” Dworczyk said, according to a Euronews editor.
“In my opinion, it is possible that we are dealing with a planned disinformation campaign and a brutal fight by medical companies, possibly supported by the countries in which these companies are registered,” he added.
The average rate is very much relevant, because you need to compare the population that’s gotten the vaccine to the overall average rate of thrombosis as part of figuring out if there’s a link
Sure but that is not what that sentence says, it may be a mangled translation or a mis-speak but it makes no sense as written and is thin on figures and explanation.
That’s weird. That part was not there when I read it. The incidence in vaccinated people being in the 300,000s I got by dividing the reported numbers of vaccinations by the number of reported blood clots, both of which were provided in that article. The 1/1000 number I got from Google as an overall rate of blood clots, not a rate associated with BC pills.
And you’re wrong about the Germany bit. It says there’s a higher than average number of cases of this rare cerebral thrombosis. It suggests (though it isn’t clear) that there have been allegations that these people had all been recently vaccinated with the Oxford vaccine. They still need to confirm both parts of that, but if it’s proven, then it will be a (low) risk associated with the vaccine. If it’s disproven, then it’s still an above average rate, but not associated with the vaccine.
Well the wording is so clumsy as to leave me uncertain as to what he means, that is either a journalistic failing or the politician in question being imprecise (say it ain’t so!). The number of those cases is either above average or it is not and it is not changed by identifying the cause as being the vaccine or not (which is clearly what the wording implies).
One huge problem is getting a feel for how many cases of that type one would expect to see in the cohort of people currently receiving the vaccine (you can’t compare it to the population as a whole) With such a sporadic event even tiny fluctuations can screw up those calculations.
That is one reason why, with limited information, I see no reason to doubt out of hand public health officials who are concerned. Even with complete information, I would not be qualified to second-guess them, nor would most people.
We disagree about what the wording implies, but the expert was speaking in the context of whether this issue will prove to be an additional small risk of the vaccine. I presume it means what makes sense in that context, and that meaning is one of the possible implications of the words used.
This seems like it could be similar to the anaphylactic reactions to the Pfizer vaccine. A rare, but potentially serious side-effect that does not mean the vaccine should not be given. It seems like there was a similar pattern of brushing that one off as well, by non-experts. It could prove out either way, but it seems silly to me that random people on a message board are drawing conclusions at all based on such incomplete information, let alone conclusions contrary to public health experts who have much more information.
I have read separately that Russia is trying to spread FUD about other vaccines, to burnish their own, as well as to hurt their political opponents. Interesting claim.
The public health experts are saying it is safe.
Some of them are saying it warrants investigation and may be an additional risk of the vaccine. The experts are saying that the vaccine benefits still outweigh the risks.
I’m not sure if any of the decisions to pause are coming from public health experts vs. political officials.
I have the same question. Nothing I’ve seen yet sways me into thinking it’s more risky, but I’ve seen quite a few efficacy trials that are unconvincing.
This preprint in the Lancet in February was fascinating, it showed that for AZ the best efficacy came with longer delays between the second booster shot, >=12 weeks…but even then, it was less efficacious than the other vaccines at 81.3%, though to be fair the very edge of the confidence interval contains 90%.
yes, that’s great but they have to show their work. I had a specialist misdiagnose something and it almost cost me my leg. Unless the health experts are involved directly with each case then it’s just someone spouting numbers. People aren’t interested in a statistical analysis of potential problems. They want to know if those in question have been thoroughly examined and a determination made based on the examinations and not probability.
Years ago I was taking a medication that had a side effect of muscle cramps. Since I never got muscle cramps in my life I thought it best to stop taking it in case it affected the heart. It was an absolutely safe drug right up to the day they pulled it from the market because people were dying from heart attacks.