What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

FileNotFound

Sierra 117 wrote: »

Has there been any furhter word on how AZ works against the South African variant? I know it doesn't prevent mild covid but apparently it should still protect against severe covid?

The same "questionnable" as they have been described to me, studies that showed extremely low efficacy against mild to moderate, showed 100% efficacy against severe to hospitalisation.


My understanding is that although you may catch a variant post vaccination it should do limited hard.

The J&J vaccine was tested I think and had 100% against hospitalisation - which if i remember the original argument of stopping the hospitals being overwhlemed would mean success even if we see continued covid positive test results.

FileNotFound

Widescreen wrote: »

I assume all politicians in that cohort 60-69 will be getting AZ, if they don't, unless for some underlying reason, the media should be all over it!

Like anyone in the country they will have the right to say no or yes.


It's a Health Authority and other responsible body decision, politicians are irrelevant in this really. Them getting it means as much as Jimmy down the road getting it, however the press making a big deal may exacerbate a situation.


If NIAC members refused to take it after giving it the go ahead that may be worth a story.

robinph

New study comparing the risk of blood clots in different groups.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-04-15-risk-rare-blood-clotting-higher-covid-19-vaccines

Covid +ve - 39 cases per million
After 1 shot of Pfizer/ Moderna - 4 cases per million
After 1 shot of Astra Zeneca - 5 cases per million

From a Google for the missing stat, risk in general population is 4 per million.

Basically, if you want to avoid the clotting issues then get a vaccine, any vaccine, or lock your doors and don't leave until this all blows over.

rm212

robinph wrote: »

New study comparing the risk of blood clots in different groups.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-04-15-risk-rare-blood-clotting-higher-covid-19-vaccines

Covid +ve - 39 cases per million
After 1 shot of Pfizer/ Moderna - 4 cases per million
After 1 shot of Astra Zeneca - 5 cases per million

From a Google for the missing stat, risk in general population is 4 per million.

Basically, if you want to avoid the clotting issues then get a vaccine, any vaccine, or lock your doors and don't leave until this all blows over.

Why are they using such a small sample size for mRNA vaccines? Far, far more doses have been administered in the EU and worldwide than that.
"In over 480,000 people receiving a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (Pfizer or Moderna), CVT occurred in 4 in a million."

So basically, they're basing their conclusion of "4 in a million" from 2 people out of 480,000? Doesn't sound like a very good study to me, the sample size doesn't even cover the size of the quantifier they are using: 'in a million'.

The COVID risk being greater than AZ I'm sure is true though. It just feels like they threw in some convenient numbers from mRNA to bolster their own vaccine.

robinph

rm212 wrote: »

Why are they using such a small sample size for mRNA vaccines? Far, far more doses have been administered than that.
"In over 480,000 people receiving a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (Pfizer or Moderna), CVT occurred in 4 in a million."

So basically, they're basing their conclusion of "4 in a million" from 2 people out of 480,000? Doesn't sound like a very good study to me, the sample size doesn't even cover the size of the quantifier they are using: 'in a million'.

The COVID risk being greater than AZ I'm sure is true though. It just feels like they threw in some convenient numbers from mRNA to bolster their own vaccine.

Don't know, but it's virtually the same sample size as they used for the covid +ve cases. Would think that half a million people is plenty to show that it's significantly less likely than for the unvaccinated population, and the cases for the vaccinated are negligible.

Even for the unvaccinated covid +ve people, it's still fairly small number of cases.

rm212

robinph wrote: »

Don't know, but it's virtually the same sample size as they used for the covid +ve cases. Would think that half a million people is plenty to show that it's significantly less likely than for the unvaccinated population, and the cases for the vaccinated are negligible.

Even for the unvaccinated covid +ve people, it's still fairly small number of cases.

Oh I have no issue for the mRNA vs COVID or AZ vs COVID comparisons, the samples are good enough to easily show that - in fact the actual paper didn't even include comparisons with AZ, only the news article on the Oxford website did that. It's really just this comparison of mRNA vs AZ which I think the sample size is too small for, as several news outlets are already running away with "study shows blood clot risk the same in Pfizer/Moderna and AZ!".

The FDA for example, only saw three cases of CVT out of 68 million people vaccinated (with two doses each) in the US: https://www.businessinsider.com/covid-vaccine-blood-clot-risk-pfizer-moderna-johnson-and-johnson-2021-4?r=US&IR=T

Zipppy

robinph wrote: »

New study comparing the risk of blood clots in different groups.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-04-15-risk-rare-blood-clotting-higher-covid-19-vaccines

Covid +ve - 39 cases per million
After 1 shot of Pfizer/ Moderna - 4 cases per million
After 1 shot of Astra Zeneca - 5 cases per million

From a Google for the missing stat, risk in general population is 4 per million.

Basically, if you want to avoid the clotting issues then get a vaccine, any vaccine, or lock your doors and don't leave until this all blows over.

The issue with this type of 'study' is that the comparison is risks from receiving a vaccine against risks if you CONTRACT Covid.
For a true comparison you'd need the risk of contracting Covid by the risk of getting a clot if you have Covid...then this could be compared to risk of a clot following a vaccine..
I've basically been sheltering over last year, working from home, not meeting anyone, missus working at home too, shops only early morning and runs at quiet times...so I would assume (hope) that my chances of getting covid are very slim, hence my risks of a clot from covid are virtually nil.
Now however when I get my vaccine the risk will be huge compared to nil.
I'm still getting a vaccine as soon as I can but these studies are daft.

Tyrone212

rm212 wrote: »

Why are they using such a small sample size for mRNA vaccines? Far, far more doses have been administered in the EU and worldwide than that.
"In over 480,000 people receiving a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (Pfizer or Moderna), CVT occurred in 4 in a million."

So basically, they're basing their conclusion of "4 in a million" from 2 people out of 480,000? Doesn't sound like a very good study to me, the sample size doesn't even cover the size of the quantifier they are using: 'in a million'.

The COVID risk being greater than AZ I'm sure is true though. It just feels like they threw in some convenient numbers from mRNA to bolster their own vaccine.

A couple of weeks ago before the UK restricted Oxford for under 30s an article in the Financial Times said there was 2 instances of a rare blood clot after Pfizer vaccination out of 10m in the UK. The difference being it wasn't accompanied with low platelet levels as seen after the AstraZeneca vaccine.

robinph

Zipppy wrote: »

The issue with this type of 'study' is that the comparison is risks from receiving a vaccine against risks if you CONTRACT Covid.
For a true comparison you'd need the risk of contracting Covid by the risk of getting a clot if you have Covid...then this could be compared to risk of a clot following a vaccine..
I've basically been sheltering over last year, working from home, not meeting anyone, missus working at home too, shops only early morning and runs at quiet times...so I would assume (hope) that my chances of getting covid are very slim, hence my risks of a clot from covid are virtually nil.
Now however when I get my vaccine the risk will be huge compared to nil.
I'm still getting a vaccine as soon as I can but these studies are daft.

Which is why I Googled the risk per million for the general population as well, which is essentially the same as for the vaccinated. Now that number may be weighted differently based on age and gender when comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated, but it's certainly not huge for any group.

Baggly

deeperlearning wrote: »

Yeah, they 'should of' (sic).

The number of pontificating illiterates on this thread is bizarre.

Mod

Don't post in this thread again.

Zipppy

robinph wrote: »

Which is why I Googled the risk per million for the general population as well, which is essentially the same as for the vaccinated. Now that number may be weighted differently based on age and gender when comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated, but it's certainly not huge for any group.

Its a strange one... I was due to get the AZ today..I really didn't want AZ..was thrilled when the change occurred.
Now I'm thinking 'ah sure, they're all much the same, give me any'

I'm still happier, I guess, to be getting Pfizer, sometime...soon I hope..

take everything

robinph wrote: »

New study comparing the risk of blood clots in different groups.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-04-15-risk-rare-blood-clotting-higher-covid-19-vaccines

Covid +ve - 39 cases per million
After 1 shot of Pfizer/ Moderna - 4 cases per million
After 1 shot of Astra Zeneca - 5 cases per million

From a Google for the missing stat, risk in general population is 4 per million.

Basically, if you want to avoid the clotting issues then get a vaccine, any vaccine, or lock your doors and don't leave until this all blows over.

So this is a study from Oxford done about a vaccine created by Oxford.
Wouldn't be expecting much objectivity there.

take everything

Zipppy wrote: »

The issue with this type of 'study' is that the comparison is risks from receiving a vaccine against risks if you CONTRACT Covid.
For a true comparison you'd need the risk of contracting Covid by the risk of getting a clot if you have Covid...then this could be compared to risk of a clot following a vaccine..
I've basically been sheltering over last year, working from home, not meeting anyone, missus working at home too, shops only early morning and runs at quiet times...so I would assume (hope) that my chances of getting covid are very slim, hence my risks of a clot from covid are virtually nil.
Now however when I get my vaccine the risk will be huge compared to nil.
I'm still getting a vaccine as soon as I can but these studies are daft.

Exactly.
And an Oxford study on an Oxford vaccine is only ever going to use statistics that will not put them in the most unfavourable light.

Even after that, they fare worse than mRNA vaccines regarding CVT.
And as someone else linked to, i don't believe the rate of CVT with Pfizer is anywhere near what that Oxford study says.

robinph

take everything wrote: »

Exactly.
And an Oxford study on an Oxford vaccine is only ever going to use statistics that will not put them in the most unfavourable light.

Even after that, they fare worse than mRNA vaccines regarding CVT.
And as someone else linked to, i don't believe the rate of CVT with Pfizer is anywhere near what that Oxford study says.

Which would mean that the Pfizer vaccine actually cures blood clots then?

The numbers just say that clotting is close to zero with Astra Zeneca, very slightly closer to zero with Pfizer, very slightly closer again to zero if you don't take a vaccine... And significantly higher (but still pretty low) if you catch covid.

Not seeing the conspiracy here.

take everything

robinph wrote: »

Which would mean that the Pfizer vaccine actually cures blood clots then?

The numbers just say that clotting is close to zero with Astra Zeneca, very slightly closer to zero with Pfizer, very slightly closer again to zero if you don't take a vaccine... And significantly higher (but still pretty low) if you catch covid.

Not seeing the conspiracy here.

I'm not sure where the notion of conspiracy comes in.
Or the notion of a vaccine that cures CVT. Nobody mentioned anything like this.

I'm talking about this study which is an Oxford study on an Oxford vaccine.
I've never heard of any other study referencing CVT rates with Pfizer comparable to those of AZ.

And i think most people accept that someone who has Covid has a worse risk of getting clotting complications.
But that's assuming you have Covid in the first place.
Not if your the average person on the street (or in this case wearing your mask, distancing etc and doing your best not to get Covid) who is yet to get Covid.

So yeah i wouldn't be putting much faith in this Oxford study about an Oxford vaccine.

RubyK

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No idea. Anecdotally, my 70 year old mum is getting her vaccine next week, so there must be a few at least.

My father, 72 with high blood pressure, hasn't received his first jab yet, and no date given as to when he will

robinph

take everything wrote: »

I'm not sure where the notion of conspiracy comes in.
Or the notion of a vaccine that cures CVT. Nobody mentioned anything like this.

Here:

take everything wrote: »

And as someone else linked to, i don't believe the rate of CVT with Pfizer is anywhere near what that Oxford study says.

Cases among the general population are around 4 per million, cases post Pfizer vaccine are around 4 per million according to this study, cases post Astra Zeneca are around 5 per million according to this study.

So if it's "not anywhere near what the Oxford study says" what kind of range are you thinking? Less than the background number of cases is the only way to go.

It's right to be dubious of a study from Oxford about an product from Oxford, but we're not talking about a company here. It's just a bunch of academics who have no commercial interest. Not seeing any numbers to dispute what they have said. The reports shown on the UK YellowCard reporting system don't showing anything wildly different between Astra Zeneca and Pfizer, and I'd expect that this study had more access to the stats, or at least more knowledge of what the various number mean than any of us do.

josip

robinph wrote: »

Here:


Cases among the general population are around 4 per million, cases post Pfizer vaccine are around 4 per million according to this study, cases post Astra Zeneca are around 5 per million according to this study.

So if it's "not anywhere near what the Oxford study says" what kind of range are you thinking? Less than the background number of cases is the only way to go.

It's right to be dubious of a study from Oxford about an product from Oxford, but we're not talking about a company here. It's just a bunch of academics who have no commercial interest. Not seeing any numbers to dispute what they have said. The reports shown on the UK YellowCard reporting system don't showing anything wildly different between Astra Zeneca and Pfizer, and I'd expect that this study had more access to the stats, or at least more knowledge of what the various number mean than any of us do.

Academics usually do have a commercial interest.

Prof Sarah Gilbert, the scientist who led the team that created the Oxford/AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine, is set for a payday of more than £20m as the biotech firm she co-founded prepares to float on the stock market in the US.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/apr/07/astrazeneca-vaccine-scientists-set-for-22m-payday-in-new-york-float

Plus there's the 'publish or die' principle that all academics are beholden to.

take everything

robinph wrote: »

Here:


Cases among the general population are around 4 per million, cases post Pfizer vaccine are around 4 per million according to this study, cases post Astra Zeneca are around 5 per million according to this study.

So if it's "not anywhere near what the Oxford study says" what kind of range are you thinking? Less than the background number of cases is the only way to go.

It's right to be dubious of a study from Oxford about an product from Oxford, but we're not talking about a company here. It's just a bunch of academics who have no commercial interest. Not seeing any numbers to dispute what they have said. The reports shown on the UK YellowCard reporting system don't showing anything wildly different between Astra Zeneca and Pfizer, and I'd expect that this study had more access to the stats, or at least more knowledge of what the various number mean than any of us do.

Look the FDA have said recently that cerebral venous sinus thrombosis is not an issue with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. The European regulators have also said it is not occurring in any other vaccine apart from AZ. That disputes what they say.

So FDA/EMA vs Oxford on an Oxford vaccine. Who to trust.

How do you know that those people don't have commercial interest in their own vaccine. That seems pretty naive.
I never mentioned commerce anyway.
There's a lot more at stake than commerce.
Reputation of Oxford for one.

robinph

josip wrote: »

Academics usually do have a commercial interest.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/apr/07/astrazeneca-vaccine-scientists-set-for-22m-payday-in-new-york-float

Plus there's the 'publish or die' principle that all academics are beholden to.

So someone different then.



Are there any gaping holes in the numbers that the study has stated?

It says that risk of clots from Covid is higher than from both types of vaccines, and risk from vaccines is basically the same as the background level of clots. Which is the same as all health regulators around the world have been saying and fits with the numbers that have been published by multiple different countries reporting systems that we've seen so far.

quokula

take everything wrote: »

Look the FDA have said recently that cerebral venous sinus thrombosis is not an issue with either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. The European regulators have also said it is not occurring in any other vaccine apart from AZ. That disputes what they say.

So FDA/EMA vs Oxford on an Oxford vaccine. Who to trust.

How do you know that those people don't have commercial interest in their own vaccine. That seems pretty naive.
I never mentioned commerce anyway.
There's a lot more at stake than commerce.
Reputation of Oxford for one.

The study is odd too because if you go into the data, you will see that they have actual rigorous measurements and control groups for people with covid and people with MRNA vaccines versus number of clots, where they seem to be intent on finding all cases and have ended up calculating 39 per million or 4 per million respectively.

But then for the AZ vaccine itself, they have no such actual measurements and instead just use "reported" cases where the only source is an EMA press release saying how many cases have been specifically reported to them, divided by the number of vaccines given in total including the UK which is outside of the EMA's jurisdiction, which doesn't seem like anywhere near as an exhaustive or accurate methodology as they've used for the other two cases.

39 per million for covid is kind of meaningless anyway since blood clots are way, way down the list of the most severe symptoms, so you may only be 10 times more likely to get a clot than with a vaccine, but you are thousands of times more likely to get severe pneumonia for example.

take everything

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/977005/COVID-19_mRNA_Pfizer-_BioNTech_Vaccine_Analysis_Print.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/977006/COVID-19_vaccine_AstraZeneca_analysis_print.pdf

These are the Yellow Card reports from the UK on side effects for Pfizer and AZ respectively. So from the horse's mouth so to speak (at least from the UK horse's mouth). Pages 42 and 52 respectively of those links.

I don't know where that Oxford study is getting its data from but these reports say:

A total of 57 cases and 6 fatalities for AZ when considering all types of cerebrovascular venous and sinus thrombosis ie CVT/CVST/superior sagittal sinus thrombosis.

The corresponding numbers for Pfizer are 4 and no fatalities.

That is a significant difference and Oxford saying the difference is immaterial is shocking IMO.

quokula

quokula wrote: »

The study is odd too because if you go into the data, you will see that they have actual rigorous measurements and control groups for people with covid and people with MRNA vaccines versus number of clots, where they seem to be intent on finding all cases and have ended up calculating 39 per million or 4 per million respectively.

But then for the AZ vaccine itself, they have no such actual measurements and instead just use "reported" cases where the only source is an EMA press release saying how many cases have been specifically reported to them, divided by the number of vaccines given in total including the UK which is outside of the EMA's jurisdiction, which doesn't seem like anywhere near as an exhaustive or accurate methodology as they've used for the other two cases.

39 per million for covid is kind of meaningless anyway since blood clots are way, way down the list of the most severe symptoms, so you may only be 10 times more likely to get a clot than with a vaccine, but you are thousands of times more likely to get severe pneumonia for example.

Anyone who has even seen an internal report from a manufacturer following complaints know the levels they will go to say "well the competitors are just as bad/worse"

JP Liz V1

Tánaiste Leo Varadkar has warned that anyone who refuses an AstraZeneca vaccine will have to go to the back of the queue and wait until the entire population is vaccinated to be offered an alternative.

deeperlearning

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Tánaiste Leo Varadkar has warned that anyone who refuses an AstraZeneca vaccine will have to go to the back of the queue and wait until the entire population is vaccinated to be offered an alternative.

Dr Colm Henry, the Chief Clinical Officer in the HSE, said the same a few weeks ago.

I think this is only fair.

volchitsa

take everything wrote: »

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/977005/COVID-19_mRNA_Pfizer-_BioNTech_Vaccine_Analysis_Print.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/977006/COVID-19_vaccine_AstraZeneca_analysis_print.pdf

These are the Yellow Card reports from the UK on side effects for Pfizer and AZ respectively. So from the horse's mouth so to speak (at least from the UK horse's mouth). Pages 42 and 52 respectively of those links.

I don't know where that Oxford study is getting its data from but these reports say:

A total of 57 cases and 6 fatalities for AZ when considering all types of cerebrovascular venous and sinus thrombosis ie CVT/CVST/superior sagittal sinus thrombosis.

The corresponding numbers for Pfizer are 4 and no fatalities.

That is a significant difference and Oxford saying the difference is immaterial is shocking IMO.

Doesn't that depend on how many people were given each vaccine?

take everything

volchitsa wrote: »

Doesn't that depend on how many people were given each vaccine?

Even if it does the difference is significant.

Sam Russell

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Tánaiste Leo Varadkar has warned that anyone who refuses an AstraZeneca vaccine will have to go to the back of the queue and wait until the entire population is vaccinated to be offered an alternative.

One approach would be to release some vaccines to be used to appropriate subjects at a fee like the way private medicine works - if you have money you have choices.

McGiver

robinph wrote:

It says that risk of clots from Covid is higher than from both types of vaccines, and risk from vaccines is basically the same as the background level of clots. Which is the same as all health regulators around the world have been saying and fits with the numbers that have been published by multiple different countries reporting systems that we've seen so far.

You're clutching at straws.

You are comparing apples and oranges, either due to ignorance or malice. Also your data is incorrect. Not sure what your agenda is.

There's no question of "blood clots" here but a very specific type of a blood clot CVT accompanied by thrombocytopenia, and with a positive PF4 antibody test on top.

FDA has seen the following incidence of this SPECIFIC issue:
Pfizer Biontech - 0 out of 98m doses
Moderna - 3 out of 85m doses, but 0 with thrombocytopenia, so 0
JJ - 6 out of 6.9m doses

https://twitter.com/kakape/status/1382409663434604545?s=19

EMA has seen:
AZ - 169 cases out of 34m doses administered
If we can believe UK data which are included (I don't).
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/astrazenecas-covid-19-vaccine-ema-finds-possible-link-very-rare-cases-unusual-blood-clots-low-blood

It is obvious there's a very specific issue with vaccines based on the adenovirus vector.

And the data clearly shows that mRNA vaccines are orders of magnitude safer than adenovirus vector vaccines (AZ, JJ, Sputnik).
https://twitter.com/kakape/status/1382414973956194305?s=19

Which is the reason why the EU is now fully committed only to the mRNA vaccines.

Beasty

A load of off-topic posts deleted

This thread is about AZ and their vaccine, not the population or death rates in various countries - there are other threads where such matters can be discussed