What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

fash wrote: »

Actually Ireland has a lower death rate- so the UK does not have the lowest rate in Europe:
.

From the graph they also look level with Denmark and Norway so to claim they alone have the lowest death rate is misleading.

Is there any indication of when and how much of the next AZ deliveries will be arriving?

There were 116,000 cases yesterday in India so I can't see the Serum Institute being allowed to export vaccines as hospitals are beginning to become overwhelmed there.

Danzy wrote: »

Anti vaccers are running wild over Astra Zeneca.

I've seen this thrown around but I'm also concerned about AZ in younger people. I'm happy to take any and all the usual vaccines. My kids are all vaccinated.

Those vaccines have decades of evidence behind them and the diseases they prevent are typically very dangerous, even to children.

These Covid 19 vaccines are all brand new with the bare minimum of testing done to satisfy the regulators. I understand why. The situation is dire for most people and vaccination is the only way out. But for young people the risk of death from Covid 19 can be lower than from the AZ vaccine.

Nobody should ask that age group to take one for the team because there are alternative vaccines available. AZ should be given to the older people where the risk benefit is best and other vaccines should be given to younger people.

If even the UK has now adopted this approach then there's clearly something to it.

In my early 40s and being slightly overweight, I would take the AZ shot if offered and be very vigilant for the severe symptoms.

I wouldn't give it to my kids though. There simply are no ICU's full of pre-teens. The disease isn't dangerous enough to my kids that I feel the need to risk the AZ vaccine rather than wait for another type.

murphaph wrote: »

I've seen this thrown around but I'm also concerned about AZ in younger people. I'm happy to take any and all the usual vaccines. My kids are all vaccinated.

Those vaccines have decades of evidence behind them and the diseases they prevent are typically very dangerous, even to children.

These Covid 19 vaccines are all brand new with the bare minimum of testing done to satisfy the regulators. I understand why. The situation is dire for most people and vaccination is the only way out. But for young people the risk of death from Covid 19 can be lower than from the AZ vaccine.

Nobody should ask that age group to take one for the team because there are alternative vaccines available. AZ should be given to the older people where the risk benefit is best and other vaccines should be given to younger people.

If even the UK has now adopted this approach then there's clearly something to it.

In my early 40s and being slightly overweight, I would take the AZ shot if offered and be very vigilant for the severe symptoms.

I wouldn't give it to my kids though. There simply are no ICU's full of pre-teens. The disease isn't dangerous enough to my kids that I feel the need to risk the AZ vaccine rather than wait for another type.

There is a element here of a living experiment while managing risk as best as possible and we need to be nimble. If this means changing strategy to do it more safely/more efficiently then we need to do it.

The current strategy probably enables this given where vaccine availability is. Pfizer for older people with three weeks between doses means that we can get the most vulnerable vaccinated in the shortest possible time. This remains the highest priority.

Assuming we get more AZ then that will be used on 40 pluses and hopefully JJ will be available by June/July/August for 18 - 40. Pfizer and Moderna supplies will also be available to supplement where appropriate to take account of greater risks.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Feeling a bit off today, got AstraZeneca yesterday, mild fever, sinus saying hello and sensitive arm

That's just your body telling you it's responding to the threat and fighting it, in the process giving you those lovely antibodies.

Congratulations on your vaccination :-)

Turtwig wrote: »

It's very important.

If I get a chance next week I'll see if I can find it. Effectively what you want to know is in 2019 before covid what was the rate of this incident in people under 30s and what the known risk factors were. Then you compare that the number of people vaccinated under 30, adjust where possible for the various risks, and estimate how many events you'd expect from history versus what it is actually being observed.
That tells you then how much of additional risk the vaccine is.

Keep in mind too that the event is now being monitored for. This may lead to an over detection in 2021 as many more identical events than that in 2019 may have gone completely unrecorded.

Generally agree with what you are saying, but blood clots in a young population after a specific event is a concern, particularly as I said earlier, that age group hasn't been widely vaccinated yet. There be medical history reasons why these deaths occurred, but if I was in that age group, I'd probably wait for an alternative to be offered.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Feeling a bit off today, got AstraZeneca yesterday, mild fever, sinus saying hello and sensitive arm

Out of those I know who've had both their doses, the one person who received it because they're in a risk category was the only one not to feel a bit ****ty after them. The younger crowed who've had them because they're health professionals all were knocked back.

mick087 wrote: »

You could also be considered to be misleading

Yes the UK does have a high amount of deaths but they do have one of the largest populations within Europe.
As for deaths per million they do not have the worst death rate in Europe.

The death rates are not a league table and shouldn't be used as such.

When the crisis is over the elected governments not only with the EU states and Europe but also through out world will have many questions to answer to its citizens.

Factor in per capita (deaths per million), they've the 5th highest death rate in the world as of the end of March.

Taking it numerically, they do have the highest number of deaths in Europe, and 5th highest in the world. The nearest European country to the case number wise, France, has almost half the number of deaths.

Hurrache wrote: »

Factor in per capita (deaths per million), they've the 5th highest death rate in the world as of the end of March.

There death rate is a disgrace and cannot be swept under the carpet.

I just took a look at world meter, according to this they have the 12th highest death rate per million as of today.

But there are few countries higher that have populations of 1000s only.

Looking at this world meter Europe has done shockingly bad.

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Generally agree with what you are saying, but blood clots in a young population after a specific event is a concern, particularly as I said earlier, that age group hasn't been widely vaccinated yet. There be medical history reasons why these deaths occurred, but if I was in that age group, I'd probably wait for an alternative to be offered.

With current deliveries there is no need whatsoever to make anyone wait. We should act now though and change the guidelines to bring them into line with the UK, Netherlands, France, Germany etc.

We don't have enough local data to come up with a cutoff age as we have had no reported cases but we can assume the data from those countries is good and base our risk/benefit calculations off an average of those (EMA has already done that stuff) and come up with a suitable cut off age.

I see no reason why older people of any age should receive Pfizer over AZ I have to say. The data is in on that. AZ is highly effective in that age group and the risk benefit is most positive for that group.

We are holding on to the "Pfizer for the older people" mantra when most other countries that did this at the beginning have already (before this crisis) have since accepted the UK data that proves AZ is as safe in older people as Pfizer etc.

Germany went from "AZ for under 65's" to "AZ for all" to "AZ for nobody" to "AZ for over 60s". This wasn't madness or confusion on behalf of the Germans. It was in response to rapidly emerging data and each decision viewed in isolation made and makes sense.

They will probably be able to revise the 60 cut off as more data emerges. Hopefully it can be revised down.

We need to be able to change the advice as new data becomes available.

appledrop wrote: »

Yes but a 55 year old working from home should not be priotised over a 30 year old teacher in classroom of 25 students who are wearing no masks. That's just madness.

Governments have to view this from the nations perspective not the individual. The approach in Ireland and UK is to protect the most life (argueably at the expense of faster economy opening) Flip your assessment of government decisions from personal to general. From the person getting vaccinated and what they gain to who they are putting at risk if they are not vaccinated and become infected.

Priority groups to be vaccinated are people who can endanger multiple others at most risk.

The older the audience the more likely they will have serious complications from the disease requiring hospitalisation. So carers or health care workers are priority as they come into contact with people at more risk.

If a teacher gets it, the spread risk is to a classroom of young kids which are less likely to develop serious disease.

Some other countries have flipped this to get the working population covered first with isolate in place orders retained for at risk populations.