What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Goldengirl · 08-04-2021 11:52PM

Turtwig wrote: »

I don't think J & J can be a viable alternative though. I'm open to correction but iirc their trials on over 65s and immuno compromised individuals were just a little over 40% effective.

There is a two dose trial ongoing. It may simply be case those with weaker immune responses could require a booster.

As it stands I would think J and J should be reserved for the minority groups and homeless. Then used in the healthiest cohort. With MRNA reserved for risk cohorts that AZ for whatever reason isn't viable for.

We may even have more vaccines on stream then.

Yes, I was talking about the younger healthier age groups who might have less risk from disease and thus more risk from AZ, for J&J instead .

It is acceptable to continue with older high risk patients on AZ as level of risk from severe illness far outweighs the risk of severe side effects , but still running into issues with younger high risk patients when they are seeing changes all over EU and now also in UK as regards AZ . They need to make these decisions soon or the high risk patients in the younger age groups may start to refuse vaccination.
We are seeing lobby groups from those with Diabetes and Asthma starting to question the choice for their younger members already .

FileNotFound · 08-04-2021 11:54PM

Turtwig wrote: »

This is not true.
There are concerns the vaccine may not be as effective. It's still anticipated to be more effective than no vaccine at all. There is nothing to suggest AZ doesn't prevent serious illness and death against the SA variant.

Last trial I saw in the US had it at just over 10% efficacy for low to medium effects of covid SA strain. Trial had no severe covid reactions due to median age of 30 and no at risks participants.

More info will no doubt come out but hopefully its still effective at reducing hospitalisations.

FileNotFound · 08-04-2021 11:56PM

Goldengirl wrote: »

Yes, I was talking about the younger healthier age groups who might have less risk from disease and thus more risk from AZ, for J&J instead .

It is acceptable to continue with older high risk patients on AZ as level of risk from severe illness far outweighs the risk of severe side effects , but still running into issues with younger high risk patients when they are seeing changes all over EU and now also in UK as regards AZ . They need to make these decisions soon or the high risk patients in the younger age groups may start to refuse vaccination.
We are seeing lobby groups from those with Diabetes and Asthma starting to question the choice for their younger members already .

J&J efficacy at stopping severe (hospital) symptoms is 100% post trials. I'm sure there will be some real world exceptions but very few.

Pussyhands · 08-04-2021 11:57PM

FileNotFound wrote: »

Months and months is hilariously dramatic, its been out for a whole 3 of them haha and we've known of a potential issue for almost a month.

So should that be month and month in singular??

This blood clot issue is no excuse to go mad anti vax. If anything it shows the transparency and continuous careful monitoring especially in EU nations.

It is months and months. The vaccine was "tested" probably since last July I'd say?

There's anti vax and then there's anti covid vax...you can be pro vaccine that's had the appropriate testing for years and years and still be apprehensive about a vaccine that we were told was safe and is now causing clots in people.

stephenjmcd · 08-04-2021 11:58PM

FileNotFound wrote: »

Last trial I saw in the US had it at just over 10% efficacy for low to medium effects of covid SA strain. Trial had no severe covid reactions due to median age of 30 and no at risks participants.

More info will no doubt come out but hopefully its still effective at reducing hospitalisations.

The trial your referring to wasn't in the US, It was a South African study, the issues with said study have been discussed for a long time in the vaccine thread.

More study is needed but things look good

https://twitter.com/sailorrooscout/status/1370378272282980352?s=19

Goldengirl · 09-04-2021 12:00AM

Wolf359f wrote: »

I'm cohort 7 and I'd gladly take it. I know there's a tiny risk, but the risk from covid is far far higher for me.
There has been people here saying they won't take it. Obviously it's completely their own choice, but hopefully it's not too big an amount.

Same with my husband and son , but they have me with both hands against their back pushing them all the way to the MVC , so no surprise

I can understand some people's concerns though and NIAC need to adress it .
More information, and more support for those with questions / health concerns is needed now or they will lose more people who would be on board if they had more answers.

Goldengirl · 09-04-2021 12:10AM

appledrop wrote: »

Thanks so much for posting this. This is exactly what I thought your putting yourself as more risk by getting vaccine jab if in younger cohort.

Also in cases like this what your seeing around you will also influence your decision. Of the people I personally know in 20-50 year old cohort who have had Covid not one of them thankfully has been hospitalised so why would you risk your life with AZ vaccine?

I'm not downplaying Covid I know how serious it is especially for older age group but risks for younger cohort-v- AZ jab just don't add up.

Then after all that if you meet the SA variant it won't even work!

I'm out, its one of other vaccines for me or none at all.

That particular set of statistics is based on low transmission risk,ie in UK where so many have been vaccinated already . They showed 3 different levels of risk , , low medium and high ...this is just low.
Risks would be higher than that in Ireland at the moment ,so we would be on the medium risk level ,at which younger age group would have a higher risk than that from severe illness and death , so would have a greater benefit at present from receiving the AZ vaccine . This would be for those at higher risk .
The ratio will probably be different by the time those at low risk are being vaccinated here as we have been discussing the risk of AZ then MIGHT be of little benefit to those young people.
See BBC News yesterday for these statistics . .
However if people are refusing the vaccines we won't be getting to that low risk at all !

Goldengirl · 09-04-2021 12:14AM

FileNotFound wrote: »

J&J efficacy at stopping severe (hospital) symptoms is 100% post trials. I'm sure there will be some real world exceptions but very few.

Yes?
Not saying different ...talking about it replacing AZ for younger cohorts maybe .

Turtwig · 09-04-2021 12:14AM

The UK guidance is that those under 30 with underlying conditions should receive the most timely vaccine. The recommendations for alternative options to AZ only apply to those under 30 at low risk of severe disease.

Asthmatics and diabetics in cohort 4 and cohort 7 under 30 following the UK guidance would be given AZ.

Be interesting to see if NIAC and HPRA are more
conservative. If they are, it may mean we have to slower our loosening of social restrictions.

FileNotFound · 09-04-2021 12:16AM

Pussyhands wrote: »

It is months and months. The vaccine was "tested" probably since last July I'd say?

There's anti vax and then there's anti covid vax...you can be pro vaccine that's had the appropriate testing for years and years and still be apprehensive about a vaccine that we were told was safe and is now causing clots in people.

Sure there are 2 other types of vaccine out there. The mRNA and the J&J one.

You can always wait until most of the EU has had the shots and make a decision then. Would be the largest trials in history and you should be able to see whats happening.

Making a decision now is premature in my opinion.

Turtwig · 09-04-2021 12:22AM

FileNotFound wrote: »

Isn't the J&J while lower on symptomatic efficacy extremely effective at reducing hospitalisation and death?

My understanding was that this was its true genius is. And if you don't really suffer natural immunity will exist post fighting covid off.

Below is the first thing to come up on Google when I double checked.

"While J&J's vaccine has 66.3% effectiveness overall and 74.4% effectiveness in the United States, it has “100% efficacy against hospitalization and death from the virus,” said Dr. Irons. “That's really what we have to focus on.”26 Mar 2021"

I'd a post written for this but boards lost it.

Yeah all the vaccines are reducing hospitalisations and deaths. The issue as I understood it for J & J was that if they had only sought approval for over 65s their efficacy would have been below 50% threshold set by WHO.

The immune response for the vulnerable groups is far from ideal. We're basically banking on t cells to provide the protection. How much they provide to the vulnerable cohorts is subject of very interesting discussion and ongoing research.
Simply put being conservative you'd rather if those groups were given a vaccine that elicited a higher response as that would give them a better chance of protection.

FileNotFound · 09-04-2021 12:36AM

Turtwig wrote: »

I'd a post written for this but boards lost it.

Yeah all the vaccines are reducing hospitalisations and deaths. The issue as I understood it for J & J was that if they had only sought approval for over 65s their efficacy would have been below 50% threshold set by WHO.

The immune response for the vulnerable groups is far from ideal. We're basically banking on t cells to provide the protection. How much they provide to the vulnerable cohorts is subject of very interesting discussion and ongoing research.
Simply put being conservative you'd rather if those groups were given a vaccine that elicited a higher response as that would give them a better chance of protection.

That makes sense. I imagine for myself the J&J would be grand, young and no underlying conditions.

It's the one shot part I find attractive

Turtwig · 09-04-2021 12:45AM

FileNotFound wrote: »

That makes sense. I imagine for myself the J&J would be grand, young and no underlying conditions.

It's the one shot part I find attractive

Take it with a pinch of salt. My recollection on it is very vague. The two dose trials may paint a very different picture too.

Strazdas · 09-04-2021 01:17AM

Turtwig wrote: »

I'd a post written for this but boards lost it.

Yeah all the vaccines are reducing hospitalisations and deaths. The issue as I understood it for J & J was that if they had only sought approval for over 65s their efficacy would have been below 50% threshold set by WHO.

The immune response for the vulnerable groups is far from ideal. We're basically banking on t cells to provide the protection. How much they provide to the vulnerable cohorts is subject of very interesting discussion and ongoing research.
Simply put being conservative you'd rather if those groups were given a vaccine that elicited a higher response as that would give them a better chance of protection.

I guess J & J being less effective against 'symptoms' will not necessarily be that big a problem if there is very little Covid circulating in the community thanks to the combined efforts of all the vaccines. It would be far more of an issue if 8k people a day were still being infected.

09-04-2021 07:08AM

Should NIAC have a decision today?

noplacehere · 09-04-2021 07:50AM

Goldengirl wrote: »

This is what I was saying yesterday based on what the UK had worked out ,risk benefit ratio for younger age groups .
AZ is already a hard sell for cohorts getting it now ,( I know should be happy to be getting it but some are worried enough after the year they have had ) something will have to be decided as regards younger age groups .
Here's hoping J&J will be there to take up that slack when those age groups getting vaccinated .

It’s not really a hard sell in my experience. I have a fair amount of medical staff in my extended friends/family and I’m also part of a large group of very high risk people. I don’t know anyone who is even remotely considering refusing it. Sure would we prefer one where there wasn’t a three month wait before full coverage? Yeah. But when you’ve been worried/cocooning for a year and are probably on drugs with far worse potential side effects there really is no debate. You take it and keep an eye out for side effects

09-04-2021 08:00AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Should NIAC have a decision today?

I don't think we'll know until they actually make a decision. The reports just say "the coming days."

Why they're taking so long when other countries have taken decisive action, I don't know.

09-04-2021 08:03AM

Flying Fox wrote: »

I don't think we'll know until they actually make a decision. The reports just say "the coming days."

Why they're taking so long when other countries have taken decisive action, I don't know.

It is extremely frustrating, especially forvpeople with appointments.

Russman · 09-04-2021 08:19AM

Flying Fox wrote: »

Why they're taking so long when other countries have taken decisive action, I don't know.

I'd say its the debate between "should we go with similar to other EU countries and have an age limit, just to be cautious" Vs "it will probably delay the rollout by a few weeks, and there'll be a lot of howling"

09-04-2021 08:39AM

Russman wrote: »

I'd say its the debate between "should we go with similar to other EU countries and have an age limit, just to be cautious" Vs "it will probably delay the rollout by a few weeks, and there'll be a lot of howling"

Imagine the fallout if someone who got astrazeneca in the past few days while they are taking their time, ends up with one of these blood clots.

09-04-2021 08:41AM

Russman wrote: »

I'd say its the debate between "should we go with similar to other EU countries and have an age limit, just to be cautious" Vs "it will probably delay the rollout by a few weeks, and there'll be a lot of howling"

True, but if the cut off was 55 for example, we can still proceed with using AZ in the older groups for some time yet. We have time to plan before the roll out reaches the under 55s. And by that time the most vulnerable will have been vaccinated.

Where it gets a bit trickier is for people like boomtown here who are part of cohort 4, but it should be possible to rebook them for a different vaccine a week or two later than their original appointment. We did suspend AZ before and managed to get those cancelled appointments up and running again soon after.

Miike · 09-04-2021 08:44AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Imagine the fallout if someone who got astrazeneca in the past few days while they are taking their time, ends up with one of these blood clots.

How could there be fall out? You're advised of the side effects and assumed to have capacity to consent and as such capable of making informed decisions on medical treatment.

Beanybabog · 09-04-2021 08:46AM

I see the sister of the Irish woman who got a clot talked to the papers... I wonder did they announce the possible link before this, or was their hand forced by knowing it’d be published. There could be more cases but not announced until they determine it’s linked.

josip · 09-04-2021 08:52AM

Beanybabog wrote: »

I see the sister of the Irish woman who got a clot talked to the papers... I wonder did they announce the possible link before this, or was their hand forced by knowing it’d be published. There could be more cases but not announced until they determine it’s linked.

You mean the HSE, who allowed their legal team secretly access private medical records of families they were being sued by, might be less than forthright with us?
Oh, the shock of it all.

Living Off The Splash · 09-04-2021 08:54AM

Does the blood clot know what age you are?

Why are younger aged people more likely to get a blood clot?

If you are 56 years of age you are OK but if you are 54 you are at risk?

09-04-2021 08:54AM

Miike wrote: »

How could there be fall out? You're advised of the side effects and assumed to have capacity to consent and as such capable of making informed decisions on medical treatment.

So you wouldn't be annoyed if you got it today and found out tomorrow it was deemed too dangerous for you? I am talking about those (like myself) who had appointments in the past few days.

Miike · 09-04-2021 08:59AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you wouldn't be annoyed if you got it today and found out tomorrow it was deemed too dangerous for you? I am talking about those (like myself) who had appointments in the past few days.

Not even slightly. I'm an AZ recipient considered in the at risk category for CVST, it genuinely doesn't phase me in the slightest. Every medicine and treatment has risks and I appraised the risks of unknown events vs the benefits of receiving the vaccine to protect my family and my patients. For me it's a no brainer.

09-04-2021 09:02AM

Miike wrote: »

Not even slightly. I'm an AZ recipient considered in the at risk category for CVST, it genuinely doesn't phase me in the slightest. Every medicine and treatment has risks and I appraised the risks of unknown events vs the benefits of receiving the vaccine to protect my family and my patients. For me it's a no brainer.

I am a mother to young children and it does very much phase me.

09-04-2021 09:04AM

Deleted User wrote: »

So you wouldn't be annoyed if you got it today and found out tomorrow it was deemed too dangerous for you? I am talking about those (like myself) who had appointments in the past few days.

The risk is still minuscule, if they decide this vaccine inst appropriate for a particular group, its not that is dangerous, just carries a slight increased risk. and even so, if you are feeling ok a week after you will be grand

mick087 · 09-04-2021 09:06AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I am a mother to young children and it does very much phase me.

Then please take yours self out the queue and let me and my family take your place.

What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Comments