What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

mick087 · 15-04-2021 09:32PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

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.

Absolutely not this should not happen.

eagle eye · 15-04-2021 09:56PM

JP Liz V1 wrote:

TÃ¡naiste 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.

Let's see him take it himself.

15-04-2021 10:17PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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"

you've need reading ben goldacre again eh!! I'm liking you now!;)

15-04-2021 10:20PM

eagle eye wrote: »

Let's see him take it himself.

are you mad, that smalltown boy is a do as I say not as I do kinda smalltwon boy..the limit does not exist!:cool:

robinph · 15-04-2021 10:20PM

McGiver wrote: »

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.

So the same rate of 5 per million that was given in the report by Oxford then.

Acknowledging that it is some specific form of clotting issue, but the case rate is practically the same as would be expected in the general population of 4 per million. Whilst there is something wierd going on that needs investigating, it is not that Astra Zeneca is killing more people with this issue than would be expected to have cases of these blood clots without covid in normal times.

It's actually stranger that there hasn't been more cases reported for other vaccines as they should still be reporting that rate of 4 per million which is the expected rate in the population.

rm212 · 15-04-2021 10:29PM

robinph wrote: »

So the same rate of 5 per million that was given in the report by Oxford then.

Acknowledging that it is some specific form of clotting issue, but the case rate is practically the same as would be expected in the general population of 4 per million. Whilst there is something wierd going on that needs investigating, it is not that Astra Zeneca is killing more people with this issue than would be expected to have cases of these blood clots without covid in normal times.

It's actually stranger that there hasn't been more cases reported for other vaccines as they should still be reporting that rate of 4 per million which is the expected rate in the population.

That rate is annual, remember. 4 per million annual incidence in the population. So if we count the 3 months or so in which the vaccines have been widely administered, the rate would be 1 per million, but trying to convert annual incidences to shorter periods isn't really that simple, it's quite tricky. Suffice to say, we wouldn't expect 4 per million to immediately get CVT shortly after their vaccine, but by year end, roughly 4 per million of the vaccinated people should have suffered from it, statistically.

robinph · 15-04-2021 10:53PM

rm212 wrote: »

That rate is annual, remember. 4 per million annual incidence in the population. So if we count the 3 months or so in which the vaccines have been widely administered, the rate would be 1 per million, but trying to convert annual incidences to shorter periods isn't really that simple, it's quite tricky. Suffice to say, we wouldn't expect 4 per million to immediately get CVT shortly after their vaccine, but by year end, roughly 4 per million of the vaccinated people should have suffered from it, statistically.

Absolutely, and allowing for the fact that the vaccines have only been in use for 3 months and obviously not everyone got their jab 3 months ago which makes the sums a bit complicated... With close to 200million doses of Pfizer and Moderna used there should be significantly more than 3 cases reported.

Tyrone212 · 15-04-2021 11:06PM

McGiver wrote: »

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.

Great Post. Very detailed.

patnor1011 · 16-04-2021 06:29AM

AZ permanently banned in Denmark until further notice.
https://www.berlingske.dk/samfund/berlingske-erfarer-astrazeneca-droppes-i-danmark

16-04-2021 07:55AM

patnor1011 wrote: »

AZ permanently banned in Denmark until further notice.
https://www.berlingske.dk/samfund/berlingske-erfarer-astrazeneca-droppes-i-danmark

Permanently banned, until it’s not?

FileNotFound · 16-04-2021 08:13AM

Aegir wrote: »

Permanently banned, until it’s not?

I imagine banned is the posters words, HA most likely placed it on hold until further information is available.

robinph · 16-04-2021 08:34AM

patnor1011 wrote: »

AZ permanently banned in Denmark until further notice.
https://www.berlingske.dk/samfund/berlingske-erfarer-astrazeneca-droppes-i-danmark

So not permanently, not banned and that was two days ago.

Beasty · 16-04-2021 08:42AM

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.

Well look at it this way

We are 1 year into this virus, and it has killed nearly 5,000 people in Ireland. That's 0.1% of the population

Obviously there is an age factor at play, but the chances of someone dying from Covid- 19 in the 60-69 age group is going to be quite a lot higher than 0.1%

If AZ kills 20 out of 20m doses, or 20 out of 10m people vaccinated, we could potentially see 10 people die from these bloodclots if everyone in Ireland was vaccinated with AZ.

There were 149 road deaths in Ireland last year. You are 15 times more likely to die on the roads than from this vaccine

I'm more than happy to take my chances with AZ with a ratio of 10 versus 5,000 deaths, and a risk that is 15 times less than dying on the roads (and in my case, falling into the 60-69 cohort, the "benefit" of AZ is much higher versus the risk of dying form Covid-19)

Melanchthon · 16-04-2021 09:47AM

Any word from India or other non US non EU on this issue? They have used a lot of Astra but I imagine tracking afterwards isn't great

FileNotFound · 16-04-2021 10:15AM

Beasty wrote: »

Well look at it this way

We are 1 year into this virus, and it has killed nearly 5,000 people in Ireland. That's 0.1% of the population

If AZ kills 20 out of 20m doses, or 20 out of 10m people vaccinated, we could potentially see 10 people die from these bloodclots if everyone in Ireland was vaccinated with AZ.

godzilla89 wrote: »

You can look at it many ways to be fair. If AZ is given to everyone and a few young people die, who would never have died from Covid it's not a good decision for them to get the vaccine, if your vulnerable get it, if your not don't risk it.

In fairness both points are right in a way. I would love for us all to take a minute and remember that there is a good chance they will be able to identify the cause (may take a little time) - then if it can be mitigated ahead we go with vaccinating without the risk.

The big thing is the rush to get everyone vaccinated. Personally I am not in too much of a rush, life has not been too and for me and mine during covid. Tying limits in peoples lives to the vaccine results in panic thinking.

I am getting lost at the main aim now, once it was to stop overwhelming hospitals, then it was to stop covid deaths (people do die of flu every year, so can see why people are unhappy with this idea), then its to stop variants developing (lets be honest slums in asia/south america are the issue here) and now it seems we need to get to no cases (But i understand that may never really happen).

deeperlearning · 16-04-2021 10:32AM

FileNotFound wrote: »

In fairness both points are right in a way. I would love for us all to take a minute and remember that there is a good chance they will be able to identify the cause (may take a little time) - then if it can be mitigated ahead we go with vaccinating without the risk.

The big thing is the rush to get everyone vaccinated. Personally I am not in too much of a rush, life has not been too and for me and mine during covid. Tying limits in peoples lives to the vaccine results in panic thinking.

I am getting lost at the main aim now, once it was to stop overwhelming hospitals, then it was to stop covid deaths (people do die of flu every year, so can see why people are unhappy with this idea), then its to stop variants developing (lets be honest slums in asia/south america are the issue here) and now it seems we need to get to no cases (But i understand that may never really happen).

Not to mention the 'slums' in the UK, the origin of the B117 variant.

FileNotFound · 16-04-2021 10:50AM

deeperlearning wrote: »

Not to mention the 'slums' in the UK, the origin of the B117 variant.

Saying its more likely in the places i mentioned doesn't make it impossible elsewhere. Just much less likely.

I suppose i am just confused now as to our aim? As mentioned I'm not all that upset at being locked down (compared to the difficulties being faced by others). But there really has to be a point, the flu creates new variants every year, pre covid potential new flu strains/variants were seen a likely pandemic source (still is).

I understand that covid will become indemic so just another flu, but once immunity exists in the population it will potentially be far less deadly than the flu.

So then it begs the Q, do we just want a fast splash of immunity, will we lockdown whenever any new strain of any virus shows up, will everyone be expected to get flu/covid shots every year. So on and so on.

I'm just curious if a long term plan exists at all and if it has any real criteria by which it can be judged other than 1 death is too many.

ArthurDayne · 16-04-2021 11:51AM

FileNotFound wrote: »

In fairness both points are right in a way. I would love for us all to take a minute and remember that there is a good chance they will be able to identify the cause (may take a little time) - then if it can be mitigated ahead we go with vaccinating without the risk.

The big thing is the rush to get everyone vaccinated. Personally I am not in too much of a rush, life has not been too and for me and mine during covid. Tying limits in peoples lives to the vaccine results in panic thinking.

I am getting lost at the main aim now, once it was to stop overwhelming hospitals, then it was to stop covid deaths (people do die of flu every year, so can see why people are unhappy with this idea), then its to stop variants developing (lets be honest slums in asia/south america are the issue here) and now it seems we need to get to no cases (But i understand that may never really happen).

This is absolutely a supremely fair observation — and it is to me completely unimaginable that this thought has not seeped through at least a fair portion of the populace.

The measures we have been living under for the past year have been extreme and unprecedented in their longevity. The argument used to uphold the righteousness and, indeed, the constitutional legality of the measures has been based on an argument of proportionality — that extreme measures are needed to mitigate the risk of an extreme outcome (the collapse of healthcare).

It is utterly and, even, depressingly astounding that the scrutiny on this point in the media and political arena seems to be non-existent. Rather than the government being held to the highest levels of challenge, there is a kind of feet-shuffling attitude that the government is just doing its best and we need to continue accepting measures without any critical thought as to their proportionality.

suicide_circus · 16-04-2021 12:07PM

Can someone please tell me who can receive the AZ jab now?

FileNotFound · 16-04-2021 12:31PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

Can someone please tell me who can receive the AZ jab now?

Age group 60-69 for sure.

Nobody below 60, everyone 70+ was due to get mRNA (or so i understood) but that may have changed, one of the parents in next week in the 70+ bracket so guess he will find out for me then.

Sam Russell · 16-04-2021 12:37PM

FileNotFound wrote: »

Age group 60-69 for sure.

Nobody below 60, everyone 70+ was due to get mRNA (or so i understood) but that may have changed, one of the parents in next week in the 70+ bracket so guess he will find out for me then.

Plus those due to get a second dose of AZ (as I understand from the various announcements - but those have been a bit garbled and contradictory).

Stark · 16-04-2021 01:07PM

FileNotFound wrote: »

Age group 60-69 for sure.

Nobody below 60, everyone 70+ was due to get mRNA (or so i understood) but that may have changed, one of the parents in next week in the 70+ bracket so guess he will find out for me then.

Leo was saying that over-70s were eligible to receive AZ. Whether that's actually the new policy on the ground, I don't know. I haven't heard of anyone over-70 being given AstraZeneca so far. The vaccine dashboard only gives vaccine by breakdown by cohort and by vaccine type, not by vaccine type per cohort unfortunately.

Having a look the trend, only 1,000 AZ doses given out yesterday out of 26k overall so probably safe to say the over 70s aren't getting it.

Strazdas · 16-04-2021 01:20PM

FileNotFound wrote: »

Age group 60-69 for sure.

Nobody below 60, everyone 70+ was due to get mRNA (or so i understood) but that may have changed, one of the parents in next week in the 70+ bracket so guess he will find out for me then.

Given that AZ is now deemed 'safe' for the over 60s, it's very possible that the 70+ age group will come back into play for it....there must be a fair few who didn't actually get vaccinated for one reason or another.

Charles Babbage · 16-04-2021 01:21PM

With something like 600,000 AZ doses supposed to be delivered in April and May, then you could do the half a million odd in the 60-70 age range and provide second doses for people previously injected with AZ. While a longer gap for AZ people has been used, if you aren't allowed use AZ on other people then you could give the 60-70 people their second jab in June, i.e. after 5-6 weeks rather than 12 weeks.

Of course the J&J vaccine may come back, although volumes of it would be smaller.

Stark · 16-04-2021 01:23PM

The 12 week thing is to boost efficacy rather than provide for more first doses though. Even with plentiful supplies, we'd still be giving the second dose at 12 weeks.

Widescreen · 16-04-2021 01:26PM

FileNotFound wrote: »

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.

I think if a high profile politician with no health issues, in that cohort 60-69 and I can think of one very senior person, refuses to take the AZ vaccine , that then should be the end of AZ in Ireland, simple as and probably won't do much for that politicians reputation. NIAC and politicians are both human AFAIK.

murphaph · 16-04-2021 01:47PM

Some questions being asked about the speed of the MHRA response to the blood clotting issues:
https://www.ft.com/content/5251e1b9-b88d-4bfc-95fa-29dc34d37652

It's paywalled but googling for the headline usually works. I could read it without a subscription.

16-04-2021 01:48PM

So basically in general population 5 in a million people will get cvst in a given year and if you take az you have a 4 in a million chance of getting it. With one of those 4 being a fatality. Sure if you dont have any of the risk factors for cvst very little risk. Whos to say these people would not have gone on to get cvst anyhow?
They clearly are more at risk anyhow than average Joe.

Im sure az and jandj will come back especially in poorer areas of world. The link is still very tenuous. I would say they are more afraid of people being put off vaccinations than those actual cases. Unfortunate all the same. Cant be that bad when UK have basically enoculated over a third of its entire population with it. Herd imunity effects are now kicking in their with 62 per cent of adults receiving at least one dose. Their covid death curve since January is practically vertically downward with a handful of deaths at this stage each day in a population of over 70 million people.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/cerebral-venous-sinus-thrombosis&ved=2ahUKEwjklovY84LwAhX3XRUIHWHHBwIQnLoEMAF6BAgrEAE&usg=AOvVaw1IWnDLZ29O7eOW-112ZEVu

Strazdas · 16-04-2021 01:53PM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

With something like 600,000 AZ doses supposed to be delivered in April and May, then you could do the half a million odd in the 60-70 age range and provide second doses for people previously injected with AZ. While a longer gap for AZ people has been used, if you aren't allowed use AZ on other people then you could give the 60-70 people their second jab in June, i.e. after 5-6 weeks rather than 12 weeks.

Of course the J&J vaccine may come back, although volumes of it would be smaller.

Yes that's a good point : if we suddenly ended up with a load of vaccines, you could simply bring forward the second AZ dose (but it mightn't come to that).

Strazdas · 16-04-2021 01:55PM

godzilla89 wrote: »

Has any study been done on efficacy of one dose vs two doses when past 12 weeks infection free? The body might just need time to build up immunity from the one dose than two doses being so much better.

Personally I think two doses will be proven to be overkill when Covid is in low circulation and people with one dose get to a few months before coming in contact with the virus.

It doesn't make sense to me, why would you need 2 doses of the same thing, you don't get infected twice in nature in a short period to get better immunity.

From what I understand, the second dose prolongs immunity....it makes you immune for a considerably longer period than one dose.

What exactly is happening with AstraZeneca?

Comments