> doesn't automatically mean that your opinion is better and more informed than that of health authorities across EU
I agree that health authorities know better than I do, but i don't think i'm disagreeing with any health authorities. There are some health authorities saying its safe to keep on using it and there are some temporarily suspending while the situation is being investigated out of an abundance of caution. Unless i missed something, not a single one is saying that the vaccine is unsafe or confirmed to cause blood clots.
> I'm just venting about what I perceive to be HN propensity to take risks on other people and dismiss concerns
There is no risk free view here. Less vaccinated people means more people with covid, which among other things means more blood clots because covid can sometimes cause that (although obviously that's not the primary concern with covid).
Obviously if we can confirm a link between the blood clots and the vaccine, we should stop the vaccine. But as it stands the evidence is extremely weak bordering on non existent, and stopping using that vaccine will cost lives.
The European Union medicines regulator has reiterated there is "no indication" that the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid jab causes blood clots, after several countries paused their rollouts.
European Medicines Agency (EMA) head Emer Cooke said she remained "firmly convinced" that the benefits of the vaccine outweighed any risks.
But even if the blood clots observed are in fact due to the vaccine the numbers are so small that it seems to me irresponsible to suspend vaccination and to publicise this so much.
There's been plenty of suggestion that other EU countries' decision to suspend AZ is somehow a political decision, and not primarily motivated by health concerns.
> Its important to keep perspective.
Yes, it is - on both sides. Just because, as someone here said, "I'm a lever puller" doesn't automatically mean that your opinion is better and more informed than that of health authorities across EU. (note that I'm not accusing you personally of being a "lever puller", I'm just venting about what I perceive to be HN propensity to take risks on other people and dismiss concerns).
On the contrary, I'm just repeating the published data and opinions of experts and indeed health agencies from the WHO to the EMA (European Medical Agency).
I think it is therefore those who are calling for who have suspended this vaccine to explain the reasons because they seem to baffle everyone.
Bearing in mind the previous 'doubts' some in the EU had about the vaccine's effectiveness for people above 65 I am not convinced that this 'cautionary approach' is all in good faith... And the head of Italy's medicine authority has just said that this was politically motivated...
Downvote all you want, it does seem to me that people are simultaneously anti-vax and pro-lockdown. To wit, here is an article showing how rare the clots are:
"German regulators said they had received 31 reports of rare blood clots in the head in recipients of the AstraZeneca vaccine and nine deaths up to March 29, roughly doubling
Cooke said the EMA will include the Germany cases in its review "and they will form part of the ongoing evaluation that the committee is undertaking, as will any additional cases that are reported from other countries and regions.”
Based on the numbers reported to the agency so far, there have been 4.8 cases of the rare blood clots per million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine administered, she said."
> refusing to get the vaccine if they hear it's Astra-Zeneca, because of all the overblown nightmarish news around it
Here is a small problem with this that makes me also consider if I want to take a shot with AZ even if I registered for it months ago waiting for my place:
Before EU started discussing the issue with statistical signifiant number of cases of blood clots in vaccinated population UK Reported 5 cases of blot clots in vaccinated population.
After EU talked second time to suspend vaccination with AZ lo and behold UK discovered that it missed in previous months to report 25 more cases.
Now should I trust any of these agencies that they are telling the truth? I am starting not.
But I had a mild COVID and I am sure after experiencing those symptoms that I really want a vaccine. I am not willing to experience a reinfection.
> The [International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis] recommends all eligible adults continue to receive the #COVID19 vaccine, despite recent decisions by some countries to at least temporarily suspend the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine due to reports of thrombosis. Read the full statement here: https://isth.org/news/556057
> I liken it to how the AstraZeneca vaccine was dissed in the media. A small chance of clots was heralded as a major issue, which lead to a extremely slow uptake of a vaccine that is for the most part perfectly fine.
It's less safe, there were some deaths, and also it protects less than alternatives like Pfizer and Moderna. So there is no point in that vaccine, in my country they first banned it for people under 60, and now they are no longer using it, choosing only to use Pfizer and Moderna vaccines (that uses the better mRNA technology).
>but I pity the ones they go first and suffer from overzealous cheerleading of a particular vaccines efficacy
Given the incident rate and the growing COVID swells in a few european countries (France and Italy especially), the slow vaccination progress, not helped by hesitance over AZ and surprising prevalence of vaccine hesitancy in general, you could just as well argue the opposite. Nations that are overcautious may lose far, far, far, far more lives thanks to covid infections than an extremely rare handful of blood clots which haven't even been tied causally to the vaccine yet. The risk reward narrative on this topic has been really bizarre so far.
> At the risk of sounding cold...they seriously suspended it because four people showed issues? Out of more than 100k doses?
No, not even that. Ireland has given over 100k doses and had zero reported issues. They are suspending it over 4 reported issues across the entire EU that don't even have a clear link to being caused by the vaccine.
The UK has given millions and millions of doses of this vaccine and there is no clotting epidemic there.
> The EMA has said that as of March 10, a total of 30 cases of blood clotting had been reported among close to 5 million people vaccinated with the AstraZeneca shot in the European Economic Area, which links 30 European countries.
"The decision today is purely precautionary..." given this level of signal. We don't have details on the age groups involved and the normal rates expected but I can hazard a Fermi Estimate that the risk is minuscule compared to COVID-19 itself. I look forward to seeing the actual data in coming days/weeks. Precaution without downside is acceptable; this is not one of those cases, IMO. YMMV.
> Nations that are overcautious may lose far, far, far, far more lives thanks to covid infections than an extremely rare handful of blood clots which haven't even been tied concretely to the vaccine yet. The risk reward analysis on this topic has been really bizarre so far.
You seem to suggest risk-reward analysis be viewed at by the number of deaths.
Germany had to suspend vaccination (temporarily) due to legal reasons and risk of a lawsuit to the state.
> It is generally advisable to get Moderna/Pfizer if they're available and you're a young woman but the chance of mortal thrombosis is around 5 per one million.
No, the risk for anyone to develop a lethal thrombosis is roughly 5 per million. The chances are much higher for younger women, to the point where it exceeds the risk to die of COVID.
Where did I mention the NHS?
I'm referring to the government downplaying the impact of the vaccine. Which could be true, because millions of people got the vaccine and only a few had the clot issue. But I would rather believe the german version on this.
Could you please try to provide any sort of sourcing for your statement? You might be right, but how is anyone supposed to take what you say as fact if you don't provide any evidence?
Just being Pro-EU doesn't mean the reporting on this vaccine-drama is inaccurate. It means we probably need to be careful of what they are saying, but doesn't automatically mean it's wrong.
> which since its deployment has been demonstrated through various data to be a spectacular failure in terms of safety and efficacy.
What do you mean by "spectacular failure"? I live in Romania, one of the least vaccinated countries in the EU (together with Bulgaria) and we're now in the middle of a very, very bad Covid wave because of the low vaccination rates. The other EU countries don't go through the same thing as us. I don't call the vaccine a "spectacular failure" in terms of safety and efficacy, quite the contrary, it demonstrates that it has been doing its job pretty well.
TL;DR Lone Norwegian physician proclaims he’s pretty sure there’s no other link to blood clots, so it must be the AZ vaccine. Flying in the face of the European Medical Agency[1], the World Health Organisation and the UK’s medicines regulator.
> There are concerning trends on blood clots and low platelets, not that the authorities will tell you.
CDC: "However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths."[0]
> I'm surprised they still bother. I think with all the concerns surrounding it it's better to just agree to cancel the contracts and move to better vaccines.
I agree with the surprise and the concerns (though most are FUD, misunderstanding, and politics). The point about better vaccines is a little unfair though.
Initially regulators were hopeful for 50% efficacy for any vaccine. Depending upon the various studies and permutations the vaccines all fall within a few % of each other and at a rate far higher than hoped for. The variance is small enough to not be a concern.
The blood clot incident rates are tiny and whilst unfortunately people do experience them the MHRA (UK) reports 38 per 11.5 million for Pfizer and 30 per 9.7 million for AZ, making them virtually identical (Pfizer slightly worse but with such small numbers that really isn't significant so I'm not claiming Pfizer is worse just that neither is AZ). We'd expect 3,000 clots per month in the UK in normal times anyway. And even if we say that these are unusual clots, the numbers remain small and AZ is not unusual in this regard.
AZ isn't perfect - but it's beyond good enough and not particularly poorer than its peers.
> doesn't automatically mean that your opinion is better and more informed than that of health authorities across EU
I agree that health authorities know better than I do, but i don't think i'm disagreeing with any health authorities. There are some health authorities saying its safe to keep on using it and there are some temporarily suspending while the situation is being investigated out of an abundance of caution. Unless i missed something, not a single one is saying that the vaccine is unsafe or confirmed to cause blood clots.
> I'm just venting about what I perceive to be HN propensity to take risks on other people and dismiss concerns
There is no risk free view here. Less vaccinated people means more people with covid, which among other things means more blood clots because covid can sometimes cause that (although obviously that's not the primary concern with covid).
Obviously if we can confirm a link between the blood clots and the vaccine, we should stop the vaccine. But as it stands the evidence is extremely weak bordering on non existent, and stopping using that vaccine will cost lives.
reply