The clotting issue may affect the J&J vaccine also as it has similar profile...
So it'll be all about the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna).
Delays in rolling out vaccine
- Thread starter tomdublin
- Start date
So it'll be all about the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna).
NIAC to recommend restriction of AstraZeneca vaccine to over-60s
NIAC recommends restriction of AZ jab to over-60s
The National Immunisation Advisory Committee (NIAC) has recommended that only people over 60 years of age should get the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine.
Paul O Mahoney
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,844
Who's liable for Covid-19?
Paul O Mahoney
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,844
They too can cause clots but not affect platelets. Once companies apply for full licences they'll have to answer what is causing these issues.
Last edited:
Could be wrong - I thought they caused 'normal' clots more easily dealt with, whereas the deeper concern with AZ was these brain clots?
Paul O Mahoney
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,844
Sorry I was editing my post, " normal " clots aren't pleasant either and can travel to heart and lungs. It's really up to the companies to get the answer's, nearly all side effects from vaccines come from the adjuvants used to get the vaccine into your system.
EasilyAmused
Registered User
- Messages
- 398
Yes, I’m basing this on there being a pandemic going on. These aren’t normal times with normal negligence. These are exceptional times. Only 5,000 people have lost there lives here. Had the government not acted the way they did 12 months ago, the body count would have been ten times that.
Taking the cervical screening scandal, that was caused by a government trying to save a few quid by outsourcing to a poxy company. Only 100s of women have been impacted.
The entire nation has been impacted by the pandemic.
Better late than never but looks like others in Europe were acting quicker again.NIAC to recommend restriction of AstraZeneca vaccine to over-60s
NIAC recommends restriction of AZ jab to over-60s
The National Immunisation Advisory Committee (NIAC) has recommended that only people over 60 years of age should get the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine.www.rte.ie
Also wonder if anyone already did an analyze here of the impact on the roll out.
I understand fully why they made this call for under 50s. Their covid risk is low. The fatal clot risk is 1 in a million but a lot more ppl will get the vaccine than covid.
But for example 50 something family member is in health care and received first dose and is now in limbo for second dose to be considered fully vaccinated.
High risk cohort who already received first dose will get second dose as scheduled.
I think it is a debatable/not quite clear yet in regards to the occurrence. Seems to vary as well per country.
In Germany they use now Pfizer for the second dose when they started to restrict AstraZeneca.
Last edited:
CureVac Could Win Covid Shot Approval in May, Augsburger Says
CureVac NV could win European Union approval for its Covid-19 vaccine as early as May, sooner than expected, a German newspaper cited a company spokesman as saying.
www.bloomberg.com
Looking forward to that one
Paul O Mahoney
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,844
Well we were to receive almost 900,000 AZ doses between April and June and from the data I've seen supply has settled down and weekly deliveries have increased.
With 240k(est) after receiving AZ and we assume those people will get a second dose and it being only used for over 60s , with many not accepting it I'd imagine, we will have a lot in stock.
More importantly we will be pushing out dates for younger people to get vaccinated. Other vaccines are on the way but I can't see those making up the difference in the rollout plan. Pfizer/BioNTech are increasing supply but again we don't know how those extras will impact the overall rollout.
Bottom line is we need AZ all other scenarios point to a longer rollout.
EasilyAmused
Registered User
- Messages
- 398
An expert on the radio this morning said that if AZ was the only vaccine it wound be rolled out to the entire population.
However, as there are other vaccines available, they’ve decided on these restrictions.
This makes sense. But if you read between the lines...
However, as there are other vaccines available, they’ve decided on these restrictions.
This makes sense. But if you read between the lines...
Accepting my lack of medical expertise, it does seem strange that we have managed to develop and produce at least four highly effective vaccines in such a short period of time because a number of companies/sectors worked together and managed to collaborate. We now have a situation where we start off saying we take all our guidance from the EMA which led to the vaccine being suspended for older people to being allowed for all cohorts, to the vaccine being paused before starting again saying it was safe to saying the vaccine was safer for the older cohorts to the EMA saying the AZ vaccine should be taken but it is up to National Regulators to design their own programmes. On the back of the same science, we have the UK giving the same vaccine to over 30's. France to over 55's, Germany and Ireland to over 60's and places like Bulgaria and Hungary not having restrictions at all. Indeed, Ireland don't give AZ to the over 70's so we are basically saying that the vaccine should only be given to people between the ages of 60 to 70.
As I said, not a scientist but why on earth would a 69 year old want that vaccine if they are saying a 70 year old should take an alternative. Likewise, telling a 59 year old that they will have to wait for an alternative vaccine while a 60 year old is injected with Astrazeneca doesn't make much logical sense to me. You had Ronan Glynn saying last night they could have picked a younger age but it was through an 'abundance of caution' that they chose 60. What does that mean? Why wasn't 65 chosen through an abundance of caution? Or the use of AZ paused completely? How much extra risk is France taking by giving it to 55-60 age cohort. How much extra risk is UK taking allowing 30-60 cohort take it? How did they decide the risk of clots versus the reward of successful covid vaccinations? If this decision delays rollout and easing of lockdown, what is the economic cost of 'picking' 60? Did that even factor into discussions? We have had thousands die from Covid but seem to have decided that the potential risk of losing less than 5 people due to the vaccine is unacceptable. Just seems odd.
The alternative to all of the above is that like the famous American Defence Secretary says: 'we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. ... But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know'
As I said, not a scientist but why on earth would a 69 year old want that vaccine if they are saying a 70 year old should take an alternative. Likewise, telling a 59 year old that they will have to wait for an alternative vaccine while a 60 year old is injected with Astrazeneca doesn't make much logical sense to me. You had Ronan Glynn saying last night they could have picked a younger age but it was through an 'abundance of caution' that they chose 60. What does that mean? Why wasn't 65 chosen through an abundance of caution? Or the use of AZ paused completely? How much extra risk is France taking by giving it to 55-60 age cohort. How much extra risk is UK taking allowing 30-60 cohort take it? How did they decide the risk of clots versus the reward of successful covid vaccinations? If this decision delays rollout and easing of lockdown, what is the economic cost of 'picking' 60? Did that even factor into discussions? We have had thousands die from Covid but seem to have decided that the potential risk of losing less than 5 people due to the vaccine is unacceptable. Just seems odd.
The alternative to all of the above is that like the famous American Defence Secretary says: 'we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. ... But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know'
We aren't giving AZ to over 70s due to lack of trials data.
Although there's no trials data for extending second AZ dose to 16 weeks so they are contradicting themselves there.
If you look at the numbers, for under 30s, the clot risk is too high versus the benefit in terms of reduced deaths for that demographic.
Bearing in mind many more under 30s would be vaccinated than would be infected with covid.
Over 60, the benefits far outweigh the risk.
For people in the 50s the benefits are still much larger, so that's where the abundance of caution kicks in.
For over 30s the benefits still significantly outweigh the clot risk.
It's a balancing act.
You could draw the line and say AZ for over 50s and vulnerable.
If we only had AZ we would be using it on everyone over 30 for sure.
Or for certain groups, MVCs where you voluntarily sign up for AZ to skip the queue.
Lack of trial data? The vaccine has been given out to millions of over 70's since December in the UK alone which is longer than the trial periods done to get approval so not only do we have some trial data, we have significant real world data.
We are talking about a one in a one million chance of dying from a blood clot so the risk of vaccinating the whole population with the AZ vaccine is that we could potentially see less than 5 deaths. The risk of under 30's and indeed the under 60's getting covid isn't just to their own health. It is that they spread it to people who are more susceptible to getting very ill from covid. We are still nowhere near fully vaccinating the over 70's or medically exposed and today we cancelled 15,000 appointments alone. We are told we still have high community transmission rates so the chances seeing another wave and significant covid related deaths seem to be me a lot greater than the risk of getting blood clots from the AZ vaccine.
Lack of trial data is what was cited. it's also the reason they don't space out Pfizer vaccines even though other countries are doing it.
But now they are spacing out AZ vaccine second dose potentially beyond 12 weeks without trial data.
So make up your own mind there.
As things stand though the under 30s were going to be vaccinated last, so everyone older than them and higher risk should have been vaccinated.
So you're only looking at the risk of death from covid versus risk of fatal clot and they are too close for comfort.
And then factor in we have other vaccines coming which don't have this risk.
As I said, for people under 60 who want to skip ahead of the queue for other vaccines and take the tiny tiny risk with AZ I think that should be an option.
I don't agree with cancelling the appointments that were already setup for higher risk groups.
The benefits of AZ far outweigh the risks for them and we shouldn't just stop the rollout, it should be a switchover not a brake.
I agree that applying a break is ridiculous. No appointments should have been cancelled and people given a choice. The issue now is that vaccination targets won't be met. 180,000 due this week will not be even close. How many lives are going to be lost to covid or people get long covid because of vaccine delays. I understand caution but as I said, even if we just used the AZ vaccine to vaccinate the entire population, we would still probably be looking at less than 5 deaths from blood clots. As it stands and use of other vaccines, probably one death if even that.
The numbers don't stack up when you are looking at the risk/reward of the vaccine. I understand saying we have other vaccines available so no need to take risks but we seem to have decided to potentially delay the vaccination of the entire population to protect young people from a 1 in a 1 million chance of adverse side affect. Maybe there won't be a delay but the 15,000 today and thousands for the rest of the week seem to have just been told that we prefer the risk of you getting covid. I am struggling to see the logic here.
The numbers don't stack up when you are looking at the risk/reward of the vaccine. I understand saying we have other vaccines available so no need to take risks but we seem to have decided to potentially delay the vaccination of the entire population to protect young people from a 1 in a 1 million chance of adverse side affect. Maybe there won't be a delay but the 15,000 today and thousands for the rest of the week seem to have just been told that we prefer the risk of you getting covid. I am struggling to see the logic here.
They shouldn't be afraid of that. No one should be forced to be vaccinated or be vaccinated with a certain vaccine. Also people shouldn't panic about Covid either.
People should be given the option to take up AstraZeneca if they are informed about the risk and the Doctor also agrees to that.