I understand that Pfizer carries an equivalent risk.
We don’t have these results so far in our data here in Germany for this age group.
Not comparable.
That’s the thing. But we have several cases now here with AstraZeneca in the younger age group because atm Pfizer and Moderna has been only given to the +70. But that will change now.
Then we will see. Everyone here below 60 can now choose whether to take the risk or not. I think it’s ok for now until we know more.
I think even language like ‘take the risk’ is a bit of a problem, as it’s been used by European media and politicians and filtered down to the public. Paracetamol and Asprin carry a similar risk.
At the EMA briefing two weeks ago it was indicated that Pfizer and Moderna showed equivalent instances of blood clots generally. However, the information currently indicates that for these specific reactions (CVST and DIC) that AstraZeneca has recorded more than twice the numbers of Pfizer and Moderna.
BUT - To date AstraZeneca has been given to young women in far greater proportions than Pfizer (and even more than Moderna, of course) which further skews those numbers.
It’s something everyone has to decide for themselves. Similar to the anti baby pill or whatever. At least, you know what is going on and not all of this “everything is fine, nothing to see here” etc. But maybe it is simply a “German thing”, to call it what it is.
Nobody here is saying “everything is fine, nothing to see here”.
Calling it what it is, except when it comes to the EU, you mean?!
It’s great your taking the vaccine 
That’s all that matters. What’s happend has happened not sure there is a real way back for AZ in Europe.
But happy to see despite concerns it’s not turned you (and likely millions of others) off vaccines altogether. That’s a good thing.
The faster Phizer, Johnson and Johnson and Moderna can supply large numbers to Europe the better.
2 Likes
I am personally affected by it now, especially since my family is also prone to thrombosis. I am of course worried and it is not at all helpful how little understanding is shown here. I am very happy that I now have a choice. That’s what I wanted to say.
5 Likes
Of course young women, particularly those who are at increased risk of suffering blood clots, are going to have concerns. That’s why it’s important that the situation is reported as completely as possible and people are informed as to the up to date situation with all the vaccines.
That is the very opposite of showing little understanding. It’s about giving proper perspective.
1 Like
Pfizer has accused the European Union of hampering its Covid vaccine production.
The US drugmaker, which supplies Britain and more than 70 other countries with coronavirus jabs, said new EU rules about the free movement of goods across borders were damaging its ability to export the vaccine.
The rules oblige manufacturers to seek Brussels’ approval before exporting every parcel of jabs, which has caused “a significant administrative burden and some uncertainty”, said Danny Hendrikse, the pharmaceutical giant’s vice-president of global supply.
“Ultimately what we would like our colleagues to do is to focus on making and distributing the vaccine,” he said.
Mr Hendrikse explained the process of gathering all the raw materials needed for jabs was “particularly complex”.
“The components don’t just come from Europe, but from all over the world,” he said, explaining that for one dose, 280 are needed, which come from 86 suppliers in 19 countries.
AZ risk of clots is over 4 times more! So what you have come to understand is false! From what I can gather my mdical condition means the risk with AZ is much greater for me (then again I haven’t had greatly reliable information which is my greatest concern. Risk groups should be identified much better imo as for the Pfizer vaccine.
Pfizer has a problem with allergies.
Listening to LBC this morning. A lady was on who’s running a vaccination centre. Says it’s very common now for people to refuse the AZ vaccine and once the word gets out that it’s “today’s vaccine” many don’t turn up. She spoke of one guy who’d been 4 times and each time refused AZ.
Thanks EU.
1 Like
On what basis? I haven’t seen the comparable numbers of AZ compared with Pfizer for the EEA but in the UK the risk of CVST from AZ is less than twice the risk compared with Pfizer.
For blood clots over all, the prevalence following AZ is again less than twice that following Pfizer.
It should be noted that CVST is an incredibly rare reaction that naturally affects more (younger) women than men and that according to the EMA 2/3rds of the younger women in the data being looked at had been given AstraZeneca so the absolute numbers will be expected to be higher.
It seems crazy to me that there is the suggestion that the figures from EEA countries are going to be more robust here. More young women in the UK have been given AstraZeneca than in any other EEA country. We began rolling out AstraZeneca vaccinations approximately 4 weeks before the EU, in far greater numbers, and it was given overwhelmingly to frontline healthcare workers who are predominantly women. It was also given to anyone who had a history of allergic reactions to ingredients in the Pfizer vaccine because of the increased risk of anaphylaxis that the Pfizer vaccine poses.
Not one person has died from CVST in the UK from either vaccine.
1 Like
Amusingly, this has an AZ angle as well. It is a contract manufacturer that is currently manufacturing both AZ and J&J and human error resulted in line workers mixing up the steps between the two. So basically, if AZ fucked off these poor over worked people would have been able to concentrate on manufacturing just the 1 vaccine and not screwed up.
FWIW, while I dont work in manufacturing I do know of this company and they are problematic with a history of GMP violations. I dont know whether the fact that 2 different companies are using them for such a vital and high profile product is a reflection on how stretched the resources are?
3 Likes
Let’s take a step back for a moment. If this were the case, what explanations do you have for regulators ignoring this and not giving it the same attention being given to AZ? There are basically 3 explanations
- You know better than the regulators
- The regulators are bent
- You’re not understanding the data
What keeps happening in these conversations data is being presented at too high an organizational level (blood clots) to express the specificity of the issue being reviewed (specific type of blood clot in a specific population).
3 Likes
Agree but there is also a danger in how the information is reported that feeds into the overall data. There is a danger of notoriety bias.
From the actual data that I’ve seen from the MHRA there is an increased prevalence of blood clots and CVST from AstraZeneca compared with Pfizer (just under twice as prevalent).
However, the overall risk of blood clots is less than you’d expect in the general unvaccinated population and, of course, is a lot less than if you were to get covid.
It’s difficult to extrapolate whether there is an increased risk of CVST from either vaccine due to how rare it is anyway such that 1 additional incident can massively affect its rate of prevalence. There is certainly an anomaly here in terms of the disparity between numbers of cases in the EEA and those in the UK. There have been no deaths in the UK from CVST despite AZ being given to young women in greater proportions than Pfizer (also no deaths).
Why is it then that the figures feeding into the eurovigilance data from EEA countries are recording deaths in young women (and men, but fewer) even if these remains relatively small as a %? There have been 62 reported cases worldwide of CVST reactions (not deaths) and 44 of them have come from the EEA. Of those there have been, if I recall correctly, 9 deaths in the EEA? [Note here: afaik no EEA-wide figures have yet been given for Pfizer, even though we know from the UK that there have been instances of these reactions following Pfizer]
Is this disparity due to differing diagnosis, different reporting criteria, different production issues, how AZ reacts with different medication that people might already be taking who are at risk of bloodclots, different genetics?
My personal perspective frameworks of risk during normal times is not suitable during a pandemic. Pragmatism vs guidelines.
I am not sure the same decisions would be made if AZ was the only vaccine available. Political opinion, and other options makes it easier to be conservative.
Given association of Covid and clots it is possible a vaccine could have this side effect. Even if minor proportion of population. If true Though I find it less plausible it’s an effect limited to AZ.
A better solution in my opinion, if there is a concern of a specific population. Simply exclude those who would be considered risk of clotting (similar to excluding those immunocompromised) Rather than blanket under 65/55.
1 Like
I don’t think this is true, mate.
The risk of a clot is greater if you haven’t had the vaccine.
1 Like