Why is the world's press only talking about AZ risks? No idea.
Here is what the NHS says are the risks of the Pfizer vaccine:-
"Like all vaccines, COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 can cause side effects, although not everybody gets them.
Most side effects are mild or moderate and go away within a few days of appearing. If side effects such as pain and/or fever are troublesome, they can be treated by medicines for pain and fever such as paracetamol. Side effects may occur with following frequencies:
Very common: may affect more than 1 in 10 people
pain at injection site tiredness headache muscle pain chills joint pain fever
Common: may affect up to 1 in 10 people
injection site swelling redness at injection site nausea
Uncommon: may affect up to 1 in 100 people
enlarged lymph nodes feeling unwell
Rare side effects: may affect up to 1 in 1,000 people
temporary one sided facial drooping
Not known (cannot be estimated from the available data)
severe allergic reaction
Some people have reported a sudden feeling of cold with shivering/shaking accompanied by a rise in temperature, possibly with sweating, headache (including migraine-like headaches), nausea, muscle aches and feeling unwell, starting within a day of having the vaccine and usually lasting for a day or two.
If your fever is high and lasts longer than three days, or you have other persistent symptoms, this might not be due to side effects of the vaccine and you should seek appropriate medical advice according to your symptoms."
In other words, very similar to AZ according to the NHS. The only differences seem to be additional risks, such as the facial drooping and the enlarged lymph nodes.
I dont intend trying to pretend I am clever. The scientists on NewsNight merely pointed out that because the overwhelming majority of the blood clot cases, were women, in younger age groups, ie none over 60, and no cases had been reported using other vaccines, that this should be investigated. I dont think anyone in their right mind could disagree with that. They might have something in common, the problem could be solved, and lives could be saved.
The trouble is, the minute you start proving the link between the 2, there is a real danger that the World stops taking the pill.
No point in trying to pretend that I am not clever But I am no scientist. But what I do know is this.
There are 2 distinctly different methods for Covid vaccines. There is the rather older (and more tested) method used by, for example AZ. And there is the newer technology used by, for example Pfizer and Moderna. Newer technology that looks ground-breaking.
Until now, AZ has been the only Western provider to use the older method. It may be that the effects are different for that reason. Except that the new entrant, Johnson & Johnson uses similar technology to AZ, rather than Pfizer/Moderna. That is why (for example) factories have been making both AZ and J&J, and Pfizer and Moderna, but not other combinations.
So-why is no-one looking very, very closely at Johnson & Johnson? Because the levels of risk and reward are extremely likely to be closer between that and AZ.
Pfizer or Moderna for under 30s then.
You wish.
Could see a certain logic in that. If it were true.
Because studies have previously shown that older people tend to favour the older, more tested/dull stuff. and young people prefer cutting-edge stuff. And what you had to spend on the more expensive vaccines would be offset in not having to argue the toss with people. As I have seen when I got my 1st dose.
But it won't. We are not getting much Moderna/Pfizer vaccines at the moment. Whereas we have signed a massive deal with Johnson & Johnson, specifically aimed at providing single doses to millennials.
It is going to be a choice. But, unless we get far more of the others, the choice is going to be AZ or "Janssen".
It is true.
Only if you believe that Boris Johnson always "follows the science". Funny how you think he always lies. Yet at the same time think he never will where it suits you. You think that, despite the clear threats he has received about keeping to the roadmap from his own party, he will follow the science, and have no regard for what is best for Boris Johnson. And I don't.
I just listened to the scientists announcing it on the telly.
Under-30s should be given an alternative to the AstraZeneca vaccine, says UK regulator, in blow to Britain's jab roll-out after 79 people suffer brain blood clots out of 20MILLION dose
Britons under 30 should not be given AstraZeneca's coronavirus vaccine due to mounting evidence linking it to rare blood clots, UK health chiefs ruled today. In a major blow to the UK's vaccination rollout, the Government's vaccine advisory group is recommending healthy people aged 19 to 29 be offered either the Pfizer or Moderna jabs instead when the programme moves to younger groups in the coming months. A review by the drugs watchdog the MHRA found that by the end of March 79 out of 20million Britons vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine had suffered deadly blood clots in the brain or arteries, a rate of about one in 250,000. Nineteen of the cases died and three were under the age of 30. The MHRA insisted there was still no concrete proof that the British-made vaccine is causing the clots, but admitted the link was getting firmer. The review prompted the Government's vaccine advisory group, the JCVI, to recommend that people aged 18 to 29 be given an alternative jab.
The Advisory Committee is recommending Pfizer or Moderna jabs for a group of people in about 3 months time. The UK Government is promising an alternative to AZ for that group.
Meanwhile, 3 months will pass. And during that 30-49 year olds will get a vaccine. Which, at some point, will become more Janssen, and less AZ. And, unless we can get hold of a lot more Pfizer/Moderna, things are going to be revised.
Reading all this I can only imagine what life would be like on planet @HAYSIE .
There is risk associated with everything, you can't stop a vaccine programme because there's a 1 in 250,000 chance it may kill you. Seat belts kill about 1 in 200,000 people so as they are more dangerous than the AZ lets stop using seatbelts yes, is that right?
I struggle sometimes to understand why people always want to focus on the negative aspects of a positive situation.
Or is it just the simple fact that the UK managed to get something right whilst the EU pontificated and procrastinated. that has rankled your pro European bias to a point where you just can't bear it
Reading all this I can only imagine what life would be like on planet @HAYSIE .
There is risk associated with everything, you can't stop a vaccine programme because there's a 1 in 250,000 chance it may kill you. Seat belts kill about 1 in 200,000 people so as they are more dangerous than the AZ lets stop using seatbelts yes, is that right?
I struggle sometimes to understand why people always want to focus on the negative aspects of a positive situation.
Or is it just the simple fact that the UK managed to get something right whilst the EU pontificated and procrastinated. that has rankled your pro European bias to a point where you just can't bear it
I worry about you on times. I havent ever put forward any suggestions for planet Haysie. I have merely posted some articles which are relevant to this thread. I also find it incredible that just because the UK has finally done something better than the EU, we have to compare everything to the EU. Surely this is about people in the UK dying after being vaccinated. Nothing to do with the EU. There have only been 19 so far, but 79 cases of blood clots, and represent a very small percentage of those vaccinated. The family and friends of these victims may not share your views. Why do people try to justify this by calculating how many would have died if we had stopped vaccinating. Why wouldnt we consider what would happen if we just used other vaccines. Neither Pfizer, nor Moderna have been found to have a similar side effect. So if we had 20 million vaccinations to go, rather than accepting that we will kill another 20 people, wouldnt we be better giving them an alternative vaccine. Pfizer has been used in as many vaccinations as AZ, without killing anyone through blood clots. We have no shortage of the Pfizer, and Moderna, as Matt Hancock said yesterday that we have more than 9 million in stock. So why do we just accept that some people will die, rather than avoid this where possible.
I am glad that The Government has met this head on, and have been informative on this subject, rather than being secretive as you seemed to be suggesting. I dont think the dont tell anyone because more will refuse a vaccination approach would have worked very well.
It appears that they now intend to give the under 30s a choice of which vaccine they would prefer. Given a choice if any of these people choose AZ, they would have to be mad. Why would anyone choose a chance of blood clots, and maybe death, rather than no chance of either, based on the results so far.
Reading all this I can only imagine what life would be like on planet @HAYSIE .
There is risk associated with everything, you can't stop a vaccine programme because there's a 1 in 250,000 chance it may kill you. Seat belts kill about 1 in 200,000 people so as they are more dangerous than the AZ lets stop using seatbelts yes, is that right?
I struggle sometimes to understand why people always want to focus on the negative aspects of a positive situation.
Or is it just the simple fact that the UK managed to get something right whilst the EU pontificated and procrastinated. that has rankled your pro European bias to a point where you just can't bear it
I worry about you on times. I havent ever put forward any suggestions for planet Haysie. I have merely posted some articles which are relevant to this thread. I also find it incredible that just because the UK has finally done something better than the EU, we have to compare everything to the EU. Surely this is about people in the UK dying after being vaccinated. Nothing to do with the EU. There have only been 19 so far, but 79 cases of blood clots, and represent a very small percentage of those vaccinated. The family and friends of these victims may not share your views. Why do people try to justify this by calculating how many would have died if we had stopped vaccinating. Why wouldnt we consider what would happen if we just used other vaccines. Neither Pfizer, nor Moderna have been found to have a similar side effect. So if we had 20 million vaccinations to go, rather than accepting that we will kill another 20 people, wouldnt we be better giving them an alternative vaccine. Pfizer has been used in as many vaccinations as AZ, without killing anyone through blood clots. We have no shortage of the Pfizer, and Moderna, as Matt Hancock said yesterday that we have more than 9 million in stock. So why do we just accept that some people will die, rather than avoid this where possible.
I am glad that The Government has met this head on, and have been informative on this subject, rather than being secretive as you seemed to be suggesting. I dont think the dont tell anyone because more will refuse a vaccination approach would have worked very well.
It appears that they now intend to give the under 30s a choice of which vaccine they would prefer. Given a choice if any of these people choose AZ, they would have to be mad. Why would anyone choose a chance of blood clots, and maybe death, rather than no chance of either, based on the results so far.
NHS to cancel vaccinations for under-30s after new AstraZeneca advice
NHS England is to cancel all booked first-dose coronavirus vaccinations for adults under 30 from tomorrow after the change in advice over the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.
From tomorrow, anyone aged between 18 and 29 who has been scheduled to have the AstraZeneca vaccine will have their appointment cancelled and they will be told to contact their GP to discuss their preference.
Reading all this I can only imagine what life would be like on planet @HAYSIE .
There is risk associated with everything, you can't stop a vaccine programme because there's a 1 in 250,000 chance it may kill you. Seat belts kill about 1 in 200,000 people so as they are more dangerous than the AZ lets stop using seatbelts yes, is that right?
I struggle sometimes to understand why people always want to focus on the negative aspects of a positive situation.
Or is it just the simple fact that the UK managed to get something right whilst the EU pontificated and procrastinated. that has rankled your pro European bias to a point where you just can't bear it
I worry about you on times. I havent ever put forward any suggestions for planet Haysie. I have merely posted some articles which are relevant to this thread. I also find it incredible that just because the UK has finally done something better than the EU, we have to compare everything to the EU. Surely this is about people in the UK dying after being vaccinated. Nothing to do with the EU. There have only been 19 so far, but 79 cases of blood clots, and represent a very small percentage of those vaccinated. The family and friends of these victims may not share your views. Why do people try to justify this by calculating how many would have died if we had stopped vaccinating. Why wouldnt we consider what would happen if we just used other vaccines. Neither Pfizer, nor Moderna have been found to have a similar side effect. So if we had 20 million vaccinations to go, rather than accepting that we will kill another 20 people, wouldnt we be better giving them an alternative vaccine. Pfizer has been used in as many vaccinations as AZ, without killing anyone through blood clots. We have no shortage of the Pfizer, and Moderna, as Matt Hancock said yesterday that we have more than 9 million in stock. So why do we just accept that some people will die, rather than avoid this where possible.
I am glad that The Government has met this head on, and have been informative on this subject, rather than being secretive as you seemed to be suggesting. I dont think the dont tell anyone because more will refuse a vaccination approach would have worked very well.
It appears that they now intend to give the under 30s a choice of which vaccine they would prefer. Given a choice if any of these people choose AZ, they would have to be mad. Why would anyone choose a chance of blood clots, and maybe death, rather than no chance of either, based on the results so far.
It is exactly this sort of dangerous misinterpretation of the facts presented by the MHRA which makes people accuse you of being virulently anti-British.
When scientists present "facts", people tend to believe them, Without realising the limitations of those facts. Because scientific facts are based on assumptions. So-it is better for 20-29 year-olds not to have any vaccine rather than AZ, provided you accept:-
1. That the current infection rate is 20 per 100,000 in every part of the UK 2. That a study involving risks to Influenza patients by age group in July 2020 is going to be exactly replicated for a different illness between April-July 2021 3. That healthy people are the yardstick 4. That the R number is irrelevant for this purpose 5. That the highest incidence of risk of blood clots is the correct one 6. That no other contributory factors are involved. To give a simple example, no Vaccine is supposed to be given within 28 days of contracting Covid. But asymptomatic 20-29 year-olds do not know, and no test is being given prior to the jab 7. That the studies showing that women are twice as likely as men to get clots can safely be ignored 8. That it is clinically correct just to create 12 groups, and pigeonhole all people into 1 of those groups. You know, like a horoscope, as opposed to a major pandemic 9. You are happy to believe that, when scientists choose to compare AZ with nothing, that that automatically means that AZ is worse than other vaccines. It is clear that a miniscule risk of clotting exists. But we know that Pfizer/Moderna also involve miniscule risks. Just not a clotting one 10. You believe that, if the MHRA were sure that AZ was less safe, they would not choose to compare AZ with Pfizer on overall risk. Because you are complaining that people are not comparing the relevant risks. Ignoring the fact that we are receiving no data to compare the actual possible risk of 1, with the actual possible risk of the alternative. Because I don't want a comparison based purely on blood clotting. I want 1 based on total risk of dying or hospitalisation between the alternatives. Because, in the real world there is most definitely risk in all options.
Reading all this I can only imagine what life would be like on planet @HAYSIE .
There is risk associated with everything, you can't stop a vaccine programme because there's a 1 in 250,000 chance it may kill you. Seat belts kill about 1 in 200,000 people so as they are more dangerous than the AZ lets stop using seatbelts yes, is that right?
I struggle sometimes to understand why people always want to focus on the negative aspects of a positive situation.
Or is it just the simple fact that the UK managed to get something right whilst the EU pontificated and procrastinated. that has rankled your pro European bias to a point where you just can't bear it
I worry about you on times. I havent ever put forward any suggestions for planet Haysie. I have merely posted some articles which are relevant to this thread. I also find it incredible that just because the UK has finally done something better than the EU, we have to compare everything to the EU. Surely this is about people in the UK dying after being vaccinated. Nothing to do with the EU. There have only been 19 so far, but 79 cases of blood clots, and represent a very small percentage of those vaccinated. The family and friends of these victims may not share your views. Why do people try to justify this by calculating how many would have died if we had stopped vaccinating. Why wouldnt we consider what would happen if we just used other vaccines. Neither Pfizer, nor Moderna have been found to have a similar side effect. So if we had 20 million vaccinations to go, rather than accepting that we will kill another 20 people, wouldnt we be better giving them an alternative vaccine. Pfizer has been used in as many vaccinations as AZ, without killing anyone through blood clots. We have no shortage of the Pfizer, and Moderna, as Matt Hancock said yesterday that we have more than 9 million in stock. So why do we just accept that some people will die, rather than avoid this where possible.
I am glad that The Government has met this head on, and have been informative on this subject, rather than being secretive as you seemed to be suggesting. I dont think the dont tell anyone because more will refuse a vaccination approach would have worked very well.
It appears that they now intend to give the under 30s a choice of which vaccine they would prefer. Given a choice if any of these people choose AZ, they would have to be mad. Why would anyone choose a chance of blood clots, and maybe death, rather than no chance of either, based on the results so far.
NHS to cancel vaccinations for under-30s after new AstraZeneca advice
NHS England is to cancel all booked first-dose coronavirus vaccinations for adults under 30 from tomorrow after the change in advice over the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.
From tomorrow, anyone aged between 18 and 29 who has been scheduled to have the AstraZeneca vaccine will have their appointment cancelled and they will be told to contact their GP to discuss their preference.
You quote this as though it is a good thing. The JCVI have used assumptions based on outwardly healthy people who have a very low risk of catching coronavirus.
So-which people have had their appointments cancelled? There are only 2 groups of 20-29 year olds whose appointments have been cancelled.
1. People who do jobs that have the highest risk of catching, and passing on, Covid. Nurses, Care workers. Getting it later than most for a host of reasons-maternity, first job, only just overcome reluctance to have the vaccine. you know, people who are undertaking risks massively above the 20 per 100,000 in the assumption 2. People with serious underlying health conditions. Again, people who do not meet the assumptions made when figures are presented "proving" the AZ vaccine is not worth having for a group of people.
To quote from the article you provided
"It is thought the cancellations will affect several thousand people who were booked for a vaccine, including younger health and social care workers, unpaid carers and people living with relatives who have a compromised immune system."
Cost of delay in human lives? Oh, yes. No-one had bothered to work this out.
Reading all this I can only imagine what life would be like on planet @HAYSIE .
There is risk associated with everything, you can't stop a vaccine programme because there's a 1 in 250,000 chance it may kill you. Seat belts kill about 1 in 200,000 people so as they are more dangerous than the AZ lets stop using seatbelts yes, is that right?
I struggle sometimes to understand why people always want to focus on the negative aspects of a positive situation.
Or is it just the simple fact that the UK managed to get something right whilst the EU pontificated and procrastinated. that has rankled your pro European bias to a point where you just can't bear it
I worry about you on times. I havent ever put forward any suggestions for planet Haysie. I have merely posted some articles which are relevant to this thread. I also find it incredible that just because the UK has finally done something better than the EU, we have to compare everything to the EU. Surely this is about people in the UK dying after being vaccinated. Nothing to do with the EU. There have only been 19 so far, but 79 cases of blood clots, and represent a very small percentage of those vaccinated. The family and friends of these victims may not share your views. Why do people try to justify this by calculating how many would have died if we had stopped vaccinating. Why wouldnt we consider what would happen if we just used other vaccines. Neither Pfizer, nor Moderna have been found to have a similar side effect. So if we had 20 million vaccinations to go, rather than accepting that we will kill another 20 people, wouldnt we be better giving them an alternative vaccine. Pfizer has been used in as many vaccinations as AZ, without killing anyone through blood clots. We have no shortage of the Pfizer, and Moderna, as Matt Hancock said yesterday that we have more than 9 million in stock. So why do we just accept that some people will die, rather than avoid this where possible.
I am glad that The Government has met this head on, and have been informative on this subject, rather than being secretive as you seemed to be suggesting. I dont think the dont tell anyone because more will refuse a vaccination approach would have worked very well.
It appears that they now intend to give the under 30s a choice of which vaccine they would prefer. Given a choice if any of these people choose AZ, they would have to be mad. Why would anyone choose a chance of blood clots, and maybe death, rather than no chance of either, based on the results so far.
It is exactly this sort of dangerous misinterpretation of the facts presented by the MHRA which makes people accuse you of being virulently anti-British.
When scientists present "facts", people tend to believe them, Without realising the limitations of those facts. Because scientific facts are based on assumptions. So-it is better for 20-29 year-olds not to have any vaccine rather than AZ, provided you accept:-
1. That the current infection rate is 20 per 100,000 in every part of the UK 2. That a study involving risks to Influenza patients by age group in July 2020 is going to be exactly replicated for a different illness between April-July 2021 3. That healthy people are the yardstick 4. That the R number is irrelevant for this purpose 5. That the highest incidence of risk of blood clots is the correct one 6. That no other contributory factors are involved. To give a simple example, no Vaccine is supposed to be given within 28 days of contracting Covid. But asymptomatic 20-29 year-olds do not know, and no test is being given prior to the jab 7. That the studies showing that women are twice as likely as men to get clots can safely be ignored 8. That it is clinically correct just to create 12 groups, and pigeonhole all people into 1 of those groups. You know, like a horoscope, as opposed to a major pandemic 9. You are happy to believe that, when scientists choose to compare AZ with nothing, that that automatically means that AZ is worse than other vaccines. It is clear that a miniscule risk of clotting exists. But we know that Pfizer/Moderna also involve miniscule risks. Just not a clotting one 10. You believe that, if the MHRA were sure that AZ was less safe, they would not choose to compare AZ with Pfizer on overall risk. Because you are complaining that people are not comparing the relevant risks. Ignoring the fact that we are receiving no data to compare the actual possible risk of 1, with the actual possible risk of the alternative. Because I don't want a comparison based purely on blood clotting. I want 1 based on total risk of dying or hospitalisation between the alternatives. Because, in the real world there is most definitely risk in all options.
Reading all this I can only imagine what life would be like on planet @HAYSIE .
There is risk associated with everything, you can't stop a vaccine programme because there's a 1 in 250,000 chance it may kill you. Seat belts kill about 1 in 200,000 people so as they are more dangerous than the AZ lets stop using seatbelts yes, is that right?
I struggle sometimes to understand why people always want to focus on the negative aspects of a positive situation.
Or is it just the simple fact that the UK managed to get something right whilst the EU pontificated and procrastinated. that has rankled your pro European bias to a point where you just can't bear it
I worry about you on times. I havent ever put forward any suggestions for planet Haysie. I have merely posted some articles which are relevant to this thread. I also find it incredible that just because the UK has finally done something better than the EU, we have to compare everything to the EU. Surely this is about people in the UK dying after being vaccinated. Nothing to do with the EU. There have only been 19 so far, but 79 cases of blood clots, and represent a very small percentage of those vaccinated. The family and friends of these victims may not share your views. Why do people try to justify this by calculating how many would have died if we had stopped vaccinating. Why wouldnt we consider what would happen if we just used other vaccines. Neither Pfizer, nor Moderna have been found to have a similar side effect. So if we had 20 million vaccinations to go, rather than accepting that we will kill another 20 people, wouldnt we be better giving them an alternative vaccine. Pfizer has been used in as many vaccinations as AZ, without killing anyone through blood clots. We have no shortage of the Pfizer, and Moderna, as Matt Hancock said yesterday that we have more than 9 million in stock. So why do we just accept that some people will die, rather than avoid this where possible.
I am glad that The Government has met this head on, and have been informative on this subject, rather than being secretive as you seemed to be suggesting. I dont think the dont tell anyone because more will refuse a vaccination approach would have worked very well.
It appears that they now intend to give the under 30s a choice of which vaccine they would prefer. Given a choice if any of these people choose AZ, they would have to be mad. Why would anyone choose a chance of blood clots, and maybe death, rather than no chance of either, based on the results so far.
NHS to cancel vaccinations for under-30s after new AstraZeneca advice
NHS England is to cancel all booked first-dose coronavirus vaccinations for adults under 30 from tomorrow after the change in advice over the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.
From tomorrow, anyone aged between 18 and 29 who has been scheduled to have the AstraZeneca vaccine will have their appointment cancelled and they will be told to contact their GP to discuss their preference.
You quote this as though it is a good thing. The JCVI have used assumptions based on outwardly healthy people who have a very low risk of catching coronavirus.
So-which people have had their appointments cancelled? There are only 2 groups of 20-29 year olds whose appointments have been cancelled.
1. People who do jobs that have the highest risk of catching, and passing on, Covid. Nurses, Care workers. Getting it later than most for a host of reasons-maternity, first job, only just overcome reluctance to have the vaccine. you know, people who are undertaking risks massively above the 20 per 100,000 in the assumption 2. People with serious underlying health conditions. Again, people who do not meet the assumptions made when figures are presented "proving" the AZ vaccine is not worth having for a group of people.
To quote from the article you provided
"It is thought the cancellations will affect several thousand people who were booked for a vaccine, including younger health and social care workers, unpaid carers and people living with relatives who have a compromised immune system."
Cost of delay in human lives? Oh, yes. No-one had bothered to work this out.
If there are other vaccines available why wouldnt you use them? No need for delays.
Reading all this I can only imagine what life would be like on planet @HAYSIE .
There is risk associated with everything, you can't stop a vaccine programme because there's a 1 in 250,000 chance it may kill you. Seat belts kill about 1 in 200,000 people so as they are more dangerous than the AZ lets stop using seatbelts yes, is that right?
I struggle sometimes to understand why people always want to focus on the negative aspects of a positive situation.
Or is it just the simple fact that the UK managed to get something right whilst the EU pontificated and procrastinated. that has rankled your pro European bias to a point where you just can't bear it
I worry about you on times. I havent ever put forward any suggestions for planet Haysie. I have merely posted some articles which are relevant to this thread. I also find it incredible that just because the UK has finally done something better than the EU, we have to compare everything to the EU. Surely this is about people in the UK dying after being vaccinated. Nothing to do with the EU. There have only been 19 so far, but 79 cases of blood clots, and represent a very small percentage of those vaccinated. The family and friends of these victims may not share your views. Why do people try to justify this by calculating how many would have died if we had stopped vaccinating. Why wouldnt we consider what would happen if we just used other vaccines. Neither Pfizer, nor Moderna have been found to have a similar side effect. So if we had 20 million vaccinations to go, rather than accepting that we will kill another 20 people, wouldnt we be better giving them an alternative vaccine. Pfizer has been used in as many vaccinations as AZ, without killing anyone through blood clots. We have no shortage of the Pfizer, and Moderna, as Matt Hancock said yesterday that we have more than 9 million in stock. So why do we just accept that some people will die, rather than avoid this where possible.
I am glad that The Government has met this head on, and have been informative on this subject, rather than being secretive as you seemed to be suggesting. I dont think the dont tell anyone because more will refuse a vaccination approach would have worked very well.
It appears that they now intend to give the under 30s a choice of which vaccine they would prefer. Given a choice if any of these people choose AZ, they would have to be mad. Why would anyone choose a chance of blood clots, and maybe death, rather than no chance of either, based on the results so far.
NHS to cancel vaccinations for under-30s after new AstraZeneca advice
NHS England is to cancel all booked first-dose coronavirus vaccinations for adults under 30 from tomorrow after the change in advice over the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.
From tomorrow, anyone aged between 18 and 29 who has been scheduled to have the AstraZeneca vaccine will have their appointment cancelled and they will be told to contact their GP to discuss their preference.
You quote this as though it is a good thing. The JCVI have used assumptions based on outwardly healthy people who have a very low risk of catching coronavirus.
So-which people have had their appointments cancelled? There are only 2 groups of 20-29 year olds whose appointments have been cancelled.
1. People who do jobs that have the highest risk of catching, and passing on, Covid. Nurses, Care workers. Getting it later than most for a host of reasons-maternity, first job, only just overcome reluctance to have the vaccine. you know, people who are undertaking risks massively above the 20 per 100,000 in the assumption 2. People with serious underlying health conditions. Again, people who do not meet the assumptions made when figures are presented "proving" the AZ vaccine is not worth having for a group of people.
To quote from the article you provided
"It is thought the cancellations will affect several thousand people who were booked for a vaccine, including younger health and social care workers, unpaid carers and people living with relatives who have a compromised immune system."
Cost of delay in human lives? Oh, yes. No-one had bothered to work this out.
AstraZeneca vaccine may be linked to capillary leak syndrome - what are the symptoms?
The AstraZeneca Covid vaccine could now be linked to capillary leak syndrome - a rare disorder characterised by a rapid fall in blood pressure as a result of fluid leaks from capillaries. This can sometimes be life threatening. The European Medicines Authority (EMA) said five cases of capillary leak syndrome had been reported in vaccinated patients on the continent.
Data has shown the UK's regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), had spotted three cases of capillary leak syndrome out of 20 million people given the AstraZeneca vaccine by late March.
It explains: "As the fluid leaks out from the bloodstream, blood volume and blood pressure drop. This can starve tissues in the kidneys, brain and liver of the oxygen and nutrients they need for normal function."
If the condition is left untreated it can lead to organ failure and death.
The capillary leak syndrome link spells another potential blow for AstraZeneca, after reports of rare blood clots in the brain and abdomen.
The recommendation for under 30s in the UK being offered an alternative Covid vaccine comes after a review by the UK drugs regulator found by the end of March 79 people had suffered rare blood clots after vaccination - 19 died.
That is clearly not enough-so...extreme caution. For when an abundance is not enough
Meanwhile, on Planet BoJo...
It is not clear why they have chosen to treat the under 30s differently, when some of the cases have occurred in older people, although none in the over 60s.
That is clearly not enough-so...extreme caution. For when an abundance is not enough
Meanwhile, on Planet BoJo...
It is not clear why they have chosen to treat the under 30s differently, when some of the cases have occurred in older people, although none in the over 60s.
All this means is this:-
There was a 5-slide presentation.
You have read/listened to slide 1. And have not understood it. Otherwise you would understand why, when certain conditions are met, it becomes possible that, in effect, "nothing works faster than Anadin" for under-30s. And that nothing does not, and likely never does, for over-30s.
You have not looked at slides 2-4. Which set out why, when risks are higher, AZ is better than nothing for all age groups.
You have not looked at the various assumptions that were made which were necessary to formulate the outcomes in slide 1. You will find 1 of these in the bottom right corner of slides 1-4, and the long list on slide 5.
And you would then understand why people who would ordinarily be in Group 12 of 12 (18-29 yrs old) who have been bumped up to a priority group don't fit the perameters for slide 1. Because all of them have been bumped up because either
(1) they have a far higher than typical risk of getting/transmitting Covid (such as Nurses); or (2) there is a far higher risk of serious illness or death because of pre-existing conditions.
That is clearly not enough-so...extreme caution. For when an abundance is not enough
Meanwhile, on Planet BoJo...
It is not clear why they have chosen to treat the under 30s differently, when some of the cases have occurred in older people, although none in the over 60s.
All this means is this:-
There was a 5-slide presentation.
You have read/listened to slide 1. And have not understood it. Otherwise you would understand why, when certain conditions are met, it becomes possible that, in effect, "nothing works faster than Anadin" for under-30s. And that nothing does not, and likely never does, for over-30s.
You have not looked at slides 2-4. Which set out why, when risks are higher, AZ is better than nothing for all age groups.
You have not looked at the various assumptions that were made which were necessary to formulate the outcomes in slide 1. You will find 1 of these in the bottom right corner of slides 1-4, and the long list on slide 5.
And you would then understand why people who would ordinarily be in Group 12 of 12 (18-29 yrs old) who have been bumped up to a priority group don't fit the perameters for slide 1. Because all of them have been bumped up because either
(1) they have a far higher than typical risk of getting/transmitting Covid (such as Nurses); or (2) there is a far higher risk of serious illness or death because of pre-existing conditions.
But older people have died of the blood clots. They dont understand why they are a side effect, specifically to the AZ vaccine.
That is clearly not enough-so...extreme caution. For when an abundance is not enough
Meanwhile, on Planet BoJo...
It is not clear why they have chosen to treat the under 30s differently, when some of the cases have occurred in older people, although none in the over 60s.
All this means is this:-
There was a 5-slide presentation.
You have read/listened to slide 1. And have not understood it. Otherwise you would understand why, when certain conditions are met, it becomes possible that, in effect, "nothing works faster than Anadin" for under-30s. And that nothing does not, and likely never does, for over-30s.
You have not looked at slides 2-4. Which set out why, when risks are higher, AZ is better than nothing for all age groups.
You have not looked at the various assumptions that were made which were necessary to formulate the outcomes in slide 1. You will find 1 of these in the bottom right corner of slides 1-4, and the long list on slide 5.
And you would then understand why people who would ordinarily be in Group 12 of 12 (18-29 yrs old) who have been bumped up to a priority group don't fit the perameters for slide 1. Because all of them have been bumped up because either
(1) they have a far higher than typical risk of getting/transmitting Covid (such as Nurses); or (2) there is a far higher risk of serious illness or death because of pre-existing conditions.
Surely the point is that The Government has ordered enough vaccine to inject all of the UK population 5 times over. Matt Hancock has clearly said there are plenty of the other vaccines in stock. Therefore why wouldnt you use the others, rather than cause any needless deaths?
That is clearly not enough-so...extreme caution. For when an abundance is not enough
Meanwhile, on Planet BoJo...
It is not clear why they have chosen to treat the under 30s differently, when some of the cases have occurred in older people, although none in the over 60s.
All this means is this:-
There was a 5-slide presentation.
You have read/listened to slide 1. And have not understood it. Otherwise you would understand why, when certain conditions are met, it becomes possible that, in effect, "nothing works faster than Anadin" for under-30s. And that nothing does not, and likely never does, for over-30s.
You have not looked at slides 2-4. Which set out why, when risks are higher, AZ is better than nothing for all age groups.
You have not looked at the various assumptions that were made which were necessary to formulate the outcomes in slide 1. You will find 1 of these in the bottom right corner of slides 1-4, and the long list on slide 5.
And you would then understand why people who would ordinarily be in Group 12 of 12 (18-29 yrs old) who have been bumped up to a priority group don't fit the perameters for slide 1. Because all of them have been bumped up because either
(1) they have a far higher than typical risk of getting/transmitting Covid (such as Nurses); or (2) there is a far higher risk of serious illness or death because of pre-existing conditions.
Surely the point is that The Government has ordered enough vaccine to inject all of the UK population 5 times over. Matt Hancock has clearly said there are plenty of the other vaccines in stock. Therefore why wouldnt you use the others, rather than cause any needless deaths?
"Surely the point is that The Government has ordered enough vaccine to inject all of the UK population 5 times over."
Only if you believe that the Government has secured US stock that it has ordered. When no other country has. When the EU hasn't got enough, even though it has ordered even more than us, and makes some of it there.
"Matt Hancock has clearly said there are plenty of the other vaccines in stock."
I'm sure he did. He is a senior member of a Government that you believe to be fronted by an habitual liar. If we had all this stuff lying about, should have been easy to keep all those appointments that have jusr been cancelled. Cos those appointments were not for an AZ vaccine. They were for a vaccine.
"Therefore why wouldnt you use the others, rather than cause any needless deaths?"
All depends as to how you define needless, and how you define deaths.
There will be deaths caused by all the vaccines. There will be far more by delay. Pfizer has been associated with:-
1 in 1000 incidence of Bell's Palsy. Not fatal, but a serious illness. And 1 in 1000-not 1 in roughly 200,000 Initial studies showed an increased incidence of myocardial infarction. Very small numbers, ongoing investigation
If you think it is really as simple as you wish, why didn't the Government's advisers compare risks between the 2 types of vaccine?
That is clearly not enough-so...extreme caution. For when an abundance is not enough
Meanwhile, on Planet BoJo...
It is not clear why they have chosen to treat the under 30s differently, when some of the cases have occurred in older people, although none in the over 60s.
All this means is this:-
There was a 5-slide presentation.
You have read/listened to slide 1. And have not understood it. Otherwise you would understand why, when certain conditions are met, it becomes possible that, in effect, "nothing works faster than Anadin" for under-30s. And that nothing does not, and likely never does, for over-30s.
You have not looked at slides 2-4. Which set out why, when risks are higher, AZ is better than nothing for all age groups.
You have not looked at the various assumptions that were made which were necessary to formulate the outcomes in slide 1. You will find 1 of these in the bottom right corner of slides 1-4, and the long list on slide 5.
And you would then understand why people who would ordinarily be in Group 12 of 12 (18-29 yrs old) who have been bumped up to a priority group don't fit the perameters for slide 1. Because all of them have been bumped up because either
(1) they have a far higher than typical risk of getting/transmitting Covid (such as Nurses); or (2) there is a far higher risk of serious illness or death because of pre-existing conditions.
Surely the point is that The Government has ordered enough vaccine to inject all of the UK population 5 times over. Matt Hancock has clearly said there are plenty of the other vaccines in stock. Therefore why wouldnt you use the others, rather than cause any needless deaths?
"Surely the point is that The Government has ordered enough vaccine to inject all of the UK population 5 times over."
Only if you believe that the Government has secured US stock that it has ordered. When no other country has. When the EU hasn't got enough, even though it has ordered even more than us, and makes some of it there.
"Matt Hancock has clearly said there are plenty of the other vaccines in stock."
I'm sure he did. He is a senior member of a Government that you believe to be fronted by an habitual liar. If we had all this stuff lying about, should have been easy to keep all those appointments that have jusr been cancelled. Cos those appointments were not for an AZ vaccine. They were for a vaccine.
"Therefore why wouldnt you use the others, rather than cause any needless deaths?"
All depends as to how you define needless, and how you define deaths.
There will be deaths caused by all the vaccines. There will be far more by delay. Pfizer has been associated with:-
1 in 1000 incidence of Bell's Palsy. Not fatal, but a serious illness. And 1 in 1000-not 1 in roughly 200,000 Initial studies showed an increased incidence of myocardial infarction. Very small numbers, ongoing investigation
If you think it is really as simple as you wish, why didn't the Government's advisers compare risks between the 2 types of vaccine?
Death is usually defined by people stopping breathing. Matt Hancock said that we had enough alternative vaccines to inject all the under 30s, in stock now.
Comments
Meanwhile, 3 months will pass. And during that 30-49 year olds will get a vaccine. Which, at some point, will become more Janssen, and less AZ. And, unless we can get hold of a lot more Pfizer/Moderna, things are going to be revised.
That is clearly not enough-so...extreme caution. For when an abundance is not enough
Meanwhile, on Planet BoJo...
There is risk associated with everything, you can't stop a vaccine programme because there's a 1 in 250,000 chance it may kill you. Seat belts kill about 1 in 200,000 people so as they are more dangerous than the AZ lets stop using seatbelts yes, is that right?
I struggle sometimes to understand why people always want to focus on the negative aspects of a positive situation.
Or is it just the simple fact that the UK managed to get something right whilst the EU pontificated and procrastinated. that has rankled your pro European bias to a point where you just can't bear it
Just asking.
I havent ever put forward any suggestions for planet Haysie.
I have merely posted some articles which are relevant to this thread.
I also find it incredible that just because the UK has finally done something better than the EU, we have to compare everything to the EU.
Surely this is about people in the UK dying after being vaccinated.
Nothing to do with the EU.
There have only been 19 so far, but 79 cases of blood clots, and represent a very small percentage of those vaccinated.
The family and friends of these victims may not share your views.
Why do people try to justify this by calculating how many would have died if we had stopped vaccinating.
Why wouldnt we consider what would happen if we just used other vaccines.
Neither Pfizer, nor Moderna have been found to have a similar side effect.
So if we had 20 million vaccinations to go, rather than accepting that we will kill another 20 people, wouldnt we be better giving them an alternative vaccine.
Pfizer has been used in as many vaccinations as AZ, without killing anyone through blood clots.
We have no shortage of the Pfizer, and Moderna, as Matt Hancock said yesterday that we have more than 9 million in stock.
So why do we just accept that some people will die, rather than avoid this where possible.
I am glad that The Government has met this head on, and have been informative on this subject, rather than being secretive as you seemed to be suggesting.
I dont think the dont tell anyone because more will refuse a vaccination approach would have worked very well.
It appears that they now intend to give the under 30s a choice of which vaccine they would prefer.
Given a choice if any of these people choose AZ, they would have to be mad.
Why would anyone choose a chance of blood clots, and maybe death, rather than no chance of either, based on the results so far.
NHS England is to cancel all booked first-dose coronavirus vaccinations for adults under 30 from tomorrow after the change in advice over the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.
From tomorrow, anyone aged between 18 and 29 who has been scheduled to have the AstraZeneca vaccine will have their appointment cancelled and they will be told to contact their GP to discuss their preference.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coronavirus/nhs-to-cancel-vaccinations-for-under-30s-after-new-astrazeneca-advice/ar-BB1frBow?ocid=msedgntp
When scientists present "facts", people tend to believe them, Without realising the limitations of those facts. Because scientific facts are based on assumptions. So-it is better for 20-29 year-olds not to have any vaccine rather than AZ, provided you accept:-
1. That the current infection rate is 20 per 100,000 in every part of the UK
2. That a study involving risks to Influenza patients by age group in July 2020 is going to be exactly replicated for a different illness between April-July 2021
3. That healthy people are the yardstick
4. That the R number is irrelevant for this purpose
5. That the highest incidence of risk of blood clots is the correct one
6. That no other contributory factors are involved. To give a simple example, no Vaccine is supposed to be given within 28 days of contracting Covid. But asymptomatic 20-29 year-olds do not know, and no test is being given prior to the jab
7. That the studies showing that women are twice as likely as men to get clots can safely be ignored
8. That it is clinically correct just to create 12 groups, and pigeonhole all people into 1 of those groups. You know, like a horoscope, as opposed to a major pandemic
9. You are happy to believe that, when scientists choose to compare AZ with nothing, that that automatically means that AZ is worse than other vaccines. It is clear that a miniscule risk of clotting exists. But we know that Pfizer/Moderna also involve miniscule risks. Just not a clotting one
10. You believe that, if the MHRA were sure that AZ was less safe, they would not choose to compare AZ with Pfizer on overall risk. Because you are complaining that people are not comparing the relevant risks. Ignoring the fact that we are receiving no data to compare the actual possible risk of 1, with the actual possible risk of the alternative. Because I don't want a comparison based purely on blood clotting. I want 1 based on total risk of dying or hospitalisation between the alternatives. Because, in the real world there is most definitely risk in all options.
The JCVI have used assumptions based on outwardly healthy people who have a very low risk of catching coronavirus.
So-which people have had their appointments cancelled? There are only 2 groups of 20-29 year olds whose appointments have been cancelled.
1. People who do jobs that have the highest risk of catching, and passing on, Covid. Nurses, Care workers. Getting it later than most for a host of reasons-maternity, first job, only just overcome reluctance to have the vaccine. you know, people who are undertaking risks massively above the 20 per 100,000 in the assumption
2. People with serious underlying health conditions. Again, people who do not meet the assumptions made when figures are presented "proving" the AZ vaccine is not worth having for a group of people.
To quote from the article you provided
"It is thought the cancellations will affect several thousand people who were booked for a vaccine, including younger health and social care workers, unpaid carers and people living with relatives who have a compromised immune system."
Cost of delay in human lives?
Oh, yes. No-one had bothered to work this out.
No need for delays.
The AstraZeneca Covid vaccine could now be linked to capillary leak syndrome - a rare disorder characterised by a rapid fall in blood pressure as a result of fluid leaks from capillaries. This can sometimes be life threatening. The European Medicines Authority (EMA) said five cases of capillary leak syndrome had been reported in vaccinated patients on the continent.
Data has shown the UK's regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), had spotted three cases of capillary leak syndrome out of 20 million people given the AstraZeneca vaccine by late March.
It explains: "As the fluid leaks out from the bloodstream, blood volume and blood pressure drop. This can starve tissues in the kidneys, brain and liver of the oxygen and nutrients they need for normal function."
If the condition is left untreated it can lead to organ failure and death.
The capillary leak syndrome link spells another potential blow for AstraZeneca, after reports of rare blood clots in the brain and abdomen.
The recommendation for under 30s in the UK being offered an alternative Covid vaccine comes after a review by the UK drugs regulator found by the end of March 79 people had suffered rare blood clots after vaccination - 19 died.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/astrazeneca-vaccine-may-be-linked-to-capillary-leak-syndrome-what-are-the-symptoms/ar-BB1fv7VO?ocid=msedgntp
There was a 5-slide presentation.
You have read/listened to slide 1. And have not understood it. Otherwise you would understand why, when certain conditions are met, it becomes possible that, in effect, "nothing works faster than Anadin" for under-30s. And that nothing does not, and likely never does, for over-30s.
You have not looked at slides 2-4. Which set out why, when risks are higher, AZ is better than nothing for all age groups.
You have not looked at the various assumptions that were made which were necessary to formulate the outcomes in slide 1. You will find 1 of these in the bottom right corner of slides 1-4, and the long list on slide 5.
And you would then understand why people who would ordinarily be in Group 12 of 12 (18-29 yrs old) who have been bumped up to a priority group don't fit the perameters for slide 1. Because all of them have been bumped up because either
(1) they have a far higher than typical risk of getting/transmitting Covid (such as Nurses); or
(2) there is a far higher risk of serious illness or death because of pre-existing conditions.
They dont understand why they are a side effect, specifically to the AZ vaccine.
Matt Hancock has clearly said there are plenty of the other vaccines in stock.
Therefore why wouldnt you use the others, rather than cause any needless deaths?
Only if you believe that the Government has secured US stock that it has ordered. When no other country has. When the EU hasn't got enough, even though it has ordered even more than us, and makes some of it there.
"Matt Hancock has clearly said there are plenty of the other vaccines in stock."
I'm sure he did. He is a senior member of a Government that you believe to be fronted by an habitual liar. If we had all this stuff lying about, should have been easy to keep all those appointments that have jusr been cancelled. Cos those appointments were not for an AZ vaccine. They were for a vaccine.
"Therefore why wouldnt you use the others, rather than cause any needless deaths?"
All depends as to how you define needless, and how you define deaths.
There will be deaths caused by all the vaccines. There will be far more by delay. Pfizer has been associated with:-
1 in 1000 incidence of Bell's Palsy. Not fatal, but a serious illness. And 1 in 1000-not 1 in roughly 200,000
Initial studies showed an increased incidence of myocardial infarction. Very small numbers, ongoing investigation
If you think it is really as simple as you wish, why didn't the Government's advisers compare risks between the 2 types of vaccine?
Matt Hancock said that we had enough alternative vaccines to inject all the under 30s, in stock now.
Death is defined by the lack of electrical activity in the brain.
People can and have stopped breathing for up to 40 minutes and recovered.