Vaxveria: AstraZeneca's vaccine against COVID-19

[GoldfishMan]

Starting this thread because I think it is time we focussed on this vaccine on its own instead of just talking about it in a thread dedicated to the alternative vaccine from Pfizer. Considering the huge supply issues with Comirnaty (Pfizer vaccine), Vaxzevria might very well be our only hope of getting on top of this virus without sacrificing the entire Australian economy!

One thing I really do not understand about the authorities and the medical fraternity is, why is it that they are not doing anything "material" to help reduce the risk of taking this vaccine? Surely that would be the natural course of action now that the risk is known? Thrombosis (blood-clotting in the veins) is actually no laughing matter and the public knows how bad it is. Back in the good times we've all been warned by the same medical fraternity of the dangers of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) in long haul flights and been told to do everything we can to avoid getting the problem (get up from your seat regularly, stretch your legs, wear tight socks, etc.). Now they're telling us, if you take this vaccine there's a chance that you'll get thrombosis, but it's OK because there's not much chance you'll get it? What the heck...?

If that's not bad enough, this next part really gives me the shits. I understand from an article written by a Dr. in the news, that "once you get the thrombosis problem, it can be fixed if you get the right medication at an early stage". I mean, what in the f-ing hell, why don't they just give you medication to prevent blood-clots when you take the vaccine if they know it might happen and if it does happen, that you might die from it? Can you die from taking blood-thinners unnecessarily but in reasonable doses? Or is that doctor telling porkies and you're basically done if you do get the thrombosis problem?

What I'm getting at is, I really cannot understand why the people calling the shots are not going out of their way to do REAL things to alleviate the risks associated with taking the AZ vaccine, or at least give people more confidence in the vaccine. Instead, they keep running all these media campaigns to instil fear into people to accept the risk as what it is. They're even pulling out the conspiracy card saying that the EU bloc went out of their way to sabotage the AZ vaccine with the bad publicity because of Brexit..... think about how ridiculous that sounds. They probably also wear tin-foil hats.

[tan30]

Why would the govt run media campaigns to scare people in taking the AZ vaccine? News articles are only giving the facts, and to be honest it's not doing a good job since it's about someone DYING from the vaccine (earlier on they gave no medical history of older patients dying)

Take the AZ vaccine if that's all you can get. The risk of having it vs the risk of catching delta is much much lower.

Just remember that viral load in an infected person (who isn't vaccinated) is the same as the viral load of an infected person who IS vaccinated. Atleast with blood clots you can get treatment for it, whereas catching delta is a more of a danger to yourself and to loved ones who you see.

I literally don't understand the fear surrounding blood clots with AZ, heck there's an inherent risk of getting rabies from a rabies vaccination, though you're encouraged to take it if you go to an area that has cases of rabies.

Delta is different, you need only one cough or one instance to get it.

[GoldfishMan]

Why would the govt run media campaigns to scare people in taking the AZ vaccine? News articles are only giving the facts, and to be honest it's not doing a good job since it's about someone DYING from the vaccine (earlier on they gave no medical history of older patients dying)

Take the AZ vaccine if that's all you can get. The risk of having it vs the risk of catching delta is much much lower.

Just remember that viral load in an infected person (who isn't vaccinated) is the same as the viral load of an infected person who IS vaccinated. Atleast with blood clots you can get treatment for it, whereas catching delta is a more of a danger to yourself and to loved ones who you see.

I literally don't understand the fear surrounding blood clots with AZ, heck there's an inherent risk of getting rabies from a rabies vaccination, though you're encouraged to take it if you go to an area that has cases of rabies.

Delta is different, you need only one cough or one instance to get it.
No bro, you missed my point. It's not about how "unlikely" it is to get the thrombosis. That's what everyone who wants people to take AZ have been saying. What I'm saying is just waving it off as "unlikely" is not all they can do, is it? If they genuinely have a desire to get more people to take it up, the best possible way to do that is to show some effort in trying to mitigate the risk, not just telling people off that it's "not likely" to happen. There must be a way they can help mitigate the risk if they can cure it when you get it.

Did you take the AZ Vax, btw?

[GoldfishMan]

Did a bit more digging, here's the advisory from the Gov:
https://www.health.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/covid-19-vaccines/is-it-true/is-it-true-should-you-take-blood-thinning-medication-before-having-the-astrazeneca-vaccine
No evidence.... That's a no brainer when the advice is not to take it!

[TangoEcho]

It's cause of the side effects. It's why we don't take blood thinners to prevent strokes that are caused by clots.

Blood thinners prevent clotting which is a natural way to stop bleeding. If you take it for when your doctor tells you to e.g. a stroke, you do have to change your lifestyle to prevent many things that could cause bleeding.

[tan30]

No bro, you missed my point. It's not about how "unlikely" it is to get the thrombosis. That's what everyone who wants people to take AZ have been saying. What I'm saying is just waving it off as "unlikely" is not all they can do, is it? If they genuinely have a desire to get more people to take it up, the best possible way to do that is to show some effort in trying to mitigate the risk, not just telling people off that it's "not likely" to happen. There must be a way they can help mitigate the risk if they can cure it when you get it.

Did you take the AZ Vax, btw?

Thankfully I was able to get Pfizer, as I'm under 40 just before lockdown started. Westmead fucked up and it seems anyone who pressed 'general population' was given an appointment.

As for mitigating the risk, how do you mitigate it? What you can do is to be careful about how you're feeling post injection, i.e. if you end up getting headaches, have numbness etc to get medical attention. I'm sure this has been covered during the daily interviews, but not covered by the media when they nitpick the premiers words. Don't take this as me being an apologist for the premier either.

The poster above already outlines that taking blood thinners shouldn't be a person's go to once you get the first/second jab.

[GoldfishMan]

That's not true. Low dose aspirin is commonly prescribed as a stroke prevention method. Aspirin thins the blood and therefore helps prevent strokes.

If they can prescribe that for strokes why don't they do it for this Vax? Plus, the Vax has already been out for what, close to a year now. The side effect has been known for months. Yet they haven't done any research into using these known methods of mitigation. What gives? Is everyone just shocked into inaction by the ferocity of the virus? They need to get off their arses and do something productive about it, not just sitting there and saying "this is all we got, you gotta take your chances".

[One23Four]

Bro Goldfishman seems to be an Asian, so the South Korea experience and now the Taiwan experience could be useful to him. I might be wrong but the minimal risk of blood clotting for AZ seems to be a little bit higher for Caucasian than Asian based on the South Korean and now the Taiwanese experience.

South Korea is I believe the first Asian country which very early widely administers AZ to its residents and a number of young medical staff aged between 20 to 40 did suffer the blood clots problem with a very few number of them died (mostly female) as a result, they then restricted the use of AZ to people aged 30 and above. Having used all of its AZ stock and with plenty of supply of Pfizer already in stock and on the way, the South Korean Govt has changed the use of AZ to people over 50. There is no choice of vaccines in South Korea.

For Taiwan, most of the people there are taking AZ as there is very limited supply of Moderna and Pfizer and there is no older people suffering from the blood clot problem leading to deaths. They have nearly exhausted all their AZ now and awaiting supply. Taiwan is also developing their own vaccines like the South Korean though won’t be available at least at the end of the year.

The number of blood clots cases in Australia appear to be higher than the Asian countries like South Korea and Taiwan and perhaps Asian genes make them a little bit less vulnerable to the blood clots side effects than their western counterparts though it is my observations only not scientifically supported. Even so, the chance of blood clotting problem based on the Australian and British experience so far is only 1 in 100,000 and causing death only 1 in 250,000.

It seems Asian male over 50 years old is very safe to take AZ. The 12-week apart between doses is a disincentive but now in NSW it has reduced to 4 weeks. Also it is likely that Australia will follow the British experience of supplementing AZ recipient with a booster of Pfizer when the supply of Pfizer later in the year is greatly increased.

If you want to remain active interacting with others in the next few months, it is sensible to get vaccinated with AZ ASAP to protect yourself and those you interact with.

All depends on the vaccination rate now as to when the shops will be allowed to reopen.

[GoldfishMan]

That's still leaving it to chance bro, even if you bring in the genetics argument. Still a roll of the dice, maybe you'll get it maybe you won't. Tell that to someone who's got 3 dependents and he's the only breadwinner.
With all the resources available and all the medical brilliance they have at their disposal, surely they can do something about it to improve the situation with AZ. I just can't understand the inaction on it that's all. I mean if I was running AZ and I was sincere in trying to get more people to take it up, I would do something about it and let people know I'm working on it at least. But no, all we've had is finger pointing and crying over spilt milk so far!

[adahar]

One123Four: The number of blood clots cases in Australia appear to be higher than the Asian countries like South Korea and Taiwan and perhaps Asian genes make them a little bit less vulnerable to the blood clots side effects than their western counterparts though it is my observations only not scientifically supported. Even so, the chance of blood clotting problem based on the Australian and British experience so far is only 1 in 100,000 and causing death only 1 in 250,000.

As at 5/8/21 the stats for Australia are:-

Age 30-39, 1 death, 1:801595
Age 40-49, 3 deaths, 1:482024
Age 50-59, 1 death, 1:1709404
Age 70-79, 1 death, 1:1503212

The most recent death was a woman aged 34.

[MisterWhippy]

As at 5/8/21 the stats for Australia are:-

Age 30-39, 1 death, 1:801595
Age 40-49, 3 deaths, 1:482024
Age 50-59, 1 death, 1:1709404
Age 70-79, 1 death, 1:1503212

The most recent death was a woman aged 34.

adahar's info puts it in perspective.

Compare with COVID, where we're seeing hundred of cases a day and a few deaths PER DAY -- astronomically higher than the risk of AZ, with millions of shots delivered.

Don't worry, just go out and get the shot you can get!

[studsg]

I do support Bro Goldfishman point. Rather than just trying to sell to people the risk calculations between getting blood clots and dying vs getting covid and dying. What are the people in charge doing about reducing the possibility of developing blood clots from the Astra jab ?

In the UK up to June 389 cases of blood clots with 68 deaths. Number don't mean squat when you are telling someone. Hey you know you MIGHT die from this jab but it's just a 1 in a 100000 chance. People's question is what if I'm the 1 ?

WHO report on this does suggest that countries should explore the use of anti-coagulants as a possible measure.

https://www.who.int/news/item/16-04-2021-global-advisory-committee-on-vaccine-safety-(gacvs)-review-of-latest-evidence-of-rare-adverse-blood-coagulation-events-with-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-(vaxzevria-and-covishield)?gclid=Cj0KCQjwu7OIBhCsARIsALxCUaPUQiao faLsbm1_HbDNs2feqIBs5VGWoLiZLwn2PB6lJ-O8VB8lH44aAh8dEALw_wcB

[adahar]

UK figures:

Cumulative total of vaccines administered 8/12/20 to 31/5/21 = 54,649,752 (source: NHS monthly report)

Total of fatal suspected thrombo-embolic events with concurrent thrombocytopenia up to 21/7/21 = 73 (source: NHS Yellow Card Report summary)

There were 411 events across all ages with 51 deaths occurring aged 59 or lower (likely the reason for the ATAGI advice re age). If you like you can say the chance of death with an event is 1:5.6 but this is a rubbish stat as there might be multiple variables and underlying factors.

Using a simplistic calculation of deaths compared to vaccinations results in a figure of 1:748,626. Not very illuminating considering the vast number of variables at play but at least it's not low.

Of course, all this talk of comparing doses to deaths might be useful in visualising the risk but it may be that the individual circumstances will be influenced by the underlying health conditions and physiology of the patient. Some people might be vastly more at risk which would change those odds drastically so relying on them alone is not a good punt.

The constant advice to consult with your GP. Maybe a lot of younger people don't have a regular GP, it's more likely if you're older. In this case the ATAGI advice is what it is.

Loads more info info here:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting

[Markin]

I don't take unnecessary risks. For example, I use public transport almost always partly because it is much safer than driving. I am fully vaccinated with AZ, my partner is also and my son has had one AZ shot so far. The risk of dying from clotting is extremely low, basically negligible. The risk of delayed vaccination is far worse with many associated negative effects (e.g. greatly extended lockdowns).

There are 3 million AZ doses sitting idle with 1 million a week being produced in Australia. Given the situation we are in, especially in Sydney, every single adult should seek out the AZ vaccine. For their own health but also so we can get out of this damn lockdown ASAP.

It's also much more convenient to get most of the time. I got it from my local GP the same day that I called them for both shots.

[studsg]

When a perfectly healthy person goes to ask his GP about vaccine advice. All the GP can say is to repeat the statistics to encourage them to take it. The GP cannot predict if the person will develop blood clots.

It's more a psychological thing that a doctor you are familiar with gives you words of encouragement.

Btw, I've already had my 2 shots of Pfizer in June. So not against vaccines, but want to see more being done to improve take up rate by reducing side effects.

[Markin]

fun fact: if you're in sydney you can just mosey over to a walk in astrazeneca clinic and get vaccinated on the spot. you can do that. it's legal.

https://twitter.com/CaseyBriggs/status/1423180193481429000

[Johnisfun1969]

I think media is partly to blame for this. They have been sensationalising the news since covid started. Yes there job is to keep the government as well as the pharmaceutical companies also honest but it has not helped in reducing the fear of vaccine. As I understand everything in life has risk. The moment you step outside your house the risk increases. One should choose the option which is less risky. For me getting the AZ shot reduced my risk. Being over 50 I could have taken the vaccine in March or April but choose not to take it as Sydney did not have any cases. But with the delta variant decided to get vaccinated. By mid June the gov had changed the advice and I could get Pfizer also. But I had to wait till Sep for my dose while AZ was available right away. So after looking at the risks I decided to get AZ. I will get my second dose next week. My suggestion consult your doctor and get the jab.

Meanwhile if someone is interested in the likelihood of dying from other causes this is interesting read, not sure how true it is.

https://robertroybritt.medium.com/odds-of-dying-what-you-should-really-worry-about-cc761901565b

[dotcumdotinyou]

I recall many years ago when DVT hit the news big time the advice to people taking long haul flights was to wear compression socks, get up and walk around to get the blood flowing and (as goldfish first stated) take an asprin as you board the plane.
When I got the 1st AZ shot last month my doctor told me to watch for symptoms (numbness, severe headaches) around day 3 as evidence showed this was the time it took to develop.
What I can't understand and has goldfish has been tryin to explain is why don't they tell people "GET THE AZ SHOT AND POP AN ASPRIN ON DAYS 1 AND 2"

[Markin]

AZ is safer than taking aspirin.


Around 11 per cent of older Australians take daily aspirin to help prevent stroke and heart attack, but statistically, aspirin is two hundred times more dangerous than AstraZeneca – resulting in around one death per 10,000 people.

https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/getting-a-covid-jab-is-safer-than-taking-aspirin

Get the shot people so we get out of this damn lockdown!

[vitrium]

The Gov made a big mistake going back on their initial advice about the AZ vaccine. Their initial communications about the side effects scared thousands of people away.

I spoke to my GP about it. The risks are so small that there's hundreds of other things you do in a year that have a higher chance of killing you.

At this point it's stupid to not get AZ. And the Gov royally f*cked up by inadvently scaring people away from it.

Also the efficacy of AZ is higher than what was initially reported. New research is showing it at about 92% from the second shot, which is only slightly behind pfizer's 95%.

Just roll it out to everyone.

[Ziggurat]

"Finally, the odds of dying in a shark attack are 1 in 3.7 million."

These shark attack statistics are always totally wrong. They divide the number of people on Earth by the number of deaths by shark attack. You need zero intelligence to figure out the flaw in that so why do they persist? They should only count people who regularly expose themselves to the possibilty. Eg., abalone divers working without cages, boogie boarders surfing at river mouths, spearfishers, surfers generally, people swimming outside netted areas etc.

The canal estates in SE Qld are alive with bull sharks. No casual swiming over to your neighbours there. Those residents would be pretty stupid to take comfort in those ludicrous statistics quoted.

[adahar]

"Finally, the odds of dying in a shark attack are 1 in 3.7 million."

These shark attack statistics are always totally wrong. They divide the number of people on Earth by the number of deaths by shark attack. You need zero intelligence to figure out the flaw in that so why do they persist? They should only count people who regularly expose themselves to the possibilty. Eg., abalone divers working without cages, boogie boarders surfing at river mouths, spearfishers, surfers generally, people swimming outside netted areas etc.

The canal estates in SE Qld are alive with bull sharks. No casual swiming over to your neighbours there. Those residents would be pretty stupid to take comfort in those ludicrous statistics quoted.

Even better odds if you live in Alice Springs.

[GoldfishMan]

"Finally, the odds of dying in a shark attack are 1 in 3.7 million."

These shark attack statistics are always totally wrong. They divide the number of people on Earth by the number of deaths by shark attack. You need zero intelligence to figure out the flaw in that so why do they persist? They should only count people who regularly expose themselves to the possibilty. Eg., abalone divers working without cages, boogie boarders surfing at river mouths, spearfishers, surfers generally, people swimming outside netted areas etc.

The canal estates in SE Qld are alive with bull sharks. No casual swiming over to your neighbours there. Those residents would be pretty stupid to take comfort in those ludicrous statistics quoted.
Haha, yeah, I always laugh when someone rolls out the 'ol shark attack death probability to convince people of how safe sharks are. It's actually evolved since the first "version" came out, which really was as stupid as you mentioned, IE. Straight-up divided the total deaths against total population. That computed to 1 in 11.5 million, I think.

They must've then realised people were not as stupid as they thought they were (or as stupid as themselves?) because they later revised the calculations to "only include people going to the beach", hence the bigger probability number 1 in 3.7 million.

[tan30]

A lot of good points here

The truth is you can't mitigate the risk of getting blood clots when taking the AZ, the same way it's difficult to mitigate risks when you're driving, or even just walking down the road without being run over, struck by lightning, bitten by a dog, tripping over.

[GoldfishMan]

I recall many years ago when DVT hit the news big time the advice to people taking long haul flights was to wear compression socks, get up and walk around to get the blood flowing and (as goldfish first stated) take an asprin as you board the plane.
When I got the 1st AZ shot last month my doctor told me to watch for symptoms (numbness, severe headaches) around day 3 as evidence showed this was the time it took to develop.
What I can't understand and has goldfish has been tryin to explain is why don't they tell people "GET THE AZ SHOT AND POP AN ASPRIN ON DAYS 1 AND 2"
Thanks bro, glad someone understood what I was trying to say. Maybe because I'm a goldfish people don't understand what I say... All they see is blublublublub!

Of course, the mitigation has to be done in the context of each individual's medical condition. Like myself, I've got G6PD, so I can't take aspirin, but I can take ibuprofen (eg. Nurofen, etc). That's also a blood thinner but has a shorter interval of efficacy. That's what I'll be researching towards now.

Anyone who doesn't have adverse reactions to aspirin should really consider taking it when going with AZ.

I know it all sounds a bit MacGyver, a bit like taking your own medical decisions on your own. For lack of a better option I think this is the best we can do.

[Markin]

A lot of good points here

The truth is you can't mitigate the risk of getting blood clots when taking the AZ, the same way it's difficult to mitigate risks when you're driving, or even just walking down the road without being run over, struck by lightning, bitten by a dog, tripping over.

you certainly can mitigate a great many risks.

for example, you can mitigate driving risk by driving less and defensive driving. you can mitigate the risk of covid by taking vaccine as soon as possible, especially in the middle of an outbreak. waiting months for pfizer means months of additional covid exposure risk which is far far greater than the infinitesimal risk of AZ TTS.

[Markin]

"Finally, the odds of dying in a shark attack are 1 in 3.7 million."

These shark attack statistics are always totally wrong.

Only a handful of people die globally every year from shark attack. The chances of dying from a shark attack is far far less than 1 in 3.7 million.


Each year worldwide there are ~ 10 deaths attributable to shark attacks compared with ~ 150 deaths worldwide caused by falling coconuts.

https://www.aims.gov.au/docs/projectnet/sharks-02.html

Every shark attack receives media coverage and that's why we perceive the danger to be much higher than it really is.

[tan30]

Yes, you can definitely mitigate your own risk. But you can't mitigate the other stupid drivers (ever gotten into an accident where it was 110% the other drivers fault?), and by extension people who refuse to get vaccinated claiming AZ MAY (in the highly unlikely event) kill them.

There's almost nothing that can reduce the risk even further of blood clots, unfortunately it's the side effect of rapid development of a vaccine.

[JJBlows]

I don't think aspirin would help with the blood clots as DVT is usually from stagnant blood flow resulting in clots, AZ is actually triggering a strong immune response that results in a blood clot which aspirin may not help IMHO

[Markin]

I don't think aspirin would help with the blood clots as DVT is usually from stagnant blood flow resulting in clots, AZ is actually triggering a strong immune response that results in a blood clot which aspirin may not help IMHO

Aspirin is far more dangerous than the AZ vaccine. I don't think people realise just how tiny the risk of clots is.

https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/getting-a-covid-jab-is-safer-than-taking-aspirin

[GoldfishMan]

I don't think aspirin would help with the blood clots as DVT is usually from stagnant blood flow resulting in clots, AZ is actually triggering a strong immune response that results in a blood clot which aspirin may not help IMHO
Sorry bro, your "I don't think" doesn't really instil any confidence in me.

Aspirin is far more dangerous than the AZ vaccine. I don't think people realise just how tiny the risk of clots is.

https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/getting-a-covid-jab-is-safer-than-taking-aspirin
That's a big mistake comparing the dangers of aspirin to the AZ Vax. If someone has been taking aspirin all his life, how can you put him in the same stats bucket as people who "might die from taking aspirin"? Aspirin has been available over the counter for decades, you can't compare it to a brand new vaccine that the people who are concerned about it have never taken before.

[JJBlows]

[QUOTE=GoldfishMan;2239508]Sorry bro, your "I don't think" doesn't really instil any confidence in me.

I just would of thought that if it reduced the chances from a blood clot cause by the immune response by the vaccine then would be telling young people to take it along side the vaccine??

[Vader]

[QUOTE=GoldfishMan;2239508]Sorry bro, your "I don't think" doesn't really instil any confidence in me.

I just would of thought that if it reduced the chances from a blood clot cause by the immune response by the vaccine then wouldn't they be telling young people to take it along side the vaccine??

Obviously the medical profession don't think that it is a good idea or they would mention it.

[Markin]

That's a big mistake comparing the dangers of aspirin to the AZ Vax. If someone has been taking aspirin all his life, how can you put him in the same stats bucket as people who "might die from taking aspirin"? Aspirin has been available over the counter for decades, you can't compare it to a brand new vaccine that the people who are concerned about it have never taken before.

I didn't make the comparison, the article was written by Professor Nathan Grills at the University of Melbourne.


PROFESSOR NATHAN GRILLS
Public Health Physician and NHMRC Post Doctoral Fellow, Nossal Institute for Global Health, University of Melbourne; Senior Research Advisor, Australia India Institute

[adahar]

I didn't make the comparison, the article was written by Professor Nathan Grills at the University of Melbourne.

This was part of that text:-

"Around 11 per cent of older Australians take daily aspirin to help prevent stroke and heart attack, but statistically, aspirin is two hundred times more dangerous than AstraZeneca – resulting in around one death per 10,000 people"

The underlined text is a link to a Reuters web page in which the text appears:-

"For 50-year-old men, taking a full-sized, 325 mg aspirin every day to prevent heart disease and stroke carries a risk of 10.4 deaths per 100,000 men per year over and above their overall death risk."

So, it seems he divides the Reuters figures by 10 which results in a "statistic".

The text on that Reuters link contains the following nonsense amongst other gems:-

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Taking an aspirin every day may help prevent heart disease and stroke but, for a middle-aged man, it is nearly as risky as driving a car or working as a firefighter, researchers said on Tuesday."

"Firefighters have a risk of 10.6 deaths per 100,000 people per year, compared to 3.9 for all occupations and 0.4 for office workers."

Which, by the way, was published in 2007.

Nice to see a credentialled academic do some real research from contemporary medical journals.

[tan30]

Damn, how do we mitigate risks of being a firefighter? Maybe don't become one /s

[Markin]

This was part of that text:-

"Around 11 per cent of older Australians take daily aspirin to help prevent stroke and heart attack, but statistically, aspirin is two hundred times more dangerous than AstraZeneca – resulting in around one death per 10,000 people"

The underlined text is a link to a Reuters web page in which the text appears:-

"For 50-year-old men, taking a full-sized, 325 mg aspirin every day to prevent heart disease and stroke carries a risk of 10.4 deaths per 100,000 men per year over and above their overall death risk."

So, it seems he divides the Reuters figures by 10 which results in a "statistic".




10.4 in 100,000 is approximately the same as 1 in 10,000

why is comparing one risk to another 'nonsense'?

so what if a source article was published in 2007?

[adahar]

10.4 in 100,000 is approximately the same as 1 in 10,000

why is comparing one risk to another 'nonsense'?

so what if a source article was published in 2007?

"10.4 in 100,000 is approximately the same as 1 in 10,000" It looks to me like a deliberate ploy to accentuate the relative harm. The reference to this stat in the Reuters article had no further link and no citation. The inclusion of "firefighter" in the opening paragraph and the "firefighter" stat later in the article was clearly used to link the claim.

I notice you didn't include that text from my post in your response, I wonder why? Perhaps it looks too silly! Selective commentary under the umbrella of qualifications and a job in a respected Uni is all too common these days. Don't fall for it.

"why is comparing one risk to another 'nonsense'?" Because it trivialises the perceived risk without addressing the real concern people may have. You might as well compare anything to anything, it reveals nothing about the actual risk. Most people know this so don't risk your credibility by supporting it.

"so what if a source article was published in 2007?" Because after 14 years there is likely to be plethora of studies able to support the claim (or not). Grabbing this one is just lazy.

[Ziggurat]

I got a call from my medical centre today telling me I was booked in for wednesday week for my second AZ dose "but we have an opening for tomorrow if you can make it in."

I paused, and waited for them to inform me that "however, if you have it tomorrow instead of next week your resulting immunity will be 25% less."

No such information was offered. It's a medical center, how about you giving me vital medical advice instead of relying on me being better informed than you are?

[GoldfishMan]

I got a call from my medical centre today telling me I was booked in for wednesday week for my second AZ dose "but we have an opening for tomorrow if you can make it in."

I paused, and waited for them to inform me that "however, if you have it tomorrow instead of next week your resulting immunity will be 25% less."

No such information was offered. It's a medical center, how about you giving me vital medical advice instead of relying on me being better informed than you are?
It's fucked up right?? All they have to do is get all the facts and put them into one "fact sheet".
I'm pulling my hair out trying to fix a Medicare problem trying to call their "hotline". It's a dead end I have to get over before I can book my Vax. They just tell me "we're too busy, call back later". Not even putting me on hold, the line just goes dead. FFS...

[Markin]

I got a call from my medical centre today telling me I was booked in for wednesday week for my second AZ dose "but we have an opening for tomorrow if you can make it in."

I paused, and waited for them to inform me that "however, if you have it tomorrow instead of next week your resulting immunity will be 25% less."

No such information was offered. It's a medical center, how about you giving me vital medical advice instead of relying on me being better informed than you are?

that's not how it works, having the dose early will make only a slight difference

[Ziggurat]

I took these figures from a synopsis sourced from authorities and published in the Weekend Australian. The words didn't appear spontaneously in my head.


Tomorrow will make me only two weeks out from getting my second AZ dose. That will be the full 12 weeks between them. Remember, you get an amazing 25% more protection by having it at 12 weeks than having it even just one week earlier.

[Markin]

I took these figures from a synopsis sourced from authorities and published in the Weekend Australian. The words didn't appear spontaneously in my head.

that sounds interesting, do you have a link to it?

[Raybo]

For the record, I am getting my first AZ jab today. My GP is a mad cricket fan and compared it to the MCG, where 100,000 people can go to watch the Boxing Day Test Match. Only 1 of those spectators would get a blood clot based on the numbers, 2 or 3 if you are a smoker.

[vitrium]

I got the AZ vaccine. My GP said it is roughly as effective as other vaccines in real world conditions.

Don't get overly hung up on the 'efficacy' rates. These are determined using their controlled test setting (like a test in a lab). And are just an indication of how they will work in a realistic setting.

The real world results are the 'effectiveness' measure. Current data suggests the real world effectiveness of all approved vaccines is pretty much in par. So it doesn't matter if you get Pfizer, AZ or Moderna.

All of our current vaccines are not as effective at stopping Delta infections. However they are still very good at stopping severe disease from all variants of the virus.

So basically - if you are fully vaccinated, you are slightly more likely to get infected with Delta vs other variants. But highly unlikely to develop severe symptoms.

[Ziggurat]

that sounds interesting, do you have a link to it?

Sorry, I read it in the hard copy Weekend Australian and I've since re-cycled it. It was about percentage efficacy rates based on duration between shots. I was amazed at the big difference in percentage efficacy between having AZ at 11 weeks apart vs 12 weeks apart. So I took the time to convert the figures into a percentage, which was 25% improvement.

In the real world perhaps it isn't as dramatic as that, but I'm human and when I look at 66% vs 88% efficacy (or something like that) I'll go for the latter, seeing I'm already 11 weeks into the wait.

[James_jones]

Very glad we are not getting moderna yet given how their stock price has performed last night/today.

[asiafever]

Has my first AZ recently, kicked the living shit out of me. Fever, chills, savage headache, muscle aches. If that's the vaccine fuck catching the real deal.

[Markin]

Sorry, I read it in the hard copy Weekend Australian and I've since re-cycled it. It was about percentage efficacy rates based on duration between shots. I was amazed at the big difference in percentage efficacy between having AZ at 11 weeks apart vs 12 weeks apart. So I took the time to convert the figures into a percentage, which was 25% improvement.

In the real world perhaps it isn't as dramatic as that, but I'm human and when I look at 66% vs 88% efficacy (or something like that) I'll go for the latter, seeing I'm already 11 weeks into the wait.

i wasn't able to find anything like what you stated by googling. but i have seen many references to the fact that there is only a slight difference in waiting the extra few weeks with AZ. norman swan got his 2nd jab 9 weeks after the first one.

[Ziggurat]

I found this chart from the Lancet, the British medical journal. That is where the Weekend Australian must have got their information from.

https://i.postimg.cc/g08FTDbv/Lancet-file-20210714-25-13xx8xw.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

It is that huge difference between 11 weeks and 12 weeks that really blew me away and had me wondering why my medical centre were pressing me to get it at 11 weeks instead of 12. I'm actually wondering now if I wait another month instead of another week whether that line keeps shooting up. Logic tells you it would. The only reason they stop at 12 weeks is because that is all they collected the data for.

[MisterWhippy]

It is that huge difference between 11 weeks and 12 weeks that really blew me away and had me wondering why my medical centre were pressing me to get it at 11 weeks instead of 12. I'm actually wondering now if I wait another month instead of another week whether that line keeps shooting up. Logic tells you it would.

Nah that info is based on the original strain. For delta we simply don't know, there's not been enough research done, the strain is still relatively new.

The reason why it makes sense to get your second AZ early is that delta is at risk of running rampant soon.

If you get the second early its efficacy might fade quicker, but that doesn't matter so much if we get boosters next year. The important thing is surviving this year.

[adahar]

i wasn't able to find anything like what you stated by googling. but i have seen many references to the fact that there is only a slight difference in waiting the extra few weeks with AZ. norman swan got his 2nd jab 9 weeks after the first one.

I think this may be the one you want, published Feb 2021.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00432-3/fulltext

You'll find this text in the "Discussion"

"In our study, vaccine efficacy after the second dose was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval, reaching 81·3% in those with a dosing interval of 12 weeks or more versus 55·1% in those with an interval of less than 6 weeks."

[GoldfishMan]

Nah that info is based on the original strain. For delta we simply don't know, there's not been enough research done, the strain is still relatively new.

The reason why it makes sense to get your second AZ early is that delta is at risk of running rampant soon.

If you get the second early its efficacy might fade quicker, but that doesn't matter so much if we get boosters next year. The important thing is surviving this year.
For the layman, you can always cover the gap of the "don't know yet" with a bit of common sense. The scientific and academic fraternities may not be at liberty to do so, but you are free to make your own judgement using common sense.
If the vaccine can be more effective against the original strain simply by waiting 1 week longer for the second dose, surely the same effect would apply to the Delta strain. At worst it wouldn't be any more effective, but what's the likelihood of that outcome?
If your argument is that the longer you wait the more likely you'll get infected before the second dose, then let common sense fix THAT too. In this 1 week.... That's 7 days in total only... You just bury yourself at home, completely Zero contact with the outside world. You know it's going to go rampant, why go out before the second dose?

[birch]

have a look how Moderna's stock price has travelled over the last 3.5 months (152% up since 1 May) - I'll be punting on those profits for a couple years when conditions permit!

[MisterWhippy]

For the layman, you can always cover the gap of the "don't know yet" with a bit of common sense. The scientific and academic fraternities may not be at liberty to do so, but you are free to make your own judgement using common sense.

Common sense arguments are rarely worth sharing though, they're too arguable. "Do you have any evidence for that?" Shrug.

Also there's the context in this thread, that we're arguing about the advice of medical professionals, questioning that advice based on information known to be out of date. Is that sensible?

[Ziggurat]

https://i.postimg.cc/g08FTDbv/Lancet-file-20210714-25-13xx8xw.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

The sheer exponential momentum of that curve suggests at 14 weeks, maybe 13 weeks, it would hit 100% efficacy. I'd still rather face delta at 100% efficacy, even if its for the former strain, than 81%. This might only be relevant to those, like me, that are already really close to the 12 weeks. I don't live in a hot zone either.

But those only just starting the long AZ wait it is likely better to have the second dose sooner and rely on boosters later as Mr Whippy suggested.

[Markin]

The sheer exponential momentum of that curve suggests at 14 weeks, maybe 13 weeks, it would hit 100% efficacy. I'd still rather face delta at 100% efficacy, even if its for the former strain, than 81%. This might only be relevant to those, like me, that are already really close to the 12 weeks. I don't live in a hot zone either.

But those only just starting the long AZ wait it is likely better to have the second dose sooner and rely on boosters later as Mr Whippy suggested.


that's good data, thank you

[GoldfishMan]

The sheer exponential momentum of that curve suggests at 14 weeks, maybe 13 weeks, it would hit 100% efficacy. I'd still rather face delta at 100% efficacy, even if its for the former strain, than 81%. This might only be relevant to those, like me, that are already really close to the 12 weeks. I don't live in a hot zone either.

But those only just starting the long AZ wait it is likely better to have the second dose sooner and rely on boosters later as Mr Whippy suggested.
If you take the second dose too early, doesn't that make you less resistant to the virus from the second dose, all the way to the booster shot? You're stuck for a whole year of being more susceptible to the virus, VS being extremely susceptible for 2 months (those only starting with 1st dose recently).
2 months is easy to get by, like I said just lock yourself at home. No way you're gonna do that for 1 year!

[MisterWhippy]

With respect, so much unbridled speculation, FUD, disinformation and inappropriate medical advice in this thread.

Look I'm not against having a discussion or expressing an opinion, but giving unqualified medical advice or spreading disinfo crosses a line I feel.

Perhaps it's time for mods to shut this thread down? It's gone well beyond a useful discussion.

[adahar]

With respect, so much unbridled speculation, FUD, disinformation and inappropriate medical advice in this thread.

Look I'm not against having a discussion or expressing an opinion, but giving unqualified medical advice or spreading disinfo crosses a line I feel.

Perhaps it's time for mods to shut this thread down? It's gone well beyond a useful discussion.

By what measure of logic do you decide that you are qualified to decide what "medical advice or spreading disinfo crosses a line"

If you think your statement is accurate then present an alternative view with supporting evidence from verifiable sources.

[MisterWhippy]

By what measure of logic do you decide that you are qualified to decide what...
Hah, nice. Nope.

[smn5746]

I got a call from my medical centre today telling me I was booked in for wednesday week for my second AZ dose "but we have an opening for tomorrow if you can make it in."

I paused, and waited for them to inform me that "however, if you have it tomorrow instead of next week your resulting immunity will be 25% less."

No such information was offered. It's a medical center, how about you giving me vital medical advice instead of relying on me being better informed than you are?

I sure the reason is, because the risk of catching Delta is higher and even with two doses ( with less efficiency)
You better at not been hospitalised than if u had only one dose

[vitrium]

https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-comparison

A recent write up about all of the current vaccines and how they work + how effective they are in clinical trials VS real world situations.

AZ is supposedly 93% effective at preventing hospitalisation after 2 doses. And 60% at stopping symptomatic disease (for the Delta variant).

It is not quite as good as Pfizer against Delta - 96% at preventing hospitalisation vs 88% at stopping symptomatic disease.

In short, both Pfizer and AZ are still extremely good at preventing hospitalisation and the severe symptoms of COVID. But Pfizer is a bit better at completely preventing symptoms.

[Nabz]

Imagine

"You can punt if you're vaccinated"

We'd run out of AZ.

[MisterWhippy]

Imagine

"You can punt if you're vaccinated"

We'd run out of AZ.

Why can't we have you as PM?!? :D