Illness After Astra Zeneca Vaccine ?

Yes.

I presume that is just a general swipe?

 

Just having a laugh as I know you're over Bristol way....there's no low priority for the west country. However you might be delayed by the "No vaccine for solicitors" directive ???

 

This is interesting:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56360646

 

That must be it, me 'ansom. Cheers drive!

Perhaps the GP will get in first for Mrs Keighley....

 

I think this explains why you were invited earlier than expected;

 

I don't think they're missing the bigger picture, but rather inventing a bigger picture to justify their slow roll out.

 

But this will only slow it down further...

 

I think had it not been for Brexit there would not have been an issue with AZ, I think it's a political decision set to undermine this country. Where we have made mistakes in the past with the virus, we have acted as best as we possibly could with the vaccine roll out.

The over-65s issue was debunked, there was the complaint about supply before the EMA had given it the green light, there was the export issue, one with the Irish border and one with the Italians preventing a planeload of 250k vaccines due to go to Australia; and now 33 people get a blood clot out of 17m recipients across Europe.

Imagine the fallout if Europe get another big wave through the spring while they faff about with vaccines and we don't.

 

That's why the 'let's get back at Britain' theory seems a bit simplistic to me. It's a huge risk if that is what's happening. And you might have expected that France would be one of the first countries to take that approach, but in fact it came from Scandinavia (including Norway, which isn't in the EU).

 

A few days suspension probably won't make a lot of difference and, I suspect, comes at a time where they're only getting a small percentage of doses they hoped for. I doubt they'd be making anything like the same decision if AZ was the backbone of their vaccination drives.

 

But what do they gain from it? If it's genuinely a political decision, doesn't it just come across as petty?

It also doesn't explain why Thailand has paused AZ jabs.

 

From The Guardian...

The concerns over the Oxford jab and blood clots just brings to our attention the desire of the human brain to see patterns in things when they don’t exist. Now you know me, I’m a geek with statistics, so let’s look at the statistics before someone tries to say anything else and get all hot under the collar.

Firstly, Deep Vein Thromboses (DVT) happen all the time, approximately 1 person in every 1000 will have a DVT each year. More so in the older population… Guess who got vaccinated first!?

So, if you have 5million people, you’d expect to see 5,000 DVTs a year or 100/week. Here’s the amazeballs part: From 5million people who’ve received the jab, there have been ONLY 30 reports of thromboembolic events. 30. Count them. JUST 30! That’s 4,970 less than there should be if those 5million people had not had the jab and gone on about their normal daily lives.

That is so far beneath the expected volume, that’s the real headline. The European countries have paused because there have been 99.4% less DVTs than there should have been. How mad is that!

It gets better. When the official trials took place, people were given both the actual vaccine and a placebo. No-one knew who got the real jab or the placebo. That’s how trials work. 38% of those receiving the real jab reported some kind of adverse effects. However, 28% of those who received the placebo also reported side-effects!

This means the vaccination process, i.e. someone sticking a needle in your arm and injecting something even just saline, caused two thirds of all the reported side-effects!! So only 1/3 could be considered to come from the actual vaccination.

So, most perceived issues from the jab are down to our brains being weird, not the vaccine. And our innate desire to see patterns in things when they don't exist has caused whole countries to pause the rollout of a perfectly safe vaccine which will cause significant further death and illness.

 

Jeez, even the Guardian can't do less/fewer.

I'll refrain from commenting on 'amazeballs'.

 

There probably are but the numbers are so low (lower than the expected number of cases without the vaccine) that there is nothing to really hide.

If I understand France's position they are putting AZ use on hold, but what if one more person has a clot?

I still think it's political, I don't think 35 cases from 17m would cause them to stop the Pfizer vaccine.

 

I’m sure the governments - well, certainly their public health advisers - understand the statistics.

This is either happening because of extremely overcautious application of the precautionary principle, or for political reasons.

 

The EU are so bitter about us leaving their little club that right now they are using any excuse to BASH BRITAIN, they are behaving like spoilt little kids

 

35 from 17m? Isn't there more chance of dying from Covid than getting a clot?

 

Norway isn’t in the EU. Nor is Indonesia. Or Iceland. Or the Democratic Republic of Congo.

 

Yes, but once big highly sophisticated countries like France and Germany pause, shouldn't those with fewer resources have doubts?

 

Well, Norway paused before France, Germany or Italy. It ‘s not an EU country. In fact, the only “EU” statement on this so far has come from the European Medicines Agency which says, at present, to keep using the vaccine.

Are you suggesting that while we can see through the apparent explanation to the politics behind it, the Indonesians and Congolese can’t?

To my mind the idea that this is a “bash Britain” exercise is implausible. I simply can’t see what would be gained by that, and a lot could be lost (mainly, public vaccine hesitancy is likely to increase, whatever vaccine is used).

Also, AstraZeneca is part Swedish...

 

Pfizer has a similar rate of blood clots as AZ apparently, so the decisions these counties are taking are even weirder.

 

Who have two batchelor degrees and call themselves 'doctor'.

 

Yes, that doesn’t make much sense.

Clearly the AZ vaccine has been controversial in Europe since the supply dispute. I’d find that a more likely explanation than a wish to “bash Britain”, although it doesn’t really explain why non-European countries would be caught up in it.

 

It’s worth pointing out Norway and Iceland are in the EU vaccine procurement programme as EEA members, despite not being members of the EU. And as for other countries, it’s got to be pretty persuasive when big Western countries move like that.

I don’t buy the bash Britain angle but do see it as more likely than not that politicians want to cover up for a lack of supplies through misdirection. I’d be interested to know if any of the non-European nations who’ve acted have the AZ vaccine at the centre of their vaccination programme. I suspect not.

And in a slightly more tin foil hat angle, it’s been pointed out the AZ jab is by far the cheapest and most likely to be affordable for third world countries. Big pharma lobbyists who have the ears of senior politicians will no doubt be looking to flog the big dollar jabs, not AZ. It would probably be quite beneficial for some if they can scare countries into diverting their orders to more expensive products.

 

I can see some mileage in the point in the final para.

But if this is a cover-up for misdirection and slow roll out, it’s a very risky strategy indeed. There’s a much greater problem of vaccine hesitancy in Europe, particularly in France, than in the U.K. This is bound to exacerbate that, even if AZ makes up a relatively smaller proportion of the total number of vaccines used in Europe than in the U.K. And that would have implications for when European economies could be fully reopened.The Times was already reporting on Saturday that swift rollout in the U.K. would represent a considerable economic advantage to us.

 

Interesting theory. It wouldn't surprise me if something like this happens in some countries.

 

Wouldn't the AZ vaccine be quicker and easier to roll out too due to the storage requirements compared to Pfizer/Moderna?

 

This is the key point. These decisions are being made by individual countries, not the EU.

On the face of it, the decision to suspend the use of the AZ vaccine by these countries seems premature and may even be, at least partially, politically motivated. But it's patently untrue to claim that this is the EU "bashing" the UK.

Blaming the EU, like the Express has done on it's front page, is equally, I suspect, politically motivated.

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

This is the second time that European politicians have gone against their medical regulatory body on the AZ jab, first the over 65's and now this. It is clearly political. The Pfizer jab has the same blood clot stats, but no political hesitancy there.

It is most certainly risky, France seems to be suffering a third wave with a seven-day moving average of new cases of two times that of the UK, even though we test almost twice as often than they do.

 

It will be interesting to see how they try to justify this action given the numbers publicly available show almost no difference between blood clots for Pfizer and AZ and both below the levels that would be generally expected in the population as a whole. Do they know something we don't know ?