AstraZeneca vaccine safe and effective in U.S., Chile, Peru trials

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-astrazeneca-usa/astrazeneca-vaccine-79-effective-in-u-s-trial-panel-finds-no-higher-risk-of-clots-idUSKBN2BE0NJ

by pasttense01 • 5 years ago

203 285 5 years ago

reuters.com

chiaki123• 5 years ago

By not lowering the age group the govt is delaying again and the cases are rising . If we have the vaccines , we have the doctors and the infrastructure why are we wasting valuable time ? Also the wastage of the vaccine is high as once you open the vaccine you need ppl to vaccinate and not many are coming by lowering the age you will find that the vaccine will be well utilized and it is the younger age group that is travelling and working

mjbeswick• 5 years ago

In Europe 18 thromboembolic events reported for 20 million immunisations using the vaccine, so it's hard to imagine why some countries there have suspended it's use.

curiousgal3• 5 years ago

Because it makes for a great excuse for their failure to negotiate their vaccine contracts. The US/UK contracts have a US/UK first clause whereas the EU's don't, despite them being the first to sign with AstraZeneca for example. Now they are stuck exporting vaccines to the rest of the world.

throwaway4good2• 5 years ago

While it is true that the eu got screwed by the us and the uk - there is no conspiracy wrt the temporary stoppage of the az roll out - the blood clots were first reported in Norway which is not in the eu.

the_mitsuhiko10• 5 years ago

The medial regulators are not nearly as political as commenters think. There are legitimate concerns in smaller countries about the vaccine because even just few cases of deaths if young people quickly outweigh the number of young people died from covid.

viseztrance• 5 years ago

Because it makes for a great excuse for their failure to negotiate their vaccine contracts.

This argument is beyond ridiculous. It was the decision of health officials, and it wasn't just countries part of eu that have suspended AZ vaccinations.

raverbashing3• 5 years ago

Misleading narrative

The US/UK contracts have a US/UK first clause whereas the EU's don't

True, and you can see how the UK gov is fearing the export block. Darned if the EU does, darned if it doesn't. But if doing means more vaccines to the EU so be it.

Though yes, it was probably a mistake treating AZ as a reliable partner and not someone who'll try find any excuses to skip on their obligations. Though it will be hard to convince a judge they're filling their "best effort" requirements

alvah4• 5 years ago

"the EU's don't, despite them being the first to sign with AstraZeneca"

That's an unusual way to write "The EU signed 3 months after the UK"

tinus_hn2• 5 years ago

Because if you cause 1 death by doing something, it’s your fault and you’ll have to defend yourself. But if you don’t to something and 100 people die, you can just blame something or someone else. In this case then it’s just the fault of those anti-maskers, or whatever group you point at.

unishark• 5 years ago

I think it only counts as sticking one's neck out and being responsible if you deviate from the policy followed by the herd, whether it's to do something or do nothing.

5cents• 5 years ago

In Norway, there are now three deaths after vaccination (antibodies have not yet been reported in all cases, though) in people below 55 years. That's a huge number; for comparison, eight women below 60 years have died from COVID-19 (in total)

Source (Norwegian): https://www.nrk.no/osloogviken/to-pasienter-dode-av-blodprop...

Al-Khwarizmi2• 5 years ago

Even more so considering that, IIRC, only about 120K people were vaccinated with AstraZeneca in Norway.

There is something strange going on in Scandinavia because UK has reported nothing special with two orders of magnitude more people vaccinated. But it's definitely a cause for concern, at the very least.

dm3192• 5 years ago

If Europe are so far behind in vaccinations, and these clots are being seen in those <60, why have these people been vaccinated?

rataata_jr2• 5 years ago

One death is too many. I can't imagine that being my mum / sister / kid.

afarrell• 5 years ago

Emotionally, this is true.

Literally, this is false in a way that harms our ability to handle disasters.

f6v2• 5 years ago

That’s why you elect officials who are supposed to think in terms of statistics.

kilotaras• 5 years ago

You're a public official in Germany. You have a pandemic raging that already killed 75000 with at most 25% of population that had a disease. On the other hand you have a vaccine that kills 37 for 17 000 000 jabs provided (360 if scaled to 2 jabs to everyone).

One death is of course too many. 360 even more so. But if an alternative is an extra 75'000 I know which choice I would like my public officials to make.

garmaine4• 5 years ago

Would you rather your mum / sister / kid died of COVID? Because that's more likely.

bongoman37• 5 years ago

The exact same argument can be applied to not vaccinating too.

ginko2• 5 years ago

People seem to think that delivered vaccine doses will get thrown into the trash during the suspension. In reality it just means that the doses accumulate for a week or two and will be administered more quickly after vaccinations are resumed.

read_if_gay_• 5 years ago

Source? I literally know one case personally and I would be pretty surprised if that was a one in a million.

Denvercoder93• 5 years ago

it's hard to imagine why some countries there have suspended it's use

Really? I can imagine quite a few reasons:

* When usage was suspended, it wasn't yet known whether it was limited to 18 cases or that was just the top of the iceberg.

* Even 1 death in a million outpaces COVID-19 deaths in young people, so vaccinating could be worse than not doing anything for them.

* Vaccins with fatal side effects can significantly reduce the willingness to be vaccinated, so even if statistically it's a good trade-off, the end result can be better by not using it.

And it's not like the doses that would've been used in those few days were thrown away. They were simply rescheduled for a week later -- the full vaccination effort isn't going to be done any day later due to this delay.

raverbashing3• 5 years ago

Even 1 death in a million outpaces COVID-19 deaths in young people

It absolutely doesn't

https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/11/18/covid-infection-fatalit...

In the 20-24 range it is 60 per million

40-49 range it is ~ 10x that

krzyk4• 5 years ago

In only Poland it was 5 cases and 1 death. Previously I heard that there were ~30 cases in EU, I would assume that number would grow not shrink.

oytis2• 5 years ago

Do these trials say anything about South African variant? That's the most important thing that needs to be clarified about AZ vaccine now.

disillusioned• 5 years ago

The most recent news continues to reinforce the idea that AZ is simply not effective at ALL against the B.1.351 SA variant, which is worrisome if it ends up dominating outside of South Africa.

Pfizer and Moderna both seem to show lower neutralizing antibody responses, but not nothing, and while there is some question of if "2/3rds less is enough," there's also some other significant considerations around the T-cell response that's triggered by those two and its robust effectiveness even against B.1.351. But not so much with AZ, which continues to show itself as ineffective against the variant: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/91658

oytis2• 5 years ago

If it is true, then in the long run AZ vaccine is close to useless. B.1.351 will just spread all over the world as quickly the original virus did, and we'll have to revaccinate with something else anyway. Which can also be complicated if something else is a viral vector vaccine too.

Denvercoder93• 5 years ago

While it's certainly not a good sign, you have to consider the huge error bars on the statistics in that study, and the fact that nobody in that study (both in treatment group and control group) caught severe COVID-19 that would require hospitalization and/or died, so there's no data at all yet on whether it's effective in preventing hospitalization and/or death.

mirsadm• 5 years ago

That is the exact same study that was reported on weeks ago. There isn't any new information and that study is flawed. You can refer back to discussions on it from weeks ago.

thehappypm5• 5 years ago

Sadly there isn't strong data about hospitalizations and death for the SA variant. AZ is clearly less likely to stop you from getting the virus, testing positive, and having a mild to moderate case. But that is actually acceptable if you're highly protected from hospitalization and death -- we've turned it into the common cold.

flobosg• 5 years ago

There are no known cases of the 501.V2 variant in either Chile or Peru, and the US has only had 143 cases by now. Besides, the trials were probably done months ago. If I’m not wrong, the Chilean one started in December.

7341298372613• 5 years ago

It will also help allay safety concerns that have disrupted its use in the European Union after a small number of reports of rare blood clots in people who have received the shot.

Yes, but that rumour will now never go away, and the tin-foil-hatters will have more of a reason to claim "big pharma" is behind it all.

Instead of all this research into proving it's safe (which it already was, even with minimal bad side-effects, I mean, even anti-conception pills have side-effects, a minimal amount of negative side-effects would statistically be fine and not worth a fuss), I wish scientists around the world spent more time on how to properly convince vaccine-skeptics that it's safe AND a good idea to take part.

The biggest danger isn't the vaccines, it's people refusing to take them.

curiousgal3• 5 years ago

I wish scientists around the world spent more time on how to properly convince vaccine-skeptics that it's safe AND a good idea to take part.

I completely disagree. I think part of why this anti-science attitude is prevalent is because people acknowledge it an try to respond to it. You should not engage in a conversation about whether vaccines cause autism or whether the earth is flat. You simply enact policies that enforce the right thing. Because this shouldn't be a discussion.

Responding to those people only validates their stance.

7341298372613• 5 years ago

These people want the best, too, mostly. Education should ALWAYS be the go-to default in any situation. These people need to be educated, not ignored, nor ridiculed.

Enforcing the "right thing" will alienate these people even more than they already are. They won't feel listened to and fall back into their echo-chambers even more.

alvah4• 5 years ago

"You simply enact policies that enforce the right thing"

That's a very naïve view of how science (and the world) works. Who gets to decide what "the right thing" is? What if they're later proven wrong, do their good intentions undo whatever damage is caused?

Freak_NL3• 5 years ago

It doesn't really matter that they have one more reason. The tinfoilhat-crowd (we call them 'wappies' in Dutch) will latch onto anything. If not this, then something else will take its place; the supply of bogus arguments is inexhaustible.

What matters is that the concerns the general populace may have are addressed, and usually they are. A GP who takes the time to get to know their patients and allay any concerns about vaccination in general is much more important to be able to reach the people who may have read weird things on social media, but are not in full-out wappie-teritory.

adflux• 5 years ago

The tinfoilhat-crowd (we call them 'wappies' in Dutch)

A very divisive term which will only increase the divide between the "believers" and "nonbelievers". Please treat people who don't share your ideas & ideals with respect and don't use blanket statements to demonize groups.

fabian2k• 5 years ago

I don't see how it would help with this, as the study had 32,000 participants. That wouldn't tell you much about rare side effects that appear on the order of 1 per a hundred thousand.

The blod clots are not a rumour, they're there. It's not certain the vaccine caused them, but that doesn't make this a rumour. And the events do seem to be unusual enough that they certainly need investigation.

Doesn't mean the vaccine is unsafe, the events seem to be still very rare, even if they are caused by the vaccine, so the benefits still outweigh the risks. But the events are very serious, so this does need to be monitored closely and needs to be taken seriously. Downplaying potential side effects is not the way to create trust in the vaccine.

7341298372613• 5 years ago

The blod clots are not a rumour, they're there.

That's just dishonest reporting of facts. People died after getting the vaccines, too. In car accidents. Unrelated but nice clickbait headlines.

It's not certain the vaccine caused them, but that doesn't make this a rumour. And the events do seem to be unusual enough that they certainly need investigation.

The rumour is that the vaccines caused it. The rumour is NOT the blood clots.

goatinaboat• 5 years ago

I wish scientists around the world spent more time on how to properly convince vaccine-skeptics that it's safe AND a good idea to take part.

You are being disingenuous here. The vast majority of skeptics in this case are people who have been thoroughly vaccinated against other things and are simply concerned about the accelerated testing schedule of these particular vaccines.

Freak_NL3• 5 years ago

Yesterday scientists reported that they may have found the underlying cause for these few thrombosis cases:

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...

So the AstraZeneca vaccine does seem to trigger thrombosis in very rare cases, caused by a strong immune response. But luckily:

The German researchers say the good news is that if their theory is correct, this rare adverse reaction to the jab can be identified and treated.
They say recipients should be on the lookout for unusual bruising, swelling or headaches that start four or more days after getting the vaccination. If identified quickly, they say, the clotting problem can be managed relatively easily by health professionals.

ddlsmurf• 5 years ago

My understanding was that the rate was still lower than it is in the unvaccinated population; and while they conclude "only the vaccine could explain these cases", I wonder how many cases in the unvaccinated population are investigated this thoroughly.

the_mitsuhiko10• 5 years ago

That depends on the country. Norway had four cases of fatal blood clothing in young people which is significant considering only 9 people below 50 died of covid there.

Semaphor2• 5 years ago

My understanding was that the rate was still lower than it is in the unvaccinated population

That was when it was thought to be a normal thrombosis. The one they identified then, was actually an extremely rare one "Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis":

an estimated 3-4 cases per million annual incidence in adults

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_venous_sinus_thrombos...

m12k• 5 years ago

Just spitballing here, but it might be possible that these individuals have an immune system that is pre-disposed to an auto-immune attack on their platelets. If so it might have happened eventually anyway (hence no deviation from normal stats), but the vaccine happens to trigger it pretty consistently. If so, and if the thrombosis turns out to be treatable like the German researchers think, then getting the AZ vaccine might turn out to be a relatively safe, controlled way for people with the condition to find out that they have it (compared to something else triggering it at some random time where they are not on the lookout for symptoms, and thus more likely to die from the blood clots). All theoretical at this point, but it would be a pretty good outcome if this side effect of the vaccine in reality turns out to become a screening method for a previously unknown condition.

boudin• 5 years ago

It really depends what rate you're looking at. It can be lower than normal when looking at the whole population that is vaccinated but high on a specific group of this population.

In this case, the fact that there might be complications specific to an specific age group and potential specific to women might be a hint that there's indeed a problem that was not seen. It does not mean that the vaccine is not safe, but it might be not safe in specific circumstances, like a lot of medications already are.

sradman• 5 years ago

Indeed, the age group for cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) is very specific [1], mostly women < 55 (menopause?):

The Committee’s experts looked in extreme detail at records of DIC and CVST reported from Member States, 9 of which resulted in death. Most of these occurred in people under 55 and the majority were women. Because these events are rare, and COVID-19 itself often causes blood clotting disorders in patients, it is difficult to estimate a background rate for these events in people who have not had the vaccine. However, based on pre-COVID figures it was calculated that less than 1 reported case of DIC might have been expected by 16 March among people under 50 within 14 days of receiving the vaccine, whereas 5 cases had been reported. Similarly, on average 1.35 cases of CVST might have been expected among this age group whereas by the same cut-off date there had been 12. A similar imbalance was not visible in the older population given the vaccine.

This seems to be yet another case where the news is incapable of keeping up with timely technical information. No mistakes were made, the pause could have gone either way and we should generally be more understanding of difficult but timely decisions made in the face of uncertainty.

[1] https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-vaccine-astrazene...

reddotX• 5 years ago

5 cases in UK all among men aged between 19 and 59 https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2BA1UM

eecc• 5 years ago

IMHO the suspension was very sensible as well as the identification of a mitigation protocol. This is how medicine is supposed to work: no emotions or politicking about second-order effects on public perception and so on. Just the facts, analysis and conclusions.

Indeed, as with everything around this pandemic has been, the turnaround time has been breathtakingly fast. I'm curious what infrastructure or methodology is supporting such a radical pace?!

KMag4• 5 years ago

Is low-dose aspirin contraindicated with any of these vaccines?

f6v2• 5 years ago

I overheard a rather loud phone conversation yesterday where a guy was urging his friend not to use AstraZeneca under any circumstances. Such things spread like fire.

thehappypm5• 5 years ago

It's reasonable. It's kind of a trolley problem scenario. Do I actively play Russian roulette with 1 bullet in a 100,000 chamber gun, or do I passively try to avoid the game altogether?

Avamander4• 5 years ago

passively try to avoid the game altogether

Can't be done, you're avoiding yourself into a ~3/100 game.

flexie2• 5 years ago

It's underreported, but the EU hesitance towards the AZ vaccine really started with the Danish government putting the vaccine on hold. Hours after, Austria followed and many other EU nations.

Whereas it may make sense to err on the side of safety for the Danish government, who has already vaccinated the oldest and weakest 10 percent of population, who has no third wave yet, who can afford the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, who has the infrastructure for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, and who has a generally well educated population, it really complicates things in many other places.

I live in Bulgaria, where the population and even health care personnel are already skeptical. Medical doctors are old, many don't speak English. They get their news from Russia. My own physician called her patients warning us not to get a jab back in February. A third wave is well underway now. When people here heard about richer and more well functioning nations suspending the vaccine, they lost the last confidence.

Although Bulgaria has since reassumed vaccinations with AZ, I fear the damage is done. Few people are getting a jab now.

I really wish richer nations would think more globally before they rush to such decisions. Thousands of people will die in poorer nations due to the delays it causes.

martin_bech• 5 years ago

As a Dane myself, I completely agree. And we should have resumed once EMA affirmed the vaccine being safe and efficient.

But there is a feeling here that we have thing under control, and in a weird way we do.. we had about 6 covid deaths total, last week.

jopsen2• 5 years ago

We do for now, but we all know it can blow up any second.

kossTKR5• 5 years ago

This makes zero sense to me from a stats point of view.

Denmark has only had 11 deaths in total in the age bracket [0-60], without known underlying conditions. Most of them close to sixty and overweight.

4 [0-60] bracket women have already died in Norway, and 2 in Denmark with one 30 year old in intensive care. All healthy relatively young health workers, a group of people that have simply not died from Covid.

Norway has zero deaths below 60 without underlying conditions, and 4 deaths from the vaccine. So it's only the vaccine killing healthy people. Same in Denmark. You won't find a single dead healthy 50 yr woman among the dead.

All the data is publically available. It's almost incomprehensible to me that people don't understand that Covid almost exlusively kills 80+ people, or with many comorbidities.

Close to zero healthy people below 60 have died from Covid in the west. Sacrificing 4 healthy people after only 120K vaccinations in NO is crazy. Or 2 after 140K in Denmark with one in critical.

I wouldn't take the AZ vaccine. There is about a in 1 / 25000 of sudden death for a healthy|<60 person compared to zero with Covid at the moment.

1 / 25000 chance of dying is crazy high for a 30 year old, and here we haven't even counted non fatal haemorrhages which is higher.

the_mitsuhiko10• 5 years ago

Hours after, Austria followed and many other EU nations.

Austria never followed. As far as I know one charge was discarded after a fatal clotting case in Austria in a nurse. The regulator also said that the risk of not vaccinating outweighs the risk of vaccinating.

flexie2• 5 years ago

As I understand it, whereas Denmark paused every AZ vaccine, Austria suspended certain batches of the vaccine:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/16/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-do...

raverbashing3• 5 years ago

Yeah the stop was needless and only helped the anti-vaxxers. The chance is still much less than common medication like birth control and much smaller than Covid itself.

Anti-vaxxers shouldn't be pandered to, they should be sent to the back of the queue when the need for ICUs come.

Vinnl2• 5 years ago

On the other hand, the one message you don't want to get out is "we decided not to pause vaccinations because we were afraid of what it would do to the vaccine's image" - and if there were deliberations to that effect, that will get out.

Transparency can be painful in the short run, but in the longer run I feel like it's often the better option.

jopsen2• 5 years ago

"we decided not to pause vaccinations because we were afraid of what it would do to the vaccine's image"

Ironically, that's the news they'll get from Russia :)

captainmuon• 5 years ago

Ironically, if you don't want to undermine the vaccine's image, the message should be that you don't care about the vaccine's image. People should think the decision to stop or continue is made for scientific or bureaucratic reasons, not because the vaccine is dangerous or you are hiding something.

Al-Khwarizmi2• 5 years ago

Strange take. Bulgaria has a skeptical and misinformed population so you blame the Danish health authorities for taking a decision coherent with their mission, i.e., to protect Danish citizens?

I don't think a national health authority has to think about these things at all, honestly. I would distrust my local agency if I knew they didn't pause vaccinations that they thought should be paused in order not to affect the vaccine's public image. The problem lies elsewhere.

tdsamardzhiev2• 5 years ago

Blame? On the contrary, he went the extra mile to explain why it was the right decision for Denmark, but mindlessly copying it was NOT the right decision for Bulgaria, and people died because of it. Acting like our govt did is a very Bulgarian thing, we even have a saying for it -- "The frog saw they're shoeing the horse and raised her foot."

rebuilder• 5 years ago

What if they pause vaccinations they don't think should be paused on medical grounds, in order not to affect the vaccine's public image? That seems to be what's happening now.

hannob• 5 years ago

I honestly have a hard time following that line of reasoning.

It's always like: "These vaccines are dangerous, what about sideeffects? You're hiding the sideeffects!"

Then countries and health authorities show that they're very sensitive when sideeffects show up and do a careful investigation. Now being extra careful is criticized as undermining trust in vaccines? (I guess if they had decided to not pause that would've also caused claims that this undermines trust in vaccines, as they're ignoring sideeffects.)

I'm not even saying pausing was the right decision. It was a tough call and I wouldn't want to be in a position to make that call.

But I guess there's one undeniable fact: The Anti-Vax crowd will use whatever happens to construct new bullshit arguments. There's no way to prevent that, and I think the best thing to do about it is to ignore those people as much as possible.

lvice• 5 years ago

The anti-vax crowd is complete nonsense, but the feeling I got from Italy wasn't so much "see! vaccines are dangerous! I am not getting a jab!, but rather "it looks like AstraZeneca may not be entirely safe, I demand a Moderna or Pfizer jab!".

Due to extremely skewed media coverage of the recent events, it may also be almost justifiable as a general reaction of population. If people are told that a vaccine has a rare but lethal side effect, and they are not in at-risk category, and there are two other vaccines that seem safer, it is almost reasonable to wait the other one. The main issue has been communication by media which made the investigation into side-effect seem much more severe than what it really was, undermining people trust in AZ. I think newspapers made an horrible job at it.

I would definitely still get the AZ vaccine, but I kind of understand where people are coming from, given the message given by media and their number-illiteracy that does not allow them to understand probability and the scale of numbers.

solarkraft• 5 years ago

Now being extra careful is criticized as undermining trust in vaccines?

Some people certainly see it that way, but it seems to me like it's the perfect way to regain trust exactly by demonstrating an extreme sensitivity to actual issues.

Besides, something I don't get: Doesn't vaccine demand still way outstrip supply? Should that be the case, "skeptics" and whatever shouldn't matter for now, should they? Neither would stopping vaccination for a moment since we're already running on tiny buffers because we have gigantic vaccination capacity, right?

Why not let the early adopters get it to demonstrate safety and just get it out to the people? There are early & late adopters with any technology and as something spreads organically you will also have a ton of "Oh, my friend got it and they're fine!" moments.

jariel• 5 years ago

This is an incredibly important lesson in public communications.

'The Crowd' is dumb, even if it's made up of mostly smart people.

'Fact' and 'Communications' are completely different things.

FYI it's one of the reasons for cancel culture as well. Most people are not offended, or at least might understand a situation given context. But in a flurry of hype, all of that gets lost.

This is multiplied by social media.

This is why people occupying positions of integrity i.e. Doctors, Presidents's of Countries have a double responsibility to the Truth to the point where it should be legislated.

That said - we always need to support legitimate contrarians - but it needs to be based on fact, not hyperbole.

There are some lunatic anti-vaxx doctors on TikTok and I'm really not comfortable with it. 'Free Speech' to disseminate absolute lies is literally costing lives.

laurent92• 5 years ago

The Anti-Vax crowd will use whatever happens

You trust your government and medial institutions, fine. My government has been caught lying over and over “for the public good” during this pandemic, but also on topics like feminism. We know they would lie again without an afterthought like they have in the past, for example giving AIDS to people through blood transfusion (4000 victims because they didn’t want to be seen doubting) or Chernobyl (“Don’t worry, the cloud didn’t reach France” - It did), or bombing the Greenpeace boat with people inside in NZ, or giving 6 diplomatic passports to Benalla and when he was caught beating up political opponents for the service of the king, “seize his passport”... but not seizing the remaining 5 of them.

You may live in a democracy, but we don’t. We literally have laws that the press isn’t free to talk during the pandemic.

People don’t trust doctors and politicians, simply because they have been shown several times to not be trustworthy. The only remedy is not to take more or less precaution; the only remedy is to start being trustworthy, having open science, having a talk about the risks, and not trying to slander or sue people who have opinions that are not approved by the nomenklatura.

As a reminder, the Ordre des Médecins has sued Dr Raoult for “violating fraternity”. The rest of the accusations I’m not a doctor, but “violating fraternity”? Is that science we are talking about, does physics include “follow whatever the group says”?

In the end, as long as you believe it is a thing to “lie for the public good”, it is good to trust absolutely no figure we are given and doubt about every single thing you say.

krzyk4• 5 years ago

The Anti-Vax crowd will use whatever happens

I assure you that if those that resign from AZ would take a jab with Pfizer or Moderna. But in e.g. Poland they can't because those more pricey vaccines are reserved form >= 70 year olds.

hef1989810• 5 years ago

The anti vaxx crowd is already against it anyway. The way Europe is treating AZ does mean generally pro-vaxx people become sceptical as well. And I see that effect in Germany as well.

ulfw• 5 years ago

Anti-vax comes from fear.

Problem with vaccines is that you take them when you're healthy. People don't worry as much when they're healthy.

When you're sick and lying in a hospital bed you're much less hesitant to 'try this one more drug' in hopes of getting better.

mchusma• 5 years ago

It's the vaccine bans that are bad. Careful review is not. When your government doesn't let you take something you want, it's a ban we just aren't using the word.

This one was particularly eggregious, because even if the side effect was caused by AZ (unlikely but possible), it would still make sense to take the vaccine.

But giving people a choice is the important thing, particularly in a situation where risk profiles vary so widely. Using pessimistic assumptions and data we knew in July 2020 it made sense to lift the ban, let alone now.

7952• 5 years ago

The whole argument is based on a false dichotomy between having the vaccine or not having the vaccine. When really it is a choice between have vaccine (possible side effects) or get covid (definite well documented effects). They should explain the decisions in those terms.

tchalla• 5 years ago

Germany had to temporarily suspend vaccination for 2 days due to a legal requirement. Here’s an article which explains different angles to it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/19/world/europe/europe-vacci...

chithanh3• 5 years ago

That article is quite uninformed. There was no legal requirement either, it was a purely political decision, based on the advice of the Paul-Ehrlich-Institute (PEI).

The statistical anomality about the thrombosis cases was known before and not considered a reason to halt vaccination. Only when it became clear that these were CSVT combined with lowered platelet count (which is known to be caused by immune reaction), strongly suggesting a causal link, then the decision to halt vaccination was made, until the actual risk could be assessed.

WanderPanda• 5 years ago

Maybe the

They get their news from Russia.

part is the one that needs addressing and not the other countries killing confidence by sending mixed signals. In the end it’s an evolutionary process, the ones who are right will survive with a higher probability. Also I am not totally ruling out the posibillity that the sceptical ones might be right in the end. Though I personally believe that it’s a no brainer to take the jab if you are above a certain age (50, 60 idk) or have other health issues.

holri• 5 years ago

Austria did never set AZ on hold.

ignoramous2• 5 years ago

India has two vaccines in circulation both based on inactivated virus and surprisingly there's no such fud spreading around these parts. Though the lines at vaccine centers are not long, I know many who have gotten it, including 85+ year olds with comorbidities who suffered one or two chills but that's about it.

thrwoi4u234342• 5 years ago

Covishield is similar to Az/Ox vaccine and uses the AdV vector. Covaxin uses inactivated Cov2 viruses.

Long wait times in B'luru earlier this month. That said, I don't think the vaccine or the disease mean too much to Indians (due to all sorts of factors).

Wish the Govt. was looking at actual data and science rather than what their peers in other countries were doing. Looks like they'll be locking the country down and destroying parts of the economy that weren't destroyed by last year. Almost seems malicious at this point.

downrightmike• 5 years ago

Just because your government didn't do the work, doesn't mean it falls to another to protect you. That is something you have to change at the ballot box.

swebs• 5 years ago

I seriously doubt most countries are just blindly following Denmark. The much more likely reason is that this specific vaccine offers very little protection against the rapidly spreading South African variant.

NicoJuicy3• 5 years ago

They get their news from Russia.

That seems to be a bigger problem than other countries evaluating and re-evaluating the vaccine.

La1n2• 5 years ago

https://brazilian.report/coronavirus-brazil-live-blog/2021/0...

A lot of countries are pressuring other countries in not using "other" vaccines these days.

topbanana• 5 years ago

It's a great shame.

61% of people in France now think the AZ vaccine is unsafe, up 18 percentage points on February. 55% of Germans think the AZ jab is unsafe, up 15 points on February.

We can add Covid to the 'precautionary principle' victim list that already includes zero-carbon energy, and huge improvements in agricultural productivity.

dane-pgp• 5 years ago

zero-carbon energy, and huge improvements in agricultural productivity.

Just so we're clear, what you actually mean is "nuclear energy" and "genetically modified crops", right?

krzyk4• 5 years ago

And in Poland they didn't stop vaccinating with AZ and it caused even more problems - at least 50% people are not going to their scheduled vaccination.

This issue would be solved by: allowing people to choose vaccine they want (according to our government officials "they are all the same") or/and allow younger crowds to vaccinate.

_v7gu• 5 years ago

according to our government officials "they are all the same"

Who can fault people for mistrusting their government, when they keep on lying and lying?

macspoofing2• 5 years ago

I fear the damage is done.

For sure. After EU nations put the vaccine on hold, pretty much everyone in my circle of friends and family has decided to either not take this vaccine outright or is seriously considering not taking it. This is Canada.

londons_explore• 5 years ago

It's all a communications issue.

I haven't seen any decent effort to explain to the regular public the scale of risks of anything.

Yet it seems very possible. For example, each person could have presented to them a personal "health card", which showed to them what might happen to them in the next 10 years. It would have on it "Dies from Heart disease", "Covid", "run over by bus", "still living and healthy". Each would have area scaled by likelihood.

Then they could be given another identical health card showing how their health outcomes would change with a vaccine.

Upon seeing "Oh, I have more chance of being healthy in 10 years if I take this vaccine", they'd be much more likely to sign up. Likewise, after a cancer diagnosis, they can be given a new card with "dies of cancer" now being a massive area, and they can readjust their priorities.

I think the trick is the cards must be customized for everyone, taking into account personal risk factors (age, do they smoke, how obese, past health issues, etc.) An entire government department could have as their job reading papers and coming up with a method to produce the cards as accurately as possible.

JumpCrisscross• 5 years ago

the EU hesitance towards the AZ vaccine really started with the Danish government putting the vaccine on hold

The hesitance started when Brussels got railed for failing at vaccine distribution.

hef1989810• 5 years ago

Yep, around the same time the first, and completely wrong, article about AZ ineffectiveness came out in Germany. I have the impression that politicians wanted to save their behinds by sacrificing AZ and hoping things would solve themselves. Which they didn't, but now it's too late.

kmlx• 5 years ago

in another Eastern European country a nurse that was administering the vaccine was telling people to go home and not get vaccinated with the AZN vaccine when they came in to get vaccinated :)))

Viker• 5 years ago

You can not make any of these comparisons, Bulgaria is a very special country.

1-Prime minister is a thug and soon to assume dictators role.

2- Population is in HEAVY decline, unlike most places.

3- Most of the educated people emigrate abroad, and never return, in result the remaining population is mostly in "risk group" .. but it is not a group if its most.

4- 10% of the population (romes), do not count as Bulgarian and will not be vaccinated, so that is also a huge problem.

And most of these factors are due to culture/mentality problems, that stem from within.

So yeh. Bulgaria is not comparable to other countries

totalZero• 5 years ago

I really wish richer nations would think more globally before they rush to such decisions.

The Danish government has no obligation to base its public health policy on what is optically best for Bulgaria. Every Danish person should be able to expect that their government will act in the best interest of Denmark.

vixen99• 5 years ago

Relative risk! If over 65 the risk of severe illness with Covid is much increased and with it, the risk of blood clots is very substantial as any search on this topic reveals. Seems the reported cases of blood clots for AstraZenica vaccinations (17 million so far) is 37. Not a difficult risk assessment then unless there are predispossing factors for an individual.

psychiatrist248• 5 years ago

The people who died from the vaccine were younger than 65.

benevol• 5 years ago

Vaccines are usually developed and tested over a period of 6-10 years.

If, and only if, after that much time, you don't observe any side-effects, then it is honest to declare it "safe". Everything else is just a lie to sell the product.

christkv• 5 years ago

People also forget that the vaccines are only approved for emergency use only. This is not the normal approval process.

chki• 5 years ago

That's not true, all three vaccines authorised in the EU are approved under a conditional market authorisation, which is a sped up process but not an emergency authorisation.

The United Kingdom did authorise (some?) vaccines for emergency supply.

kebman• 5 years ago

According to Norwegian mainstream tabloid Dagbladet (The Daily Paper), two more people have died due to complications following vaccination with the AstraZeneca vaccine. Norwegian language source: https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/to-nye-personer-dode-etter-...

cehrlich2• 5 years ago

I received my first dose of AstraZeneca yesterday (I'm in Austria, and qualify as teaching staff). I had severe flu-like symptoms last night and today, to the point of having to cancel my classes. It's the worst my body has felt in several years. I don't recall receiving another vaccine in my life that was half as bad.

However of course I'll be the first to line up in three week's time to get my second shot.

I think a big problem in communication has been that people believe that in order to oppose the anti-vaxxers you need to create a narrative that the vaccine has no negative side effects at all - which isn't true, and thus gives the anti-vaxxers more fuel. It would have been much smarter to present the argument in favor of the vaccine as a cost-benefit analysis from the start. As harsh as it sounds, making everyone feel bad for a few days and possibly causing more severe effects in a small minority is much better than allowing the virus to continue spreading for another year. Not even close.

thebruce87m• 5 years ago

I wonder if the reaction from the vaccination is proportional to the reaction from the actual virus - e.g. would you have been hospitalised with the actual virus?

hef1989810• 5 years ago

My understanding is that the heavy reaction after inoculation of a vaccine means that your immune system is working, as expected. So I'd say rather opposite, as a fast, strong immune reaction would fight COVID better. But I am working from decades old biology knowledge here.

ggm• 5 years ago

You feel ill possibly because you had a strong immune response. This is a good thing.

powerapple3• 5 years ago

so not feeling ill is probably bad?

powerapple3• 5 years ago

The question is why COVID vaccine is so harsh, and why is it different than a typical flu vaccine? People say the side effect is good it is your immune response, then why not having side effect is good as well? The more I read the more confused I am.

I am getting my second jab tomorrow. Vaccine is still far better than the virus itself.

macspoofing2• 5 years ago

The question is why COVID vaccine is so harsh, and why is it different than a typical flu vaccine?

Is it though? You can certainly get a severe reaction from the flu vaccine.

detritus5• 5 years ago

Spitballing outta my rear here – but could it be that we have a lot more exposure to flu-like viruses, whereas Corona viruses are comparatively novel, at least as far as the immune system's concerned, so there'a a lot more a struggle for the body to acclimatise?

Vinnl2• 5 years ago

It's just what I heard on the Dutch news, but IIRC there are things you can do to make side effects less bad (I guess e.g. experiment with lower dosages), but doing those things will delay the vaccine. Which of course wasn't desirable, so they opted for a higher certainty of having a working vaccines sooner over having fewer side effects. In the future, side effects could be less severe.

valarauko2• 5 years ago

The question is why COVID vaccine is so harsh, and why is it different than a typical flu vaccine?

I had a pretty bad day after the second dose of Moderna - high fever, etc. Symptoms mostly dissipated after 24 hours of the shot.

I have my suspicions about why the COVID vaccines have tended to have more severe reactivity as compared to the flu vaccine - they were designed to trigger a very strong immune response & subsequent antibody titer, probably a lot more than might be required for protection in hindsight. The current crop of emergency use authorized vaccines have virtually 100% protection against severe COVID - which is great. My guess is that halving the antibody titer would have yielded something like 95% protection, and probably given you less reactivity as well. The manufacturers have erred on the side of caution, probably rightly so. By comparison the flu shot for last year's flu season had an effectiveness in the range of 50%. Of course, the thing that dings flu shot effectiveness is variant strains, while all the current COVID vaccines were designed from the original Wuhan strain (?), and likely have varying effectiveness against variant strains.

open-source-ux• 5 years ago

This BBC reporter has written of his experience of taking the AstraZeneca vaccine:

"The worst was the migraine and vomiting, but I also had aches, chills and exhaustion."

The reporter recovered but wonders why some people get more severe side-effects than others. Could it have something to do with age? Paradoxically, the older you are, the less likely you are to experience side-effects.

Vaccine side effects: My experience of them and what they mean:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56375307

Also, Inside Health: Covid vaccine side-effects (podcast)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000t48v

hef1989810• 5 years ago

Older people tend to have weaker immune responses than younger people. Nothing to wonder about, asking his doctor, in case of the journalist, would have answered that question. Or Google. But then he wouldn't have been able to write yet another AZ side effects article.

nickpp2• 5 years ago

I'll be the first to line up in three week's time to get my second shot

I believe the second dose of the AZ vaccine is at 2 months. If your second is at 3 weeks, you got a Pfizer shot, not AZ.

the_mitsuhiko10• 5 years ago

You are told before vaccination what you will get and it's on your card. I doubt OP got the vaccine wrong.

cehrlich2• 5 years ago

I might be wrong about when my next shot is (haven't been contacted by the government yet), but I definitely got AZ.

hef1989810• 5 years ago

One of the many reasons Germany is lagging so much behind. We insist in administering the second shot after three weeks, even if we could wait (and should, maybe) up to two months. And we have a tendency to keep the second shot in stock already before applying the first one. But what can you do when you fly blond, with instruments and a compass.

robaato• 5 years ago

I had my first AZ jab 10 days ago. Next day slightly sore arm - that's all.

dm3192• 5 years ago

You might want to consider delaying it until 12 weeks.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014067362...

hayd• 5 years ago

After my first I had a severe fever/night sweats for two nights (paracetamol helped a lot/meant I could sleep). The second dose gave me no symptoms whatsoever (as suggested by both vaccinators that this would likely be the case).

This seems to be the case for younger/healthier people.

thrwoi4u234342• 5 years ago

ZDoggMD had a video on this which is very informative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUnL3x9W53w

I wish the public health experts dictating state policies were half as effective at communicating as this podcast.

levosmetalo• 5 years ago

AZ ban game in EU has more to do with the internal politics than with the medical argumentation.

For many of the corrupt governments it's easier to say "we don't vaccinate because AZ is not safe" that the cold truth "we don't vaccinate because we were not able to order enough vaccines on time."

The reason why we don't have enough vaccines in the EU is:

- Can't get Moderna, Pfizer/Biontech because "America first"

- Can't get enough AZ because UK was faster with ordering

- Can't get Sputnik, Sinovac because US doesn't want that their vassals buy from their enemies

that_guy_iain4• 5 years ago

- Can't get enough AZ because UK was faster with ordering

The EU contract was signed the day before the UK one, no?

nickpp2• 5 years ago

Maybe, but it didn't contain a priority clause, which the UK one did.

detritus5• 5 years ago

From a very brief Google, it looks like there was a near three month difference:

UK, May 2020: https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/business/astrazeneca-...

EU, August 2020: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_...

(Thanks for making me check - I've read that there was a few-month delay from some newspapers, but never bothered to verify)

psychiatrist248• 5 years ago

I think it is complete bullshit to blame everything on the US. The EU government screwed up. Biontech was even developed in Europe, how exactly can the US prevent its use here?

tomjen3• 5 years ago

They are looking into Sputnik, but because it is Russia we need to test it for our selves.

The same would be the case with Sinovac, with the added proviso that I would want to know if it had been developed using human tests on their concentration camp inmates.

freddealmeida• 5 years ago

So what would normally take 8-10 years of well structured clinical trials with blinds, is now considered safe? And when a country carefully shows that bloodclots are occurring with high predictability should just be ignored?

powerapple3• 5 years ago

One thing I don't understand about the whole vaccine business is that can't they just license it to everyone in the world, so every country can produce their own vaccine already? Take AZ for example, Oxford was to go with Merck, then went for AZ, Why not both? And many more companies.

Slartie• 5 years ago

Because it's mostly not like you can throw a folder with a "recipe" over a fence and just have someone manufacture a vaccine in the required amounts and quality.

The closest ones to this are probably vector vaccines like the AZ one, because they use a "relatively" well-known delivery technique (as in: one that was at least already used for a single market-ready vaccine before the Covid-19 ones). For that reason, AZ has several production partnerships around the world already, for example with the Serum Institute of India, and the AZ vaccine is considered the likely "workhorse" for global immunization because of this relative ease of manufacturing (and storage, of course).

But it quickly gets harder with the mRNA vaccines. While those are also produced in production partnerships and subcontractor scenarios, the original producer appears to be much more intertwined with its subcontractors, performing some steps by themselves and outsourcing other steps. mRNA vaccine mass production technology is relatively proprietary and new, even newer than the already-pretty-new vector vaccine stuff, and the entire mass production scale-up has only been done very recently under massive time pressure for these Covid-19 vaccines. This basically dictates that with these outsourcing initiatives, the original producer cannot simply hand over some instructions and wait for finished vaccines to appear at the loading bay of a subcontractor, but has to transfer significant amounts of very specialized know-how to the subcontractors, which makes such operations very personnel-intensive and hard to scale.

Two highly recommended links that provide very informative details about mRNA manufacturing hurdles in particular are these: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/02/my... https://blog.jonasneubert.com/2021/01/10/exploring-the-suppl...

valarauko2• 5 years ago

The closest ones to this are probably vector vaccines like the AZ one, because they use a "relatively" well-known delivery technique (as in: one that was at least already used for a single market-ready vaccine before the Covid-19 ones). For that reason, AZ has several production partnerships around the world already, for example with the Serum Institute of India, and the AZ vaccine is considered the likely "workhorse" for global immunization because of this relative ease of manufacturing (and storage, of course).

AFAIK the Serum Institute wasn't manufacturing any vector based vaccines prior to the Oxford/AZ vaccine, despite being the largest vaccine manufacturer in the world. They put in $100 Million of their own money to adapt to the AZ pipeline & scale it up.

headsupernova• 5 years ago

Because IP and profits are somehow more important than life in this capitalist hellworld

kcartlidge7• 5 years ago

AZ sub-licensed it (Oxford required it of them; possibly why Merck aren't involved, but I could easily be wrong on that). AZ have committed to 3 billion doses non-profit and state they have production sites in 15 countries.

It is also available under other names, for example the world's largest producer of vaccines is the Serum Institute of India, and they are making a Covishield branded version of it (they are aiming, I think, for around 900 million doses).

unixhero• 5 years ago

2 new deaths due to blood clotting in Norway[0], which finds itself in the third Coronavirus wave (2021-03-21)*

[0] https://www.tv2.no/a/13902162 In Norwegian

* = I am pro vaccine, and will take it, AstraZeneca vaccine, if offered. But I am a huge fan of facts.

erokar• 5 years ago

Two more deaths after the AZ vaccine in Norway yesterday. So far 120-130k vaccinated here, all of them under 65. 4 of them dead after very unusual and hard to treat thrombosis. Treating doc at Oslo university hospital has said the vaccine is very likely the cause. This vaccine is halted in Norway in it will likely stay that way for the foreseeable future.

shrubble• 5 years ago

Remember that all these vaccines are authorized under emergency use exceptions only. The full trials done under 'normal' circumstances are not yet complete.

parrellel• 5 years ago

AstraZenica is always going to have a shadow over it because of their initial marketing number fudging. After that trust was already broken.

Then of course "turns your blood to pudding, sometimes" Sounds worse than "anaphylaxsis, sometimes" even if people end up just as dead.

apercu• 5 years ago

It's unfortunate that there is fear, but if governments didn't try to err on the side of caution and there are issues later, we'd all be pretty upset at those in charge for steaming full speed ahead with warning signs.

Reality is not black and white.

thehappypm5• 5 years ago

The blood clotting issue is a real challenge for world leaders.

It's very much a question of how many of these blood clot deaths are worth exchanging for COVID deaths from a vaccinated populace. What's the trade? 1 young and healthy person dies to prevent 1 covid death? 1000 covid deaths?

AstraZeneca vaccine safe and effective in U.S., Chile, Peru trials

Related Stories