Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
1,614
Do the birth control numbers take into account that they take it 21 out of 28 days month after month? AZ is a one time application for those numbers so far.

Still, personally I would take the odds on either, but I got lucky I got Pfizer.
 
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Messages
1,673
Not trying to denegrate the argument or belittle any points of view but is there any impact of the sheer size of the vaccination program on the number of side effects. Just wondering if any other vaccines have been applied on basically a global, whole population scale and whether the number of people vaccinated was bound to give rise to a number of side effects. Would other vaccines have a number of side effects discovered if rolled out on such a scale over such a short period. Guessing some vaccines would take decades to be applied in the numbers these are and may show similar numbers of instances of side effects just spread over a significantly longer period of time.

I have no medical knowledge, just one direction my mind was going
Fair point raised.
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
24,719
By definition the very rarest side-effects of any drug are only going to manifest themselves from general and widespread use and reporting from across the population, and can‘t come from formal testing.
 

Ethan

Money List Winner
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
9,667
Location
Bearwood Lakes, Berks
When you look at the typical % of adverse reactions it looks a little silly to be dissing the AZ vaccine, as the EU seems to be doing. Equally, let's not stick our head in the sand. Less emotion and more intelligent conversation is the way forward.

As an aside, I saw a piece in a Spanish newspaper today saying that they want the AZ vaccine here in Spain. And then you read the EU spin.... wonder if its more to do with the abject performance of the EU Commission and VDL.
The EU is not dissing the vaccine. This is not political. Norway (not even an EU country) and Denmark started this, and they are the most anglophilic of the EMA member countries. As I have said repeatedly, the issue is not a simple comparison of reported rates versus the prevalence of these events in the background population. That is a Daily Mail way of looking at it. The real question is what the true rate is, and whether the clotting problem crosses over a range of different conditions, as one might expect it would. We have seen this go from 'a few DVTs, fewer than you would expect' to 'a few Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis but still very rare' to 'A few more CVST and some other abdominal vein thrombosis' and the MHRA has gone from 'no link with the vaccine' to 'link with the vaccine but benefit-risk still favourable over age 30'. It should be obvious, as it was at the outset to those who have observed previous safety issues play out, that this was an evolving issue, and it is very unlikely to be done yet. The big remaining questions are (a) whether we have detected all the cases of these sentinel conditions, and more importantly (b) whether there is also an increase in the broad range of other clotting conditions such as acute MI, stroke, renal and liver failure and so on. The latter is where the really bad news may be hiding.

Also, it is not the EU. It is the European Medicines Agency, which is independent. If you don't believe it is independent, then you can't really believe the MHRA is independent either, and was not pressured to first approve the AZ vaccine fast (noting that the US has still not approved it) or leant on to minimise the extent of their latest restrictions.
 
Last edited:

Ethan

Money List Winner
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
9,667
Location
Bearwood Lakes, Berks
Are there obvious symptoms for these blood clots people would see for themselves?

For example, when I had my PEs back in 2015 I had massively swollen legs. I knew something wasn’t right.
PEs occur in the lungs. Some people with PE have a history of DVT, with swollen, red, hot legs, and others don't.

But the adverse events of concern with the AZ vaccine are mainly Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis (CVST), and Splanchnic Vein Thrombosis (SVT). These are similar to DVT in the sense they are thrombi that form in the venous circulation, but these occur in a different location from DVT and PE, the brain and the abdomen respectively. Most DVTs occur due to sluggish circulation, sedentary jobs, long haul flights etc, as well as being more common in people with some form of hyper coagulability, excessive clottiness, (on the pill, have cancer, certain genetic conditions). Most cases of CVST and SVT occur for the same reasons, but these cases with the vaccine appear to have a different basis, antibody formation against platelets causing them to aggregate in clumps which block vessels but also resulting in depletion of platelets elsewhere as they are all sucked into the thrombus. So you get hyper coagulability and bleeding tendencies occurring together.

This is likely to be due to the adnovirus vector which stimulates an immune response. We knew this at the start, although thought it might affect efficacy more. The Johnson&Johnson vaccine which also uses an adenovirus is seeing similar reports occurring and Sputnik should see the same, although we might not hear about those.

The issue, though, is whether this event is restricted to the CVST and SVT disorders mentioned. I suspect it is not, and these were only observed because they are rare. It seems incredibly unlikely that there are not DVT and PE, as well as thrombi-embolic events in the arterial circulation, also occurring but not being attached to the vaccine because they are the sort of thing you would expect people in the 50s and 60s to get anyway.
 
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
8,484
Location
Instow - play in North Devon
The EU is not dissing the vaccine. This is not political. Norway (not even an EU country) and Denmark started this, and they are the most anglophilic of the EMA member countries. As I have said repeatedly, the issue is not a simple comparison of reported rates versus the prevalence of these events in the background population. That is a Daily Mail way of looking at it. The real question is what the true rate is, and whether the clotting problem crosses over a range of different conditions, as one might expect it would. We have seen this go from 'a few DVTs, fewer than you would expect' to 'a few Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis but still very rare' to 'A few more CVST and some other abdominal vein thrombosis' and the MHRA has gone from 'no link with the vaccine' to 'link with the vaccine but benefit-risk still favourable over age 30'. It should be obvious, as it was at the outset to those who have observed previous safety issues play out, that this was an evolving issue, and it is very unlikely to be done yet. The big remaining questions are (a) whether we have detected all the cases of these sentinel conditions, and more importantly (b) whether there is also an increase in the broad range of other clotting conditions such as acute MI, stroke, renal and liver failure and so on. The latter is where the really bad news may be hiding.

Also, it is not the EU. It is the European Medicines Agency, which is independent. If you don't believe it is independent, then you can't really believe the MHRA is independent either, and was not pressured to first approve the AZ vaccine fast (noting that the US has still not approved it) or leant on to minimise the extent of their latest restrictions.
Good to know that the MHRA is independent. Seem to remember someone infer it wasn't a while back.
 

Ethan

Money List Winner
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
9,667
Location
Bearwood Lakes, Berks
@Ethan - is it likely that a zero reaction/complication (apart from feel rotten for a couple of days) to the first jab means the 2nd should follow suit?
Most people don't have much reaction to either. Word is that people tend to have more of a reaction to first AZ than second, and the other way round for Pfizer. still mostly pretty mild, though.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
16,102
You should clarify exactly what you think is BS. It would be more rational to agree or disagree with specifics rather than broad unstated generalities.
There's so much of it about I find it difficult to know where to start and as I shouldn't encroach into politics I'll leave you to work that out for yourself, or not, as the mood takes you.
 

Hobbit

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Messages
15,493
Location
Espana
The EU is not dissing the vaccine. This is not political. Norway (not even an EU country) and Denmark started this, and they are the most anglophilic of the EMA member countries. As I have said repeatedly, the issue is not a simple comparison of reported rates versus the prevalence of these events in the background population. That is a Daily Mail way of looking at it. The real question is what the true rate is, and whether the clotting problem crosses over a range of different conditions, as one might expect it would. We have seen this go from 'a few DVTs, fewer than you would expect' to 'a few Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis but still very rare' to 'A few more CVST and some other abdominal vein thrombosis' and the MHRA has gone from 'no link with the vaccine' to 'link with the vaccine but benefit-risk still favourable over age 30'. It should be obvious, as it was at the outset to those who have observed previous safety issues play out, that this was an evolving issue, and it is very unlikely to be done yet. The big remaining questions are (a) whether we have detected all the cases of these sentinel conditions, and more importantly (b) whether there is also an increase in the broad range of other clotting conditions such as acute MI, stroke, renal and liver failure and so on. The latter is where the really bad news may be hiding.

Also, it is not the EU. It is the European Medicines Agency, which is independent. If you don't believe it is independent, then you can't really believe the MHRA is independent either, and was not pressured to first approve the AZ vaccine fast (noting that the US has still not approved it) or leant on to minimise the extent of their latest restrictions.
Good reminder on the EMA MHRA independence, appreciated. I worked closely with the MHRA a number of times and never found any bias whatsoever.

Strangely, it goes some way to explain the EMA EU relationship as the EU is still chasing AZ for more doses even though some countries are discriminating based on age.

As an aside, we've been given the nod for the first jab. We fall into the AZ age group but my liver function tests going back since whenever have often confounded medics as they are always outside of the 'window.' Should I decline the AZ in favour of a/n/other vaccine?
 
Top