How are they taking it seriously? The UK are continuing to put AZ into people’s arms, with another big shipment due from India.I'm not so sure of that. So far it seems that it's only the AZ vaccine that has taken a hit reputation wise. I suspect the fear among the public would grow bigger if those reported incidents covered every vaccine available. I'm just glad that they take this seriously in a time where everyone seems to be desperate for the rollout speed to increase tenfold.
Hoping it gets the green-light from EMA later this week or so, and also the FDA due to consider it for emergency authorisation soon which might help restore confidence
What kind of antibody test he undergone? Rapid ones won’t show it for the vaccine you need to do an antibody test called SARS-CoV-2-anti-S.So my Grandad, bored off his tits, has signed up for every medical trial going and the most recent one is a antibody test for people who have had a vaccine.
He reckons it's telling him he's not got any antibodies. He had the AZ first dose back in January, and I would guess he somehow fecked up the test, but is it possible that he did it properly and doesn't have any protection at all?
What kind of antibody test he undergone? Rapid ones won’t show it for the vaccine you need to do an antibody test called SARS-CoV-2-anti-S.
@jojojo had given me an explanation earlier that testing for whether vaccines will provide immunity is commercially not straightforward. Tagging her hoping she can explainAh, that sounds plausible. He did it himself at home.
I'm surprised the trial didn't debrief him properly on that though. He's panicking that he hasn't got any protection, so hopefully I can find out what he did and reassure him.
Edit: Nope just checked he got an email with a readout breaking it down into N and S and saying he had neither antibodies.
I reassure you that the one he used at home (it’s antigen test actually) definitely won’t show it. My Mum had a Pfizer vaccine (2 doses) a month ago, she with her vaccinated colleagues did these sort of tests at work as they have access to them (healthcare workers) and all of them came back negative. It’s the igG anti-S test from your vein what is needed to determine antibody level from vaccine.Ah, that sounds plausible. He did it himself at home.
I'm surprised the trial didn't debrief him properly on that though. He's panicking that he hasn't got any protection, so hopefully I can find out what he did and reassure him.
Edit: Nope just checked he got an email with a readout breaking it down into N and S and saying he had neither antibodies.
I reassure you that the one he used at home (it’s antigen actually) definitely won’t show it. My Mum had a Pfizer vaccine (2 doses) a month ago, she with her vaccinated colleagues did these sort of tests at work as they have access to them (healthcare workers) and all of them came back negative.
Ah yeah, should have added that in the edit. He did it at home but sent it off and they emailed him results which specifically break it down into N and S.
That’s it basically. Please read this @NinjaFletch https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.im...covid-19-vaccine-qa-latest-news-antibody/amp/. Your grandad is protected mate (at least partially).N = nucleocapsid. S = spike proten
If either of them are going to change after vaccination it will be S. But even with the expensive hospital based tests (from a vein) it’s possible that they might not test for the same bit of the spike that the vaccine stimulates.
Plus it’s possible that the antibodies in his blood have been and gone. Being immune is as much about being able to rapidly create the right antibodies next time they’re needed as it is about churning them as soon as you’re vaccinated.
Finally, T cell mediated immunity is important too. And that won’t show up on any antibody test.
N = nucleocapsid. S = spike proten
If either of them are going to change after vaccination it will be S. But even with the expensive hospital based tests (from a vein) it’s possible that they might not test for the same bit of the spike that the vaccine stimulates.
Plus it’s possible that the antibodies in his blood have been and gone. Being immune is as much about being able to rapidly create the right antibodies next time they’re needed as it is about churning them as soon as you’re vaccinated.
Finally, T cell mediated immunity is important too. And that won’t show up on any antibody test.
How are they taking it seriously? The UK are continuing to put AZ into people’s arms, with another big shipment due from India.
With respect, people who are better qualified than you at assessing risk have decided that it’s better to hold off on using this specific vaccine until they have fully investigated these latest issues. The fact there are other vaccines available makes this a slightly easier decision. If this was the one and only vaccine available I think they would have been less likely to pause this one.
You won't be allowed to have it until that has occurred and countries decide to continue (or not). Many countries have carried on without a pause after examining the available data anyway.
I’m not sure what you mean by the bit in bold. There’s 30,000 people in Ireland due to get the AZ vaccine this week that have had their appointment postponed.
No one country has examined all the data. It will have been collected by the regulators in the countries reporting the serious ADRs and submitted to the EMA. Along with the latest update of the safety database maintained by the manufacturer. That’s what the EMA (specifically a committee called PRAC) will be going through with a fine toothcomb over the next 24 - 36 hours. Then and only then will we have the whole picture
What I mean is that each country will look at the data and either carry on or suspend while they look at the data further. If you are allowed to have it the risk will have been assessed as acceptable so you personally don't need to agonise over it.
If further data emerges then of course be driven by that data but don't be driven speculation about data we don't have. Over caution can damage public confidence unnecessarily.
0.00022% incidents of blood clots close to the vaccination is lower than what you would expect by random chance so where is the justification for a pause? And that isn't even comparing the individual and collective risk from clots vs covid.
The justification for the pause is because there’s been a cluster of serious adverse events, with an unusual combination of symptoms, replicated in multiple cases in short period of time. Absolutely textbook reason for an emergency safety review of a recently licensed medicine.
the latest publicly available data showed there were 35 reported cases of thrombocytopenia (a low blood platelet disorder) out of 54,000 “yellow card” reports after nearly 10 million AstraZeneca vaccinations.
For the Pfizer vaccine there were 22 cases out of 33,000 reports and almost 11 million doses administered.
Why is one ignored and one made a huge deal out of? apart from politics.
I just got a note from my doctor in California saying I'm going to be able to get a vaccine in the next few weeks. I'm surprised it happened sooner than England but I'll take it. Presumably it'll either be Pfizer or J&J.
So flying back to the us?
How many of those cases of thrombocytopenia hospitalised someone? How many ended up dead? These are young people too. Not frail or elderly. It’s the severity of these incidents and the fact they happened in the same cohort, in quick succession, that raised the alarm.
This pause wasn’t decided by politicians either. It was expert drug safety physicians working for regulators. The same people we rely on to tell us these vaccines are safe when they are first licensed.
I don't know i haven't got the data to hand, but ill hazard a guess there is minimal difference its clear to me there is an agenda against a vaccine which is hilarious in itself and doesn't help anyone.
Ever since the ridiculous comments from Macron about the effectiveness in over 65 its been obvious, i'm not saying the regulators aren't correct in throwing up the issue i'm talking about the way its being spoken about in the public arena by the not qualified.
Norwegian and Danish health experts aren't playing any politics, can you stop with your bs.the latest publicly available data showed there were 35 reported cases of thrombocytopenia (a low blood platelet disorder) out of 54,000 “yellow card” reports after nearly 10 million AstraZeneca vaccinations.
For the Pfizer vaccine there were 22 cases out of 33,000 reports and almost 11 million doses administered.
Why is one ignored and one made a huge deal out of? apart from politics.
I try to be objective about these kind of things, but even if the numbers are small I agree with you on this. Something seems wrong.How many of those cases of thrombocytopenia hospitalised someone? How many ended up dead? These are young people too. Not frail or elderly. It’s the severity of these incidents and the fact they happened in the same cohort, in quick succession, that raised the alarm.
This pause wasn’t decided by politicians either. It was expert drug safety physicians working for regulators. The same people we rely on to tell us these vaccines are safe when they are first licensed.
Norwegian and Danish health experts aren't playing any politics, can you stop with your bs.
The Guardian report said without a vaccine they would expect to see 100 blood clot cases per week in the age group being vaccinated now. Old people get blood clots and old people die. This reporting is harming the rollout in eu in a disastrous way and needs to stop.
Cause or coincidence?
The data supplied by AstraZeneca shows there have been 37 reports of blood clots among the 17m people across Europe who have been given the vaccine.
But the key question that has to be asked is whether this is cause or coincidence? Would these clots have happened anyway?
Adverse events like this are monitored carefully, so regulators can assess if they are happening more than they should.
The 37 reports of clots are below the level you would expect. What is more, there is no strong biological explanation why the vaccine would cause a blood clot.
It is why the World Health Organization and UK drugs regulators have all said there is no evidence of a link.
Even the European Medicines Agency, which is looking into the reports, has suggested the vaccine should continue to be used given the risk Covid presents to health.
Unsurprisingly, therefore, the decisions by individual nations to pause their rollouts have baffled experts.
Prof Adam Finn, a member of the WHO's working group on Covid vaccines, says stopping rollout in this way is "highly undesirable" and could undermine confidence in the vaccine, costing lives in the long-term.
"Making the right call in situations like this is not easy, but having a steady hand on the tiller is probably what is needed most."
From the BBC site.
The justification for the pause is because there’s been a cluster of serious adverse events, with an unusual combination of symptoms, replicated in multiple cases in short period of time. Absolutely textbook reason for an emergency safety review of a recently licensed medicine.
Sometimes it takes a localised cluster to reveal important issues that aren’t showing up in the overall numbers. Obviously hope that isn’t the case here. In fact, my money’s on this turning out to be a false alarm. I understand the concern though. I wasn’t worried at all by what I read about the incidents in Austria/Italy but the Norwegian cluster is concerning.
It’s caused enough signal to make multiple countries pause vaccination. It hasn’t been proven that it’s not associated with the vaccine yet either. The right response would be to wait and see what happens, not be so dogmatic that you keep doling out ‘All vaccine good’ advice.
People's desperation for the vaccine to work as intended is causing them to get dangerously defensive about possible concerns. Which is exactly what vaccine hesitant people worried about to begin with, and were ridiculed for: we desperately need it to work so we're willing to overlook some concerns for the greater good. Individuals are free to make that personal choice but it's not a remotely appropriate expectation of society as a whole.
Strange to see people move the goal-posts from "it is perfectly safe" to "it is almost definitely perfectly safe, but even if it isn't, the benefits outweigh the risks" without any acknowledgement of how fundamentally different those two positions are.
What makes it scarier is that the person who died was a nurse. She'd probably be hyper-aware of warning signs. And according to the newspaper she quickly got the best possible care at the best hospital.
2 other nurses(in their 60's I think) are also hospitalised.
No chance I’m getting this. 0%
And if a very small % of blood clots is their issue, why haven't the EU raised the same concerns on the Pfizer vaccine... it has a small % too.
Cause or coincidence?
The data supplied by AstraZeneca shows there have been 37 reports of blood clots among the 17m people across Europe who have been given the vaccine.
But the key question that has to be asked is whether this is cause or coincidence? Would these clots have happened anyway?
Adverse events like this are monitored carefully, so regulators can assess if they are happening more than they should.
The 37 reports of clots are below the level you would expect. What is more, there is no strong biological explanation why the vaccine would cause a blood clot.
It is why the World Health Organization and UK drugs regulators have all said there is no evidence of a link.
Even the European Medicines Agency, which is looking into the reports, has suggested the vaccine should continue to be used given the risk Covid presents to health.
Unsurprisingly, therefore, the decisions by individual nations to pause their rollouts have baffled experts.
Prof Adam Finn, a member of the WHO's working group on Covid vaccines, says stopping rollout in this way is "highly undesirable" and could undermine confidence in the vaccine, costing lives in the long-term.
"Making the right call in situations like this is not easy, but having a steady hand on the tiller is probably what is needed most."
From the BBC site.
This news won’t surprise you then.
Hmm.. that's worrying. That makes it sound like AZ was rushing their vaccine. Not good news.
Exactly. We were told this vaccine was 100% safe and wasn't rushed... now the narrative is it's better to have it than to not have it. I think we should not lose sight on what we're taking this vaccine for. To save lives and not further complicate our health... given the number of countries that have acted so quickly, it's safe to say there's real merit on this.
I stand by my opinion that there's no long term data on these vaccines and majority of the studies suggesting a big reduction in covid transmission has not been peer reviewed. Everything we are learning about this virus and vaccine is done in real time.. to have people take a position and not be able to be open to other people's opinion is pretty scary.
Watch people come here defending this and say it's very rare but it happens.. just a big old coincidence.. nothing to see here.
I get the impression you’ve been almost willing this vaccine to fail for a while now. Have you shorted AstraZeneca?!?![]()