[Bananatron]

So do I, they can't do math, and are confused by the antivaxxer fearmongering.

So you're accusing the GOC of being antivax? Why, in laymans terms is the AZ vaccine not available for people of all ages?

Under any other circumstances this vaccine wouldn't have seen the light of day.

Go ahead and take it, get your family to take it as well. I'll wait for Pfizer.

 

[MrMatt]

So you're accusing the GOC of being antivax? Why, in laymans terms is the AZ vaccine not available for people of all ages?

Under any other circumstances this vaccine wouldn't have seen the light of day.

Go ahead and take it, get your family to take it as well. I'll wait for Pfizer.

There isn't any publicly available data justifying the restrictions on the AZ vaccine.
So either.
1. The data doesn't exist for efficacy/safety.
2. There is data that shows a problem, and they're not sharing it.


I won't accuse the GOC of being antivax, but I do think that they have allowed politics to infect the government, so maybe they're manipulating the data for some reason.

The current government is really challenging the tradition of non partisan government in Canada, and I find that idea terrifying. I don't want it to be like the US where they rebuild the executive branch of government after every election.

 

[Eclectic12]

I realize my following opinion is likely irrational and not based on statistics. I believe if you can see your own biases you're on the right track.

At this point I would get the Pfizer vaccine and probably not the other two. Pfizer has a brand name that I recognize and trust to a certain extent, whereas I'd never even heard of Moderna or AstraZeneca before COVID. Throw in the headlines from the AZ vaccine, and that's it ...

Interesting .... Moderna makes sense as it was formed in 2010.

Maybe the AstraZeneca is a regional thing for seeing their name in Canada?

They have been in Canada since 1999, the same year Astra AB (founded in 1913) merged with the Zeneca Group PCL (spun out of Imperial Chemical Industries six year earlier). Imperial Chemical Industries started into pharma in the 1940's.

Their current list for Canada has about forty products, minus the covid1-9 vaccine.


It's the Oxford- AstraZeneca vaccine so I suspect that like BioTech did the development and Pfizer did the manufacturing/distribution, AstraZeneca may fulfil the same role.
Similarly, Moderna did the development and has contracted manufacturing/distribution to multiple companies, including the Swiss Lonza Group.


'Course if you want to worry, BioTech was setup the same year as Moderna.


Cheers

 

[Bananatron]

There isn't any publicly available data justifying the restrictions on the AZ vaccine.
So either.
1. The data doesn't exist for efficacy/safety.
2. There is data that shows a problem, and they're not sharing it.


I won't accuse the GOC of being antivax, but I do think that they have allowed politics to infect the government, so maybe they're manipulating the data for some reason.

The current government is really challenging the tradition of non partisan government in Canada, and I find that idea terrifying. I don't want it to be like the US where they rebuild the executive branch of government after every election.

so, whats with the antivax comments?

 

[MrMatt]

so, whats with the antivax comments?

People pushing the "don't take AZ", despite there being no available data to suggest there is a problem.
No different than saying "don't take the flu shot, because it causes Autism"

 

[Bananatron]

People pushing the "don't take AZ", despite there being no available data to suggest there is a problem.
No different than saying "don't take the flu shot, because it causes Autism"

As a sensible person, doesn't the pausing or outright stopping of usage in certain countries, including Canada, suggest that there may be some data that suggests there is a problem?

 

[MrMatt]

As a sensible person, doesn't the pausing or outright stopping of usage in certain countries, including Canada, suggest that there may be some data that suggests there is a problem?

It suggests an abundance of caution.
I think that if they suspect a problem, they should immediately investigate until they know if it is a problem or is not.

Just to be clear, if there is a reason to suspect a serious problem, they should stop use until they confirm the existance and scope of the problem. This is what is being done, and guess what, they haven't actually found a problem yet.

 

[Bananatron]

It suggests an abundance of caution.
I think that if they suspect a problem, they should immediately investigate until they know if it is a problem or is not.

Just to be clear, if there is a reason to suspect a serious problem, they should stop use until they confirm the existance and scope of the problem. This is what is being done, and guess what, they haven't actually found a problem yet.

Then its settled. It is not anti-vax, it is simply an abundance of caution. And people are certainly able to wait until the data is conclusive, rather than to be pressured to take a vaccine where it is not perfectly clear yet how safe it is.

 

[MrMatt]

Then its settled. It is not anti-vax, it is simply an abundance of caution. And people are certainly able to wait until the data is conclusive, rather than to be pressured to take a vaccine where it is not perfectly clear yet how safe it is.

None of the vaccines will be conclusively clear on how safe they are for years.


But based on the data available today, from tens of millions of people, all the major vaccines appear extremely safe.

 

[like_to_retire]

Clear link between AstraZeneca and rare blood clots in brain.

'In my opinion, we can now say it,' said Marco Cavaleri, chair of the vaccine evaluation team at the European Medicines Agency

 

[gibor365]

The AZ from the US was about to expire and they couldn't use it, so they "lent" it to us.

We have to pay them back........and they likely won't want AZ vaccine if they don't approve it.

So what do we give them back......Pfizer, Moderna or cash ?

Snowbirds they already vaccinated hundreds thousands of them

 

[MrMatt]

Clear link between AstraZeneca and rare blood clots in brain.

'In my opinion, we can now say it,' said Marco Cavaleri, chair of the vaccine evaluation team at the European Medicines Agency

Yes just released (ie new data) that shows it's more common than initially thought.
5 in a million is still really good odds.

Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis (CVST)

Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis occurs when a blood clot forms in the brain’s venous sinuses. This prevents blood from draining out of the brain. As a result, blood cells may break and leak blood into the brain tissues, forming a hemorrhage.

www.hopkinsmedicine.org

CVST is a rare form of stroke. It affects about 5 people in 1 million each year.

So you have a 5 in a million chance of getting this blood clot in a year, or after taking the AZ vaccine. I wonder if they are related.
I agree with the abundance of caution, but we're talking about something incredibly rare.

It's clear that this is an incredibly low risk.
I expect when they investigate the risk profile, they'll find that the risk for most people is much lower, or likely negligible.

 

[Eder]

The biggest problem is the AZ shot is being provided at cost, therefore prone to bad publicity. They should have charged $50/shot.

 

[Bananatron]

Yes just released (ie new data) that shows it's more common than initially thought.
5 in a million is still really good odds.

Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis (CVST)

Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis occurs when a blood clot forms in the brain’s venous sinuses. This prevents blood from draining out of the brain. As a result, blood cells may break and leak blood into the brain tissues, forming a hemorrhage.

www.hopkinsmedicine.org

CVST is a rare form of stroke. It affects about 5 people in 1 million each year.

So you have a 5 in a million chance of getting this blood clot in a year, or after taking the AZ vaccine. I wonder if they are related.
I agree with the abundance of caution, but we're talking about something incredibly rare.

It's clear that this is an incredibly low risk.
I expect when they investigate the risk profile, they'll find that the risk for most people is much lower, or likely negligible.

If a sensible person had the choice between a vaccine with a 1:200,000 chance of giving that person a blood clot or one with a zero chance of giving that person a blood clot, what would the sensible person choose?

"Very low odds" are relative. Any other scenario this vaccine wouldn't have seen the light of day.

 

[MrMatt]

If a sensible person had the choice between a vaccine with a 1:200,000 chance of giving that person a blood clot or one with a zero chance of giving that person a blood clot, what would the sensible person choose?

"Very low odds" are relative. Any other scenario this vaccine wouldn't have seen the light of day.

Given that you already have a 1:1 000 chance of getting a blood clot this year, and a 1:200 000 chance of getting the exact type of blood clot that AZ vaccine is correlated to this year.
I don't see why it's a big deal.

It's also important to note that they think that middle age women are more susceptible., at which point the odds for others groups are lower than 5 in a million, at which point it again disappears into the realm of normal. (ie every 10 weeks, 1 in a million ppl get this type of blood clot)

Actually the odds of this being found in any trial are nearly nil, they only test tens of thousands, it's quite likely that not a single person in any trial had this blood clot.

 

[Bananatron]

Given that you already have a 1:1 000 chance of getting a blood clot this year, and a 1:200 000 chance of getting the exact type of blood clot that AZ vaccine is correlated to this year.
I don't see why it's a big deal.

It's also important to note that they think that middle age women are more susceptible., at which point the odds for others groups are lower than 5 in a million, at which point it again disappears into the realm of normal. (ie every 10 weeks, 1 in a million ppl get this type of blood clot)

Actually the odds of this being found in any trial are nearly nil, they only test tens of thousands, it's quite likely that not a single person in any trial had this blood clot.

I think you know as well as I do that terminology like "quite likely", "they think", "probably", etc have no place in scientific vaccine trials so I kindly ask you to refrain from shaming those who are skeptical of the AZ vaccine until the science is settled.

Bullying and shaming is no way to gain vaccine acceptance.

 

[MrMatt]

I think you know as well as I do that terminology like "quite likely", "they think", "probably", etc have no place in scientific vaccine trials so I kindly ask you to refrain from shaming those who are skeptical of the AZ vaccine until the science is settled.

Bullying and shaming is no way to gain vaccine acceptance.

Actually they're perfectly fine words.
If you test 30k people, it is statistically unlikely that you're going to detect a 1 in 200k impact.

"they think", it's completely reasonable in a comentary.
There have been very rare cases of unusual blood clots accompanied by low levels of blood platelets (components that help blood to clot) after vaccination. The reported cases were almost all in women under 55.

COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca: benefits still outweigh the risks despite possible link to rare blood clots with low platelets - European Medicines Agency

COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca: benefits still outweigh the risks despite possible link to rare blood clots with low platelets

www.ema.europa.eu

You're picking on phrasing rather than the content, I think that suggests you know you're wrong.

 

[Bananatron]

Actually they're perfectly fine words.
If you test 30k people, it is statistically unlikely that you're going to detect a 1 in 200k impact.

"they think", it's completely reasonable in a comentary.
There have been very rare cases of unusual blood clots accompanied by low levels of blood platelets (components that help blood to clot) after vaccination. The reported cases were almost all in women under 55.

COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca: benefits still outweigh the risks despite possible link to rare blood clots with low platelets - European Medicines Agency

COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca: benefits still outweigh the risks despite possible link to rare blood clots with low platelets

www.ema.europa.eu

You're picking on phrasing rather than the content, I think that suggests you know you're wrong.

I realize that the AZ vaccine is "probably" safe.

I'll wait until every country drops the "probably", like what would happen with any other vaccine trial.

Do you have a problem with that?

 

[gibor365]

The reported cases were almost all in women under 55.

This is fishy.....so if somebody is 54 - it's not OK and same person who turns 55 - it's just fine?!
In Canada they go not per date of birth, but per year of birth .... In reality I'm 54 (until late November) - so I shouldn't be allowed to get AZ, but because I was born 1966 - I'm allowed

 

[MarkWilkinson]

When it comes to vaccines... I'd like to receive one. However, I still want to make sure that there are no side effects. Well, I know it is totally normal but it should not be too serious. I just want to make sure that this vaccine won't harm my body in the near future. But If I have the chance, I will grab the opportunity. I'll take chances. If other people need it, I'd probably give it to him or her. In this situation, we should recognize who needs it first rather than being selfish and only thinking about ourselves.