Vaccine Progress, Approval, and Deployment

[yorksrob]

This latest development with the AZ vaccine surely puts us at risk of failing one of the four roadmap “tests”. How convenient....

Assuming the efficacy of the vaccines in the over 50s (or even over 60s) is indeed as high as thought, I see no reason why it needs to be forced onto younger people who will acquire natural herd immunity in due course. With the progress made to date there’s no reason to delay any stage of the roadmap. Sorry to sound so pessimistic but I don’t like where this appears to be heading.

I can also see another ready made excuse to avoid reopening.

 

[bengley]

Do we even know the proportion of those who developed clots were under 50 or 60? If not we would need to be careful to jump to conclusions based on the knee jerk responses from various governments. And to be quite honest I'd be surprised if younger people were more at risk than older people, covid disproportionally effects older people so on the face of it you'd expect a vaccine that uses protein fragments would equally be more risky for older people, given that it is designed to trigger the immune system in a similar manner as if a full infection had occured.

"Rare cases of blood clots in people who have been given the Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid vaccine could raise questions over whether young people should receive it, a leading epidemiologist has said, amid reports the UK’s watchdog was considering new restrictions on the jab.

Professor Neil Ferguson, who has himself received the Oxford jab, said the risk of unusual blood clots appeared to be age-related, with younger people more likely to be affected by them."

Blood clot risk from Oxford vaccine ‘appears to be linked to younger patients’

Regulators said to be looking at potential risk ‘very urgently’

www.independent.co.uk

 

[DustyBin]

Because without innoculation, children will act as a reservoir through which the disease will circulate. Few children will be seriously ill but the virus would spread to and kill vaccinated people, and it there is a high chance of mutating into vaccine resistant strains.


That's your choice, but you should be clear to yourself when making it that you're risking other people's lives too.

Ideally, the Moderns vaccine would be more readily available by May and under-40s can receive that. I don't know if ordered numbers are sufficient though.

I’m sorry but I’ve seen no evidence to support this, it’s simply hysteria. Vaccinated people are extremely unlikely to die from covid. Who said there is a high chance of vaccine resistant strains developing? And how does vaccinating people reduce this likelihood? Unless you think we can achieve “zero covid” this is set to become an endemic virus that we’ll live with. Fortunately it’s slow to mutate, and the scientists seem confident that the vaccines can be altered to deal with any new variants should the need arise. This is what we do with the flu vaccine annually.

So when’s the roll out to babies?

When’s the roll out for the flu vaccination?

Covid is special, haven’t you heard?

 

[yorksrob]

Still predicting 2.5 million doses per week. Not too shabby!

As long as it doesn't affect the roadmap.

 

[Darandio]

Who said there is a high chance of vaccine resistant strains developing?

People on the internet like cuccir. Try Twitter and the many posts where some people say they are wary of or will not have the vaccine. Instant guilt trip with the vaccine resistant mutation verse.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The blot clots rate is 30 in 18 million.

That's one in 600,000.

Looks rather lower than the normal incidence of blot clots in the general population to me...?

 

[takno]

The blot clots rate is 30 in 18 million.

That's one in 600,000.

Looks rather lower than the normal incidence of blot clots in the general population to me...?

It's 30 cases of a specific and rare type of blood clot, and it's rather higher than the normal incidence of that clot. The numbers are very small and certainly shouldn't be worrying anybody who's old/ill enough to get a jab in the next month or so, but they do appear to be statistically significant.

 

[Bantamzen]

"Rare cases of blood clots in people who have been given the Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid vaccine could raise questions over whether young people should receive it, a leading epidemiologist has said, amid reports the UK’s watchdog was considering new restrictions on the jab.

Professor Neil Ferguson, who has himself received the Oxford jab, said the risk of unusual blood clots appeared to be age-related, with younger people more likely to be affected by them."

Blood clot risk from Oxford vaccine ‘appears to be linked to younger patients’

Regulators said to be looking at potential risk ‘very urgently’

www.independent.co.uk

That doesn't really give any data, or reasons behind the data though. There has been a lot of flip-flopping between polices by a number of governments over the AZ vaccine, some restricting it for the over 65s, others restricting it for younger people, none of which have really given up any hard evidence of risk to either. With the numbers so small, and in this country people over 50 currently being heavily dosed with both variants of vaccine (with a third coming on line this week), if there was a significant risk to any age group you would expect higher than double figure cases & single figure deaths to be showing by now. After all there are plenty

As I say, the choice is yours to make. Just don't allow spooked politicians who are now adverse to literally any risk no matter how minute to blur your judgement.

 

[yorksrob]

There's a quote on the BBC live news feed that the rate of this blood clot is around 1 in 2.5 million. By contrast the rate of dieing of covid for forty year olds would be around 2000 per 2.5 million.

On those numbers I'll take the vaccine please.

 

[bengley]

There's a quote on the BBC live news feed that the rate of this blood clot is around 1 in 2.5 million. By contrast the rate of dieing of covid for forty year olds would be around 2000 per 2.5 million.

On those numbers I'll take the vaccine please.

Those statistics will change though as more younger people get the vaccine, if there's a correlation. Of course, I'm not trying to convince you not to get the vaccine - I would never do that.

 

[yorksrob]

Those statistics will change though as more younger people get the vaccine, if there's a correlation. Of course, I'm not trying to convince you not to get the vaccine - I would never do that.

Indeed. It will be down to the numbers for any given section of the population.

 

[Bantamzen]

Those statistics will change though as more younger people get the vaccine, if there's a correlation. Of course, I'm not trying to convince you not to get the vaccine - I would never do that.

You are assuming they will, as yet there is no firm evidence that the vaccine is responsible for these cases. Remember, these are people who have had blood clots after the vaccine, not necessarily because of it. Causality has not yet been proven, its important to keep that in mind.

 

[bengley]

You are assuming they will, as yet there is no firm evidence that the vaccine is responsible for these cases. Remember, these are people who have had blood clots after the vaccine, not necessarily because of it. Causality has not yet been proven, its important to keep that in mind.

Let's wait and see what the regulator decides. I'm sure they wouldn't have stopped the trials on children without pretty good evidence.

 

[bspahh]

Indeed. It will be down to the numbers for any given section of the population.

It will take some careful statistical analysis. The blood clots are a rare event, so you need a big sample to see any, and random variation can look like there is a signal, when it is just noise. At the moment, 30 year olds who have had a Covid vaccine are more likely to have had other medical conditions. Perhaps these could give an increased risk of a blood clot.

I am 53 and have had one dose of the AZ vaccine.

 

[takno]

Let's wait and see what the regulator decides. I'm sure they wouldn't have stopped the trials on children without pretty good evidence.

The trials on children are already a bit controversial, and certainly aren't necessary or particularly urgent. It's not surprising at all to see them paused with even a hint of a possibility of harm. I wouldn't take that as very meaningful evidence of anything

 

[hwl]

Well so far the numbers look a bit like this:

Germany have so far recorded 31 cerebral venous sinus thromboses and nine deaths out of 2.7 million people vaccinated, that is a risk of clotting of around 0.001%, and risk of death as a result of of clots at less than a quarter of that. In this country there have been reports of 30 clotting incidents out of 18 million vaccinations, giving a risk level nearly 7 times less than seen in Germany.

Now I will defend the right for anyone in this country to make their own choices on the vaccine, but its important to keep these numbers in context. As things stand the risk to younger people from the vaccine is very small to insignificant.

The is also a general correlation with these type of clotting issues with use of certain types of the pill and smoking. Lower smoking levels in the UK compared to Germany especially in the younger age groups and very different choices on the type of pill used in the UK and Germany may explain some of the difference along with Germany focusing in use on younger people earlier due to the earlier over 65 restriction.

 

[MikeWM]

There's a quote on the BBC live news feed that the rate of this blood clot is around 1 in 2.5 million. By contrast the rate of dieing of covid for forty year olds would be around 2000 per 2.5 million.

Your latter figure is *far* too high.

eg. see
https://www.bhf.org.uk/informations...nd-out-your-risk-when-it-comes-to-coronavirus

A 45 year old man living in the South East of England, who is from a White British background and had a heart attack a year ago (in other words, he has coronary heart disease) but no other risk factors, and is a healthy weight.

What QCovid tells him:He has an estimated ‘absolute risk’ of dying from Covid-19 of 0.003% and of needing to go into hospital with Covid of 0.045%.

So *with a fairly serious pre-existing condition*, at 45 that's a risk of death of about 75 per 2.5 million.

Can't trivially find an equivalent number for those with no pre-existing conditions, or an average over everyone, but fair to say it is much, much lower than 2000 per 2.5 million.

 

[hwl]

The trials on children are already a bit controversial, and certainly aren't necessary or particularly urgent. It's not surprising at all to see them paused with even a hint of a possibility of harm. I wouldn't take that as very meaningful evidence of anything

Agreed completely in line with general medical trials thinking

 

[yorksrob]

It will take some careful statistical analysis. The blood clots are a rare event, so you need a big sample to see any, and random variation can look like there is a signal, when it is just noise. At the moment, 30 year olds who have had a Covid vaccine are more likely to have had other medical conditions. Perhaps these could give an increased risk of a blood clot.

I am 53 and have had one dose of the AZ vaccine.

Indeed. That would seem to me to justify further investigation, but not halting the rollout at present.

Your latter figure is *far* too high.

eg. see
https://www.bhf.org.uk/informations...nd-out-your-risk-when-it-comes-to-coronavirus


So *with a fairly serious pre-existing condition*, at 45 that's a risk of death of about 75 per 2.5 million.

Can't trivially find an equivalent number for those with no pre-existing conditions, or an average over everyone, but fair to say it is much, much lower than 2000 per 2.5 million.

I'm happy to take that figure. It certainly points to a low mortality rate and doesn't justify locking down.

I'm still eager to have the vaccine at those figures.

 

[Darandio]

Your latter figure is *far* too high.

eg. see
https://www.bhf.org.uk/informations...nd-out-your-risk-when-it-comes-to-coronavirus

Indeed, but the 200 figure is what has been pumped out all morning by a GP on the BBC.

 

[MikeWM]

Do we even know the proportion of those who developed clots were under 50 or 60? If not we would need to be careful to jump to conclusions based on the knee jerk responses from various governments. And to be quite honest I'd be surprised if younger people were more at risk than older people, covid disproportionally effects older people so on the face of it you'd expect a vaccine that uses protein fragments would equally be more risky for older people, given that it is designed to trigger the immune system in a similar manner as if a full infection had occured.

It depends on what the underlying cause is. Younger people are going to have a much stronger immune system response than older people (which is exactly why older people are at significantly more risk from the disease in the first place).

So to me there seems a certain amount of logic that there may be a higher incidence in young adults.

--

I'm still eager to have the vaccine at those figures.

Actually I'd agree - if you wanted to take the vaccine before this blood clot business, I don't think that this is remotely a big enough issue that it should put you off.

I think the problem here is communication - the Government haven't been honest about the fact that vaccines can have side-effects, and now people are discovering that actually they can. If they'd been clearer that it is a 'balance of risk' then people could make better informed decisions.

That's one of the reasons we don't usually vaccinate people who are not at particular risk from a disease. I've no idea why we are trying to do so in this case (my suspicion is that it is due to wanting vaccine passports, I can't see any other good reason for trying to vaccinate children or healthy people in their 20s).

 

[takno]

Indeed, but the 200 figure is what has been pumped out all morning by a GP on the BBC.

The BBC are decidedly post-fact at this point. It was reported as 1 in 2000 chance of death when I read it on the BBC website, which I thought sounded a bit fishy, but I just took at at face value. Presumably it's the usual mis-application of symptomatic CFR to the entire population.

Either way, even with the much lower figure, it's still looking statistically less risky to take the jab than not for people in their 40s. Below that, well hopefully there will be some further research before we get to that point.

 

[DustyBin]

Actually I'd agree - if you wanted to take the vaccine before this blood clot business, I don't think that this is remotely a big enough issue that it should put you off.

I think the problem here is communication - the Government haven't been honest about the fact that vaccines can have side-effects, and now people are discovering that actually they can. If they'd been clearer that it is a 'balance of risk' then people could make better informed decisions.

That's one of the reasons we don't usually vaccinate people who are not at particular risk from a disease. I've no idea why we are trying to do so in this case (my suspicion is that it is due to wanting vaccine passports, I can't see any other good reason for trying to vaccinate children or healthy people in their 20s).

I think you're right, but providing the facts and allowing people to assess the risks for themselves isn't this government's strong point unfortunately....

 

[bramling]

Because without innoculation, children will act as a reservoir through which the disease will circulate. Few children will be seriously ill but the virus would spread to and kill vaccinated people, and it there is a high chance of mutating into vaccine resistant strains.


That's your choice, but you should be clear to yourself when making it that you're risking other people's lives too.

Ideally, the Moderns vaccine would be more readily available by May and under-40s can receive that. I don't know if ordered numbers are sufficient though.

That’s like saying young people should take a risk on their own safety simply to shore things up *even further* for older people, on top of all the sacrifices young people have already had to make over the last year - and despite all that they still get pilloried on social media for daring to sit on a park bench!

At this time I’m still unlikely to take any vaccine. To be honest I’m sick of the ungracious attitude of some people over the whole subject.

 

[yorkie]

Because without innoculation, children will act as a reservoir through which the [virus] will circulate.

As happens with many viruses

Few children will be seriously ill but the virus would spread to and kill vaccinated people

This happens with influenza, but once the vast majority of people have built up immunity, the numbers are likely to be small. You can't keep people alive forever and if we eliminated all seasonal respiraory viruses it would not keep elderly people alive indefinitely.

and it there is a high chance of mutating into vaccine resistant strains.

There is no evidence of this. Unlike influenza, Sars-CoV-2 has built-in "copy protection" which dramatically reduces the chances of mutations. There is only one strain of Sars-CoV-2 and there is no evidence that any alternative strains will emerge as mutations from this virus.

Note that when you talk about "vaccine resistant", this is such a generic term it is effectively meaningless. What do you actually mean by this? If you refer to a new variant being able to evade some of the antibody response, we know this can happen but it's not a big deal. There is no evidence that the T-cell response can be evaded by any variant.

I believe you are misleading people by spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding vaccines. I have previously explained to you why you are wrong.

That's your choice, but you should be clear to yourself when making it that you're risking other people's lives too.

Anyone who chooses to drive a car is putting peoples lives at risk; I could go on for ages with many other examples. If you want to stick to viruses, then the same applies with influenza. I do not see how such hyperbolic language is in any way helpful or proportionate.

 

[sjpowermac]

At this time I’m still unlikely to take any vaccine. To be honest I’m sick of the ungracious attitude of some people over the whole subject.

Who is it that you feel is being ungracious towards you? I’m not picking fault, just curious.

I’ve taken the vaccine, not because I’m frightened of the virus, but in the hope that it might just bring to current situation to a close. I’ll admit that does, at times, look like a forlorn hope!

As happens with many viruses


This happens with influenza, but once the vast majority of people have built up immunity, the numbers are likely to be small. You can't keep people alive forever and if we eliminated all seasonal respiraory viruses it would not keep elderly people alive indefinitely.


There is no evidence of this. Unlike influenza, Sars-CoV-2 has built-in "copy protection" which dramatically reduces the chances of mutations. There is only one strain of Sars-CoV-2 and there is no evidence that any alternative strains will emerge as mutations from this virus.

Note that when you talk about "vaccine resistant", this is such a generic term it is effectively meaningless. What do you actually mean by this? If you refer to a new variant being able to evade some of the antibody response, we know this can happen but it's not a big deal. There is no evidence that the T-cell response can be evaded by any variant.

I believe you are misleading people by spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding vaccines. I have previously explained to you why you are wrong.

Anyone who chooses to drive a car is putting peoples lives at risk; I could go on for ages with many other examples. If you want to stick to viruses, then the same applies with influenza. I do not see how such hyperbolic language is in any way helpful or proportionate.

I agree with all that you have put there and indeed genuinely thank you for the many very informative posts you have made on the topic.

Do you still encourage all who can to take the vaccine? I’ve noticed that there’s quite an anti-vaccine (or anti-‘medical intervention’) theme running through various threads. I do understand the caution expressed by some, and wondered what your stance is?

To be clear, I fully support that everyone should have a choice to take the vaccine or not, and I’m completely opposed to the vaccine passports.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Under 30s will be offered an alternative to the AZ vaccine due to mounting evidence linking it to blood clots.

 

[Bantamzen]

A bit of a mixed message coming from regulators, the EU one has concluded that the benefits outweigh the risks & that blood clotting should be listed as a very rare side effect of AZ. However the UK one seems to have concluded that under 30's be offered an alternative vaccine, although this seems to be based on a risk of clotting versus risk of covid balance. Either way, there seems little in the way of continuing with the roadmap as there will be plenty of time to source alternative options for the younger groups.

 

[nlogax]

Novavax, Moderna or Pfizer to be offered to those 30 and under "if there is one available in their area and they are healthy and not at high risk of Covid".

 

[DustyBin]

Under 30s will be offered an alternative to the AZ vaccine due to mounting evidence linking it to blood clots.

It appears to be based a risk vs reward approach rather than a particular age group being more susceptible to developing blood clots. Or in other words, under 30s are in so little danger from covid it's not worth taking any risk when it comes to the AZ vaccine. That's my understanding anyway.