Non - Pandemic

If the Oxford/AstraZenica vaccine had been developed by one of the major EU countries they'd have been all over it like a rash, saying it was a miracle of science that would save millions of lives. Is it because the UK did it that they are whinging so much about it? They are gambling with lives based on a tiny number of (serious) side effects. The odds say that having the vaccine far outweighs the risk of not having it due to these side effects. If you can, take it for goodness sake. I feel sorry for those who for some reason, other than choice, can't be vaccinated.
 
It’s only a poorly AstraZeneca, its vials are all tattered and torn. It makes me feel sick, like someone’s hit me with a brick but now I’m not contagious anymore...
 
Everything has been aimed at AstraZeneca since their row with the EU over supplies they expected.

Since then we have had yes and no re using it from some of their leaders which put doubts in their people as to have it.

One minute the elderly couldn’t have it then they could.

The same with the younger people only in reverse because of the blood clot issue.

What we do not hear is any problems re blood clots etc with the Pfizer one, like the publicity directed at the AZ vaccine.
 
It’s been the political decisions per country that have been particularly shambolic.

Or do you think branding the Oxford vaccine as quasi-effective, in a country which is known to be vaccine sceptic is now justified? Or only administrating it to the under 60’s to then only the over 60’s?
Well so far from various EU regulators and politicians we have have pronounciations that the AZ jab is
Not effective enough in all age groups,
Not effective and dangerous in over 65's,
Not effective and dangerous in over 60,s
Effective and safe for over 65'
Effective and safe for over 60's
Ditto over 50's
Not safe for under 30's
Not safe on children.
etc etc
All to cover up their ineptitude.

It wasn't tested properly in the over 60s, hence the US regulator requiring further tests before signing it off. Still now nobody knows if its safe for children and we have just suspended trials.

Our government and regulators went for it and I'm glad they did but it was a leap of faith.

The reason I say that people support government and vaccines like football teams is that I'm pretty sure we'd have lots of people arguing against the 'shambolic' AstraZeneca vaccine on here had the roles been reversed.
 
It wasn't tested properly in the over 60s, hence the US regulator requiring further tests before signing it off. Still now nobody knows if its safe for children and we have just suspended trials.

Our government and regulators went for it and I'm glad they did but it was a leap of faith.

The reason I say that people support government and vaccines like football teams is that I'm pretty sure we'd have lots of people arguing against the 'shambolic' AstraZeneca vaccine on here had the roles been reversed.
I am not so sure it was a leap of faith. The vaccine was trialled and assessed as safe by highly respected medical regulators in this country. The US delay was really to clarify what level of dosage was most suitable rather than a safety issue - some of the trials had inadvertantly given smaller second doses to some people and it produced better results. Of course compared to previous vaccines for other illnesses the trial and approval period was significantly shorter but it has been with all the vaccines for COVID. Pfizer was even shorter than the Oxford one.
I think if our politicians had acted as the EU ones had with AZ I would have been chanting "you don't know what your doing" along with most people in this country.
 
I am not so sure it was a leap of faith. The vaccine was trialled and assessed as safe by highly respected medical regulators in this country. The US delay was really to clarify what level of dosage was most suitable rather than a safety issue - some of the trials had inadvertantly given smaller second doses to some people and it produced better results. Of course compared to previous vaccines for other illnesses the trial and approval period was significantly shorter but it has been with all the vaccines for COVID. Pfizer was even shorter than the Oxford one.
I think if our politicians had acted as the EU ones had with AZ I would have been chanting "you don't know what your doing" along with most people in this country.

Efficacy was the reason that European regulators questioned its use in over 60s, same reason US regulators wouldn't give it the go ahead. The haphazard way AZ conducted the initial trials hardly instils confidence does it? I dare say one of the 'foreign' vaccines would have received a lot more scepticism in this country, like AZ did everywhere else, if they'd inadvertently buggered up the dosages in the initial trials.

There's no doubt that EU politicians have been pretty shambolic. The vaccine roll out their has been abysmal but that's not to say their hesitancy wasn't based on legit concerns. Both the US regulators and now ours appear to agree with their concerns.
 
Efficacy was the reason that European regulators questioned its use in over 60s, same reason US regulators wouldn't give it the go ahead. The haphazard way AZ conducted the initial trials hardly instils confidence does it? I dare say one of the 'foreign' vaccines would have received a lot more scepticism in this country, like AZ did everywhere else, if they'd inadvertently buggered up the dosages in the initial trials.

There's no doubt that EU politicians have been pretty shambolic. The vaccine roll out their has been abysmal but that's not to say their hesitancy wasn't based on legit concerns. Both the US regulators and now ours appear to agree with their concerns.
The US regulators have passed the AZ vaccine as safe and it is being used in large numbers. There is no review going on into its use over there. In the UK the only thing that has been paused is trialling it on children. A few scientists are suggesting that more trials are done to look at impacts on younger people but it has not been stopped yet. Many EU countries (and others all over the world) are continuing to use the AZ vaccine as normal.
I support making sure all the vaccines are safe, at the moment there is nothing that would give me any concerns about having any of them.
 
The US regulators have passed the AZ vaccine as safe and it is being used in large numbers. There is no review going on into its use over there. In the UK the only thing that has been paused is trialling it on children. A few scientists are suggesting that more trials are done to look at impacts on younger people but it has not been stopped yet. Many EU countries (and others all over the world) are continuing to use the AZ vaccine as normal.
I support making sure all the vaccines are safe, at the moment there is nothing that would give me any concerns about having any of them.


When did the US pass the AZ vaccine?

It's been a shambles over there and one I'm sure would be getting much more criticism here if it were an EU vaccine. On DJs logic the US are causing unnecessary deaths intneor citizens by not approving it.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/dail...-much-confusion-about-the-astrazeneca-vaccine

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...id-19-vaccine-76-percent-effective-180977356/

It's convenient to blame all public trust issues in this vaccine on the EU but the company itself hasn't exactly covered itself in glory. Now UK regulators are belatedly admitting concerns. Personally I've no idea what to believe because there's a lot of US pharma money at stake and so moti es aren't so straightforward. I just don't think picking sided based on previous arguments over brexit is particularly useful.
 
On DJs logic the US are causing unnecessary deaths intneor citizens by not approving it.

Really not sure what your issue is.

I know you don't want to troll through previous posts, but equally, I'm not going to just repeat over and over what I've said in the past just because you've decided you want to argue this point one way or the other today.

https://bournemouth-forum.vitalfootball.co.uk/threads/non-pandemic.10904/page-667#post-453671

The previous trials were down to efficacy, it was never down to safety. Thus any European decision prior to the blood clotting reports were not down to safety.

You cannot blend the two to try and fit your narrative, they are two completely separate issues. Europe didn't approve its use in the older age groups due to lack of data, the United States agency didn't approve it for the same reason.

Both have since concluded further trials, have their efficacy measurements and concluded its safe.

So, now on to the blood clotting, that has been highlighted in the real world after millions of doses, the European Medicines Agency is making another statement today. The MHRA are going to be doing the same at some point. Until then there's no new added guidance.

A suspension in a trial in children, an age group where there will always be heightened sensitivity, is hardly unexpected.
 
Sorry, AZ not passed yet in US but results of US trial have confirmed its safety.
https://www.theguardian.com/society...ve-with-no-increased-blood-clot-risk-us-trial
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56479462
Quite simply DJ is right, by not using the vaccine more deaths are occurring from COVID. I don't think there is any disputing that.
I think the only Brexit related arguments are that the UK didn't join the joint EU vaccine purchase programme and that substantial UK public money was pumped into the Oxford research and development programme, turned out very well for us in the end.
 
Really not sure what your issue is.

I know you don't want to troll through previous posts, but equally, I'm not going to just repeat over and over what I've said in the past just because you've decided you want to argue this point one way or the other today.

https://bournemouth-forum.vitalfootball.co.uk/threads/non-pandemic.10904/page-667#post-453671

The previous trials were down to efficacy, it was never down to safety. Thus any European decision prior to the blood clotting reports were not down to safety.

You cannot blend the two to try and fit your narrative, they are two completely separate issues. Europe didn't approve its use in the older age groups due to lack of data, the United States agency didn't approve it for the same reason.

Both have since concluded further trials, have their efficacy measurements and concluded its safe.

So, now on to the blood clotting, that has been highlighted in the real world after millions of doses, the European Medicines Agency is making another statement today. The MHRA are going to be doing the same at some point. Until then there's no new added guidance.

A suspension in a trial in children, an age group where there will always be heightened sensitivity, is hardly unexpected.

Hold on, you say I'm mixing efficacy and safety concerns yet both you and Redharry are criticising the EU for their flipflopping on who is able to receive the jab. Then you've confirmed that these are for unrelated reasons and in both cases it's not just the EU who have concerns.

Let's hope both the EMA and MRHA find no significant issues. There's no doubt that some UK regulators think it should be paused in younger age groups though.
 
I'm not going to bother looking for people's quotes on the rights and wrongs of the European caution over blood clots. I'm sure KenyaCherry probably has a few things to say.

The UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has said that no decision has been taken and previously stressed that the benefits of the vaccine in preventing people falling seriously ill or dying from Covid far outweighed any possible risk of blood clots.

I wonder if they are sure about this for, say, a 20 year old with no underlying health issues.
Over the past year, about 1 in 30,000 people between 20 and 30 have died of coronavirus.

As best I can see, in women ages between 20-30 about 1 in 800,000 - 1 in 1,000,000 die of this rare form of blood clotting.

Current European stats appear to suggest that about 1 in 400,000 young women who get the AZ vaccine are dying of this thing. Though these deaths appear to disproportionately involve women who work in healthcare, which may be significant.
 
The company has said they will produce 3 billion vaccines on a not-for-profit basis. How much more glory do they need?

They don't need glory they need to not balls up their initial trials and then be clearer with their subsequent data in the US trials. At least some of the lack of public faith in the AZ vaccine is self-inflicted.
 
Hold on, you say I'm mixing efficacy and safety concerns yet both you and Redharry are criticising the EU for their flipflopping on who is able to receive the jab. Then you've confirmed that these are for unrelated reasons and in both cases it's not just the EU who have concerns.

Missed the point again. Prior to the rare blood clotting incidents being flagged, the comments on quasi-effective and everything else thrown at the Oxford vaccine in Europe was not done on the grounds of safety.

Then with the blood clotting the EMA didn’t suspend its use. It investigated and concluded it was safe. It was individual countries that took it upon themselves for a variety of previously discussed reasons to suspend its use.

The EMA are investigating again, it’s a complex situation. The odds are low on getting struck by lightening, it doesn’t make the risk any less real but it doesn’t stop me from going outside either.
 
Hold on, you say I'm mixing efficacy and safety concerns yet both you and Redharry are criticising the EU for their flipflopping on who is able to receive the jab. Then you've confirmed that these are for unrelated reasons and in both cases it's not just the EU who have concerns.

Let's hope both the EMA and MRHA find no significant issues. There's no doubt that some UK regulators think it should be paused in younger age groups though.
The justified (in my view) criticism of the EU is predominantly the knee jerk political reaction a little while back in withdrawing the vaccine from the older groups. Pure politicking as part of their fallout with AZ over supply quotas. This has really hurt them as some of their 3rd wave deaths would almost certainly have been prevented if they had got their act together on both purchase and approval of the AZ vaccine. Moving onto the area of blood clots - so far there is no evidence that I can see that proves that having the vaccination is riskier than having COVID (in terms of hospitalisation and death). However in younger groups where COVID death rates are virtually zero any incidence of blood clot deaths that potentially could be related to the vaccine should of course be investigated. We shall have to wait and see the outcomes, unfortunately politicians using their usual knee jerk media based reactions are happy to spout off about bans etc etc before results are known. Re our regulators some of our scientists have expressed concern but as yet the MRHA have not given its findings. I suspect that with the Moderna vaccine coming on stream they may recommend using that for younger people (under 30) if they have any doubts.
 
Missed the point again. Prior to the rare blood clotting incidents being flagged, the comments on quasi-effective and everything else thrown at the Oxford vaccine in Europe was not done on the grounds of safety.

Then with the blood clotting the EMA didn’t suspend its use. It investigated and concluded it was safe. It was individual countries that took it upon themselves for a variety of previously discussed reasons to suspend its use.

The EMA are investigating again, it’s a complex situation. The odds are low on getting struck by lightening, it doesn’t make the risk any less real but it doesn’t stop me from going outside either.

So you accept that your criticism of EU flipflopping is conflating two different concerns? They stopped giving it to oldies for the same reason the US wouldn't give it to anyone. They then stopped giving it to youngsters for the same reasons our regulators are concerned about it.

These blood coot issues were brought up on here weeks ago and dismissed as typical EU politics yet here we are with our regulator albeit confirming they are concerned. I'm simply pointing out the double standards. Any politics that may be present in EU decision making is certainly present in the comments on here.
 
Also no scientist, my take would be that we'll hear regular soundbites intended to nudge the public into remaining cautious, even when restrictions are removed. Which may be well intentioned, but risks just confusing and worrying people, at a time when people should be reintroducing themselves to a social life.

Agreed. It's just the way they release these doom and gloom soundbites is so annoying. Could be done in a more measured way.
 
The justified (in my view) criticism of the EU is predominantly the knee jerk political reaction a little while back in withdrawing the vaccine from the older groups. Pure politicking as part of their fallout with AZ over supply quotas. This has really hurt them as some of their 3rd wave deaths would almost certainly have been prevented if they had got their act together on both purchase and approval of the AZ vaccine. Moving onto the area of blood clots - so far there is no evidence that I can see that proves that having the vaccination is riskier than having COVID (in terms of hospitalisation and death). However in younger groups where COVID death rates are virtually zero any incidence of blood clot deaths that potentially could be related to the vaccine should of course be investigated. We shall have to wait and see the outcomes, unfortunately politicians using their usual knee jerk media based reactions are happy to spout off about bans etc etc before results are known. Re our regulators some of our scientists have expressed concern but as yet the MRHA have not given its findings. I suspect that with the Moderna vaccine coming on stream they may recommend using that for younger people (under 30) if they have any doubts.

Certainly the shambles over ordering the vaccines and messing up the contracts to try and get a cut price deal is indefensible.

It seems to me though that at least some of the blame for the uncertainly with the AZ vaccine for over 65s is down to the lacklustre initial trials, which included basic errors. The US regulators didn't mess about, no approval until you sort out proper trials. Their European equivalents had to push on because unlike the US the politicians had ballsed up procurement and left them with no backup options. Hence the messing around with certain age groups.

Arguably our regulators took a leap of faith that the US and European regulators weren't prepared to. Given that it was at that point a question of efficacy and not safety that seems reasonable to me. You can understand why others might not want to though. How would vaccinating a bunch of people with a vaccine that turned out not to work go down?
 

;