Does the Astra Zeneca vaccine work?

Since we currently are on something of an EU blaming tack, and wow look at the benefits of Brexit, etc., etc. This makes an interesting read:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/04/the-guardian-view-on-rebalancing-the-economy-brexit-wont-do-it

Caarolpaint - yes you are spot on - I came across numerous references to the statement made by Macron prior to the EMA approving the vaccine for adult use.

And as you rightly say he was condemned by other European leaders, which added to the reluctance to vaccination.

Later - on February 25th - he was reported by Reuters as saying: "Macron says he would take AstraZeneca vaccine if it was offered".
Link: news.yahoo.com/macron-says-astrazeneca-vaccine-offered-205132068.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAC0IOSTLMdZ6zso1GsJA3zhR02ThHiXk67w46WjMcbz1GWBb6fX-cR-8zJkL0lucj2dDpGRb7Dymk7wXCG5CBkrT7ohk45Ngo4Ca1qQtkVkl48bT4eG0I47D15OA1GVhoY4ahKjbIojpeFot7PbpFtFBaw6_kbMBWgEYmmunFjLe

It was clearly a stupid remark/comment, and did nobody any good. The tone of the English press - well the Mail, Express, Telegraph, Sun and MSN were of course displaying their usual WW2 sabre rattling.

Which also helps nobody - this was the Express headline on 22nd February: 'Data that shames Macron!' French 'smear campaign' exposed – Oxford jab nails huge victory.
Link: www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1401057/Emmanuel-macron-AstraZeneca-coronavirus-vaccine-Scotland-research-latest-data

Jingoism on either side clearly still a vote winner I guess.

Both Macron and the Express were equally stupid - and both making comments without accurate data.

Much like me perhaps.

Kryptonite Can you indicate a source for the data you quote?

Up to 23 June, there were 70 fatal reports of UK suspected thrombo-embolic events with concurrent thrombocytopenia ADR (blood clots with low platelet levels) for the Covid-19 vaccine Astra Zeneca.

The percentage was higher in younger age groups, which is why it was decided to give younger people the Pfizer vaccinations.

By 23 June, 44,000,000 Astra Zeneca doses had been administered. Therefore, fewer than one in 500,000 doses was associated with death. Obviously, every single one of those deaths is a tragedy and there is further ongoing analysis to establish what happened and whether they really were connected with vaccination and/or a pre-existing condition.

It should be remembered that the Yellow Card reporting system is subjective and can't be used for serious scientific analysis.

Now consider the alternative. There are currently almost 30,000 new cases of Covid-19 being reported every day. About a third occur in young people under 18, who are usually not vaccinated. If the spike lasts as long as previous spikes, almost half a million young people will be infected.

Thankfully, very few of them will die, but between 4 - 10% (20 - 50,000) (depending on study) will develop Long Covid. That means symptoms last at least three months and longer for many. Covid-19 attacks all major organs, including the brain, so some of those young people will be left with debilitating, lifetime conditions.

No medical intervention is without risk, but the odds are very obviously stacked in favour of vaccination. It appears that the Pfizer vaccine is safer, although the difference is marginal.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting

Thank you growstuff for that superb analysis of the government figures and link.

I do hope Kryptonite will come back with as thorough an explanation and link for the basis for her statement.

Kryptonite

CafeauLait you are very lucky in being able to choose your vaccine. I wish I could, but this is not allowed in UK. It's either have AZ (if that's the one on offer when you turn up, which it invariably is) or nothing at all. Checking the Gov weekly yellow card reporting, the number of blood clot cases and fatalities continues to rise. It's no good saying the risk is tiny; that's not good enough. Seems it's perfectly acceptable to allow people to be seriously affected or even die. If that doesn't affect you or your family, then most people aren't that bothered or sympathetic. People who have a preference after weighing all the risks, should be allowed to choose. I imagine many in the UK would not choose AZ if they could, but this is not allowed because it is a British vaccine. It wouldn't look good if we rejected our own vaccine I guess. But at such cost. Propaganda is working a treat, just as planned.

We don't really get to choose, as such. My preferred vaccine option isn't available. If you are over a certain age, you don't get to choose either. You get AZ. The vaccine earmarked for my age just happens to be my preference out of the two available, if I had to have one. If I hadn't been able to have that one, I'm not sure I'd have had one at all.

I do support choice with the vaccine. If we are going to put something in our bodies, we should be able to choose.

I understand that one of the problems with the blood clots was that doctors used heparin which was a go to medication for blood clots. But heparin was found to be making it worse and is no longer used in such cases. And the Pfizer vaccine can cause problems too but that hasn’t been as widely publicised. Everyone needs to be made aware of any symptoms post vaccination so they can get medical help straight away. No drug is safe, even aspirin or paracetamol etc.

Like you say MayBee, anything we put in our bodies has side effects and risks, potentially. That's why I think it's important we are allowed to make informed decisions about what we take and a choice about how we can do that. I took a calculated risk choosing to get the vaccine at all and then in which brand I got. As the consequences of any risk are mine, I believe I should have choice, as should everyone else.

MayBee70

I understand that one of the problems with the blood clots was that doctors used heparin which was a go to medication for blood clots. But heparin was found to be making it worse and is no longer used in such cases. And the Pfizer vaccine can cause problems too but that hasn’t been as widely publicised. Everyone needs to be made aware of any symptoms post vaccination so they can get medical help straight away. No drug is safe, even aspirin or paracetamol etc.

That may very well be the case, but it's been known for a long time that Covid itself causes blood clots, which in turn cause problems with oxygen supply to major organs, including the lungs. Unlike flu, Covid isn't just a respiratory disease, which is why it's more deadly and leaves people with long-term complications.

There was also a theory that taking ACE2 inhibitors for high blood pressure was a factor, but that's been discounted.

The mechanism of infection is that the "spikes" on coronavirus latch on to ACE2 receptors in the body. There are all sorts of theories about how this works and whether some people have more receptors than others and where they are located.

CafeAuLait

Like you say MayBee, anything we put in our bodies has side effects and risks, potentially. That's why I think it's important we are allowed to make informed decisions about what we take and a choice about how we can do that. I took a calculated risk choosing to get the vaccine at all and then in which brand I got. As the consequences of any risk are mine, I believe I should have choice, as should everyone else.

How many people have access to the data they really need? My bet is not many. They read a few soundbites in the media, which on the whole confirm their prejudices.

At the end of the day how many people used to question vaccines. Apart from when there was that scare about the MMR vaccine that ended up with measles outbreaks. We have to trust the health professionals because our lives actually depend on their expertise and not many professions work under a code of ‘first do no harm’.

growstuff

CafeAuLait

Like you say MayBee, anything we put in our bodies has side effects and risks, potentially. That's why I think it's important we are allowed to make informed decisions about what we take and a choice about how we can do that. I took a calculated risk choosing to get the vaccine at all and then in which brand I got. As the consequences of any risk are mine, I believe I should have choice, as should everyone else.

How many people have access to the data they really need? My bet is not many. They read a few soundbites in the media, which on the whole confirm their prejudices.

I don't think too many people think much about it at all. They just do what they are told and are content that way. Even if they could research the data and understand it, they don't care to do so. I don't care too much what other people do but I do care that we all have choice.

There's no point in choice without information. It becomes the kind of choice I used to give my children when they were very young, so that I could trick them into thinking they hah had some responsibility for any decisions.

In the context of vaccines, I bet very few people understand the different technologies involved. Millions are deciding not to be vaccinated because they've read something on a conspiracy website. They even quote figures on places like Gransnet which are widely inaccurate. They boast about being informed when they're not.

The different risks between the Pfizer and AZ vaccines are absolutely minimal and they haven't even been confirmed. People are being swayed for nationalistic reasons. They swear by the efficacy of one vaccination or other, but don't take the risk of not being vaccinated (or delaying vaccination) into the equation. Then they think it's going to be a magic bullet and throw all caution to the wind or they catch Covid and declare the vaccine doesn't work. If they're so informed, why didn't they take the trouble to read the "small print" in the first place?

I don't suppose there is much point in trying to discuss Macron's remarks about Astra Zeneca rationally, but here are a few facts.
The "quasi - ineffective" remark was about the early lack of data of effectiveness in older people.
It was a remark that was clearly wrong, made to a small group of journalists, in French. It was barely reported here in France and the shock, horror, outrage was entirely the response of the UK press. I have not seen any evidence that it was reported in other European countries, but am happy to be proved wrong with facts.
Macron, the Prime Minister and the Health Minister all supported the AZ vaccine and promoted its use. If I remember correctly the PM and Health Minister had it.
If you look at French language sources you will see all this very clearly.
It was widely used early in the French campaign, but supply issues and concerns about clotting meant that it fell out of favour as huge quantities of Pfizer became available, now more than 80% of doses delivered. Second doses of Pfizer are given at 3-4 weeks, which most people prefer.
Hope this helps.

Growstuff and Monica, I don't always agree with (but look forward to reading) what you post, so thank you for providing sensible and balanced information on this thread.

I am becoming increasingly more irritated by the conspiracy theories and inaccurate information posted on GN, done without being able to offer any actual scientific proof. Then again, I could just scroll by, without reading! .

Even if you did see it on Facebook, read it in the paper or hear it from your pal, it doesn't mean it is actually true.

Growstuff: "If they're so informed, why didn't they take the trouble to read the "small print" in the first place?"

I know how to research well and I research everything. If I make a decision, it's a well informed one. Having a choice could make the difference between whether I do something or not (not just counting vaccines here, just in general). I'm not the only one in the world like that so surely giving choice to get more people vaccinated is sensible? It will make a difference for some.

This isn't a comment on your situation CafeAuLait as obviously I don't know your background, so please don't read this as a criticism of you, its a general observation.

Giving people choice is often just an illusion. How can your ordinary person in the street really make the decision about whether the AZ or Pfizer (or any other vaccine) is the best for them? There will be people with known medical conditions for whom there is a definite preference, but your average person reading that vaccine x is "only" 90% effective when vaccine y is 95% effective are making the decision based on partial information and an incomplete understanding of the situation.

If telling people they have the choice gets more people vaccinated, that's all well and good. But for many of them they are in exactly the same situation as growstuff's young children; they think they've got a choice but its just to let them think they have some agency in order to get them to take a vaccine, any vaccine.

Fair enough Alegrias but all I know for sure is that I want a choice and it could make the difference between what treatment or vaccination I choose, if any at all (not specifically related to Covid, just in general).

If the objective is to get people vaccinated, does it really matter why they choose one over the other (if the alternative is for them to refuse the one they are offered)?

CafeAuLait I’d say that choice is only an option where there is sufficient supply of a particular vaccine for those who are in the age groups that it is deemed necessary for to all have it first.

So in the UK the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are only available for under 40s as supply is short and it is safer for them to have it. If you are over 40 and refuse to have AZ you will rightly wait until all the younger people have been vaccinated before being offered Pfizer or Moderna. It’s the individual’s choice not to be vaccinated until their vaccine of choice is available, but with rising infection rates it’s a risky tactic as the risk of death or long term effects is much greater from the virus than from any vaccine.

That seems a reasonable approach Casdon. Pfizer is the only one on offer to my age group. I would not have accepted the other. I don't care to justify that decision, it's just what I decided.

10 days after having the first AstraZeneca jab DH developed breathing problems. He has asthma so the doctor referred him to the asthma nurse who then sent him for an chest X-ray,, CT scan and we were told he had a shadow on his lung. Then we had to wait weeks to get a follow up appointment. Four long weeks later (in between times we had our second jab) we spent two long days at the hospital having more tests and scans. Outcome he has blood clots on his lungs. Now on blood thinners. We can never be certain that it was the vaccine but the likelihood is high. The trouble is how can the doctors be sure. That said, we do not regret having the vaccination but one thing for certain when follow up jabs are offered neither of us will want the AstraZeneca if it is offered.

My children are bad examples. They're both in their twenties, both have had their first dose (Pfizer - no choice) and both were impatient to have it. They would have had whatever was in the needle.

CafeAuLait

Growstuff: "If they're so informed, why didn't they take the trouble to read the "small print" in the first place?"

I know how to research well and I research everything. If I make a decision, it's a well informed one. Having a choice could make the difference between whether I do something or not (not just counting vaccines here, just in general). I'm not the only one in the world like that so surely giving choice to get more people vaccinated is sensible? It will make a difference for some.

I was commenting on the people who are surprised when they catch Covid after being vaccinated, having thought they were 100% immune. None of the vaccines have ever promised that. It has always been the case that vaccines have promised milder symptoms, should a person catch Covid. It was only later that it was discovered that vaccines seem to offer some protection against being infected and transmitting it to others, which is a very welcome bonus.

Giving people choice is often just an illusion. How can your ordinary person in the street really make the decision about whether the AZ or Pfizer (or any other vaccine) is the best for them?

Tge illusion of choice is one of our society’s great scams.
We are invited to participate in polls such as Yougov, to submit opinions on any subject under discussion , even to choose our own consultant or course of medical action - so that when it all goes tits up nobody can say we did not have a choice
I wonder if it is part of the “ Sue when things go wrong mentality* . I would prefer to trust the professionals whether it is to service my car, fix my gas boiler or vaccinate me against Covid.
At least until I complete my apprenticeship/medical degree.

Yes as far as the statistics go it shows that 2 jabs if AZ is just as effective as 2 jabs if Pizser. Having said it does seem to have had a lot of bad publicity. No vaccine is 100% but what I have read the Covid ones are pretty good. The danger will be new variants.l that may be vaccine resistant.