I see this as an ethical issue: everyone injected should have better than evens chance of having their life saved by it compared with being killed by it. That there is very chance of either happening in young healthy adults doesn't remove the equation.
The reason for vaccinating young people is to stop community spread. But that isn't enough on its own. Each person inoculated needs to have an individual potential benefit - we can't ask them to take one for the community.
AIUI.
Yet the EMA has NOT made this recommendation
??
I honestly don't know if this is a good decision or not. I don't have the knowledge, and if I did, I suspect it would be a marginal, nuanced decision that could go a number of ways. The general comments I would make, having dealt with regulators:
You want regulators to make the calls. Otherwise you give the job to politicians or the mob.
Regulators can quite reasonably come to different views, based on the evidence and circumstances that they operate in. It's frustrating to anyone looking for one objective truth.
The pressure on regulators is always to ease off; there is never pressure to be stricter. On the other hand they will always be in more trouble for allowing something they shouldn't than disallowing something they should. Regulators are human. Some handle this necessary tension better than others.
"She says that up to 31 March, 20m doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine were given and 79 cases of rare blood clots were reported.
All 79 cases occured after the first dose and 19 people sadly died, Raine says.
Of the cases, 51 were women and 28 men aged 18 to 79 years old.
She said the risk of this kind of side effect was about four in one million to those who receive the vaccine."
19 out of 20m I make just under 1 in a million deaths or roughly 5 deaths in Scotland where there are currently 7,614 registered Covid deaths.
When did we earn the right to live in a world without risk? The world has genuinely gone potty. Do people have no concept of risk assessment? I am going for my jab on Monday. If its AZ that will be absolutely fine. Of course if I do turn out to be one of the 5 I will be disappointed.
Yes, it's batshit once you factor in the extra downside of booming anti-vaxxery, it makes no sense on a risk-benefit analysis. I've taken multiple medicines that must have had a 1 in 100,000 risk of death or higher
So, either they know something and they're not telling us, OR they have gone mad.
Ergo, this decision is so silly it is tempting me into mad anti-vax beliefs (I shall resist, but you see the point)
Twats
Or you can't do maths or science.
If a vaccine at low prevalence gives you a 1/100,000 risk of death - and being unvaccinated gives you a 1% higher of getting infected and a 1/2,500 chance of dying if you are, then should you be vaccinated?
Unless we achieve herd immunity the chances of catching this virus if you are not immunised must tend towards 100% not 1%. We have 4.3m recorded cases already and probably more than that again that went unrecorded. If that is right then the direct comparators are 1 or 1.1 in 100k of a risk and 6.3 in 100k of dying. The risk of being seriously ill is of course much greater.
These charts skew that risk by measuring risk over relatively short periods of time. I really don't understand why they did that.
You need to measure the △, the change in your odds of being infected.
From memory about 50% of under 30s already have antibodies, whether because of prior infection, or because they've been a priority vaccination.
3k per day (and falling) is ~0.005% per day being infected.
Plus the advice is not to be unvaccinated, its to get a different vaccine instead.
So if as a result of this an individual delays being vaccinated by 3 weeks say, in order to get a Moderna instead of AZN, they've possibly increased their odds of getting the virus by maybe 0.1% not 1% - and the MHRA are saying there shouldn't be a delay overall.
Did anyone say why AZ is causing problems or do they still have no idea?
There's a distinct lack of actual analysis here isn't there? Of those who apparently had blood clot events associated with the vaccine (I'm assuming other causes have been ruled out) there is a vast preponderance of women. I am also anecdotally aware that the side effects have been harsher on women - could this be a dosing issue? Should women and men, who are differently sized, be receiving the same dose? Should it be given at lower levels based on size? Are the men who got blood clots smaller too? Indeed could such a policy be helpful in that it makes the available vaccine go further?
Actually they said the opposite, IIRC. When asked about gender, Van Tam (or whoever) said that that more women had these very rare side effects, but more young women had gotten the jab, so it was probably even (this makes sense, as so many jabbed young care workers are women)
Yes - Sir Munir Pirmohamed said that when they controlled for vaccinated population they found the risk was broadly equal between men & women
One observation - I wonder how many European countries would have had so many very senior scientists/doctors from ethnic minorities delivering such a press conference?
Not many. Though as we import 40% of our doctors, and have done for decades, they are far less likely to have ethnic minority doctors in the first place. Most European countries produce a surplus of doctors so are net exporters of staff.
I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.
Completely disagreed. It isn't misrepresented since Covid is going away, we won't all be exposed to Covid at some point - we'll be able to get an alternative vaccine at some point, or simply not be exposed to the virus ourselves. Yes the virus will still be there, but it won't get everyone, like HIV or other viruses.
This is the slide I'm talking about. It implies that the risk from the vaccination is greater than the risk from covid for 20-29 year olds, but it's based on them having a low risk of being exposed to it. This is disastrous messaging because it will encourage people not to get vaccinated at all.
Yes, trying to adjust the figures for likelihood of exposure is ridiculous.
They should just have stuck with the liklihood of death by covid or death by vaccine for the age range chart.
Nonsense. Likelihood of exposure is critical.
If I offered you a vaccine today that had a 1% chance of killing you, but protected you against rabies (100% chance of death if infected and untreated) would you take it?
Or would you think, I'm not likely to get rabies so no thanks.
Once things open up again everyone will be exposed to Covid in fairly short order . It's now endemic and is going to circulate like the common cold. Either they will have the vaccine to help them fight it off or they won't. It's nothing like rabies.
No everyone won't be exposed in fairly short order. In Israel post lockdown R remains below 1 meaning prevalence is low and falling, not rising.
Unless you plan to ban under 30s from travelling out of the UK, then until the whole world is 100% vaccinated (never going to happen), the likelihood of exposure over the medium range approaches 1. Nobody has been talking about zero Covid, the consensus has been it will continue to circulate but with deaths being at levels similar to that of flu.
Okay PB brains trust, in light of today’s news, I’d like to ask a question. I’m 40, female, have an autoimmune disease (though mild enough not to be in a priority group) and have already had coronavirus. What is my approximate balance of risk of taking an AZ jab vs future COVID?
I’ve never hesitated taking a vaccination, I fully intend to still get vaccinated and FWIW I detest anti-vaxxers in general. But the risk/benefit ratio for my particular circumstances appears more finely balanced than before. Thoughts?
I think if you have already had Covid then the risks/rewards are much more finely balanced since it still seems vanishingly unlikely that you will catch it again. There is also a female bias in the risk for some reason. I think you might be better advised not to take AZ in that situation but I would be looking for an alternative.
The risk is of course vanishingly small but in your circumstance so is the reward.
There is NOT a female bias to the risk. It is simply a function of more young females having more jabs. That is what they said.,
As much as 2:1? The figures I quoted from the BBC said 51 women and 28 men. I fully accept that more young females will have been vaccinated and that is going to be a part of the story. But all of it? Of course with such tiny numbers what is left may not be statistically significant.
The data is getting so noisy that the 7 day average may be doing more harm than good.... the convergence for the older groups in much clearer in the un-averaged plot.
"She says that up to 31 March, 20m doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine were given and 79 cases of rare blood clots were reported.
All 79 cases occured after the first dose and 19 people sadly died, Raine says.
Of the cases, 51 were women and 28 men aged 18 to 79 years old.
She said the risk of this kind of side effect was about four in one million to those who receive the vaccine."
19 out of 20m I make just under 1 in a million deaths or roughly 5 deaths in Scotland where there are currently 7,614 registered Covid deaths.
When did we earn the right to live in a world without risk? The world has genuinely gone potty. Do people have no concept of risk assessment? I am going for my jab on Monday. If its AZ that will be absolutely fine. Of course if I do turn out to be one of the 5 I will be disappointed.
Yes, it's batshit once you factor in the extra downside of booming anti-vaxxery, it makes no sense on a risk-benefit analysis. I've taken multiple medicines that must have had a 1 in 100,000 risk of death or higher
So, either they know something and they're not telling us, OR they have gone mad.
Ergo, this decision is so silly it is tempting me into mad anti-vax beliefs (I shall resist, but you see the point)
Twats
Or you can't do maths or science.
If a vaccine at low prevalence gives you a 1/100,000 risk of death - and being unvaccinated gives you a 1% higher of getting infected and a 1/2,500 chance of dying if you are, then should you be vaccinated?
williamglenn is right. The presumption of low exposure in the UK is crap, as well. What if Covid comes back, then we are all high exposure again. And suddenly not giving AZ to the yoof is idiotic, even by the maths
This is a pile of pants decision made by a scientific cabal which is crapping itself about some future inquiry and doesn't understand how most people think. Or, to use the parlance, they are exercising an overabundance of caution
You're clearly wumming here. Do you never feel slightly guilty about vomitting things you know to be untrue?
That confirms it, only under 30s in group 2 are going to see an immediate change. Groups 4 and 6 will still get AZ as the risk differential is probably very much in favour of using it.
Honestly, this could easily, easily have just been done very quietly with a midnight press release and loads of technical jargon.
The trouble is that after a year of treating everyone like 5 year olds with patronising slogans and saying that EVERYONE was at risk of covid , they expect the public to note the nuance in advising AZ is not taken by under 30s but ok for everyone else. Dicks
This is the key point.
The public health people want to have it both ways.
The risks from Covid (and, yes, Long Covid) are absolutely tiny for the healthy under-30s, statistically. Yet for a year, the public health people have been deliberately playing this down for rational public health reasons – they don't want millions of very mobile asymptomatic vectors out there.
Trouble is, they have now just let the cat out of the bag somewhat, with this bloody chart.
Many under-30s will now think, erm, "as they have now confirmed that may risks from the actually disease are so low as to be EVEN LOWER than the effing TINY risks from this vaccine, why would I then have any vaccine at all? What's the point?"
The risks from long Covid are not absolutely tiny, you are very much mistaken if you believe that.
I agree with your point about mixed messaging but the problem actually is that decision-makers have either not wised up to long Covid fast enough (March to December last year) or have forgotten about it (December to now, if that press conference is anything to go by).
The public messaging could have been extremely simple. The risks of mortality for the old are high but low in the young. The risks for morbidity are high in both groups. Why this keeps getting forgotten or is not made clear, I am unsure of. Probably because it is harder to count morbidity than it is body bags.
Wumming is new. Thankyou
But I am not a Wind Up Merchant - not in this case, anyway.
The MHRA has made a decision which I find almost inexplicable, given its possible consequences (esp anti vaxxery)
Nonetheless I have tried to explain it, as everything is explicable. My best guess is that they are terrified of being blamed for deaths in a future inquiry, hence absurd caution, and/or they don't grasp how they will inflame anti vax sentiment
As I have now said multiple times, I really hope I am wrong and this turns out to be a wise and sensible move
I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.
Completely disagreed. It isn't misrepresented since Covid is going away, we won't all be exposed to Covid at some point - we'll be able to get an alternative vaccine at some point, or simply not be exposed to the virus ourselves. Yes the virus will still be there, but it won't get everyone, like HIV or other viruses.
This is the slide I'm talking about. It implies that the risk from the vaccination is greater than the risk from covid for 20-29 year olds, but it's based on them having a low risk of being exposed to it. This is disastrous messaging because it will encourage people not to get vaccinated at all.
Hang on, the "every 16 weeks" disclaimer means they aren't exactly comparing like with like...
It is going to be a 'low exposure risk' for a lot longer than that, surely.
No because everyone ought to be able to get access to an alternative vaccine within 16 weeks.
Ah, true, assuming this doesn't put people off completely. Does that mean they are assuming a 16 week delay, then? I do hope not.
I also hope the alternative vaccine doesn't turn out to have the same issues. Then what?
No actually they're saying there won't be any delay.
That will *really* piss off Mons. Macaron if it happens.
Another curve ball, and les Rosbifs have palnned for *that* as well.
I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.
Completely disagreed. It isn't misrepresented since Covid is going away, we won't all be exposed to Covid at some point - we'll be able to get an alternative vaccine at some point, or simply not be exposed to the virus ourselves. Yes the virus will still be there, but it won't get everyone, like HIV or other viruses.
This is the slide I'm talking about. It implies that the risk from the vaccination is greater than the risk from covid for 20-29 year olds, but it's based on them having a low risk of being exposed to it. This is disastrous messaging because it will encourage people not to get vaccinated at all.
Yes, trying to adjust the figures for likelihood of exposure is ridiculous.
They should just have stuck with the liklihood of death by covid or death by vaccine for the age range chart.
Nonsense. Likelihood of exposure is critical.
If I offered you a vaccine today that had a 1% chance of killing you, but protected you against rabies (100% chance of death if infected and untreated) would you take it?
Or would you think, I'm not likely to get rabies so no thanks.
Once things open up again everyone will be exposed to Covid in fairly short order . It's now endemic and is going to circulate like the common cold. Either they will have the vaccine to help them fight it off or they won't. It's nothing like rabies.
No everyone won't be exposed in fairly short order. In Israel post lockdown R remains below 1 meaning prevalence is low and falling, not rising.
Unless you plan to ban under 30s from travelling out of the UK, then until the whole world is 100% vaccinated (never going to happen), the likelihood of exposure over the medium range approaches 1. Nobody has been talking about zero Covid, the consensus has been it will continue to circulate but with deaths being at levels similar to that of flu.
Not everyone catches the flu.
A few months after the UK the EU will be vaccinated, and then their case rates and prevalence will plummet to levels akin to ours. Same for the rest of the world.
At that point it will be a background disease like the flu. Some will catch it, but not everyone.
"She says that up to 31 March, 20m doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine were given and 79 cases of rare blood clots were reported.
All 79 cases occured after the first dose and 19 people sadly died, Raine says.
Of the cases, 51 were women and 28 men aged 18 to 79 years old.
She said the risk of this kind of side effect was about four in one million to those who receive the vaccine."
19 out of 20m I make just under 1 in a million deaths or roughly 5 deaths in Scotland where there are currently 7,614 registered Covid deaths.
When did we earn the right to live in a world without risk? The world has genuinely gone potty. Do people have no concept of risk assessment? I am going for my jab on Monday. If its AZ that will be absolutely fine. Of course if I do turn out to be one of the 5 I will be disappointed.
Yes, it's batshit once you factor in the extra downside of booming anti-vaxxery, it makes no sense on a risk-benefit analysis. I've taken multiple medicines that must have had a 1 in 100,000 risk of death or higher
So, either they know something and they're not telling us, OR they have gone mad.
Ergo, this decision is so silly it is tempting me into mad anti-vax beliefs (I shall resist, but you see the point)
Twats
Or you can't do maths or science.
If a vaccine at low prevalence gives you a 1/100,000 risk of death - and being unvaccinated gives you a 1% higher of getting infected and a 1/2,500 chance of dying if you are, then should you be vaccinated?
williamglenn is right. The presumption of low exposure in the UK is crap, as well. What if Covid comes back, then we are all high exposure again. And suddenly not giving AZ to the yoof is idiotic, even by the maths
This is a pile of pants decision made by a scientific cabal which is crapping itself about some future inquiry and doesn't understand how most people think. Or, to use the parlance, they are exercising an overabundance of caution
You're clearly wumming here. Do you never feel slightly guilty about vomitting things you know to be untrue?
That confirms it, only under 30s in group 2 are going to see an immediate change. Groups 4 and 6 will still get AZ as the risk differential is probably very much in favour of using it.
Honestly, this could easily, easily have just been done very quietly with a midnight press release and loads of technical jargon.
The trouble is that after a year of treating everyone like 5 year olds with patronising slogans and saying that EVERYONE was at risk of covid , they expect the public to note the nuance in advising AZ is not taken by under 30s but ok for everyone else. Dicks
This is the key point.
The public health people want to have it both ways.
The risks from Covid (and, yes, Long Covid) are absolutely tiny for the healthy under-30s, statistically. Yet for a year, the public health people have been deliberately playing this down for rational public health reasons – they don't want millions of very mobile asymptomatic vectors out there.
Trouble is, they have now just let the cat out of the bag somewhat, with this bloody chart.
Many under-30s will now think, erm, "as they have now confirmed that may risks from the actually disease are so low as to be EVEN LOWER than the effing TINY risks from this vaccine, why would I then have any vaccine at all? What's the point?"
The risks from long Covid are not absolutely tiny, you are very much mistaken if you believe that.
I agree with your point about mixed messaging but the problem actually is that decision-makers have either not wised up to long Covid fast enough (March to December last year) or have forgotten about it (December to now, if that press conference is anything to go by).
The public messaging could have been extremely simple. The risks of mortality for the old are high but low in the young. The risks for morbidity are high in both groups. Why this keeps getting forgotten or is not made clear, I am unsure of. Probably because it is harder to count morbidity than it is body bags.
It's not my belief, it's the statistical truth.
Risks to the healthy under-30s from Long Covid are indeed tiny. LC affects 10% of all under-50% (including those with UHC) who become ill with Covid, yet the proportion of under-30s who become ill with covid is in and of itself very low.
That is not to say that Long Covid cannot affect young, healthy people. It clearly can, but the statistical risk from it is very low.
Long COVID affects around 10% of 18-49 year olds who become unwell with COVID-19, rising to 22% of over 70s. Weight also plays a role, with people developing long COVID having a slightly higher average BMI than those with short COVID. Women were 50 percent more likely to suffer from long COVID than men (14.5% compared with 9.5%), but only in the younger age group. The researchers also found that people with asthma were more likely to develop long COVID, although there were no clear links to any other underlying health conditions.
I'm not sure these graphs showing the risk during a 16 week period are very helpful. They give a wrongly inflated view of the risks from the vaccine.
Needs a politician to say "we can't stay locked down forever" so pay attention to those high exposure figures.
The 'low exposure risk' graph implied the risk from the vaccine was higher than the risk from covid, which is an absurd misrepresentation. We know covid isn't going to go away so they should assume that people will be exposed to covid at some point and base the risk/benefit profile on that.
Completely disagreed. It isn't misrepresented since Covid is going away, we won't all be exposed to Covid at some point - we'll be able to get an alternative vaccine at some point, or simply not be exposed to the virus ourselves. Yes the virus will still be there, but it won't get everyone, like HIV or other viruses.
This is the slide I'm talking about. It implies that the risk from the vaccination is greater than the risk from covid for 20-29 year olds, but it's based on them having a low risk of being exposed to it. This is disastrous messaging because it will encourage people not to get vaccinated at all.
Hang on, the "every 16 weeks" disclaimer means they aren't exactly comparing like with like...
It is going to be a 'low exposure risk' for a lot longer than that, surely.
No because everyone ought to be able to get access to an alternative vaccine within 16 weeks.
This is a valid point, but there's no need to present information in a way that will make people think they don't need to get vaccinated.
They haven't. The MRHA has suggested a different vaccination in that sub-group.
They put a slide on national TV showing that the risk of the vaccine was greater than the risk from covid. A lot of people won't bother trying to understand the nuances and will just think that they'd be better off taking their chances.
Okay PB brains trust, in light of today’s news, I’d like to ask a question. I’m 40, female, have an autoimmune disease (though mild enough not to be in a priority group) and have already had coronavirus. What is my approximate balance of risk of taking an AZ jab vs future COVID?
I’ve never hesitated taking a vaccination, I fully intend to still get vaccinated and FWIW I detest anti-vaxxers in general. But the risk/benefit ratio for my particular circumstances appears more finely balanced than before. Thoughts?
I think if you have already had Covid then the risks/rewards are much more finely balanced since it still seems vanishingly unlikely that you will catch it again. There is also a female bias in the risk for some reason. I think you might be better advised not to take AZ in that situation but I would be looking for an alternative.
The risk is of course vanishingly small but in your circumstance so is the reward.
There is NOT a female bias to the risk. It is simply a function of more young females having more jabs. That is what they said.,
As much as 2:1? The figures I quoted from the BBC said 51 women and 28 men. I fully accept that more young females will have been vaccinated and that is going to be a part of the story. But all of it? Of course with such tiny numbers what is left may not be statistically significant.
That is what they explicitly said: there are more women with clots, but when you allow for the excess young women jabbed, there is no gender bias
I'm just a humble flint knapper, they are the boffins. That's what they pointed out, I heard it with my own ears
Govt leaked or hinted or wanted the info to go to Sky that the roadmap will be put back and hence now that it doesn't appear it will be, we all feel a surge of relief and happiness.
I certainly do/did.
Zackly. The "No Deal Brexit" technique. Tried and tested.
Okay PB brains trust, in light of today’s news, I’d like to ask a question. I’m 40, female, have an autoimmune disease (though mild enough not to be in a priority group) and have already had coronavirus. What is my approximate balance of risk of taking an AZ jab vs future COVID?
I’ve never hesitated taking a vaccination, I fully intend to still get vaccinated and FWIW I detest anti-vaxxers in general. But the risk/benefit ratio for my particular circumstances appears more finely balanced than before. Thoughts?
I think if you have already had Covid then the risks/rewards are much more finely balanced since it still seems vanishingly unlikely that you will catch it again. There is also a female bias in the risk for some reason. I think you might be better advised not to take AZ in that situation but I would be looking for an alternative.
The risk is of course vanishingly small but in your circumstance so is the reward.
There is NOT a female bias to the risk. It is simply a function of more young females having more jabs. That is what they said.,
As much as 2:1? The figures I quoted from the BBC said 51 women and 28 men. I fully accept that more young females will have been vaccinated and that is going to be a part of the story. But all of it? Of course with such tiny numbers what is left may not be statistically significant.
In 2018 77% of the NHS workforce was female. I imagine you'd see a similar split among care workers.
Why would those under 30 or even 40 bother with vaccine. AZ is a risk. But the mRNA vaccines have questions over long-term safety. I can envisage a low vaccine uptake among the under 40s. That seems to be the feedback from my children. They would rather get immunity from a mild infection rather than risk an innocculation.
A low risk for them, but not for young people with other illnesses and older people who they might pass the infection on to, and remember the vacine isn't perfect.
It's not low risk at all, if you do get Covid in your 20s the risks are miles higher than any of the vaccinations. The caution on AZ vaccine is because the risk of catching Covid due to 30+ million vaccinated people + restrictions means you've got a lowish chance of catching it in the first place AND crucially you can simply replace with another vaccine. The risk of being unvaccinated in the general population once we're reopened is miles higher.
I doubt we know the full risks of AZ , two days ago it was thought 100% safe (in the UK at least ) now its thought 99.999% safe , next week will more data mean its only 99% safe ? How are people who insist it is taken when offered so sure? Why do they trust the government so much? It is made up of largely muppets . AZ has already proven to be unsafe to some , with more data it could prove more unsafe.
I have an anti-vaxxer friend in her 20s who was slowly coming round to the idea of accepting the jab, as it appeared to be safe after all.
Now?
NO WAY. She will never take AZ, or any other vaccine, unless it is compulsory on pain of jailtime. She's been proven right. The government has been lying. The jabs are evil and dangerous.
If 1 million people react like her we have a new and vast pool of unvaxed people who can get very sick or die, menacing the NHS, again
Fortunately it seems unlikely that we will see enough people going wobbly on the vaccines to make a big difference. We don't know what the threshold is for herd immunity, i.e. when so many people have been protected that the virus finds it very hard to establish long chains of transmission and spread easily, but it seems reasonable to suppose that getting somewhere north of 90% of all adults jabbed ought to do the trick. Now, given uptake of around 95% in the more vulnerable three-fifths of the adult population prioritized under Phase One, which I think is also a reasonable assumption and tallies with what we've already seen for the older age cohorts, then something close to 20% of all the fit under 50s in Phase Two would need to refuse the vaccine just to dip below that threshold of 90% of the adult population being jabbed.
That's not 1 million refusers. That's more than 3.5 million. Possible, but unlikely based on the available information (e.g. surveys which show that Britain is exceptionally enthusiastic about the vaccines, the likely consequences of refusing them such as inability to take holidays abroad, and the fact that most under 30s now likely won't be offered AZ in any case.)
There may still be problems amongst specific minority communities with outbreaks, although my understanding of the situation is that local authority health teams are now going door-to-door with vaccination kits in the most problematic areas to maximise take-up, but the probability of a large reservoir of unvaccinated young people causing us serious difficulty further down the line seems mercifully low.
I'll be happier when I see another reasonably low set of figures tomorrow as well, but only 45 deaths on the first "proper" reporting day after a four-day weekend is fairly encouraging.
Did anyone say why AZ is causing problems or do they still have no idea?
There's a distinct lack of actual analysis here isn't there? Of those who apparently had blood clot events associated with the vaccine (I'm assuming other causes have been ruled out) there is a vast preponderance of women...
On the figures presented today, there isn't a statistically significant difference. The slightly larger numbers for women could quite easily be because, as healthcare workers, more young women than men have had the vaccine.
The ratios were not standardised per population.
So on BBC News the MHRA bod pointed out that 3 cases could be an exaggeration compared to the general population as most 20-30s who have been done are women.
Comments
One of the differences is the environment.
eg EU has an exposure to COVID which is many time more than UK, therefore the balance of risk is different as they will be exposed to more COVID.
Therefore the recommendations are different.
From memory about 50% of under 30s already have antibodies, whether because of prior infection, or because they've been a priority vaccination.
3k per day (and falling) is ~0.005% per day being infected.
Plus the advice is not to be unvaccinated, its to get a different vaccine instead.
So if as a result of this an individual delays being vaccinated by 3 weeks say, in order to get a Moderna instead of AZN, they've possibly increased their odds of getting the virus by maybe 0.1% not 1% - and the MHRA are saying there shouldn't be a delay overall.
The data is getting so noisy that the 7 day average may be doing more harm than good.... the convergence for the older groups in much clearer in the un-averaged plot.
But I am not a Wind Up Merchant - not in this case, anyway.
The MHRA has made a decision which I find almost inexplicable, given its possible consequences (esp anti vaxxery)
Nonetheless I have tried to explain it, as everything is explicable. My best guess is that they are terrified of being blamed for deaths in a future inquiry, hence absurd caution, and/or they don't grasp how they will inflame anti vax sentiment
As I have now said multiple times, I really hope I am wrong and this turns out to be a wise and sensible move
NEW THREAD
This crisis’s goose has been shot, plucked and is roasting nicely in the oven.
Time to move on.
Another curve ball, and les Rosbifs have palnned for *that* as well.
A few months after the UK the EU will be vaccinated, and then their case rates and prevalence will plummet to levels akin to ours. Same for the rest of the world.
At that point it will be a background disease like the flu. Some will catch it, but not everyone.
Risks to the healthy under-30s from Long Covid are indeed tiny. LC affects 10% of all under-50% (including those with UHC) who become ill with Covid, yet the proportion of under-30s who become ill with covid is in and of itself very low.
That is not to say that Long Covid cannot affect young, healthy people. It clearly can, but the statistical risk from it is very low.
Long COVID affects around 10% of 18-49 year olds who become unwell with COVID-19, rising to 22% of over 70s. Weight also plays a role, with people developing long COVID having a slightly higher average BMI than those with short COVID. Women were 50 percent more likely to suffer from long COVID than men (14.5% compared with 9.5%), but only in the younger age group. The researchers also found that people with asthma were more likely to develop long COVID, although there were no clear links to any other underlying health conditions.
I'm just a humble flint knapper, they are the boffins. That's what they pointed out, I heard it with my own ears
Source: https://digital.nhs.uk/news-and-events/latest-news/narrowing-of-nhs-gender-divide-but-men-still-the-majority-in-senior-roles
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk
That's not 1 million refusers. That's more than 3.5 million. Possible, but unlikely based on the available information (e.g. surveys which show that Britain is exceptionally enthusiastic about the vaccines, the likely consequences of refusing them such as inability to take holidays abroad, and the fact that most under 30s now likely won't be offered AZ in any case.)
There may still be problems amongst specific minority communities with outbreaks, although my understanding of the situation is that local authority health teams are now going door-to-door with vaccination kits in the most problematic areas to maximise take-up, but the probability of a large reservoir of unvaccinated young people causing us serious difficulty further down the line seems mercifully low.
So on BBC News the MHRA bod pointed out that 3 cases could be an exaggeration compared to the general population as most 20-30s who have been done are women.
And so on.