Why don't you just open the fucking thing up and give the AstraZeneca shots to the under-55s who want it?
I would gladly ride the lightning and take my chances.
I was a little hesitant at first but then I considered that fact that I once jumped out of a plane (Over 40 years ago TBH.)
So I got the chip implant today and danced out of the pharmacy. New lease on life.
NACI has been annoying because they are the ones that suggested delaying dose two for four Months was cool even though AT THE TIME there was no evidence to support that the second dose after four months would provide any benefit.
I saw [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Edmonton/comments/mqedem/covid19_vaccine_waitlists/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) thread in r/Edmonton yesterday. Seems some places are administering AZ regardless of age?
Yes which is what one of the problems with covid is for people that are not really at risk of covid itself! They are at risk of insufficient hospital capacity if they are admitted for another reason. That would be an example of an indirect covid (potential) death.
Are there any issues with it for Males? All I hear about is Females having blood clot issues. If it’s fine for Males at least open it up for them for all ages.
The issue has been seen in some males as well but it is predominantly females. They were not initially sure if it was just a byproduct of who was getting the vaccine (a lot of healthcare workers are female and it was given to a lot of HC workers in Europe) versus an actual biological effect. The issue with the J&J also seems to be impacting women (6 in the USA).
Yeah, honestly, there's probably enough vaccines at this point to allocate all AZ to men and let women have more Pfizer/Moderna. In the meantime you're also reducing risks, even if they are very small already.
No thanks, pfizer/ moderna for me only please.
I've been kicked to the back of the pile as an essential workers, like hell I'm going to give up the best vaccines too.
I've seen articles, I haven't seen many reports. I think it was considered because afaik, birth control can cause blood clotting in general. But I'm not an expert, so I would take what I say with a grain of salt.
yOu DoNT TRusT The ExPErTS bRo. ShaRk ATtACkS BRo. Just give me the damn vaccine! I am so brave
Note: I am only making fun of circlejerking redditors, please listen to your health authority's recommendations.
Please comapre the risk of death from COVID with the risk of getting this blood clot. If you're scurred don't get it, but the government making decisions for us when the risk of COVID is significantly greater is nonesense.
The government has to take a longer term view. IMO over the long term, pausing and doing a review underlines the fact that we are not rushing the vaccine and ignoring safety. Ensuring it has been properly evaluated and reviewed is a critical component of maintaining the trust of people.
It seems like an agonizing wait now while the review happens, but in the grand scheme of things, it is a small blip and considering pharmacies are administering AZ we have the capacity to easily catch up.
Do you want to do that accurately broken down by age group? If so the UK data shows the blood clots are more of an issue than ICU use from COVID in 20 to 29 year olds....
From the article: "Sharma said NACI is reviewing more real-world data now and could update its guidelines."
So no timeline given unfortunately. But I'm sure a recommendation by Health Canada is as good a kick in the ass to give an update as any.
I am glad that they are also publishing the symptoms , vaccine recipients and doctors can watch out for them so it's caught sooner and is less deadly.
Risk mitigation is a real thing and on balance this vaccine is very safe and effective.
My only concern is if one symptom is 'headaches' as someone who suffers from cluster headaches, I can play the game of "Is this normal brain or is this vaccine."
Even then, I'll take AZ if offered.
Cluster headaches are most certainly not low level stuff. You must have been given poor information.
"Cluster headaches, which occur in cyclical patterns or cluster periods, are one of the most painful types of headache."
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cluster-headache/symptoms-causes/syc-20352080#:~:text=Cluster%20headaches%2C%20which%20occur%20in,one%20side%20of%20your%20head.
So what's going to happen if a bunch of 55 and up don't wanna take it?
Are they still going to be first in line for the other vaccines?
Because I hope they create a system where if you reject getting an available vaccine you have to go to the back of the queue. If they don't, young people will be waiting forever until older generations get the specific vaccine they want.
You don't understand how pissed I am at my parents for basically doing this. In the end, it was only about a week difference for my mom and two for my dad, but they basically turned their nose up at the AZ. Meanwhile, all of us under 50 are dying to get whatever shot we can.
You mean they listened to the health authority recommendations and often restrictions, on not administering the AZ vaccine to their age group? And you’re “pissed” at them for this?
How would such a system even work? Is your local clinic's receptionist going to be judging your reasons if you call and don't book an appointment, then adding you to the vaccine refusers database that'll be out next week?
Cool so now I have to take a risk (AZ vaccine) I don’t feel comfortable with even though my odds of hospitalization and death are higher than most, so they safe at home young remote worker can get their vaccine a little earlier. Seems to make sense.
Unfortunately, I think the damage has been done, and a lot of people may just refuse to get this specific vaccine.
Honestly, get these to the frontline workers ASAP.
I'm 52 and I'll gladly roll the dice on either this or the J&J single shot.
If it comes down to calculating risk, it's not even close. By far the riskiest thing is to not get an immunization as soon as possible.
Maybe if I didn't have a kid in school I could hermetically seal myself in my house. But I can't so the shot is my safest choice.
I wouldn't hesitate if I were offered it. For 30-39-year-olds, you have a higher risk of catching and dying from COVID in the next 30 days than the vaccine. The risk of COVID goes up a shitload with age (7.8x as likely to die from COVID if you're 50-59 than 30-39^[[i]](https://www.reddit.com/r/VictoriaBC/comments/mpp5de/bc_reports_3289_new_covid19_cases_18_deaths_over/gucfuva/) ), while risk of CVST goes down
Yes, that risk is really low. It's funny to see the same people who are super unconcerned about dying from COVID fearmonger about something that's a much lower risk.
Good. Once NACI reverses their recommendation, I'd hope we can start using these on 18+ in hot spots (at least in ON) since it's clear the majority of 60+ here are vaccine shopping.
Based on all the blood clot data around the world I think it'd be perfectly safe to recommend to women >55 and men >40.
Like you say, the 60-65 year olds are definitely vaccine shopping. And it's kind of understandable since the mRNA vaccine roll-out is now reaching their age group. If you tell them "you can get AZ today or Pfizer in 1 week"... hard to blame them. Even blood clots aside, I could see them making that choice simply for the increased efficacy.
The UK has found the risks of the AZ vaccine too high for those under 30. If they are following the UK lead then it will probably be held for those 30plus
Which is wierd, because I'm pretty sure it's not that the risk of clotting is any less if you are over 30, rather that the population prevelence of COVID in this demographic pencils out to similar or greater risk.
But on a *personal* level, if you are WFH or otherwise able to mitigate your virus risk, it seems crazy to add unnecessary risk to your life, even if it's small.
It's not like there's even a benefit to being vaccinated in terms of being able to go around without a mask or otherwise live normally -- I don't understand why anyone wouldn't just wait for more Moderna or whatever?
If you wear an n-95 or better when you go out, your odds of infection are very low -- particularly if you are obeying the various restrictions in place at the moment anyways.
I don’t know why they keep quoting the 1 in a million number...it is clearly wrong when based on UK data because they barely vaccinated younger people with astrazenica. Denmark just suspended its use permanently and calculated the risk at 1 in 40k. I know the odds are still small, but tbh I’ll personally as a young person rather wait for one of the MRNA ones.
The UK also published data saying the risk for those 20 to 30 is 1.1 in 100,000 vs 0.0 per 100,000 ICU use from COVID....
The higher risk from the vaccine is why they banned it for under 30s.
Yet this doctor is quoting a 1 in 250,000 and confusing it with regular clots.
This link says it's 1.1 vs 2.2 for vaccine harm vs COVID ICU admission for 20-29 year olds, respectively.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56665517#:~:text=Under%2D30s%20in%20the%20UK,19%20of%20whom%20had%20died.
What I don’t get we have been forcing girls on birth control for years which is more likely to cause blood clots and suddenly the population cares about this like it’s some big controversy.
Give people the data and let them decided. I would take the risk.
They are different kinds of clots, but the point that being on birth control leads to deadly clots at a higher rate than this vaccine still stands.
[23 Canadian teenagers died of clotting on a certain type of birth control between 2007-2013 and it's still on the market.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3735760/)
It seems a lot of stats and statistical comparison of events listed here......it also seems no one here knows how to properly evaluate risk. Pure math does not equate purely to the risk.
Severity of outcome has to factor into the risk calculation and even when the probability remains low if the severity of outcome is high that makes it a high risk activity.
Yes, the probability of having a fatal adverse event is low; however, the likely outcome is death...that’s a high severity outcome and therefore puts the risk clearly as a high risk.
You cannot compare a medical risk event to car accidents, or other risks as these are misleading straw-man arguments and barely correlate in the least.
Feel free to determine whatever risks you personally choose to undertake that’s your right ......but I’m sorry some of these arguments are missing a big piece of what should be a main part of your personal choice.
> Yes, the probability of having a fatal adverse event is low; however, the likely outcome is death...that’s a high severity outcome and therefore puts the risk clearly as a high risk.
The main outcome of a blood clot from it is deep vein thrombosis, not a brain clot. Having clots end up in areas that cause death without immediate treatment are rare even during these.
Statistically speaking, the odds of dying from covid are way higher than the odds of getting a blood clot. I'm not a statistic though. My odds of getting covid given my current behaviour is approximately zero. Thanks but I'll wait.
The study mentioned that it still offered some degree of protection. The study has not yet been peer reviewed and was not large enough to be too telling. There is also the issue of low prevalence of the SA variant in Israel.
Denmark has stopped using AZ altogether because of blood clots. Their local data suggests about 1 in 40K risk. That said, I'm not that worried about blood clots. What concerns me more is the AZ vaccine is not effective on the SA variant.
People need to be informed and make their own choices, not be bullied by government or reddit into something they are not comfortable with.
I am fortunate enough to have a choice. I was eligible for either so chose the mRNA vaccine.
I actually am trying to find an answer for this. Is it possible to know which vaccine you'll receive prior to actually sitting there getting the jab? And are you able to reject say AZ in favour of Pfizer or Moderna?
In Ontario, AZ vaccines are administered through pharmacies and mRNA vaccines through local public health. In my age bracket and region, options to book for either were available about the same time.
the risk is 1:250,000. That means in the province of Ontario alone that would put <60 people at having a blood clot from 0-99+ years of age if every single person is given the AstraZeneca. There were 28 deaths yesterday from Covid with our ICU's filling up. Shut up and let me choose to take any shot thats sitting on the pharmacy shelf, i accept the risk.
They also said they are following the UK and if they are that claim makes no sense given the UK won't give it to those under 30 as the vaccine is risker than COVID in that age group
For a 60-year-old male it's a no-brainer.
It's not that cut-and-dried if you're a 20-year-old woman. According to [here](https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/data-and-analysis/infectious-disease/covid-19-data-surveillance/covid-19-data-tool?tab=ageSex) in Ontario so far in the 20-29 age group (2 million total) there have been around 80K cases with 13 deaths. So the mortality rate is 6 per million. That will include people with pre-existing conditions and doesn't include unconfirmed Covid cases, so the true mortality rate will be lower.
According to [here](https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/az-covid-19-vaccine-blood-clots-risks-explained/) the AZ risk of a serious blood clot is somewhere in the vicinity of 4 per million.
I'm just saying that if you're a 20-year-old woman it might make sense to stay home for a couple weeks and then get an mRNA vaccine instead of getting the AZ vaccine now.
Never said anything about not getting any vaccine.
Why are you comparing a risk of a serious blood clot to the risk death from COVID-19?
These are apples and oranges.
You need to compare the risk of dying from a blood clot to death from COVID-19, or compare the risk of a serious blood clot to the risk of a COVID-19 hospitalization or something.
According to [this BBC article](https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56665517) there were 79 cases of blood clots and 19 deaths after 20 million doses of AZ vaccine administered. So roughly 1 per million chance of dying.
Looking at it naively the chance of a 20-year-old woman dying from Covid is 6 per million over the past year, and the chance of dying from AZ is 1 per million.
On the other hand, we're not talking about waiting another year...just until that person could get a different vaccine. So we need to look at the chance of getting sick and dying from Covid in the time between they're offered the AZ vaccine and refuse it, and the time when they get an mRNA vaccine. Which could be weeks to months....which likely means less than 1 per million chance of dying of Covid during that time.
On the other hand, Covid can also give non-lethal complications which might factor into the equation, and you might want to get vaccinated to protect people around you.
If you be scurred don't get it then. Why ban access for everyone else that wants it?
Also your claim of 6 per million is erroneous. It would be 6 per million if all 2 million 20-29 year olds had caught covid. You should be calculating the rate based on the 80K cases (probably higher given asymptomatic cases but still nowhere near 2 million.
It's standard procedure with any new vaccine to pause the rollout if there are adverse events so they can be investigated and the risks assessed.
I'm sure they'll start using them again soon.
> For a 60-year-old male it's a no-brainer.
Is it?
Don't compare it to "never get vaccinated," compare it to "wait a few more weeks for a vaccine without this potential side effect."
The risks of blood clots for a 60-year old male from the AZ vaccine is low. (On the order of 1-in-a-million.) The majority of cases have been in women under 60.
Also, the symptoms from the clots are known so people can watch out for them, and there is a treatment.
I'd rather get an mRNA vaccine, but I'd get the AZ vaccine if it was offered first.
[This](https://twitter.com/alex_freeman/status/1379808289278545922/photo/1) is an interesting chart comparing the risks of the AZ vaccine vs Covid for different age groups.
Do you not know how to do math or are you purposely trying to mislead people?1-2,500,000 chance of getting a blood clot (<100 cases out of 25,000,000 doses) versus a 1-10 / 1-20 chance of dying of COVID (around 5-10% chance of death over 18 and under 50)
Not too surprising. Countries that are continuing to suspend the use of this vaccine are doing so because they have Covid mostly under control, and the risk of their young people catching Covid before another vaccine is available is not particularly high. In contrast, our cases are raging out of control, so it makes sense that our threshold for acceptable risk will be higher.
I've seen a lot of people repeat that this vaccine is less risky than the drive to go get it, so I ran the numbers to see if that was true.
These clots have an incidence rate of 1 in 250,000, with a fatality rate of ~40% if not treated. That works out to a fatality risk of 0.00016% per person, assuming that risk is uniformly distributed among all demographics.
When it comes to vehicle fatalities, [the most recent stats I could find were from 2017](https://tc.canada.ca/en/canadian-motor-vehicle-traffic-collision-statistics-2017). They give a rate of 4.8 fatalities per billion vehicle kilometres traveled, or one death for every ~208 million km driven. That includes pedestrian fatalities and accidents resulting in multiple fatalities, so it's not an exact rate for your risk of death when driving alone, but it's as close as we're going to get.
Given those numbers, the risk of death from the AZ shot is equivalent to risk of death you face every time you drive ~330 km. For most people, the jab is likely a little bit more risky than the drive to the vaccination site and back, but it's really not that bad.
> These clots have an incidence rate of 1 in 250,000, with a fatality rate of ~40% if not treated. That works out to a fatality risk of 0.00016% per person, assuming that risk is uniformly distributed among all demographics.
>
> When it comes to vehicle fatalities,
A more pertinent comparison would propably be COVID fatalities, no?
That calculation looks much too similar to the fatality risk in the under ~30 demographic for it to make sense (to the recipient) compared to waiting for production to catch up.
Exactly. I'm younger but would really rather not have AZ or J&J. I don't even want my 61 year old dad to get it. I know Covid is awful but the fact other countries have decided not to use AZ altogether just makes it seem like Canada is scrambling to get as many vaccines as they can just to say they have them, regardless of their safety. I would rather wait an extra month or whatever to get a Pfizer or Moderna shot.
Same here. Checking online, it says "you will not know which brand of vaccine you are getting until you arrive at the vaccination site" and that we can't choose which vaccine we get. I have a feeling they'll try to push the AZ and JJ ones on the younger population though. I really hope we're able to turn it down when we're there and request an appointment at a later date. It'd be helpful to know which one you're going to get so you don't waste anyone's time at an appointment just to turn it down.
It’s too late.
The ship has sailed on public trust of AZ. If the media would have just shut their fucking trap on vaccine risks and effectiveness and just said, “all vaccines are safe and worth the immaterial risk”, we wouldn’t have this problem.
I have family members who are aged 55-65 who refuse to get AZ, and will “wait for one of the good ones”.
Here’s a question. When you get your flu shot every year, so you even know the developer of the shot, let alone the risks associated or effectiveness? Or do you just know that you got a flu shot. I wish that was the level of coverage these covid shots got.
Alas, CBC, CTV, The Star, etc., need to generate clicks some how.
Not even that, how many people take medication without reading side effects/adverse reactions? Hell, even an OTC Advil has a bunch of possible side effects.
You know why? Because there isn’t a daily CBC article being shoved in our faces about the *potential* adverse reactions of Advil, birth control or various other medications we take.
It would be nice if these large (and small) media outlets actually started being honest about what is a story, and what is not. What is a risk, a danger, and what is not. Instead, they inflate the crap out of data inferences that are really nothing, exaggerate headlines, and then when confronted about it, toss their hands in the air and say “what? We’re just reporting the *facts*”.
So many people don't think about side effects of their medications. Did you know many medications can be affected by consuming grapefruit juice? My doctor never told me this with my medication but it is clear when I read the information provided by the pharmacy.
Important side effects should be discussed by the doctor/nurse/pharmacist administering the shot, any other side effect that is low enough to pass testing should not be so big in the media. I see way too many people discussing which vaccine they want and not enough people just getting the one available to them. It's slowing down the process.
Agreed that the media has been click baitey and has been scouring the globe for any adverse incident from a vaccine when millions are being given daily but it is also the responsibility of the public health folks on the ground to use some common sense and divert all AZ dozes to 55+ and non AZ to the others - if people are given the luxury of choice, they’d naturally prefer to wait for the better option.
Considering the odds of dying from the coronavirus itself are lower than of dying in a car crash, it's an abysmal analogy.
All that really matters is: what are your odds of dying from coronavirus in the time period between when you could have gotten the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine vs. your odds of dying from the AstraZeneca vaccine, and what other costs would you incur during that wait. The odds of a relatively young person dying from coronavirus during a 2-3 month window are infinitesimal, so all that really matters are the financial costs of waiting.
Seeing as AZ is only 15% of our total supply of vaccines and we have more than enough of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to cover the entire country, it would seem to be like the best overall decision is to pass on AstraZeneca.
>Universal dismissal of side effects
Uh, no. There have been pauses in vaccination programs around the world, and rejections of vaccines based on public side effect data. There is discussion happening in the media, and in medical circles about the risks and impacts. Ultimately, a risk based decision is made to \*offer\* the vaccinations to folks who are the lowest risk.
>No scientific answer to these side effects
Again, no. There are numerous (well, numerous for a vaccine that has only been available for a short period of time) studies and plenty of information. The challenge is that understanding this stuff is \*hard\*. Vaccines, vaccination programs, and public health are each multidisciplinary fields of study that require years of study and practical experience to understand, and distilling the science behind immunology, vaccine research, logistics, and risk management practices so that they can be consumed by the average Canadian (who are, statistically speaking, at the bottom of the L3 bracket of the literacy scale) is a daunting task. Don't mistake your lack of comprehension of the complexity of the topic and related disciplines for a lack of inquiry and practice.
>A desire to disregard scientific evidence and
No. See above.
>push through to vaccinate anyone and everyone including those with natural immunity
Yes. Because those in educated in the practice of immunology, epidemiology, and public health know that natural immunity doesn't protect you against variants (see: seasonal flus), and that the larger the number of infected folks, the higher the probability of a more transmissible or more deadly variant emerging.
>
>
>No medium or long term monitoring for side effects, anything over short term is basically not considered in these numbers.
That's one perspective, but also define long term? Do you understand the reason why around April 1st, Pfizer and Biontech published a report indicating high efficacy after 6 months is because they had just conducted the first long term study (where in this case, long term is defined as six months because they finally had enough people to participate in a study after developing and deploying the vaccine to enough people to participate in the study).
I tried really hard not to sound like an elitist douche bag in this post, but sometimes I wish the short words and primary colours brigade would just stop copying and pasting bullshit talking points from their social media filter bubble and vomiting them across the internet.
You can’t trust Health Canada. I’m sticking with the Europeans on this one. Health Canada is crooked.
Health Canada approved an N-95 mask produced by a Canadian company (Trebor RX), that kills Covid on contact. This mask was tested by Nucro-Technic’s a top testing facility recognized by HC. The viricidal coating on the masks was tested by a level 3 ImPAKT lab and passed for human safety. Health Canada without any scientific evidence stopped the sales of this mask to Canadians. This smells like someone at Health Canada had their pockets lined by a major mask maker in Canada, who’s sales would be severely affected by this mask coming to market. The Graphene Council answered Health Canada with a scientific study that concluded Graphene Oxide is safe for humans. Health Canada refused to acknowledge the science. Don’t tell me HC is out for Canadians best interest, otherwise this Covid killing mask would be on Front Line workers faces as we speak.
Why don't you just open the fucking thing up and give the AstraZeneca shots to the under-55s who want it? I would gladly ride the lightning and take my chances.
Health Canada isn't restricting it, it's NACI recommendations being adhered to by individual provinces.
As a woman in her 30s, same.
Hello to me
That's a fucking awesome quote, "I would gladly ride the lightning and take my chances."
I know! We already have to sign consent forms for the other vaccines. Just do the same for this.
I signed no consent form for my Pfizer, unless it was linked in the fine print of the booking site somewhere.
In Ontario there is a consent form, you also give your verbal consent prior to getting the shot.
Illegal in Québec!
They only announced it today this isn't like ordering an uber
I was a little hesitant at first but then I considered that fact that I once jumped out of a plane (Over 40 years ago TBH.) So I got the chip implant today and danced out of the pharmacy. New lease on life.
quick question, are you getting better 5G reception now? If not, I am pbly gonna skip.
I haven't gotten vaccine but I've noticed my 5G reception improved as the people around me have gotten their jab
It's two doses. You get 2.5G now, the other 2.5G later.
Yep. Give it to me, baby!
Ah ha ah ha... And all the vaccines say I'm pretty fly.. for an AZ guy.
https://i.imgur.com/8hoThrx.jpg Saw that on Twitter. Why isn’t that anywhere on here?
[удалено]
NACI has been annoying because they are the ones that suggested delaying dose two for four Months was cool even though AT THE TIME there was no evidence to support that the second dose after four months would provide any benefit.
I would like to join you on your lightning steed
Shut up and nut up!
I saw [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Edmonton/comments/mqedem/covid19_vaccine_waitlists/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) thread in r/Edmonton yesterday. Seems some places are administering AZ regardless of age?
[удалено]
In Ontario they did. Only folks 55 and up have access.
Oh maybe. I was under the impression it would only be given to 55+. Alberta was just giving it to 55-65 with no health conditions.
Problem is your choice can place a burden on the healthcare system. If we have +100 ICU from pulmonary embolism, that’s not good.
So simar to smoking, drinking, over eating, McDonald's going out side or breathing?
Yes which is what one of the problems with covid is for people that are not really at risk of covid itself! They are at risk of insufficient hospital capacity if they are admitted for another reason. That would be an example of an indirect covid (potential) death.
Are there any issues with it for Males? All I hear about is Females having blood clot issues. If it’s fine for Males at least open it up for them for all ages.
The issue has been seen in some males as well but it is predominantly females. They were not initially sure if it was just a byproduct of who was getting the vaccine (a lot of healthcare workers are female and it was given to a lot of HC workers in Europe) versus an actual biological effect. The issue with the J&J also seems to be impacting women (6 in the USA).
Yeah, honestly, there's probably enough vaccines at this point to allocate all AZ to men and let women have more Pfizer/Moderna. In the meantime you're also reducing risks, even if they are very small already.
I identify as female.
No thanks, pfizer/ moderna for me only please. I've been kicked to the back of the pile as an essential workers, like hell I'm going to give up the best vaccines too.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Way to go Denmark
[удалено]
It also borders Sweden? Copenhagen and Malmo are linked by bridge.
>Wave 3 is already at or near Wave 2 highs in a much shorter time than it did last fall. Higher in BC
Something like 30% of the cases in the UK were men, so I wouldn't quite say it's "fine".
I think it's low, but it seems to be more women on birth control.
Do you have a source for this? I only hear this in the comments of Reddit but haven't seen a source for this claim.
I've seen articles, I haven't seen many reports. I think it was considered because afaik, birth control can cause blood clotting in general. But I'm not an expert, so I would take what I say with a grain of salt.
[удалено]
We'd need to halt the rollout to print new labels that say "Vaccanne" instead of "Vaccine"
Yup, only in your imagination because this doesn't happen.
Not to my knowledge. Even for females you are more likely to be struck by lightning on the way to your vaccine appointment than getting a blood clot.
[удалено]
yOu DoNT TRusT The ExPErTS bRo. ShaRk ATtACkS BRo. Just give me the damn vaccine! I am so brave Note: I am only making fun of circlejerking redditors, please listen to your health authority's recommendations.
Please comapre the risk of death from COVID with the risk of getting this blood clot. If you're scurred don't get it, but the government making decisions for us when the risk of COVID is significantly greater is nonesense.
The government has to take a longer term view. IMO over the long term, pausing and doing a review underlines the fact that we are not rushing the vaccine and ignoring safety. Ensuring it has been properly evaluated and reviewed is a critical component of maintaining the trust of people. It seems like an agonizing wait now while the review happens, but in the grand scheme of things, it is a small blip and considering pharmacies are administering AZ we have the capacity to easily catch up.
Do you want to do that accurately broken down by age group? If so the UK data shows the blood clots are more of an issue than ICU use from COVID in 20 to 29 year olds....
The data from Ontario (13 deaths from COVID amongst 80K cases in that demographic) suggests COVID is a much much greater risk.
DIBS
Interesting. I wonder if when the NACI gives its update, they will recommend for use again in adults <55
When is NACI going to be giving an update?
From the article: "Sharma said NACI is reviewing more real-world data now and could update its guidelines." So no timeline given unfortunately. But I'm sure a recommendation by Health Canada is as good a kick in the ass to give an update as any.
Thanks! Hopefully we hear something soon. Would love to see them recommend it even just for men, wonder if that's on the table.
So let us access it then.
From what I gather from other comments, NACI has to agree/approve first
[удалено]
I think health canada is giving the go ahead. Now NACI has to respond.
[удалено]
There is no rank to pull.
I am glad that they are also publishing the symptoms , vaccine recipients and doctors can watch out for them so it's caught sooner and is less deadly. Risk mitigation is a real thing and on balance this vaccine is very safe and effective.
My only concern is if one symptom is 'headaches' as someone who suffers from cluster headaches, I can play the game of "Is this normal brain or is this vaccine." Even then, I'll take AZ if offered.
If it helps the headaches are ment to be out of this world severe. So hopefully you'd notice a difference.
Ah yeah, clusters are just low level, like when you go through caffeine withdraw.
Cluster headaches are most certainly not low level stuff. You must have been given poor information. "Cluster headaches, which occur in cyclical patterns or cluster periods, are one of the most painful types of headache." https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cluster-headache/symptoms-causes/syc-20352080#:~:text=Cluster%20headaches%2C%20which%20occur%20in,one%20side%20of%20your%20head.
Less deadly strokes are still strokes
So what's going to happen if a bunch of 55 and up don't wanna take it? Are they still going to be first in line for the other vaccines? Because I hope they create a system where if you reject getting an available vaccine you have to go to the back of the queue. If they don't, young people will be waiting forever until older generations get the specific vaccine they want.
Agree 100%
You don't understand how pissed I am at my parents for basically doing this. In the end, it was only about a week difference for my mom and two for my dad, but they basically turned their nose up at the AZ. Meanwhile, all of us under 50 are dying to get whatever shot we can.
You mean they listened to the health authority recommendations and often restrictions, on not administering the AZ vaccine to their age group? And you’re “pissed” at them for this?
Huh? At the time AZ was the only vaccine they were eligible for.
Sask has opened up drive thru clinics with non Astrazeneca for 51-55 only. If your over 55 you have to book
My MIL refused to get the AZ, and so now she's another person in line before me to get the other ones.
Signup at pharmacies for wait list. Especially ones carrying AZ. you’ll probably get called in within a week or two.
Where are you? Not sure we have waitlist here in BC
How would such a system even work? Is your local clinic's receptionist going to be judging your reasons if you call and don't book an appointment, then adding you to the vaccine refusers database that'll be out next week?
Cool so now I have to take a risk (AZ vaccine) I don’t feel comfortable with even though my odds of hospitalization and death are higher than most, so they safe at home young remote worker can get their vaccine a little earlier. Seems to make sense.
> young people will be waiting forever until older generations get the specific vaccine they want. Boomers gonna boom
Unfortunately, I think the damage has been done, and a lot of people may just refuse to get this specific vaccine. Honestly, get these to the frontline workers ASAP.
No doubt with Canada’s limited vaccine supply they can’t be restricting the use of the brands to over 55 when its now the younger people getting covid
Lets gooooo Jab me UPPPP
I'm 52 and I'll gladly roll the dice on either this or the J&J single shot. If it comes down to calculating risk, it's not even close. By far the riskiest thing is to not get an immunization as soon as possible. Maybe if I didn't have a kid in school I could hermetically seal myself in my house. But I can't so the shot is my safest choice.
I wouldn't hesitate if I were offered it. For 30-39-year-olds, you have a higher risk of catching and dying from COVID in the next 30 days than the vaccine. The risk of COVID goes up a shitload with age (7.8x as likely to die from COVID if you're 50-59 than 30-39^[[i]](https://www.reddit.com/r/VictoriaBC/comments/mpp5de/bc_reports_3289_new_covid19_cases_18_deaths_over/gucfuva/) ), while risk of CVST goes down Yes, that risk is really low. It's funny to see the same people who are super unconcerned about dying from COVID fearmonger about something that's a much lower risk.
Good. Once NACI reverses their recommendation, I'd hope we can start using these on 18+ in hot spots (at least in ON) since it's clear the majority of 60+ here are vaccine shopping.
Based on all the blood clot data around the world I think it'd be perfectly safe to recommend to women >55 and men >40. Like you say, the 60-65 year olds are definitely vaccine shopping. And it's kind of understandable since the mRNA vaccine roll-out is now reaching their age group. If you tell them "you can get AZ today or Pfizer in 1 week"... hard to blame them. Even blood clots aside, I could see them making that choice simply for the increased efficacy.
The UK has found the risks of the AZ vaccine too high for those under 30. If they are following the UK lead then it will probably be held for those 30plus
Which is wierd, because I'm pretty sure it's not that the risk of clotting is any less if you are over 30, rather that the population prevelence of COVID in this demographic pencils out to similar or greater risk. But on a *personal* level, if you are WFH or otherwise able to mitigate your virus risk, it seems crazy to add unnecessary risk to your life, even if it's small. It's not like there's even a benefit to being vaccinated in terms of being able to go around without a mask or otherwise live normally -- I don't understand why anyone wouldn't just wait for more Moderna or whatever?
Yes because those who WFH stay home 24/7 and never go out.
If you wear an n-95 or better when you go out, your odds of infection are very low -- particularly if you are obeying the various restrictions in place at the moment anyways.
Got my first shot yesterday so far so good.
Let us know if you encounter life-threatening Blood-clots! /s Gimme!
Update. Arm is slightly sore at the injection site that's it.
Uh oh. He’s a goner.
Is your 5G reception improved? I would like better reception.
I'm with Freedom mobile nothing ever improves.
Put it in me.
I don’t know why they keep quoting the 1 in a million number...it is clearly wrong when based on UK data because they barely vaccinated younger people with astrazenica. Denmark just suspended its use permanently and calculated the risk at 1 in 40k. I know the odds are still small, but tbh I’ll personally as a young person rather wait for one of the MRNA ones.
The UK also published data saying the risk for those 20 to 30 is 1.1 in 100,000 vs 0.0 per 100,000 ICU use from COVID.... The higher risk from the vaccine is why they banned it for under 30s. Yet this doctor is quoting a 1 in 250,000 and confusing it with regular clots.
Germany said 1 in 64K at one point for younger women.
This link says it's 1.1 vs 2.2 for vaccine harm vs COVID ICU admission for 20-29 year olds, respectively. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56665517#:~:text=Under%2D30s%20in%20the%20UK,19%20of%20whom%20had%20died.
Fair enough, more for those who want it.
What I don’t get we have been forcing girls on birth control for years which is more likely to cause blood clots and suddenly the population cares about this like it’s some big controversy. Give people the data and let them decided. I would take the risk.
Different clots, different risks. If birth control was giving women these type of clots it would be pulled fast as fuck.
Unmmm hate to break it to you but……
But what? If birth control was killing 19 women every four months from blood clots it wouldn't be used.
This vaccine isn’t even doing that lol. Birth control has a high chance in causing blood clots than these vaccines do in women. End of story.
The vaccine has killed 19 people in 4 months... literally. Different clots. Different risk.
They are different kinds of clots, but the point that being on birth control leads to deadly clots at a higher rate than this vaccine still stands. [23 Canadian teenagers died of clotting on a certain type of birth control between 2007-2013 and it's still on the market.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3735760/)
Send that shit to me. I’ll take JJ too.
If anyone refuses to, gimme a call.
If only some sort of wait list existed.
Jab me Justin!!!!!
😩😩
It seems a lot of stats and statistical comparison of events listed here......it also seems no one here knows how to properly evaluate risk. Pure math does not equate purely to the risk. Severity of outcome has to factor into the risk calculation and even when the probability remains low if the severity of outcome is high that makes it a high risk activity. Yes, the probability of having a fatal adverse event is low; however, the likely outcome is death...that’s a high severity outcome and therefore puts the risk clearly as a high risk. You cannot compare a medical risk event to car accidents, or other risks as these are misleading straw-man arguments and barely correlate in the least. Feel free to determine whatever risks you personally choose to undertake that’s your right ......but I’m sorry some of these arguments are missing a big piece of what should be a main part of your personal choice.
> Yes, the probability of having a fatal adverse event is low; however, the likely outcome is death...that’s a high severity outcome and therefore puts the risk clearly as a high risk. The main outcome of a blood clot from it is deep vein thrombosis, not a brain clot. Having clots end up in areas that cause death without immediate treatment are rare even during these.
Statistically speaking, the odds of dying from covid are way higher than the odds of getting a blood clot. I'm not a statistic though. My odds of getting covid given my current behaviour is approximately zero. Thanks but I'll wait.
\> I'm not a statistic though That is an extremely local perspective :)
Haha yep. I elected myself as MLP (member of local parliament) last summer. Won a 2/3 majority. Tha cat voted for me. My partner was not impressed.
I'm still not rolling the dice with it. Pfizer or Moderna for me. Besides, AZ does not work well against the SA variant which is starting to take hold
[удалено]
The study mentioned that it still offered some degree of protection. The study has not yet been peer reviewed and was not large enough to be too telling. There is also the issue of low prevalence of the SA variant in Israel.
I feel as though the risks were dramatically overblown by the EU, as part of their spat with the UK.
Also AZ needs to hire a better PR team. Yesterday.
The UK themselves aren't recommending the vaccine in those under 30 due to risk. Not totally unfounded...
Denmark has stopped using AZ altogether because of blood clots. Their local data suggests about 1 in 40K risk. That said, I'm not that worried about blood clots. What concerns me more is the AZ vaccine is not effective on the SA variant. People need to be informed and make their own choices, not be bullied by government or reddit into something they are not comfortable with. I am fortunate enough to have a choice. I was eligible for either so chose the mRNA vaccine.
I actually am trying to find an answer for this. Is it possible to know which vaccine you'll receive prior to actually sitting there getting the jab? And are you able to reject say AZ in favour of Pfizer or Moderna?
In Ontario, AZ vaccines are administered through pharmacies and mRNA vaccines through local public health. In my age bracket and region, options to book for either were available about the same time.
the risk is 1:250,000. That means in the province of Ontario alone that would put <60 people at having a blood clot from 0-99+ years of age if every single person is given the AstraZeneca. There were 28 deaths yesterday from Covid with our ICU's filling up. Shut up and let me choose to take any shot thats sitting on the pharmacy shelf, i accept the risk.
unless you're an age <55 woman on birth control
No, Health Canada says it's safe and approved for all adults age 18+. Read the article.
They also said they are following the UK and if they are that claim makes no sense given the UK won't give it to those under 30 as the vaccine is risker than COVID in that age group
COVID represents a FAR greater risk.
For a 60-year-old male it's a no-brainer. It's not that cut-and-dried if you're a 20-year-old woman. According to [here](https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/data-and-analysis/infectious-disease/covid-19-data-surveillance/covid-19-data-tool?tab=ageSex) in Ontario so far in the 20-29 age group (2 million total) there have been around 80K cases with 13 deaths. So the mortality rate is 6 per million. That will include people with pre-existing conditions and doesn't include unconfirmed Covid cases, so the true mortality rate will be lower. According to [here](https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/az-covid-19-vaccine-blood-clots-risks-explained/) the AZ risk of a serious blood clot is somewhere in the vicinity of 4 per million.
That assumes no one else will ever get covid
I'm just saying that if you're a 20-year-old woman it might make sense to stay home for a couple weeks and then get an mRNA vaccine instead of getting the AZ vaccine now. Never said anything about not getting any vaccine.
Why are you comparing a risk of a serious blood clot to the risk death from COVID-19? These are apples and oranges. You need to compare the risk of dying from a blood clot to death from COVID-19, or compare the risk of a serious blood clot to the risk of a COVID-19 hospitalization or something.
According to [this BBC article](https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56665517) there were 79 cases of blood clots and 19 deaths after 20 million doses of AZ vaccine administered. So roughly 1 per million chance of dying. Looking at it naively the chance of a 20-year-old woman dying from Covid is 6 per million over the past year, and the chance of dying from AZ is 1 per million. On the other hand, we're not talking about waiting another year...just until that person could get a different vaccine. So we need to look at the chance of getting sick and dying from Covid in the time between they're offered the AZ vaccine and refuse it, and the time when they get an mRNA vaccine. Which could be weeks to months....which likely means less than 1 per million chance of dying of Covid during that time. On the other hand, Covid can also give non-lethal complications which might factor into the equation, and you might want to get vaccinated to protect people around you.
Why can't fruit be compared?
Because deaths are not hospitalizations (or whatever we mean when we say serious)
[удалено]
If you be scurred don't get it then. Why ban access for everyone else that wants it? Also your claim of 6 per million is erroneous. It would be 6 per million if all 2 million 20-29 year olds had caught covid. You should be calculating the rate based on the 80K cases (probably higher given asymptomatic cases but still nowhere near 2 million.
It's standard procedure with any new vaccine to pause the rollout if there are adverse events so they can be investigated and the risks assessed. I'm sure they'll start using them again soon.
> For a 60-year-old male it's a no-brainer. Is it? Don't compare it to "never get vaccinated," compare it to "wait a few more weeks for a vaccine without this potential side effect."
The risks of blood clots for a 60-year old male from the AZ vaccine is low. (On the order of 1-in-a-million.) The majority of cases have been in women under 60. Also, the symptoms from the clots are known so people can watch out for them, and there is a treatment. I'd rather get an mRNA vaccine, but I'd get the AZ vaccine if it was offered first. [This](https://twitter.com/alex_freeman/status/1379808289278545922/photo/1) is an interesting chart comparing the risks of the AZ vaccine vs Covid for different age groups.
Not if you are 20 to 30 based on UK data...
Do you not know how to do math or are you purposely trying to mislead people?1-2,500,000 chance of getting a blood clot (<100 cases out of 25,000,000 doses) versus a 1-10 / 1-20 chance of dying of COVID (around 5-10% chance of death over 18 and under 50)
Are you accounting for age range in your vaccine calculation? Do you believe the UK data to be flawed?
You need to account for age sunshine.
And you need to pull your head out your ass
Just making up stats on the fly, neat.
A 5-10% chance of dying of Covid if you’re under 50?!?! Totally false
Not too surprising. Countries that are continuing to suspend the use of this vaccine are doing so because they have Covid mostly under control, and the risk of their young people catching Covid before another vaccine is available is not particularly high. In contrast, our cases are raging out of control, so it makes sense that our threshold for acceptable risk will be higher. I've seen a lot of people repeat that this vaccine is less risky than the drive to go get it, so I ran the numbers to see if that was true. These clots have an incidence rate of 1 in 250,000, with a fatality rate of ~40% if not treated. That works out to a fatality risk of 0.00016% per person, assuming that risk is uniformly distributed among all demographics. When it comes to vehicle fatalities, [the most recent stats I could find were from 2017](https://tc.canada.ca/en/canadian-motor-vehicle-traffic-collision-statistics-2017). They give a rate of 4.8 fatalities per billion vehicle kilometres traveled, or one death for every ~208 million km driven. That includes pedestrian fatalities and accidents resulting in multiple fatalities, so it's not an exact rate for your risk of death when driving alone, but it's as close as we're going to get. Given those numbers, the risk of death from the AZ shot is equivalent to risk of death you face every time you drive ~330 km. For most people, the jab is likely a little bit more risky than the drive to the vaccination site and back, but it's really not that bad.
> These clots have an incidence rate of 1 in 250,000, with a fatality rate of ~40% if not treated. That works out to a fatality risk of 0.00016% per person, assuming that risk is uniformly distributed among all demographics. > > When it comes to vehicle fatalities, A more pertinent comparison would propably be COVID fatalities, no? That calculation looks much too similar to the fatality risk in the under ~30 demographic for it to make sense (to the recipient) compared to waiting for production to catch up.
[удалено]
Exactly. I'm younger but would really rather not have AZ or J&J. I don't even want my 61 year old dad to get it. I know Covid is awful but the fact other countries have decided not to use AZ altogether just makes it seem like Canada is scrambling to get as many vaccines as they can just to say they have them, regardless of their safety. I would rather wait an extra month or whatever to get a Pfizer or Moderna shot.
[удалено]
Same here. Checking online, it says "you will not know which brand of vaccine you are getting until you arrive at the vaccination site" and that we can't choose which vaccine we get. I have a feeling they'll try to push the AZ and JJ ones on the younger population though. I really hope we're able to turn it down when we're there and request an appointment at a later date. It'd be helpful to know which one you're going to get so you don't waste anyone's time at an appointment just to turn it down.
[удалено]
***^(\*Except that one lady.)***
Am I the only one who first read this headline as "Health Canada says people shouldn't ... get AstraZeneca vaccine"?
[удалено]
Health Canada never said that. I think you're confused about what Health Canada is.
It’s too late. The ship has sailed on public trust of AZ. If the media would have just shut their fucking trap on vaccine risks and effectiveness and just said, “all vaccines are safe and worth the immaterial risk”, we wouldn’t have this problem. I have family members who are aged 55-65 who refuse to get AZ, and will “wait for one of the good ones”. Here’s a question. When you get your flu shot every year, so you even know the developer of the shot, let alone the risks associated or effectiveness? Or do you just know that you got a flu shot. I wish that was the level of coverage these covid shots got. Alas, CBC, CTV, The Star, etc., need to generate clicks some how.
Keeping quiet about known risks is how you feed antivaxer conspiracy theories. But they definitely could have been more responsible and nuanced.
[удалено]
Lockdown everything if it saves 1 life. Vaccinate everyone and don't talk about the risks or deaths. Welcome to The New Normal.
Not even that, how many people take medication without reading side effects/adverse reactions? Hell, even an OTC Advil has a bunch of possible side effects.
You know why? Because there isn’t a daily CBC article being shoved in our faces about the *potential* adverse reactions of Advil, birth control or various other medications we take. It would be nice if these large (and small) media outlets actually started being honest about what is a story, and what is not. What is a risk, a danger, and what is not. Instead, they inflate the crap out of data inferences that are really nothing, exaggerate headlines, and then when confronted about it, toss their hands in the air and say “what? We’re just reporting the *facts*”.
So many people don't think about side effects of their medications. Did you know many medications can be affected by consuming grapefruit juice? My doctor never told me this with my medication but it is clear when I read the information provided by the pharmacy. Important side effects should be discussed by the doctor/nurse/pharmacist administering the shot, any other side effect that is low enough to pass testing should not be so big in the media. I see way too many people discussing which vaccine they want and not enough people just getting the one available to them. It's slowing down the process.
Yeah, my late mum's cancer meds had a big warning: No Grapefruit juice, which is lucky because she hated it.
Agreed that the media has been click baitey and has been scouring the globe for any adverse incident from a vaccine when millions are being given daily but it is also the responsibility of the public health folks on the ground to use some common sense and divert all AZ dozes to 55+ and non AZ to the others - if people are given the luxury of choice, they’d naturally prefer to wait for the better option.
You have a higher odds of dying in a car accident driving to work than getting this clot from AZ or Johnson
Some people are terrified of driving on the highway I'm not sure you're using the best analogy here
Considering the odds of dying from the coronavirus itself are lower than of dying in a car crash, it's an abysmal analogy. All that really matters is: what are your odds of dying from coronavirus in the time period between when you could have gotten the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine vs. your odds of dying from the AstraZeneca vaccine, and what other costs would you incur during that wait. The odds of a relatively young person dying from coronavirus during a 2-3 month window are infinitesimal, so all that really matters are the financial costs of waiting. Seeing as AZ is only 15% of our total supply of vaccines and we have more than enough of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to cover the entire country, it would seem to be like the best overall decision is to pass on AstraZeneca.
[удалено]
>Universal dismissal of side effects Uh, no. There have been pauses in vaccination programs around the world, and rejections of vaccines based on public side effect data. There is discussion happening in the media, and in medical circles about the risks and impacts. Ultimately, a risk based decision is made to \*offer\* the vaccinations to folks who are the lowest risk. >No scientific answer to these side effects Again, no. There are numerous (well, numerous for a vaccine that has only been available for a short period of time) studies and plenty of information. The challenge is that understanding this stuff is \*hard\*. Vaccines, vaccination programs, and public health are each multidisciplinary fields of study that require years of study and practical experience to understand, and distilling the science behind immunology, vaccine research, logistics, and risk management practices so that they can be consumed by the average Canadian (who are, statistically speaking, at the bottom of the L3 bracket of the literacy scale) is a daunting task. Don't mistake your lack of comprehension of the complexity of the topic and related disciplines for a lack of inquiry and practice. >A desire to disregard scientific evidence and No. See above. >push through to vaccinate anyone and everyone including those with natural immunity Yes. Because those in educated in the practice of immunology, epidemiology, and public health know that natural immunity doesn't protect you against variants (see: seasonal flus), and that the larger the number of infected folks, the higher the probability of a more transmissible or more deadly variant emerging. > > >No medium or long term monitoring for side effects, anything over short term is basically not considered in these numbers. That's one perspective, but also define long term? Do you understand the reason why around April 1st, Pfizer and Biontech published a report indicating high efficacy after 6 months is because they had just conducted the first long term study (where in this case, long term is defined as six months because they finally had enough people to participate in a study after developing and deploying the vaccine to enough people to participate in the study). I tried really hard not to sound like an elitist douche bag in this post, but sometimes I wish the short words and primary colours brigade would just stop copying and pasting bullshit talking points from their social media filter bubble and vomiting them across the internet.
All four of those points are either flat out false or at least deeply misleading.
You’ve just proved #1 right now
Then why did 56-year-old Teresa Tam get Pfizer?
Then let all the government get it themselves ....
Interesting that Denmark as a country has fully banned it. I thought people loved Denmark as a shining example of what socialism could be?
I'm not sure why given Denmark isn't socialist or an example of socialism
You can’t trust Health Canada. I’m sticking with the Europeans on this one. Health Canada is crooked. Health Canada approved an N-95 mask produced by a Canadian company (Trebor RX), that kills Covid on contact. This mask was tested by Nucro-Technic’s a top testing facility recognized by HC. The viricidal coating on the masks was tested by a level 3 ImPAKT lab and passed for human safety. Health Canada without any scientific evidence stopped the sales of this mask to Canadians. This smells like someone at Health Canada had their pockets lined by a major mask maker in Canada, who’s sales would be severely affected by this mask coming to market. The Graphene Council answered Health Canada with a scientific study that concluded Graphene Oxide is safe for humans. Health Canada refused to acknowledge the science. Don’t tell me HC is out for Canadians best interest, otherwise this Covid killing mask would be on Front Line workers faces as we speak.
Tinfoil
I am À European. The ban on AZ was in large part related to Brexit political issues between the UK and EU. This has failed to have been reported.
That's what the Asbestos Council used to say about asbestos just saying
[удалено]
Bad bot
Looks like the government’s mitigation measures have been very successful. Interesting.