Irrational fears over blood clots caused by the AstraZeneca vaccine have led to doctors warning about a growing vaccine hesitancy. A recent poll showed eight in 10 people are worried about side effects.
Turns out it’s not the Mullumbimby-crystal-rubbing-5G-conspiracy-theory mob that put our hoped-for herd immunity at risk — it’s those people cancelling their jab appointments because of a disproportionate and ill-defined fear of an extremely rare event.
You can write off the conspiracy theorists as deluded, misinformed, or cynical bullshitters of the highest order. But there is a more insidious form of bullshit around the blood clots that needs to be tackled. It’s not enough to label the potentially fatal reaction “rare”. Every time it is mentioned it should be accompanied by the fact that it happens to fewer than 10 people per million doses.
The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation estimates it occurs in about six cases per million vaccinated.
(It would be interesting to know if the authorities’ risk/benefit analysis around the decision to change the vaccination took into account the potential for increased vaccine hesitancy.)
It’s done now.
What’s still to be done is to cut the bullshit-by-omission discussion around the clots. To a large extent that’s up to the media. Of course it’s news whenever there’s a new case, but media companies have a choice about how it’s reported.
Too often the headline blares the latest case but actual statistics about the clots are entirely omitted, or put “below the fold” — in the tail end of the story.
Over the weekend there was a story about a “possible” vaccine side effect based purely on a family’s fears about a condition affecting their grandmother.
Anyone just scanning stories about blood clots is getting a vastly disproportionate idea about the safety of the vaccine — and their fear can easily spread to all vaccines.
It’s bullshit by omission, and it has a potentially deadly side effect.
Agreed. 100%. It is, sadly, one of the unintended side affects of avoiding a crisis that people a) don’t realise how close they came, b) don’t realise, despite reporting, how bad it was for others, and c) how lucky they are to have a vaccine available. But, being one of the twenty richest countries on the planet, with ‘island’ style defences against Covid, and a great public health response across the land (not just the apparent gold-standard in NSW, but everywhere, including VIC) vaccine snobbery and hesitancy has been allowed to develop. If only the masses in Indonesia, India, Brazil and Africa had such a luxury – to be offered a vaccine, any vaccine – not to live in a rich, well serviced country, that’s way beyond their imaginings…
Fair comment, it is bs, and I am not in the risk area but my feeling is why should we accept this second rate vaccine because of this government’s incompetence?
It’s not ‘second rate’, it has side affects. All vaccines do. This one has copped adverse media, as the article’s author points out, way beyond what is sensible. Check out the flu jab. It kills people too, but the flu kills more.
It IS second rate. It is not effective against the South African variant.
The AZ vaccine is safe and effective, the risks are extremely low. Accumulating evidence suggests it is equivalent in protection to other vaccines. It helps to understand vaccine rationale though: all vaccines present some risk (unless they are ineffective), that risk is carried by every individual that accepts the vaccine. In return, the vaccine offers a level of personal protection but also contributes to community protection.
The slower that the community is vaccinated through the more this contributes to a selection pressure that favours resistant mutations, this is normal with any infectious agent so it’s also going to happen with this one. What that means is that we should all get vaccinated as soon as it is offered, but also accept that irrespective of which vaccine you have been offered you are likely to require a modified booster vaccine over the next few years.
Further to my post above. This is my personal point of view. I intend to continue wearing a mask until the end of 2020, regardless of which vaccine I get. I am not rejecting or doubting the usefulness of AstraZeneca vaccine. I am merely undertaking a small (quixotic) protest against Morrison & co., giving them the middle finger in the only way I can for now, saying to them: “I’m only going to accept a vaccine that is available to all Australian citizens. I notice you are ordering the Moderna/Pfizer vaccines, no doubt for yourself and your mates. Well up yours.”
Oops, I meant 2022!!
You agree? Why? One of the links she put up for vaccine side effects of “10 people per million doses” goes straight to an article from Cosmos Magazine, where I believe Miss Shepherd is employed. Is Cosmos magazine a reliable health authority? And the other link she uses is a govt site that is now access denied.
The truth is that vaccine side-effects are self reported. That means only a very small percentage of vaccine side-effects ever get published, but Miss Shepherd forgot to mention that.
According to data from Ausvaxsafety, a govt agency, as of April 11th this year, puts the Pfizer vaccine side-effects figures at 36% of 84,439 people who were vaccinated. And remember that these responses are voluntary, so the real figure is many times higher. This certainly challenges the whole article from Miss Shepherd.
I was wondering when someone was going to call Tory out on this. I checked the Ausvaxsafety figures for April and you are right. 36% of the 84,439 people vaccinated with the Pfizer dose reported adverse side effects. That’s well over 30,000 people. Combine that with the other vaccines and the true figure skyrockets. Hmmm.
“Tory Shepherd is an opinion writer and journalist best known for her contributions to Australian News Ltd media publications and websites” Wikipedia
So her article should be seen as her opinion and obviously not as researched data. That’s pretty consistent with News Ltd.
We know the pfizer vaccine carries far fewer side-effects, whilst also being far more effective…..so why is this government forcing the AZ vaccine onto the over-50’s?
because it’s safe and available.
It is NOT effective against the South African variant. Morrison went for the cheapest & the one which ministers bought shares in. Greed is why we have this second rate vaccine being foisted on us. EVERYTHING the LNP do is about kickbacks for them. AZ is a case in point.
“because it’s safe and available.”
What a load of rot! It’s available but how can you say that it’s safe? It’s experimental, first time ever used & is Not cover by medical insurance if anything goes wrong.
* Transmission of Covid 19 occurs mostly through news broadcasting. The virus settles between the ears and affects rational thinking.Symptoms include:
Distrust of friends, neighbours and an overwhelming urge to give up basic human rights in exchange for the illusion of safety.
Individuals with larger vacuums between their ears are more at risk.
Pure AV Nutter Cobblers as usual. Where is the link to the “supporting” webshyte?
Standard reply from closed mind.
Check this with your microscope:
https://tinyurl.com/tc3rnps
UK Government Shocking Report: Experimental mRNA Injections Caused 1716 Cases of Eye Disorders and Left 22 People Blind
Another BS source, non peer reviewed article, from a non journal…
My mind is quite open but only to actual facts. Drew is right. Your “supporting evidence” is yet another AV Nutter webshyte. I suppose this was also done by “Command Central”?
Even if this source were credible, it’s talking about mRNA vaccines. AstraZeneca is not an mRNA, it’s a viral vector vaccine made from a modified (weakened) animal adenovirus. As is the Janssen/J&J vaccine. Not mRNA. So why post a link to an article that’s not even relevant to the discussion?
One might conclude the poster of this misinformation is either mischievously posting irrelevant articles. Or that they simply haven’t got a clue.
What do you call someone with absolutely unshakeable beliefs but no relevant subject matter knowledge?
We don’t know that at all to be perfectly honest with you and here are some data to make you think about this a bit more.
The Astra Zeneca vaccine in this study carried a risk of about 5 in a million doses. Pfizer and Moderna and background bad luck carry the risk of about 4 in a million.
Covid19 infection about 39 in a million.
I’d take the Astra Zeneca if that’s what you’re offered.
https://portal.fiocruz.br/en/news/risk-thrombosis-due-covid-19-8-10-higher-due-vaccines
Where is the “forcing”?
We have an unvaccinated population, the constant threat of outbreak, and very limited stock of the Pfizer vaccine. A population vaccinated with AstraZeneca is way safer than an unvaccinated one stuck waiting for a slightly more effective vaccine to be available.
Simply not true that Pfizer had less side effects than astrazeneca recent data from the UK published in peer reviewed journal shows no difference in reported side effects. Most side effects are very minor such as sore arm or headache. The few rare serious effects are so rare as to be insignificant. Remember it is inevitable that covid become widespread in Australia. Vaccination risks negligible against risks fron getting covid.
The truth is it’s impossible to know much about the medium and long term side-effects of any of them, and cause for concern due to the catastrophic outcomes in past animal trials performed with mRNA vaccines. Look up “antibody dependent enhancement”.
Tory you’re right, but I think there’s more going on than you’ve stated.
Firstly, other than the occasional economist and psephologist, journalists aren’t a very numerate bunch of professionals. Focused on getting attention and reaction to their stories, they seldom care about numbers except as emotional punctuation to human interest. I believe that the soul of responsible information is about helping people take more effective actions, and a lot of reports simply don’t support that.
Secondly when I talk to my over-50s friends, I think the main fear behind blood clots is a tacit concern about stroke — an ambient anxiety that people hope won’t menace them until much later in life.
And if so, then the statistics can really help: more than 100 Australians suffer stroke every day, compared to the less than 80 in total that will suffer blood-clots (and not necessarily strokes) from AstraZeneca shots if all the nearly 8 million Australians over 50 are vaccinated within the next 12 months.
Moreover, death to stroke is around 30%, while death to AZ-related blood-clots is no more than 25%.
And finally, the same people scared of stroke may be doing nothing about lifestyle risk factors associated with it, such as smoking, lack of exercise, blood pressure management, weight control, cholesterol and alcohol consumption.
So here we potentially have people scared of risk of stroke, able to reduce that risk but perhaps not doing so and getting back nothing in exchange for that risk, transferring this anxiety disproportionately to an AZ vaccination that in exchange for a tinier risk, will gain them protection, personal and economic freedom, and protection for their loved ones and community.
So this is a discussion journalists can have, if they’re numerate enough and dig into the anxieties rather than superficially exploiting them for attention and reaction.
But finally, the most soothing influence I’ve seen regarding vaccine hesitancy is having friends and family in numbers promptly turn up for the vaccine, calmly convalesce through the 1-2 days of side-effects and then get on with all the confidence and purpose of knowing what’s important. And the experience of working with dedicated nurses in Australia’s health system is calming and soothing too.
These are stories that journalists can also cover, to help normalise the circumstance.
Informally, around 30% of my over-fifties friends are vaccine-hesitant. All evinced surprise when I got my first AZ jab this month, earlier than they realised was possible. Now a growing number are booking their shots.
Feelings change according to knowledge and context, Tory. Journalists can help with that if they are wise enough to ask the right questions in the first place.
I hope this may help.
I suffer from Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) which is a rare autoimmune disorder, in which a person’s blood doesn’t clot properly, because the immune system destroys the blood-clotting platelets.
What about the blood clots I’ve been hearing about?
Serious reactions to the vaccine have been very rare, one of which includes thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, which is on everyone’s mind right now.
This is a very rare condition in which blood clots (thrombosis) and low levels of platelets (thrombocytopenia) occur 4-28 days after receiving the vaccine. This can lead to disability and 20-25% of people with these clots die.
My GP’s advice was not to partake in a vaccine which has been shown to produce the above effects.
Maybe a safer alternative will become apparent in the near future and one in which I would participate in the public interest.
I reside in Townsville which is fortunately a Covid-19 free area.
I also had ITP but my spleen destroyed the platelets when passing through. I had the spleen removed in 1976 and have had no problem since. My GP did not mention any risk and I certainly wasn’t worried about blood clots when I had my first AZ jab 4 weeks ago. The birth control pill is a much more dangerous thing for causing blood clots. Has anyone stopped taking it for that reason?
Then you had better hope we get to herd immunity levels of vaccination asap.
In which case surely you would be eligible for the Pfizer?
Would be good to see where less than ten in a million falls in a list of risks for various other everyday activities, such as crossing the road, drinking alcohol, smoking, use of NSAIDs, etc.
didn’t I see somewhere that the contraceptive pill more likely to cause blood clots …
https://theconversation.com/blood-clot-risks-comparing-the-astrazeneca-vaccine-and-the-contraceptive-pill-158652
When you step out the door in the morning you have about a 1 in 30,000 chance of dying that day. If you’re going for your AsatraZeneca jab, it’s about a 1 in 31,000 chance, plus or minus about 10,000.
COVID Vaccines: Necessity, Efficacy and Safety : ( Worth the read ) Click link
Snip:
Population survival of COVID-19 exceeds 99.8% globally[20-22]. In countries that have been intensely infected over several months, less than 0.2% of the population have died and had their deaths classified as ‘with covid19’. COVID-19 is also typically a mild to moderately severe illness. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of people are not at risk from COVID-19 and do not require vaccination for their own protection.
Not a credible source, nor journal, an article in ‘Off Guardian’ by ‘Doctors for Covid Ethics’?
In fact that report was censured and de-platformed by Medium while under investigation for misinformation. Off-G looks like Conspiracy Central.