|
Post by maryland on Apr 8, 2021 19:19:22 GMT
The UK have also said that under 30s will be offered an alternative vaccine when it comes to their turn. I understand that the risks are still vanishingly small but it seems a wise move to make adjustments as new information is discovered. I hope it doesn’t put people off being vaccinated...taking the contraceptive pill carries a higher risk for younger women than the vaccine does so I hope people think it through. That's a good point.
Also, I thought I heard on the news in the past year that one of the side effects of covid was blood clots. So my husband wondered if some that got the vaccine had covid but were asymtomatic? So the blood clots could have been from covid, not the vaccine? I haven't read the recent posts, so maybe someone addressed that. I heard a bit on the today show, but I forgot to record, so I couldn't watch the report.
|
|
josie29
Junior Member
Posts: 92
Mar 27, 2017 3:34:47 GMT
|
Post by josie29 on May 16, 2021 6:20:23 GMT
I live in Australia and currently under 50yo you receive the Pzizer vaccine and over 50s receive the Astrazeneca. We do not have widespread community spread of COVID here. We have had quite a number of the blood clots and low platelets linked to the AZ vaccine in all age groups which is why they moved to vaccinate under 50s with the Pzizer vaccine. Yes, I want to be vaccinated - but not with the AZ vaccine - as I am in my mid 50s. I am in no way an anti-vaxxer and I am fully vaccinated for other diseases as is my 17 yo daughter and husband. We will have the Modern vaccine available in Australia later this year. My concerns about the AZ bother me in that the age limit for administering it differs all around the world and they aren't sure what is causing the low platelets and blood clots from the vaccine. There are also differing statistics for the complications of how many per million people. And some countries won't even use the AZ anymore.
I have a strong family history of blood clots and haemorrhagic stroke (bleeding in the brain) and stroke from blood clots when young. Will this make me more susceptible to getting those with the AZ vaccine? Nobody can tell me. I am a Carer to my daughter who had a brain tumour when aged 8 and the surgery, radiotherapy and chemo has left her with disabilities which include multiple hormone deficiencies, left-sided Ataxia and Adrenal Insufficiency (AI is life-threatening & any illness no matter how minor can become life-threatening for my daughter). My husband works and I do not because my daughter needs me. I have no family support and if I am out-of-action, there is only my husband to pick up the pieces. I find myself in a quandary - wanting to do the right thing for the community - yet terrified with my gut shouting at me to not have the AZ vaccine until they can work out why the blood clots and low platelets are happening. My daughter suffers from anxiety (as do I) so this isn't helping - although I am able to put that aside and become more clinical and pragmatic when it comes to dealing with my daughter's medical issues. Not so much with the AZ vaccine.
Unfortunately, our Government put all their eggs mostly in the AZ vaccine due to it being able to be manufactured here and easy to store compared to other vaccines. I do wonder that if they have heaps of the Pzizer vaccine that they would stop giving the AZ one. The Pzizer has a great efficacy compared to the AZ for the variants. They are saying that you are more likely to win Tattslotto than get these severe complications. Dumb analogy on their part because if I don't win Tattslotto, it won't potentially kill me or cause life-threatening complications.
|
|
|
Post by miominmio on May 16, 2021 6:44:51 GMT
Norway has removed AstraZeneca from the program altogether (it was paused for two months before a final decision was made). Given our low number of covid cases, the risk of the vaccine was deemed unacceptable. We’ve had the most cases of serious side effects reported per capita. From what you’re writing, I understand very much why you don’t want to take the risk.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 20, 2024 9:46:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2021 9:37:20 GMT
Norway has removed AstraZeneca from the program altogether (it was paused for two months before a final decision was made). Given our low number of covid cases, the risk of the vaccine was deemed unacceptable. We’ve had the most cases of serious side effects reported per capita. From what you’re writing, I understand very much why you don’t want to take the risk. They've also paused the J & J ( Jansen) in Norway too for much the same reasons I believe. They've only removed the AZ one here for the under 40's for much the same reason that the under 40's are not at the same risk as older people of being hospitalized/dying from the virus as long as an alternative is available and it does not cause a substantial delay in the roll out of the vaccine. The risk of this happening to the under 40's is more balanced with the risk of the immunisation with AZ and it was felt that it would put at risk the take up of the vaccine because of all the publicity. Younger people with no underlying conditions are less likely to develop serious covid-19 illness than those with underlying conditions or older people, so their risk-benefit profile is different. To protect the need to vaccinate the population and to ease people's minds they removed it from the planned roll out to the under 40's which is going on now with the Pfizer and Moderna one. If at any time the other two ( Moderna & Pfizer would be unavailable then they would give out the AZ to these groups, anything is better than nothing to control the virus considering the small number of people affected by the " blood clots" The risk is very minute even in the older age groups of " blood clot" type of illnesses from the AZ compared to the numbers that have already been administered around the world. Up to 28 April the safety agency in the UK had received 242 reports of blood clotting cases with low levels of platelets after having the AstraZeneca vaccine, while 28 million doses had been administered. This equates to an overall incidence of 10.5 cases in a million doses. !0.5 per million is petty low IMO compared to the risk we take for anything else in life. Far more than 10.5 per million die every day from surgery. There are risk with any vaccine even with the Pfizer and Moderna one. Nothing is without risk but it's the balance of that risk that needs to be considered.
|
|
|
Post by sleepingbooty on May 16, 2021 10:20:41 GMT
The AstraZeneca in France is pretty much only used to reach out to populations who are not going to vaccination centres now, only over 55 still, such as elderly people who don't really leave their home. The J&J is used for outreach to populations where follow-up is deemed difficult such as the homeless, illegal immigrants, etc. The Pfizer-BioNTech is by far the most wanted vaccine over here, to the point of people neglecting the Moderna appointments when booking online. The French government has now shifted the Moderna stock over to the younger population (18-49) where you don't get a choice in which mRNA vaccine you get (whatever's available in the next 24h in your vaccination centre). The EU has signed a 1.8 billion doses deal with Pfizer-BioNTech through 2023 and will not be renewing the AstraZeneca deal (AZ is currently being sued by the EU for non-delivery). In the EU, we are looking at variant-specific booster shots for the autumn/early winter now.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 20, 2024 9:46:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2021 12:07:16 GMT
The AstraZeneca in France is pretty much only used to reach out to populations who are not going to vaccination centres now, only over 55 still, such as elderly people who don't really leave their home. The J&J is used for outreach to populations where follow-up is deemed difficult such as the homeless, illegal immigrants, etc. The Pfizer-BioNTech is by far the most wanted vaccine over here, to the point of people neglecting the Moderna appointments when booking online. The French government has now shifted the Moderna stock over to the younger population (18-49) where you don't get a choice in which mRNA vaccine you get (whatever's available in the next 24h in your vaccination centre). The EU has signed a 1.8 billion doses deal with Pfizer-BioNTech through 2023 and will not be renewing the AstraZeneca deal (AZ is currently being sued by the EU for non-delivery). In the EU, we are looking at variant-specific booster shots for the autumn/early winter now.I'm not very confident that they will win though. Politico has a good analysis of why - it's down to the wording of the contract they have. It seems that the EU should have been more binding in the wording of their contract . LINK
They're also in the process of looking for variant here, they've been doing it for months. We're also, thankfully, in a very good position of identifying other variants that might appear pretty quickly as they have a very high level and scientifically advanced process of sequencing the different ones as they appear, in addition to predicting how the mutations will evolve . Link from the Associated Press
|
|
|
Post by sleepingbooty on May 16, 2021 12:26:50 GMT
The EU has signed a 1.8 billion doses deal with Pfizer-BioNTech through 2023 and will not be renewing the AstraZeneca deal (AZ is currently being sued by the EU for non-delivery). In the EU, we are looking at variant-specific booster shots for the autumn/early winter now.I'm not very confident that they will win though. Politico has a good analysis of why - it's down to the wording of the contract they have. It seems that the EU should have been more binding in the wording of their contract . LINKWe will know more in 10 days' time when the arguments are made in court. Whatever the case, suing has to happen. This is far too important a matter for far too large a political bloc to just lay down quietly and accept the non-deliveries. The legal stance has to be made.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 20, 2024 9:46:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2021 12:41:04 GMT
I'm not very confident that they will win though. Politico has a good analysis of why - it's down to the wording of the contract they have. It seems that the EU should have been more binding in the wording of their contract . LINKWe will know more in 10 days' time when the arguments are made in court. Whatever the case, suing has to happen. This is far too important a matter for far too large a political bloc to just lay down quietly and accept the non-deliveries. The legal stance has to be made. I agree to some extent about the suing but in this case they might be throwing money away on something they are not likely to win - who knows. It will be the wording of that legally binding contact that will be the crux of the matter. As we say very often - words matter and they matter far more when you have legally binding contracts, whoever it is. There's a big difference to saying " to the best of our ability" and " we promise to"
|
|
|
Post by sleepingbooty on May 16, 2021 12:54:17 GMT
We will know more in 10 days' time when the arguments are made in court. Whatever the case, suing has to happen. This is far too important a matter for far too large a political bloc to just lay down quietly and accept the non-deliveries. The legal stance has to be made. I agree to some extent about the suing but in this case they might be throwing money away on something they are not likely to win - who knows. It will be the wording of that legally binding contact that will be the crux of the matter. As we say very often - words matter and they matter far more when you have legally binding contracts, whoever it is. There's a big difference to saying " to the best of our ability" and " we promise to" It's the EU. This isn't going to weigh on their budget one bit. Legal battles in Europe do not cost like they do in the US either. This is barely the first arguments to see whether AZ can be legally enforced to deliver the 120 million doses ASAP or not. If the judge rules in favour of the EU but AZ doesn't deliver, they can then decide to go sue again to collect the fine. One step at a time. The point needs to be made in court and then the court decides. Anyhoo, May 26.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 20, 2024 9:46:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2021 13:02:48 GMT
My husband was concerned about the possibility of receiving The AZ vaccine, and we are from the UK. Luckily He got the Pfizer one, but our concerns stemmed from potential complications either regarding blood clots or the blood thinning complication (I forget the name ) He has a mechanical heart valve which requires warfarin due to aortic dissection.
In general ( not vaccine related ) If blood gets too thin , it becomes dangerous and could cause internal bleeding , or potentially worsen aortic dissection. If blood gets too thick and clots , it becomes dangerous and could block a mechanical heart valve.
Everyones situation is different, unique to their own health circumstances.
We discussed things and went over whatever information we could find including decisions by other countries to suspend or stop the AZ. He decided that he would not feel comfortable receiving the AZ if it were the only one available.
Should that have occurred we planned to approach the relevant health authority and ask whether an alternative one could be offered and take things from there. As it is a public health policy , I have no idea whether or not they could make individual allowances.
As it turns out that was not necessary , as he received Pfizer.
The situation is constantly evolving , the only thing I can say is learn to spot side effects for all vaccines , no matter what make ,and get medical advice asap.
We went around in circles , as whichever decision we made could potentially result in something bad happening. ( or potentially not )
We did consider asking a doctors advice but we felt because this is a new situation and there isn’t yet a complete body of knowledge available to feel reassured that any answer given is accurate. It would only be as good as current understanding allowed and therefore limited.
Things are being discovered and learned about as we go along.
With boosters planned in the future , this might be a decision that requires an annual rethink.
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on May 16, 2021 14:56:01 GMT
have a strong family history of blood clots and haemorrhagic stroke (bleeding in the brain) and stroke from blood clots when young. Will this make me more susceptible to getting those with the AZ vaccine? Nobody can tell me. I am a Carer to my daughter who had a brain tumour when aged 8 and the surgery, radiotherapy and chemo has left her with disabilities which include multiple hormone deficiencies, left-sided Ataxia and Adrenal Insufficiency (AI is life-threatening & any illness no matter how minor can become life-threatening for my daughter). My husband works and I do not because my daughter needs me. I have no family support and if I am out-of-action, there is only my husband to pick up the pieces. I find myself in a quandary - wanting to do the right thing for the community - yet terrified with my gut shouting at me to not have the AZ vaccine until they can work out why the blood clots and low platelets are happening. My daughter suffers from anxiety (as do I) so this isn't helping - although I am able to put that aside and become more clinical and pragmatic when it comes to dealing with my daughter's medical issues. Not so much with the AZ vaccine. I'm also in Australia & over 50yo (and a nurse) and I'm not happy to get the AZ vaccine at this point. I did the phone around last week and tried to find a way to get the Pfizer vaccine but couldn't - however when I spoke to someone on the covid hotline they did say that there was an online form your GP can fill out if you have a significant medical history that will allow you to get the Pfizer vaccine - I don't have any legitimate medical reasons, however it sounds like you might. Maybe make an appointment with your GP and see if you qualify given your familial history. There are places that currently have stocks of Pfizer, the nurses I work with who are under 50 have been vaccinated with it in the last week. I think it's a bit unfair that they won't give healthcare workers a choice - surely they'd prefer to have us vaccinated and if it means giving us Pfizer then they should do that, but currently they won't...so most of us are choosing to wait rather than have AZ.
|
|
|
Post by hookturnian on Jun 17, 2021 12:44:25 GMT
An update from Australia. We will now be giving AstraZeneca to those aged 60 and over, where we were previously using it for those 50 and over.
|
|
|
Post by t2x on Jun 17, 2021 14:46:12 GMT
An update from Australia. We will now be giving AstraZeneca to those aged 60 and over, where we were previously using it for those 50 and over. josie29 This should be good news for you, if you haven't already been vaccinated. Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by catmom on Jun 17, 2021 16:26:50 GMT
In Canada AZ is no longer being used for first shots due to safety concerns. Those, like me, who got AZ as a first dose can choose to get it or an mRNA for the second dose. I’m going with mRNA.
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
Jun 26, 2014 23:58:32 GMT
|
Post by sassyangel on Jun 17, 2021 16:42:43 GMT
An update from Australia. We will now be giving AstraZeneca to those aged 60 and over, where we were previously using it for those 50 and over. Doesn’t really help me, unfortunately. My parents don’t feel really comfortable with AZ, based on their medical history (my mum is immune compromised) so they are *still* not vaxxed yet. 😞 To a certain degree, I can’t blame them with the messaging and rollout there. My BIL is the first person under 50 eligible in my family there, and got the Pfizer.
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on Jun 17, 2021 23:29:36 GMT
An update from Australia. We will now be giving AstraZeneca to those aged 60 and over, where we were previously using it for those 50 and over. The new broke just as I logged on yesterday morning, but at that point it was only a recommendation from ATAGI (Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation) which didn't necessarily mean the Govt would change it's policy. However a few hours later it was clear that it would change, so I got straight online and booked myself in...I'm working Thu/Fri/Sat so I'll go straight after I finish work on Sunday morning, thrn I can go home and sleep. I have a few days off after that so I won't have to worry about phoning in sick if I have any side effects. Relieved to be finally able to get that Pfizer vaccine! It didn't sit well with me being a nurse and not being vaccinated, but there was no way I was having AZ.
|
|
|
Post by sleepingbooty on Jun 18, 2021 16:03:40 GMT
EU Commission vs AstraZeneca court case update: the EU has been awarded the win. While the total delivery will remain significantly lower than the contract that was originally signed and below the number of doses the EU was asking to be provided, AZ will have to deliver another 80 million doses to the EU by September 27 or pay a 10€ fine per undelivered dose. I'm guessing these vaccines will mostly be exported to the Covax programme in the end. I just don't see many EU citizens wanting the AZ vaccine at this stage. Its reputation has been tarnished too greatly on this side of the continent.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 20, 2024 9:46:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2021 17:03:42 GMT
EU Commission vs AstraZeneca court case update: the EU has been awarded the win. While the total delivery will remain significantly lower than the contract that was originally signed and below the number of doses the EU was asking to be provided, AZ will have to deliver another 80 million doses to the EU by September 27 or pay a 10€ fine per undelivered dose. I'm guessing these vaccines will mostly be exported to the Covax programme in the end. I just don't see many EU citizens wanting the AZ vaccine at this stage. Its reputation has been tarnished too greatly on this side of the continent. I wouldn't consider it a win for the Commission, more as the headline in the link suggested - Belgian court gives AstraZeneca limited win in vaccines dispute with Commission. If you sue for the supply of 120 million doses by the end of June and end up getting 80 million, of which 30 million of it having already been delivered, with the remaining 50 million to be delivered over a three month period, that is hardly a win for the commission.
|
|
|
Post by sleepingbooty on Jun 18, 2021 18:07:02 GMT
EU Commission vs AstraZeneca court case update: the EU has been awarded the win. While the total delivery will remain significantly lower than the contract that was originally signed and below the number of doses the EU was asking to be provided, AZ will have to deliver another 80 million doses to the EU by September 27 or pay a 10€ fine per undelivered dose. I'm guessing these vaccines will mostly be exported to the Covax programme in the end. I just don't see many EU citizens wanting the AZ vaccine at this stage. Its reputation has been tarnished too greatly on this side of the continent. I wouldn't consider it a win for the Commission, more as the headline in the link suggested - Belgian court gives AstraZeneca limited win in vaccines dispute with Commission. If you sue for the supply of 120 million doses by the end of June and end up getting 80 million, of which 30 million of it having already been delivered, with the remaining 50 million to be delivered over a three month period, that is hardly a win for the commission. It depends on the media and party. Both parties claim the (limited) win in this case. AZ is asked to deliver doses (smaller amount than asked by the Commission) but is now legally obliged to pay a fine per missing dose if not meeting the court's deadlines. Politico gives limited win to AZ. Other media such as newspaper of record Le Monde give it as a limited win to the EU Commission. Neither got exactly what they asked in court. But AZ is being held to certain terms of the contract with the EU with fines otherwise. The Tribunal has ordered AZ to deliver doses while it hasn't ordered the EU anything. The Tribunal also accused AZ of committing serious breach. Legally, it's most definitely a win for the EU. But considering everything the EU was asking, the Tribunal's interim court decision most certainly satisfies AZ. It could've been much more financially impactful for AZ. Still, AZ is judged as being at fault here. The EU's statement is here.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 20, 2024 9:46:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2021 19:40:12 GMT
I wouldn't consider it a win for the Commission, more as the headline in the link suggested - Belgian court gives AstraZeneca limited win in vaccines dispute with Commission. If you sue for the supply of 120 million doses by the end of June and end up getting 80 million, of which 30 million of it having already been delivered, with the remaining 50 million to be delivered over a three month period, that is hardly a win for the commission. It depends on the media and party. Both parties claim the (limited) win in this case. AZ is asked to deliver doses (smaller amount than asked by the Commission) but is now legally obliged to pay a fine per missing dose if not meeting the court's deadlines. Politico gives limited win to AZ. Other media such as newspaper of record Le Monde give it as a limited win to the EU Commission. Neither got exactly what they asked in court. But AZ is being held to certain terms of the contract with the EU with fines otherwise. The Tribunal has ordered AZ to deliver doses while it hasn't ordered the EU anything. The Tribunal also accused AZ of committing serious breach. Legally, it's most definitely a win for the EU. But considering everything the EU was asking, the Tribunal's interim court decision most certainly satisfies AZ. It could've been much more financially impactful for AZ. Still, AZ is judged as being at fault here. The EU's statement is here. While I agree that the court did criticised AstraZeneca for a “serious breach” of its contract with the EU after repeated shortfalls but they refused to impose a new schedule demanded by Brussels that would have required the company to deliver 120m doses by the end of June. That is definitely not a win. What the courts did IMO was arbitrated a new schedule rather than a partial win for the commission. A schedule that AZ probably believes it can easily fulfil. The other thing to consider is AZ took up a partnership with Helix of the Netherlands back in December 2020 yet it took the EMA until the end of March to approve the facility at the plant despite the fact they were already approved by the UK and already producing the vaccine for the UK market. What took them so long? Possibly the bureaucratic way that the EU carries out its business.
|
|
|
Post by sleepingbooty on Jun 18, 2021 20:04:58 GMT
It depends on the media and party. Both parties claim the (limited) win in this case. AZ is asked to deliver doses (smaller amount than asked by the Commission) but is now legally obliged to pay a fine per missing dose if not meeting the court's deadlines. Politico gives limited win to AZ. Other media such as newspaper of record Le Monde give it as a limited win to the EU Commission. Neither got exactly what they asked in court. But AZ is being held to certain terms of the contract with the EU with fines otherwise. The Tribunal has ordered AZ to deliver doses while it hasn't ordered the EU anything. The Tribunal also accused AZ of committing serious breach. Legally, it's most definitely a win for the EU. But considering everything the EU was asking, the Tribunal's interim court decision most certainly satisfies AZ. It could've been much more financially impactful for AZ. Still, AZ is judged as being at fault here. The EU's statement is here. While I agree that the court did criticised AstraZeneca for a “serious breach” of its contract with the EU after repeated shortfalls but they refused to impose a new schedule demanded by Brussels that would have required the company to deliver 120m doses by the end of June. That is definitely not a win. What the courts did IMO was arbitrated a new schedule rather than a partial win for the commission. A schedule that AZ probably believes it can easily fulfil. The other thing to consider is AZ took up a partnership with Helix of the Netherlands back in December 2020 yet it took the EMA until the end of March to approve the facility at the plant despite the fact they were already approved by the UK and already producing the vaccine for the UK market. What took them so long? Possibly the bureaucratic way that the EU carries out its business. AstraZeneca has been judged and ordered by the Tribunal to adhere to a schedule that is different from the one the EU Commission asked for but it's still a schedule. They also are ordered to pay a fine if they don't respect the schedule. Finally, the Tribunal's order points the finger at AZ for committing a serious breach. They are the party at fault here, not the EU. I'm not going to argue on one EMA production site approval. Plenty of sites were approved, some later than others due to a myriad of reasons, whether AZ, Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna or Johnson & Johnson. But if AZ think there's some conspiracy there, they could always take the EU to court should they wish. On the matter of the specific production site you evoke, the director of the Halix site in Leiden stated earlier this Spring that getting approved in late March-early April was exactly according to the established plan. I see no reason to not believe him. Also, per AZ themselves: On the matter of the EU's "slow" bureaucracy: the EU were the first in the world to have 4 vaccines approved. Things moved very quickly.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 20, 2024 9:46:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2021 21:17:51 GMT
On the matter of the EU's "slow" bureaucracy: the EU were the first in the world to have 4 vaccines approved. Things moved very quickly. Not as quick as other countries. You might now have four with the recently approved Jansen vaccine but they were behind the US and the UK at the beginning. Even having four approved doesn't make them as quick to administer them though. Approval means nothing if they can't jab the arms of people with the actual vaccine.
|
|
|
Post by sleepingbooty on Jun 18, 2021 21:34:52 GMT
On the matter of the EU's "slow" bureaucracy: the EU were the first in the world to have 4 vaccines approved. Things moved very quickly. Not as quick as other countries. You might now have four with the recently approved Jansen vaccine but they were behind the US and the UK at the beginning. Even having four approved doesn't make them as quick to administer them though. Approval means nothing if they can't jab the arms of people with the actual vaccine. Define recent. The EU approved J&J's vaccine on March 11. I agree that you can't jab without doses. Hence why the Commission took AstraZeneca to court.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 20, 2024 9:46:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2021 21:51:16 GMT
Not as quick as other countries. You might now have four with the recently approved Jansen vaccine but they were behind the US and the UK at the beginning. Even having four approved doesn't make them as quick to administer them though. Approval means nothing if they can't jab the arms of people with the actual vaccine. Define recent. The EU approved J&J's vaccine on March 11. I agree that you can't jab without doses. Hence why the Commission took AstraZeneca to court. Well that is fairly recent but put it another way the last one they approved then. They approved the 3rd ( Moderna)two days following the UK's third. The Pfizer and the AZ approval were well behind the UK and the US . Haven't you got millions of Pfizer's though so not sure if 50 million AZ over a three month period is going to make that much difference.
|
|
|
Post by sleepingbooty on Jun 18, 2021 22:17:59 GMT
Define recent. The EU approved J&J's vaccine on March 11. I agree that you can't jab without doses. Hence why the Commission took AstraZeneca to court. Well that is fairly recent but put it another way the last one they approved then. They approved the 3rd ( Moderna)two days following the UK's third. The Pfizer and the AZ approval were well behind the UK and the US . Haven't you got millions of Pfizer's though so not sure if 50 million AZ over a three month period is going to make that much difference. I don't understand your determination to attack me on the EU. The Tribunal just condemned AZ in the court case, period. I also don't understand your schedule of the EU vaccination approvals. The US never even approved the AZ. Is this turning into a nationalistic pride discussion? In which case, the UK approved the J&J vaccine on May 28 which is over 2 and half months later than the EU. But this has nothing to do with the court case or AZ. You're moving the goalpost constantly in this thread to find fault with the EU who has not been on trial here. I don't know what's going on here or if you're trying to turn this into some bizarre post-Brexit UK vs EU debate but I was so far trying to keep up with the news of AstraZeneca deployment and issues on my side of the world as per the thread subject.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 20, 2024 9:46:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2021 23:33:10 GMT
Well that is fairly recent but put it another way the last one they approved then. They approved the 3rd ( Moderna)two days following the UK's third. The Pfizer and the AZ approval were well behind the UK and the US . Haven't you got millions of Pfizer's though so not sure if 50 million AZ over a three month period is going to make that much difference. I don't understand your determination to attack me on the EU. The Tribunal just condemned AZ in the court case, period. I also don't understand your schedule of the EU vaccination approvals. The US never even approved the AZ. Is this turning into a nationalistic pride discussion? In which case, the UK approved the J&J vaccine on May 28 which is over 2 and half months later than the EU. But this has nothing to do with the court case or AZ. You're moving the goalpost constantly in this thread to find fault with the EU who has not been on trial here. I don't know what's going on here or if you're trying to turn this into some bizarre post-Brexit UK vs EU debate but I was so far trying to keep up with the news of AstraZeneca deployment and issues on my side of the world as per the thread subject. It wasn't me that went off topic. It was you that posted the info about the four approved vaccine. I also haven't moved the goalpost but pointed out that no one won outright least of all the EU Commission - they didn't get what they set out to achieve - that means a no win to me. The commission didn't sue them just to be told that AZ breached their contract, they sued them because they wanted them to deliver the vaccine that the EU expected to receive -120 million dose by the end of June in addition to quite a hefty penalty for the non delivery - the Commission got neither. There are numerous reports out there that agrees with me, including the one from Politico that you yourself posted the link to with the words "the EU has been ordered a win" which wasn't what the link report said. Totally the opposite in fact.
|
|
|
Post by sleepingbooty on Jun 19, 2021 11:51:56 GMT
I don't understand your determination to attack me on the EU. The Tribunal just condemned AZ in the court case, period. I also don't understand your schedule of the EU vaccination approvals. The US never even approved the AZ. Is this turning into a nationalistic pride discussion? In which case, the UK approved the J&J vaccine on May 28 which is over 2 and half months later than the EU. But this has nothing to do with the court case or AZ. You're moving the goalpost constantly in this thread to find fault with the EU who has not been on trial here. I don't know what's going on here or if you're trying to turn this into some bizarre post-Brexit UK vs EU debate but I was so far trying to keep up with the news of AstraZeneca deployment and issues on my side of the world as per the thread subject. It wasn't me that went off topic. It was you that posted the info about the four approved vaccine. I also haven't moved the goalpost but pointed out that no one won outright least of all the EU Commission - they didn't get what they set out to achieve - that means a no win to me. The commission didn't sue them just to be told that AZ breached their contract, they sued them because they wanted them to deliver the vaccine that the EU expected to receive -120 million dose by the end of June in addition to quite a hefty penalty for the non delivery - the Commission got neither. There are numerous reports out there that agrees with me, including the one from Politico that you yourself posted the link to with the words "the EU has been ordered a win" which wasn't what the link report said. Totally the opposite in fact. The 4 vaccine approval anecdote was in response to your accusation of the slowness of the EU in this pandemic. Which you know all too well. The Tribunal has put AZ at fault and instaured a delivery schedule they must abide by or pay the fine set by the Tribunal. They are the party at legal fault as per the court order. The "no win in my eyes" is just that, your opinion about AZ in this case. It does not align with the court order. The Tribunal did judge in the EU's favour. It's like saying that the prosecution lost because the judge awarded a lesser sentence. Financially, of course, this verdict satisfies AZ. They have less to deliver and pay than the EU wanted. But they're still legally considered as at fault here. Arguing against this is ignoring the verdict. Back to the topic and generally speaking, not addressing anyone in particular, the EU is not renewing its AstraZeneca contract that expires in June. They will move ahead with the bulk being mRNA vaccines, mostly Pfizer-BioNTech.
|
|
josie29
Junior Member
Posts: 92
Mar 27, 2017 3:34:47 GMT
|
Post by josie29 on Jun 24, 2021 7:23:19 GMT
An update from Australia. We will now be giving AstraZeneca to those aged 60 and over, where we were previously using it for those 50 and over. josie29 This should be good news for you, if you haven't already been vaccinated. Good luck! Yes, I am beyond thrilled. I didn't get the AstraZeneca - neither did my husband (he is the same age as me). Couldn't cope with the anxiety of wondering if I will be "another statistic". I do suffer from anxiety anyway so adding to that is not healthy for me. I am a headachy person and get frequent migraines. I said to my husband that if I had had the AZ vaccine, every time I got a headache (which is several times a week), I would be terrified that it was a cerebral clot. Interesting how the Australian Government stated today that the AZ vaccine will be phased out by October. Honestly, there is a lack of confidence in the AZ vaccine anyway and I have several friends 60+ who refusing to get the AZ vaccine & are waiting for a different one. Their opinion is: "Why do I have to get the crappy one? Why can't I have the one that Scott Morrison - our Prime Minister - had?!" I have booked for the Pfizer vaccine but have to wait until the end of July - that was the earliest I can have it because they are saving the Pfizer vaccine in the interim for people to have their 2nd dose.
|
|
|
Post by hookturnian on Jun 30, 2021 2:03:15 GMT
Being discussed elsewhere, but including it here for completeness.
This week our PM announced that anyone can get AZ after discussion with their GP. This announcement came as a surprise to Australia's peak medical body. They have refused to endorse this position.
Australia will also be phasing out use of AZ from October.
tl/dr: it's an omnishambles
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Apr 20, 2024 9:46:01 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2021 11:20:25 GMT
Being discussed elsewhere, but including it here for completeness. This week our PM announced that anyone can get AZ after discussion with their GP. This announcement came as a surprise to Australia's peak medical body. They have refused to endorse this position. Australia will also be phasing out use of AZ from October. tl/dr: it's an omnishambles It's sad that you as a country is letting all those AZ vaccines go to waste when it could contribute so much to protecting people and stop the spread of the virus. The delta variant is so much more transmittable that any of the other variants. The young generally survive Covid but the older you get the greater the risk, not to mention people with existing underlying health conditions. The majority of our Delta variant cases are in the younger age groups who, up until last week were mostly all unvaccinated or the unvaccinated, for what ever reason they had, in older age groups. There were some from the one dose cohort and a handful in the fully vaccinated, which ever vaccination they had had. Non of the vaccines give you 100% protection so it was expected that a small number would be infected. There is plenty of data from the UK to compare the risks, in so far as the numbers we have administered up to June 16th, 24.5 million 1st doses and 19.6 million 2nd dozes of AZ probably the highest number of AZ in the world and that number is now out of date as we have vaccinated very many more since them. The number of UK suspected thrombo-embolic events with concurrent thrombocytopenia ADR reports received for AstraZeneca by patient age up to and including 16 June 2021 is :_. Age range (years) Number of reports Number of fatal reports 18-29 27 6 30-39 49 11 40-49 97 11 50-59 93 19 60-69 56 10 70-79 38 7 80-89 5 1 90-99 1 0 Age Unknown 23 3 Total 389 68 There is no known scientific reason to date why it's happened. By any stretch of imagination the above number of fatalities and the risks is very very minute compared to the 44million + that have received the AZ vaccine in this country. And in turn the number of hospitalisations and the small number of weekly deaths we have with the Delta compared to what we had with the original and the UK variant, when a much larger number were unvaccinated. If the AZ wasn't " safe" one could have naturally expected a far higher number of cases to the millions of jabs that have been administered but that hasn't happened. Your country was in a much better position than we were with your small number of cases to get ahead of the variants before they had time to hit and establish itself. We on the other hand are having a race to vaccinate the remaining adults to beat the variant that is already here, even as quick as we were with our roll out.
|
|