Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => COVID-19 => Topic started by: stephencwll on 28/05/2021 11:01:02
-
Hello everyone,
I'm mid-40s, and umming and ahhing over getting the vacinne which would I guess be the AZ. I've got past my fear of needles and the worries over the initial sideeffects but the fear of blood clots is freaking me out. At the current time I'm working from home and hardly going anywhere. I see a few friends but only outside. At some point I'll have to head back into the office but it's not been enforced at this time. Thus it's hard for me, as a born worrier, to feel the advantages outweigh the disadvantages at this moment.
I've read a few articles this last week about those blood clots. I see it's a 1 in 100,000 chance, which is low, because that's 10 in a million. There doesn't appear to be any "advantage" in having another version of the vaccine even if I had the option as I believe all of them have this very low risk of blood clots, correct?
I was wondering if it was possible to have a blood test where they dollap some vacinne in your blood and can see what the reaction would be but guessing no one is likely to go to those extremes just for me.
I don't know really what's going to make me feel any better about all this, other than when I feel I have no alternative due to work reasons. However, if there's anything useful anyone can say, it'll be appreciated :)
-
A lot more people got blood clots because of covid than because of the vaccine.
If you are a born worrier, worry about the big risk rather than the small one, and get vaccinated.
-
The blood clots are an immune over-reaction which attacks platelets.
- They are getting better at treating it, now, so severity of the clots is now decreasing
- Doctors are now treating it as an immune overreaction, rather than a clotting problem
Younger people have a more robust immune system - and more likely to get an immune over-reaction
- So the risk of blood clots is low in older people (plus they get lots of clots anyway)
- And the risk of blood clots is higher in younger people (and they don't tend to get many clots)
- If you get COVID-19, you are very likely to get blood clots (some people quote around 10%). So getting everyone vaccinated ASAP is a good idea.
Like many things, it is a cost/benefit tradeoff
- As I understand it, in the UK, they balanced this by saying that people over age 30 should get the A-Z vaccine, and under-30s get mRNA vaccine
- In Australia (where the chance of getting COVID-19 is much lower), they placed the balance at age 50: people over age 50 should get the A-Z vaccine, and under-50s get mRNA vaccine
The chance of you catching COVID-19 increases every week you wait - and it takes 10-14 weeks to develop full immunity with A-Z.
- So if you are really concerned about clots, get your first vaccination now.
Oops! Overlap with BC...
-
A lot more people got blood clots because of covid than because of the vaccine.
If you are a born worrier, worry about the big risk rather than the small one, and get vaccinated.
One question might be whether the same group of people would be at risk of clotting complications.
New theory about why Adenovirus based vaccines are more susceptible to the clotting (https://www.euronews.com/2021/05/27/why-are-aztrazeneca-and-j-j-vaccines-causing-blood-clots-scientists-claim-they-have-the-an)
PREPRINT (https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-558954/v1)
So, the theory is that this is a Adenovirus specific problem related to DNA in vivo splicing of the spike protein gene, resulting in a more soluble spike protein.
With J&J (used in the USA), the risk was closer to 1 in 1 million for severe clotting. Early data also seemed to indicate a strong female gender bias in the clotting incidents.
Here was have greater availability of the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines, with J&J used in clinics that have a lower ability to handle the extreme cold of the mRNA vaccines, and AstraZeneca hasn't been approved, and may not get approved.
I agree that the stats favor getting the vaccine vs not getting it. However, I dislike the concept of putting something in the body that has a risk of killing me, or causing serious side-effects.
Likely as a middle aged male (low risk category), I would have gone by the idea of take what is available. On the other hand, for younger women, if they have a choice, one might choose Pfizer/Moderna mRNA vaccines.
-
Younger people have a more robust immune system - and more likely to get an immune over-reaction
I think it was more that younger people were less at risk from covid in the first place. I don't think there's any strong evidence young people get the reaction more or less often.
I mean, if you take a treatment that has a one in a hundred thousand chance of killing you, but it stops you dying from a one in a thousand reaction to a virus; that's a good treatment. But if your chance of dying from the virus is less than one in a hundred thousand anyway then it's a lousy treatment!
-
There must be a point where the risk outweighs the benefits, children are not thought to be at any risk as long as they are fit and healthy. If you are fit and healthy at 40 the risk from the vaccine outweighs the benefit, ten per million versus the negligible risk of the virus.
www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/no-young-healthy-adults-died-19159255.amp
Further to the point, surely the greatest risk to anyone under 40 is the increaced damage to their life, loss of time and mental health if another lockdown is implemented because those over 50 have not had 2 doses. Longer term infections as seen in the older populations increace the risk of mutations. Each million people who are in lockdown for 1 month loose aproximatley 1000 lifetimes, so the schoolchildren lost 60,000 lifetimes during the last lockdown and will loose more due to life chances being eroded.
-
children are not thought to be at any risk as long as they are fit and healthy
That was true for the original Wuhan strain.
- It is thought that the recent India strains are more transmissible in children.
- As the adult population gets vaccinated, that will exert evolutionary pressure that encourages variants that spread through children.
- So children must line up as soon as the more vulnerable adults have been vaccinated.
Each million people who are in lockdown for 1 month loose aproximatley 1000 lifetimes
Each million people who catch the virus lose around 20,000 lifetimes - permanently (they come out of hospital in a body bag).
- Add to that the perhaps 100,000 who are left with long COVID for 6 months (or more)
Lockdowns are far better than allowing the disease to spread uncontrollably
- And quarantine (for the 0.1% who need to cross borders) is better than a lockdown for 100% of the population
-
children are not thought to be at any risk as long as they are fit and healthy
That was true for the original Wuhan strain.
- It is thought that the recent India strains are more transmissible in children.
- As the adult population gets vaccinated, that will exert evolutionary pressure that encourages variants that spread through children.
- So children must line up as soon as the more vulnerable adults have been vaccinated.
That is incorrect, if there is evolutionary pressure now it was there before, children have always thwarted corona. There is no reason for the virus to survive in natural selection, unlike cod for example in warming seas. Viruses that spread through children are most common, as children are filthy creatures.
Each million people who are in lockdown for 1 month loose aproximatley 1000 lifetimes
Each million people who catch the virus lose around 20,000 lifetimes - permanently (they come out of hospital in a body bag).
- Add to that the perhaps 100,000 who are left with long COVID for 6 months (or more)
Lockdowns are far better than allowing the disease to spread uncontrollably
- And quarantine (for the 0.1% who need to cross borders) is better than a lockdown for 100% of the population
That is a gross exaggeration, manaus, a city of 2 million saw an excess death of 4000, or 2000 per million across all age ranges and conditions, some may have had health conditions, some very elderly, you cannot blame the virus for everything. The majority of people if they should not have died would not have recovered, returned to school and lived another 50 years each on average.
I agree that that lockdowns are better for the vulnerable, it protects them and as I have already said prevents dangerous mutations. They would also have a better standard of life if the rest of the populace was leading a normal life, the lack of services has been notable.