lyorn: (Default)
[personal profile] lyorn
I am very annoyed.

I got my first dose of Astra Zeneca on Feb 28, and took it reasonably well.
I should get the second dose on May 2nd, and I would be very happy and relieved and I would be doing the happy dance and buy overpriced chocolate to celebrate, if that should happen.

It seems, however, that it won't. Instead (insert polemic warning) I, and ten thousand of others who are at high or very high risk of getting Covid-19 in a very bad way, or having Covid-19, should they get it, delay urgent life-saving treatments for weeks or months, have been volunteered (on April 1st, of all days, but not an April Fool's joke, more's the pity) to act as a test group for a so far untested vaccination scheme of "first dose AZ, second mRNA (or whatever)". Note: Second. Not first of a new basic immunisation with *two* doses of an mRNA vaccine.

The very same government agency that has decided to do so is writing in their FAQ, right below "oh, by the way, we are switching the following groups to an untried vaccination scheme" that they haven't the foggiest if said untried vaccination scheme is safe or efficient.

It's efficient, though, to do this study on people likely to die should this new scheme turn out to be neither safe nor efficient. Dying is such a convincing and easily measured end point.

There isn't enough WTF in the world.

If you have not followed the German/EU shenanigans about the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, you might be confused about why they are even considering this.

If you have, you might be aware that there is sufficient reason to assume a risk of a bad complication after an AZ vaccination, which occurs more often in women than in men and more often in younger women than in in older ones. The complication, while possibly lethal if unrecognized and untreated, has (by now) known symptoms, a mechanism that is understood reasonably well, tests which show that it's happening, and a treatment.
It has also a risk of occurring which is about 1:100.000 among the most at-risk group of younger women.

The risk for a younger (than 60) woman with a bad Covid prognosis to get infected and die is higher -- probably by orders of magnitude. And there is still no good treatment for COVID-19.

What the everloving fuck are those guys on?

I have actually sent a mail to the government agency in question, asking what the fuck they were on if they might explain in their FAQ the rationale for these decisions, because it looked very confusing to a lay person.

(no subject)

Date: 2021-04-05 07:44 pm (UTC)
lexin: (Default)
From: [personal profile] lexin
You're right, there isn't enough WTF in the world.

(no subject)

Date: 2021-04-05 11:12 pm (UTC)
trobadora: (Default)
From: [personal profile] trobadora
What the fucking fuck.

(no subject)

Date: 2021-04-07 10:17 am (UTC)
trobadora: (Default)
From: [personal profile] trobadora
It really is evil, and I haven't seen anything about this in the media. Maybe they should be alerted to this. :(

(no subject)

Date: 2021-04-08 11:01 am (UTC)
trobadora: (Default)
From: [personal profile] trobadora
I saw it mentioned in a newsfeed I follow, last night! I was really relieved to see that, at least.

If it works equally well or better, then I'm all for it. But until then I go with what is tested and approved for use, if possible.

THIS, OMG.

*sends virtual chocolate*

(no subject)

Date: 2021-04-09 07:57 am (UTC)
siderea: (Default)
From: [personal profile] siderea
wut

to act as a test group for a so far untested vaccination scheme of "first dose AZ, second mRNA (or whatever)".

So... this is an experiment being conducted on people without their consent, yes? How is this legal? Don't you have human rights in the EU?

(no subject)

Date: 2021-04-10 05:19 am (UTC)
siderea: (Default)
From: [personal profile] siderea
Ah, I see. Just happened in France, too.

I want to know if *I* am being absurd, or if the public health agency is. And most of all I want evidence.

I don't think it's an either-or proposition. I think maybe neither is being absurd. You're not wrong to want more evidence, but it doesn't seem like that exists, and so decisions have to be made in the absence of that evidence.

I think the calculus is that asking people (those younger people who had the one AZ shot before it was found to have that risk) to take a known risk of stroke when there's an alternative vaccination path that doesn't seems reckless. While it's possible that there's a bad interaction between AZ and a mRNA follow-up, it seems the more likely bad outcome is that they simply fail to have the compounding effect getting two of the same shots attains, in which case, one is left with all the protection of one of the two different shots one gets, presumably the greater of the two. The mRNA shots seem to have an efficacy of around 80% with a single dose, IIRC; I don't know for AZ.

(no subject)

Date: 2021-04-12 04:08 am (UTC)
siderea: (Default)
From: [personal profile] siderea

[...] But I feel that for me, personally, the risk of low effectiveness far outweighs a 1:100.000 safety risk. (I am jaded on this risk, having taken drugs with a much worse safety profile over the course of the last two years.)

I think that's excellent reasoning, and I think you should definitely take it up with your GP.

I do not have this info for the mRNAs, health agency goes with "not known, but more than 6 weeks."

Canada has apparently gone for the "stick everyone once" with the mRNA vaxes, putting off second shots for (I'm hearing) something like four months. I have no further info on this.

Profile

lyorn: (Default)
lyorn

July 2025

S M T W T F S
  12 345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags