Still more on vaccination
Apr. 5th, 2021 09:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lyornI 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, askingwhat 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.
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
(no subject)
Date: 2021-04-10 10:15 pm (UTC)I guess my perspective differs from that of the majority of the affected group. Estimated 80% of those who got an AZ jab early are medical personnel and care workers. (Because the elderly got Pfizer/BioNTech instead). So, when the health agency thinks about the affected group, they are thinking about 35 yo healthy nurses, doctors, carers and therapists, not about 50 yos with serious illness. So it is safety that's on top of their minds, not effectiveness.
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.)
My worry now is that the minority group I belong to might just get overlooked and I'll be stuck with Schrodinger's immunisation: I won't know if I am immune until a positive PCR test shows I wasn't. And I *so* do not need more FUD in my life. (AFAIK, AZ fades after 12 weeks if no second shot is given. I do not have this info for the mRNAs, health agency goes with "not known, but more than 6 weeks.")
I wish they would recommend that members of the affected group can chooses how they want to continue instead of just being told what will be done to them (unless they wiggle out by convincing their GP to go against top-level recommendation). OTOH, it's not as if there is much choice given to anyone, because, pandemic. On the third hand (I'm borrowing paws from the cat), "'mixed' is an experimental treatment, that needs special consent". And on the fourth hand, everyone is free *not* to get vaccinated, which does not help at all.
Well. The only uplifting thing about this whole rotten stupid miserable pandemic is that it's probably been the biggest boost to science since the race for the moon. There *will* be results. And as I do not assume that the people in charge are actively evil, recommendations will be updated according to results.
Sigh. I have spent 15 month in a state of suspended panic. I need to get off the panic train sometime.
(no subject)
Date: 2021-04-12 04:08 am (UTC)[...] 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.