# Astrazeneca covid vaccine clotting anomaly

## Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Knowing myself, I would probably do nothing. I am not an activist... But I would be interested to learn if a simple sales lie caused the distrust avalanche that will eventually kill people.

I don't have any skin in the game on this one which is why I'm a bit apathetic. I would like to know too, although people like to present data so that it shows them in the best light.

• Replies 98
• Created

#### Popular Posts

This happened yesterday and is important information for our age group.I had my 2nd dose of the vaccine at the vaccination center after which I began to have blurred vision on the way home. When I g

You are as slippery as an eel. I give up.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/16/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-doctors-react-as-eu-countries-suspend-shot.html This is out of 17 million people DVT is normally about 1 in 1000 per year https

#### Posted Images

12 hours ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

are you saying that politicians lied about what they agreed with companies

No

12 hours ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

are you saying that politicians somehow managed to extort such unrealistic promises from sales departments of those companies?

No

12 hours ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

did you ever have to deal with sales department in your company? Maybe you were a sales person yourself?

Lol. If only you knew what I do IRL

12 hours ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

I have this strong hunch

Welp, that’s good enough for me. I’m convinced! 🙄

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Why?

Time does not make a vaccine better.

You don't fatten a pig by weighing it.

You cannot fatten her by  short-cut-force-majeure-feeding  her , either . . .. .. .

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Despite things being pretty well OK in Australia with regards to covid 19, I will be receiving my astrazeneca  jab within the next week or two.

The rough figures I heard is that with something like 17 million injections given in Europe, 30 or so have had some sort of side effect, noting that not all these side effects have been shown to be a result of the vaccination. I have no qualms about the OK given by the AMA [Australian Medical Association]

Edited by beecee
##### Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

But this is my whole point. The numbers presented to EU public were not just slightly higher than was actually realized. They were outrageously higher. How came such a large mistake? What is your explanation, then?

You haven’t even established that the goals haven’t been met, nor quantified “outrageously higher”

You’ve been asked for evidence, and you’ve responded with hyperbole and trying to move the burden of proof to others.

6 hours ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Hmm, because otherwise I have to believe that pharmaceutical companies were not capable to estimate their own production capabilities, not even close. And this is hard to believe for such experienced companies.

Experienced at mRNA vaccines? No.

“At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, no mRNA drug or vaccine had been licensed for use in humans.”

So their vast experience at ramping up production to get hundreds of millions of mRNA vaccines out the door is zero.

##### Share on other sites
6 hours ago, swansont said:

You haven’t even established that the goals haven’t been met, nor quantified “outrageously higher”

You’ve been asked for evidence, and you’ve responded with hyperbole and trying to move the burden of proof to others.

Experienced at mRNA vaccines? No.

“At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, no mRNA drug or vaccine had been licensed for use in humans.”

So their vast experience at ramping up production to get hundreds of millions of mRNA vaccines out the door is zero.

On top the cooling chain is a bit of a headache.

##### Share on other sites
On 3/17/2021 at 7:44 AM, swansont said:

No formal initiative yet, other than donating money for manufacturing the vaccine, but

“If we have a surplus, we’re going to share it with the rest of the world,” Mr. Biden said this week, adding, “We’re going to start off making sure Americans are taken care of first, but we’re then going to try and help the rest of the world.”

"U.S. to share 4 million doses of AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine with Mexico, Canada"

##### Share on other sites

This happened yesterday and is important information for our age group.I had my 2nd dose of the vaccine at the vaccination center after which I began to have blurred vision on the way home.
When I got home, I called the vaccination center for advice and to ask if I should go see a doctor, or be hospitalized.
I was told NOT to go to a doctor or a hospital, but just return to the vaccination center immediately and pick up my glasses!!

##### Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, beecee said:

This happened yesterday and is important information for our age group.I had my 2nd dose of the vaccine at the vaccination center after which I began to have blurred vision on the way home.
When I got home, I called the vaccination center for advice and to ask if I should go see a doctor, or be hospitalized.
I was told NOT to go to a doctor or a hospital, but just return to the vaccination center immediately and pick up my glasses!!

+1

##### Share on other sites

‘It’s a very special picture.’ Why vaccine safety experts put the brakes on AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine

Scientists don’t know whether the vaccine causes the syndrome, and if so, what the mechanism is. “Everyone’s scratching their heads: Is this a real signal?” says Robert Brodsky, a hematologist at Johns Hopkins University. But vaccine safety officials say they did not take the decision lightly, and that symptoms seen in at least 13 patients, all between ages 20 and 50 and previously healthy, in at least five countries are more frequent than would be expected by chance.

##### Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, swansont said:

‘It’s a very special picture.’ Why vaccine safety experts put the brakes on AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine

Scientists don’t know whether the vaccine causes the syndrome, and if so, what the mechanism is. “Everyone’s scratching their heads: Is this a real signal?” says Robert Brodsky, a hematologist at Johns Hopkins University. But vaccine safety officials say they did not take the decision lightly, and that symptoms seen in at least 13 patients, all between ages 20 and 50 and previously healthy, in at least five countries are more frequent than would be expected by chance.

Shows just how quickly  the science is moving on this issue.

The linked report is only 2 days old but completely out of date and superceeded by last night's statement from the EU health agency and subsequent action reinstating the vaccination program by the various member states.

Today on the BBC, Professor Openshaw of Imperial College said that even the two days hiatus (thanks Markus for the word) will lead to more deaths from covid than would be saved as a result of avoiding any threat from vaccination.

##### Share on other sites

I didn't realize Britain was following a "one-jab" strategy.

And it seems to give comparable results.

(Images from The New York Times)

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, studiot said:

Shows just how quickly  the science is moving on this issue.

The linked report is only 2 days old but completely out of date and superceeded by last night's statement from the EU health agency and subsequent action reinstating the vaccination program by the various member states.

Today on the BBC, Professor Openshaw of Imperial College said that even the two days hiatus (thanks Markus for the word) will lead to more deaths from covid than would be saved as a result of avoiding any threat from vaccination.

It may be there's no new actual science, and people just digested the numbers. Deaths per million (total) exceeds 1000 in a lot of countries, and the number of these clotting cases is significantly smaller than that. As you can see from the graph zapatos shared, you've currently got ~5 deaths per day, per million, and it has been higher (and could go back up). Not vaccinating has a worse outcome than clotting, assuming the vaccine is the cause.

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, swansont said:

Deaths per million (total) exceeds 1000 in a lot of countries, and the number of these clotting cases is significantly smaller than that. Not vaccinating has a worse outcome than clotting, assuming the vaccine is the cause.

Didn't I already say this, there are so many covid threads now.

Incidentally the UK figure is pushing 2000 per million, double that of the US.

##### Share on other sites
On 3/17/2021 at 11:46 PM, swansont said:

You haven’t even established that the goals haven’t been met, nor quantified “outrageously higher”

Not sure what an evidence would be... I found the following passage on wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford–AstraZeneca_COVID-19_vaccine) :

"On 22 January 2021, AstraZeneca announced that in the event the European Union approved the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, initial supplies would be lower than expected due to production issues at Novasep in Belgium. Only 31 million of the previously predicted 80 million doses would be delivered to the European Union by March 2021."

On the same page there is following data (indicating that indeed the number of delivered vaccines by March was lower than 80 million - apparently, it was above 17 million, but how much exactly depends on how much vaccine was hold on stock by countries and how many people received the double dose)

"On 14 March 2021, AstraZeneca has confirmed that after over 17 million people have been vaccinated in the European Union ..."

The difference between the 'predicted' (80 mio) and the delivered (I don't know, I guess about 20mio by mid March), imo, might be the reason why rumors started that AstraZeneca is selling 'our' vaccines elsewhere. In my opinion, it could be that these rumors were additionally fueled by statements like following (from the same page):

"On 17 December, a tweet by the Belgian Budget State Secretary revealed the European Union (EU) would pay €1.78 (US$2.16) per dose." "In August 2020, AstraZeneca agreed to provide 300 million doses to the USA for US$1.2 billion, implying a cost of US$4 per dose." ---- Admittingly, citing Wikipedia is not much of a proof. On the other hand, this is only a forum and even Wikipedia might be good enough for the sake of discussion. ----- I also need to 'quantify' the term 'outrageously'... I never understood 'outrageously' to be a quantifiable term. I understand it in qualitative way, like, for example, terms 'more' or 'bluer'... What I meant by 'outrageously' can be described as "so much that it cannot be easily explained any other way but by deception." ----- On 3/17/2021 at 11:46 PM, swansont said: So their vast experience at ramping up production to get hundreds of millions of mRNA vaccines out the door is zero. I don't know how much these vaccines are different, but I imagine that AstraZeneca experts should know. If mRNA vaccines are so different that it was not possible to make predictions, then they had to refrain from making promises (or 'predictions' as they said) in the first place. ----- On 3/19/2021 at 6:44 PM, swansont said: Deaths per million (total) exceeds 1000 in a lot of countries, and the number of these clotting cases is significantly smaller than that. One should also consider that, for some reason, people put different weighting factors in front of 'possibly cured' and in front of 'possibly harmed' (even medical professionals -> "do no harm"). So even if statistics is clear, people might prefer to choose 'irrationally'. ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites 1 hour ago, Danijel Gorupec said: Not sure what an evidence would be... I found the following passage on wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford–AstraZeneca_COVID-19_vaccine) : "On 22 January 2021, AstraZeneca announced that in the event the European Union approved the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, initial supplies would be lower than expected due to production issues at Novasep in Belgium. Only 31 million of the previously predicted 80 million doses would be delivered to the European Union by March 2021." On the same page there is following data (indicating that indeed the number of delivered vaccines by March was lower than 80 million - apparently, it was above 17 million, but how much exactly depends on how much vaccine was hold on stock by countries and how many people received the double dose) "On 14 March 2021, AstraZeneca has confirmed that after over 17 million people have been vaccinated in the European Union ..." The difference between the 'predicted' (80 mio) and the delivered (I don't know, I guess about 20mio by mid March), imo, might be the reason why rumors started that AstraZeneca is selling 'our' vaccines elsewhere. In my opinion, it could be that these rumors were additionally fueled by statements like following (from the same page): "On 17 December, a tweet by the Belgian Budget State Secretary revealed the European Union (EU) would pay €1.78 (US$2.16) per dose."

Useless links in that last sentence.

1 hour ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

"In August 2020, AstraZeneca agreed to provide 300 million doses to the USA for US$1.2 billion, implying a cost of US$4 per dose."

The US agreement happened first, so perhaps they weren’t “yours”

1 hour ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

----

Admittingly, citing Wikipedia is not much of a proof. On the other hand, this is only a forum and even Wikipedia might be good enough for the sake of discussion.

-----

I also need to 'quantify' the term 'outrageously'... I never understood 'outrageously' to be a quantifiable term. I understand it in qualitative way, like, for example, terms 'more' or 'bluer'... What I meant by 'outrageously' can be described as "so much that it cannot be easily explained any other way but by deception."

-----

“in the event the European Union approved the COVID-19 Vaccine” sounds a lot like no agreement was in place. They made a prediction, not a promise.

1 hour ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

I don't know how much these vaccines are different, but I imagine that AstraZeneca experts should know.  If mRNA vaccines are so different that it was not possible to make predictions, then they had to refrain from making promises (or 'predictions' as they said) in the first place.

-----

Why should they know, for a vaccine where they have no experience bringing it to market? You can make a prediction, assuming things go mostly right, and then things don’t go right.

1 hour ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

One should also consider that, for some reason, people put different weighting factors in front of 'possibly cured' and in front of 'possibly harmed' (even medical professionals -> "do no harm"). So even if statistics is clear, people might prefer to choose 'irrationally'.

Some people are going to choose irrationally, regardless

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, swansont said:

“in the event the European Union approved the COVID-19 Vaccine” sounds a lot like no agreement was in place. They made a prediction, not a promise.

Ok - this is somewhat possible. It can be that AstraZeneca spoke about predictions, but EU politicians presented them as actual promises to public (for example my prime minister would use the wording 'we secured xyz doses from AstraZeneca').

But is still puzzling... There are many prime ministers in EU - somebody had to misinform all of them because they hardly ever cooperate (even in a misconduct). This somebody, I guess, could be the team that negotiated with AstraZeneca. The team members either had to be villains or dumb enough to misunderstood AstraZeneca predictions as promises... On top of that, AstraZeneca failed to place an effective public denial that they made promises.

BTW, it might be an interesting question if Occam razor is applicable to such examples (because we, the limited group of people on SFN, cannot tell what actually happened behind the closed doors, and we have no way to discern what is the actual explanation how people in EU became misinformed about vaccine supply rates).

##### Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Ok - this is somewhat possible. It can be that AstraZeneca spoke about predictions, but EU politicians presented them as actual promises to public (for example my prime minister would use the wording 'we secured xyz doses from AstraZeneca').

But is still puzzling... There are many prime ministers in EU - somebody had to misinform all of them because they hardly ever cooperate (even in a misconduct). This somebody, I guess, could be the team that negotiated with AstraZeneca. The team members either had to be villains or dumb enough to misunderstood AstraZeneca predictions as promises... On top of that, AstraZeneca failed to place an effective public denial that they made promises.

BTW, it might be an interesting question if Occam razor is applicable to such examples (because we, the limited group of people on SFN, cannot tell what actually happened behind the closed doors, and we have no way to discern what is the actual explanation how people in EU became misinformed about vaccine supply rates).

The press usually reports announcements and agreements. I’m wondering why you’re having a hard time coming up with anything.

On 10 February, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen acknowledged the EU's vaccine rollout failures, saying: "We were late to authorise. We were too optimistic when it came to massive production and perhaps too confident that what we ordered would actually be delivered on time."

##### Share on other sites

It seems the effectiveness of astrazeneca is lower than other vaccines. The more effective ones in the 90+ percent range and astrazeneca just 62%.

##### Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It seems the effectiveness of astrazeneca is lower than other vaccines. The more effective ones in the 90+ percent range and astrazeneca just 62%.

I recently read an article that I don't have now, stating that these kinds of comparisons are very difficult. Since the trials involved simply vaccinating individuals then sending them home to see who gets sick, you would expect that trials performed when COVID infections were less widespread (i.e. earlier in the pandemic) would show higher efficacy rates than when COVID infections were more widespread (i.e. later in the pandemic). Unless the trials are coordinated a comparison of the vaccines done after the fact can be very misleading.

##### Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, zapatos said:

you would expect that trials performed when COVID infections were less widespread (i.e. earlier in the pandemic) would show higher efficacy rates than when COVID infections were more widespread (i.e. later in the pandemic).

Not only this, but also the more transmissible strains hadn’t yet taken hold then when Pfizer and Moderna ran their tests, but had when J&J did and (more importantly) have been more dominant for longer in all of the places where the AZ version is primarily being administered.

##### Share on other sites

@ Zap & INow

No doubt there's some effect on the numbers from testing at different times or places, or using different methods, but that's still quite a difference, 62 vs 94/96%.

One in the 90s seemed to indicate effectiveness against the UK strain where it was dominant.

"Pfizer and BioNTech said Thursday that their vaccine is 94 percent effective against asymptomatic cases after the second dose. The finding is significant because the latest analysis was performed when over 80 percent of Israel’s COVID-19 cases were from the U.K. variant B.117 , indicating that the vaccine is highly effective against this variant."

I'm not sure how they would have achieved that result though...exposed vaccinated individuals to known asymptomatic cases?

##### Share on other sites

There are also numbers for hospitalization and deaths, in addition to the asymptomatic cases.

100% effectiveness is pretty good, IMO.

Although AstraZeneca’s vaccine has been authorized in more than 50 countries, it has not yet been given the green light in the U.S. The U.S. study comprised more than 30,000 volunteers, of whom two-thirds were given the vaccine while the rest got dummy shots.

In a statement, AstraZeneca said its COVID-19 vaccine had a 79% efficacy rate at preventing symptomatic COVID and was 100% effective in stopping severe disease and hospitalization. Investigators said the vaccine was effective across all ages, including older people — which previous studies in other countries had failed to establish.

##### Share on other sites
• 3 weeks later...
On 3/18/2021 at 7:12 AM, beecee said:

Despite things being pretty well OK in Australia with regards to covid 19, I will be receiving my astrazeneca  jab within the next week or two.

The rough figures I heard is that with something like 17 million injections given in Europe, 30 or so have had some sort of side effect, noting that not all these side effects have been shown to be a result of the vaccination. I have no qualms about the OK given by the AMA [Australian Medical Association]

Had my first jab about a week ago now...a slight fever that night, but OK in the morning. Next jab around end of June.

To me science appears to be wanting to be seen as "doing the right thing" in there general honest approach to these vaccines, and being upfront with the fact that a very small tiny minority 'may" be at risk with more serious complications like this clotting issue. They are of course 100% doing the right thing, but in doing so, have imo created some fear among the general populace now. The authorities in Australia have reacted and now are "suggesting" that under 50's take the Physer vaccine if they are overly concerned.

I may walk outside my house this morning and get hit by a bus, although my street is not a bus route!

When I got my jab [and as is the custom here] my past medical history is considered, my blood pressure is taken, temperature, and a compulsory 15 minute wait time after the jab, just in case.

## Create an account

Register a new account