[Altavia]

On Twitter, Dr. Stephanie Graff, director of Clinical Research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HCA Midwest Health, shared an infographic placing the risk of blood clots from the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in context with other common causes of blood clots. The risk of blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine is lower than that from birth control pills and smoking, and COVID itself leads to high prevalence of blood clotting.

[retiredguy123]

Yes, but it may be too late to explain the odds that most people cannot comprehend. When there are two other vaccines available that do the same thing, who will opt for the the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine?

[DeanFL]

.
.
The CDC and the US Food and Drug Administration a day earlier recommended the US pause the use of the single-shot J&J vaccine after "six reported US cases of a rare and severe type of blood clot." The six cases were among more than 6.8 million Americans who have received a dose of that vaccine.

"Less than 1 in a million," Dr. Anthony Fauci noted Tuesday during a White House briefing.

All six cases were among women between the ages of 18 and 48, the agencies said in a statement, and symptoms occurred six to 13 days after vaccination. The recommendation to pause comes out of "an abundance of caution," they added, and these cases "appear to be extremely rare."
.
.
I always feel that the trem "abundance of caution" is so overused lately, and perhaps in this matter as well.
example>

The odds of becoming a lightning victim in the U.S. in any one year is 1 in 700,000. The odds of being struck in your lifetime is 1 in 3,000. Lightning can kill people (3,696 deaths were recorded in the U.S.).

IMO - this "pause" will provide MUCH MORE fodder for those anti-vaccine folks, and will eventually kill more Amercians than the 1/1,000,000...
.
.

[Arctic Fox]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Yes, but it may be too late to explain the odds that most people cannot comprehend. When there are two other vaccines available that do the same thing, who will opt for the the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine?

If the choice were Astra-Zeneca now or a different one in a week (due to current supply constraints) I would choose AZ now, although I do agree that many might not.

The number of potential deaths that could arise from NOT using AZ (or J&J) for a few weeks while they do testing (that has already been done by reputable research teams around the World) does not bear thinking about.

Why not just limit their use to those who aren't at risk (those who don't have low platelet levels)?

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by Robbie0723

On Twitter, Dr. Stephanie Graff, director of Clinical Research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HCA Midwest Health, shared an infographic placing the risk of blood clots from the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in context with other common causes of blood clots. The risk of blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine is lower than that from birth control pills and smoking, and COVID itself leads to high prevalence of blood clotting.

6 out of 6,000,000 is almost zero (the intent is not to minimize the 6 individuals).

Is/was the expectation zero?

The all too frequent whip lash changes in directions and communications related to covid generate suspicion (of agendas).

[Two Bills]

This was published on BBC last week.
Another interesting fact regarding the risk of AZ. was, you are more at risk of blood clotting from long haul flights than this vaccine.
There have been 79 blood-clotting cases alongside low levels of platelets in the UK, of whom 19 have died, in over 20 million vaccinations.

[blueash]

If you are going to attempt to prove how safe the vaccine is by comparing it to other death risks, then you ought to learn how to present death rate data, unless of course your goal is to mislead the reader.

The reason for the pause is that there is a 1 in a million rate in a ONE WEEK reporting period. If you wish to point out that the death rate for lightning is 1 in 700,000 per year then you must if you are correctly using the data, tell us what the rate is for a one week period. As there are 52 weeks in a year, the rate is 1 in (52 times 700,000) or 1 per 36 million per week. So the clot rate is 36 times greater than the lightning rate. We do not know the clot risk associated with vaccine at any other time period yet. We have no reports but that is not the same as no risk.

If smoking one cigarette had a clot rate of one in a million that is a very different statistic from the risk from smoking thousands of cigarettes. Similarly for contraceptives.

The reported clots are entirely different than those caused by long air flights which are clots which form usually in the lower leg and potentially break free and travel to the lungs. The reported clots are of a clot in what is essentially a large vein in the brain where the clot is associated with a significant decrease in platelets, a cell in your blood that makes your blood clot when you are cut. The treatment for the typical leg clot is heparin acutely. However, with these brain clots heparin is not what the patient should get, and the heparin will make you worse or kill you.

As of April 12, more than 6.8 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson (Janssen ) vaccine have been administered in the U.S. CDC and FDA are reviewing data involving six reported U.S. cases of a rare and severe type of blood clot in individuals after receiving the J&J vaccine. In these cases, a type of blood clot called cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) was seen in combination with low levels of blood platelets (thrombocytopenia). All six cases occurred among women between the ages of 18 and 48, and symptoms occurred 6 to 13 days after vaccination. Treatment of this specific type of blood clot is different from the treatment that might typically be administered. Usually, an anticoagulant drug called heparin is used to treat blood clots. In this setting, administration of heparin may be dangerous, and alternative treatments need to be given.

A Dutch article reports the annual rate of CVST of 13.2 per 1 million adults. That would translate to 13.2 divided by 52 to get the weekly rate 1/4 case per million per week. So the rate reported is 4 times the background rate in that study. The rate was higher in women than men and over 1/2 the cases in women were patients on oral contraceptives or pregnant.

A 2018 review article says the background rate is much smaller, only 3 to four cases per million

Very importantly all the cases reported to the CDC are women 18 and 48. While it is too soon to know as the sex finding may be random, this suggests that women are far more at risk of the clot complication. Other factors may be at play. Were they on oral contraceptives or pregnant both of which increase the risk.

Pausing the J & J vaccine is prudent. It may be that the ultimate recommendation be that woman in the childbearing age range not use this vaccine if other choices are available.

[champion6]

Originally Posted by Robbie0723

On Twitter, Dr. Stephanie Graff, director of Clinical Research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HCA Midwest Health, shared an infographic placing the risk of blood clots from the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in context with other common causes of blood clots. The risk of blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine is lower than that from birth control pills and smoking, and COVID itself leads to high prevalence of blood clotting.

Interesting, but irrelevant. AstraZeneca's vaccine has not yet been rolled out in the U.S. as the FDA has only authorized the use of vaccines developed by Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson.

[Altavia]

This prudent/overabundance of caution is likely to have far greater negative impact on public health due to reducing vaccine acceptance and delaying vaccinations.

[Altavia]

Originally Posted by blueash

A Dutch article reports[/URL] the annual rate of CVST of 13.2 per 1 million adults. That would translate to 13.2 divided by 52 to get the weekly rate 1/4 case per million per week. So the rate reported is 4 times the background rate in that study.

Sorry, you lost me here?

52 in 52 million is still 1 per million?

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by blueash

If you are going to attempt to prove how safe the vaccine is by comparing it to other death risks, then you ought to learn how to present death rate data, unless of course your goal is to mislead the reader.

I was trying to mislead no one.
I simply posted an article from a BBC report, that was putting into perspective the risk from AZ vaccine.
No doubt there will a similar reports regarding the JJ vaccine that has same problem.
I leave the heavy lifting to others.

[Bill14564]

Your data was good and the comparisons were fair. Recent numbers I have seen are 169 cases in 34M people (about 5 per million) for AZ and 6 cases in 6.8M (a little less than 1 per million) for J&J.

[asianthree]

Just asking....Why were so many outraged on the deaths of Covid, and yet the deaths from a possible vaccine issue seems frivolous. It is still a death no matter the amount

[stanley]

If anyone believes there were only six that died from clots I really need to find the title to that bridge I want to sell.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by stanley

If anyone believes there were only six that died from clots I really need to find the title to that bridge I want to sell.

Well, in the US, it's only 1 who died... So...