They have temporarily suspended to investigate the possibility - because it's better to err on the side of caution than be reckless.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-denmark/denmark-suspends-astrazeneca-covid-shots-for-two-weeks-after-blood-clot-reports-idUSKBN2B319K

thanks for clarifying that

I wonder what the probability of you getting a blood clot from taking the AstraZeneca shot is versus the probability of you getting Covid by not taking an AstraZeneca shot? There'll always be some sort of risk involved.

Maybe I should never cross a road again as there's a possibility I'll get hit by a bus? Good Grief!

Oh! I had no after effects when I got my AstraZeneca shot.

Be safe, Play Bonny!

Just read about after-covid life. Well there is no such thing. Virus will stay forever with us. Even if pandemia will cease in coming two, three years (yes), it may as well reappear after say next fifteen years. With new strains, new illnesses etc. Just like any other virus. I think heard immunity is only something like in case of flu. But to reach this it may require generations. One hundred years? Perhaps even more. We wish our life back - but it is not possible.

https://www.stoptheclot.org/blood-cl...united-states/

It's more like the trolley problem: it's "better" to let thousands of people die from covid rather than kill a few dozen with the vaccine.

AstraZeneca have been very good about stopping and investigating suspected reactions, and informing folks, whereas Pfizer has been more inclined to brush them aside with remarks like "People with severe allergies should not take this." It's certainly better for sales, if not for people.

The 'blood clots' have been investigated rapidly here in Europe, and everyone is resuming vaccinations with the Astrazeneca vaccine. Comparisons between the U.S & EU are not helpful and prove little as the food policies, techniques and standards are all tempting 'tangent bait.' But if we remember the last (closed) thread, and why it was closed, we'll keep this strictly on Covid.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are made from naked RNA, something we have not seen or used before. The vaccine solution has to contain various chemicals that stabilise that RNA, so the risk of an allergic reaction is greater than for traditional vaccines like the AstroZeneca one which are based on living or dead viruses. On the other hand, RNA vaccines have the huge advantage that they can be quickly edited to cope with new variants.

So far, we have not had any real problems in this line and I don't expect any now but Pfizer were quite right to be cautious initially.

@ ntubski
Not sure about your trolley quote: Should that possibly read:
Maybe I'm missing something subtle in your post.
Interesting conundrum though!

Play Bonny!

The trolley problem is a famous ethical conundrum. A railway carriage has got loose and is thundering down the line towards a group of people. You can save them by switching the points, so that the trolley only crashes into one person. But most people will not deliberately sacrifice that one person. They seem to feel that it's better for more people to die because they just happened to be unlucky, than for fewer to be directly killed by their action.

Which I think is the point ntubski was making.

Yes, that was pretty much my point, but there are a few more details:

This isn't the case (in theory at least, not like anybody could test it for real):

But there are some variants with different results:
I think this maps pretty well to the pandemic situation (although there is a lot more uncertainty about the outcomes). Death caused from lockdowns are much more indirect, so it seems fine to use lockdowns to save lives. Deaths from vaccines are relatively direct, so a lot more effort is made to avoid that, even at the risk of possibly letting more people die overall.

Isn't that what one of the state governors were advocating somewhere in the US of A; let the old people die from covid to save the young or some such - ie. to avoid the lockdowns/restrictions? (I think it might have been the Texas governor from memory)

We remember Dr. Spock: (killing the one person) 'is logical,' surely. Why is it a conundrum?

Isn't this the same as saying you'd let more people die because you did nothing rather than being actually responsible for the death of one person by doing something?

That's why I see it as a conundrum. (= "a confusing and difficult problem or question". Ethically.)

Interesting...

Play Bonny!

Contradicting my last post: Apparently 3 people in Norway who had had the Astrazeneca shot died, so Europe has finally copped on and found another excuse to stop the vaccine rollout. Cue hand-wringing from Governments and serious words of caution from medics. Pass a grain of salt, pls.

A few have done a statistical check and decided there's nothing in it, and gone back to using the Astrazeneca shot. But the EU isn't Very 'U' on things like this so everyone is jumping through their own hoops. What makes it funny is that on Friday evening, our Taoiseach (pronounced 'Tee-shockh') was grilling the Astrazeneca boss on why we were getting so few shots, and on Sunday they stopped using that vaccine.

I can't help but wonder if this negative reaction to AstaZeneca was caused by some devious troll plan from a pharma competitor or Anti-Vax nutcases. The percentage of people likely to develop clotting under ANY circumstances (like diet) is 1/1000. So to transpose that number to reflect the number of AstraZeneca "clotters" (37) we should expect 37/37,000. In fact the number of "clotters" compared to those who've received AstraZeneca is roughly 37/17,000,000. Have the worry warts never heard of "betting with the odds"? I suspect some who are worried about the vaccine, do so while eating unhealthy diets and lacking in exercise. That'd be like me, a smoker, worrying that it could cause cancer or a heart attack.