> UK where politicians wrapped the vaccine in union jack and hitched it to Brexit bandwagon for jignoistic reasons

Something I have learnt from the whole AZ business is how much media bias affects your thought process, even on topics which appear to be reported relatively neutrally.

Here in the UK, the implicit messaging I've picked up from the media is that EU politicians have been briefing against AZ in order to discredit Brexit. One (fairly similar) country over, and you've received entirely the opposite message.

In my opinion, the media and European politicians are responsible for this vaccine skepticism. You reap what you sow.

The politicians banned the vaccine despite there not being scientific evidence to suggest that was a reasonable choice. The media in Europe hyped this up massively.

In the UK, neither of these things happened, and despite there being some degree of skepticism, the vast majority of people are still willing to have the AZ jab.

Under 30s in UK are not recommended AZ jab

Its same in other countries ranging from no restriction to restriction being to anything up to under 60s

not recommended is not same as "banned" stop reading UK tabloids.

Hang on, I don’t think it’s “not recommended” to under 30s. I think under 30s are just given the choice of an alternative vaccine, if they’d like it.

In many EU countries, the vaccine was banned for large segments of the population for extended periods of time.

> In many EU countries, the vaccine was banned for large segments of the population for extended periods of time.

Also happened in Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Norway, Iceland, and some African countries.

Yes, and it was just as incorrect/unscientific in those places too, but we’re discussing the EU here.

> but we’re discussing the EU here.

Yes I know. You seem to be insinuating that it's all the EUs fault, and so I wanted to provide a bit of perspective.

Supply of AZ is so limited in the EU that the EU can afford to be more conservative with recommendations; it's not like de facto restricting AZ to 60-75 (common in European countries) actually slows down vaccination, because there isn't enough AZ available to vaccinate that age group anyway; even if all the AZ is dedicated to it it some of that cohort end up getting Pfizer.

> To be honest here in Ireland where majority of vaccinations have been Pfizer people seemed to stop caring about AZ

That's the case now that Pfizer supply has been ramped up, but our vaccine program would be far more progressed if AZ had delivered. Ireland was supposed to get about 1 million AZ doses in Q1, 3 million by end of Q2. Actual number delivered so far is more like 300k.

It's split: Hesitation is for sure here, on the other hand plenty people in age ranges its not recommended for here decide to get it anyways. (Here in Germany its not recommended for <60, but not forbidden to be used)

Yes, but if anything should happen to you because of a non-recommended vaccine you are on your own for treatment and disability pay.

in the US maybe?

No, Germany: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ifsg/__60.html

Don't know about the US situation.

I'm reading this but the "non-recommended" part is kinda tricky.

It would be one thing to, let's say, get vaccinated with a non-approved vaccine and claim damage, otherwise, unless, let's say AZ is excluded and maybe simply not "preferred" then it should be ok - as per 1. 1. which ok uses "empfohlen" (recommended/endorsed) so maybe it could be argued but I think it's more in favour of being in the scope rather than not

The "empfohlen" (recommended) in the law is usually fulfilled by the vaccination being officially recommended in the vaccination list by the STIKO of the RKI (roughly the vaccine working group of the German disease control office). But the STIKO very explicitly does not recommend AZ under the age of 60.

The Laender (states) may also recommend a vaccine, deviating from the federal STIKO recommendation. But they didn't really do that either, the wording is always very unclear and weasely around AZ. In several press statements, the phrase "auf eigene Gefahr" (at your own peril) has also occured. So I would wait for a clarification.

Edit: medical professionals seem similarly confused about the matter, KVNO is very roughly speaking a doctors guild: https://coronavirus.nrw/haftungsausschluss-bei-impfung-mit-a...

But the other vaccines also slightly elevate the chance of blood clotting. To less than the elevation caused by the contraceptive pill.

The way I understood it these blood clots are a different kind of blood clot, and almost always deadly. But the amounts of "accepted" blood clots with the contraceptive pill are quite horrific.

The vaccine clots killed 19/76 cases or something like that in the last report, so not exactly “always deadly”

I believe a lot of people are missing the point here that you can choose whether or not to the take the pill. Many women I know choose not to take it because of health side effects. The issue of side effects with vaccines is a lot of people feel like they are being coerced through talk of vaccine passports and other measures.

---

Why not mention the very negative mentions of AZ by macron and merkel? Macron even wanted to stop all foreign vaccines and rely on some French one.

I have no love for Putin or Johnson but this most certainly wasn’t down to just their politics. EU leaders are massively at fault here with their rhetoric too.

This is your brain on the Daily Mail, I think... There is no approved French vaccine.

Macron wanted to use this vaccine as a matter of national pride. He talked down Astrazeneca because of it: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/26/french-self-es...

Things have changed a lot since then, it's been forgotten.

I'm not sure how you're getting that from that article (which doesn't even _mention_ AZ). If France had wanted to specifically use a French vaccine it would presumably have pursued an independent purchasing model, like the UK and Hungary.

I'm still waiting too see long term effects of all adenovirus based vaccines. I'm kinda estimating there to be an increased risk of strokes overall.

But I'm constantly baffled at Germany's vaccine response. Remember that Pfizer's vaccine is developed by the German company and that the president of the European commission used to be Germany's Minister of Family/Labour and Defense.

But in a way that's a result of their arrogance, so well deserved in a way.

EDIT: Wow, the responses are seriously out of this world. The German health minister fumbled ordering fast testing kits. In fact Aldi, Germany's biggest cheap supermarket chain started distributing testing kits faster than the German government[1].

They fumbled through the mask ordering and distribution and by inventing a super complicated voucher that was delayed many times to allow for cheap masks[2].

One of Germanies most important health care organizations leaderships told people to make sure they know there is no mask mandate in the office[3], and that a running nose is not a reason to stay home. This is while there were statewide mask mandates and work at home encouragement elsewhere.

You're right that it doesn't matter where BioNtech is from. What does matter however is that they are considered more safe than any of the other vaccines, and that they delivered hundreds of millions of vaccines to the US and elsewhere.

Let's stop pretending that Germany didn't fumbled through every step of the pandemic, they bought AZ because it was cheap not out of solidarity to the US. They made the rules for the EU and are now looking at AZ as the scapegoat.

Did you guys already forget the Luca app nightmare?

[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-health-minister-jens...

[2] https://tkare.de/en/berechtigungsschein-the-new-voucher-for-...

[3] https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2021-04/kassenaerztl...

Arrogance. No. It is very simple: Germany does not have the concept of "National Security" and does not act like that. Germany has many big pharmaceuticals in the country. But guess what: We Germans searched a solution in a European context. We tried to not only vaccinate all of us but also everyone around us. We are exporting the shots all over the world (Canada as an example is supplied by Germany and not by the US).

And that European bureaucracy (consider spending taxpayers money) is screwing things (once in a while) up, is not a new thing.

I would call it naive and not arrogant.

Of course Germany has a concept of national security... and a large sphere of influence to protect that

And it's nothing to be ashamed about. E.g. see https://m.republicworld.com/world-news/rest-of-the-world-new...

Yes you are right. It is just very multi leveled and not directly a budget or law.

I think we are quite active on protecting our interests. Just enforcing a Germany first politic is a complete break from our public agenda.

As a German: this very belief that Germany does not have a concept of national security or national interests and that Germany alone can sacrifice and save the world is the new form of German arrogance.

As a fellow German: yeah, that is a reasonable statement. But you could also see as a idealistic dreamer.

But also: we see permanently how it does not work.

And also: I think we have a quite elaborate way of protecting our interests. Just the tools are so complex and the plans so multi leveled that we often fail.

Where it was invented is totally irrelevant to public discourse outside the UK.

What a seriously fucked up response to personally attack someone that made a statement based on existing research that YOU don't know about, just because YOU decided to divide the world into two people. Those that YOU think agree (which you conveniently labeled vaxers) and those that YOU disagree with. Not only that, but you don't even have the balls to actually use your account to write that incendiary comment.

It's fascinating that you dare say that given that I my content completely disproves your BS when I mentioned the BioNTech vaccine in the same paragraph.

This kind of sick narrative is exactly what made Trumps following grow so much. You are the two sides of the exact same coin that led to the hundreds of thousands of dead in the US.

"This platelet loss induced by Ad5 corresponded with increases in coagulation D-dimer levels, splenomegaly, and, later, production of megakaryocytes in the bone marrow. In contrast, these responses were blunted or ablated after injection of Ad-PEG. Ad5 activated both platelets and endothelial cells directly in vitro as evidenced by induction of P-selectin and the formation of von Willebrand factor-platelet strings and in vivo as evidenced by the induction of E-selectin messenger RNA"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17767399/

Respectfully, are you a doctor? I am not. That link is from 2007 and talks about a modified Adenovirus. There’s so much medical jargon in there that I can’t make any sense of it, let alone connect it to increased risk of strokes for an Adenovirus based COVID vaccine. I understand why vaccines can be scary but ask yourself this: is your unease based on a deep medical understanding of the subject matter, or an underbelly feeling?

In a dead comment, you state:

> Adenovirus vaccines are extremely common

I believe you may be confusing adenovirus vaccines and vaccines that use adenovisues as vectors. The former protects against adenovirus infection, the later uses an adenovirus as a vector to vaccinate against some other virus.

There is a sort of common adenovirus vaccine [1].

Adenovirus as a vector is new. There is an adenovirus vector Ebola virus that is approved. I think that is the only one. The only others deployed are for COVID under emergency use authorizations. There are several for other diseases in development, but the farthest along are still in clinical trials.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenovirus_vaccine

What the comment basically said is that adenovirus on it's own produced coagulation aka clotting, but that PEG wrapping decreases coagulation a lot. Therefore, a vaccine embedded in PEG, like those made by BioNTech and Moderna, should lead to less coagulation.