[munk-a]

Just to clarify - that is false. It is generally advisable to get Moderna/Pfizer if they're available and you're a young woman but the chance of mortal thrombosis is around 5 per one million. The EU recommends getting AZ over not receiving a vaccine if that is the only option available to you[1] - though at this point there should be a sufficient supply of alternatives.

1. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-vaccine-astrazene...

[incrudible]

> Just to clarify - that is false.

It isn't false, though the blanket "it was banned" statement lacks context:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford%E2%80%93AstraZeneca_COV...

> It is generally advisable to get Moderna/Pfizer if they're available and you're a young woman but the chance of mortal thrombosis is around 5 per one million.

No, the risk for anyone to develop a lethal thrombosis is roughly 5 per million. The chances are much higher for younger women, to the point where it exceeds the risk to die of COVID.

[Pyramus]

Again, that is false.

It's not even close, for women age 20-29 the risk of fatal thrombosis is 1:250k, while Covid is somewhere around 1:25k [1]. That's a whole order of magnitude.

The risk/benefit ratio of AZ vaccine is only poor when the risk of exposure is very low [2].

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2918-0/figures/2

[2] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

[incrudible]

> It's not even close, for women age 20-29 the risk of fatal thrombosis is 1:250k

I have yet to find a source that gives the risk for that cohort.

> ...while Covid is somewhere around 1:25k

Even if it's an order of magnitude higher, the risk of a actually getting a PCR-confirmed infection is an order of magnitude lower.

Again, Germany: 28 deaths of women in that age group over the course of the pandemic[1], including all potential co-morbidities that may tilt the risk in favor of vaccination.

> The risk/benefit ratio of AZ vaccine is only poor when the risk of exposure is very low.

This is comparing "ICU admissions" against "Serious harms due to the vaccine". Utter nonsense. Why not compare mortality? Probably because it wouldn't look too good...

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105512/coronavirus-covi...

[Pyramus]

> I have yet to find a source that gives the risk for that cohort.

The data is publicly available for many countries, e.g. here for the UK:

[1] Report on adverse reactions until 16 Jun 2021 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid...

[2] Vaccination statistics https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas...

Check the table with reports and fatalities by age, and the paragraph interpreting the data. Together with [2] you can calculate the fatality rate for the 20-29 group. In the end you'll end up with a fatality rate for women age 20-19 in the range of 1:150k-300k (quick back of the envelope calculation).

> Even if it's an order of magnitude higher, the risk of a actually getting a PCR-confirmed infection is an order of magnitude lower.

The source I posted is a metastudy, computing IFR based on seroprevalence from many different countries, so PCR tests have nothing to do with it.

[incrudible]

> Check the table with reports and fatalities by age, and the paragraph interpreting the data. Together with [2] you can calculate the fatality rate for the 20-29 group. In the end you'll end up with a fatality rate for women age 20-19 in the range of 1:150k-300k (quick back of the envelope calculation).

I really can't, because there is no information on which age group got which vaccine. The AstraZeneca vaccine has been restricted in the UK for under-30-year-olds as early as April.

Here is a study (Italy) that estimates the risk-reward ratio (fatalities caused vs. prevented) is unfavorable for the entire below-30 age group, including males:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.07.21256826v...

> The source I posted is a metastudy, computing IFR based on seroprevalence from many different countries, so PCR tests have nothing to do with it.

This is true, but PCR tests is how we count actual infections and deaths. When calculating the risk of getting infected, IFR alone doesn't help me, I need PCR tests as a metric of how many infections are actually occuring.

Alternatively, I could use seroprevalence: Assuming that seroprevalence is 10% (way higher than in your somewhat outdated source), then over the course of the pandemic, assuming IFR in our cohort is 1:25K, then the absolute risk was 1:250K - roughly on par with the "vaccine fatality" scenario. This is just an example to show that the numbers aren't clearly in favor of the vaccine.