The clots were associated with low platelet counts, and haematologists at the frontline of treating and researching the cases believed the over-activation of platelets that was being seen in the cases of mostly cerebral thrombosis may be being triggered by an antibody reaction to the AstraZeneca jab.
While countries in Europe suspended the vaccine until investigations took place, Australia’s health chiefs insisted there was unlikely to be a problem. “I just want to make it very clear that here in Australia, safety is our first priority, and in any large vaccine rollout we do expect to see unusual events, and we monitor very closely and carefully for those,” Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly said.
“But this does not mean that an event that happens after vaccination has been given is due to that vaccine. In this situation I can absolutely say I remain confident that the AstraZeneca vaccine (is) safe, and that there is, at this point, no evidence that it causes blood clots.”
The Therapeutic Goods Administration and the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation similarly emphasised that blood clots were common and there was no evidence of a link with the jab.
Now, weeks later, Australians have been told a link is probable, and on the basis of risk versus benefit — given Australia has no COVID-19 in the community — the Pfizer jab is now preferred for those aged under 50.
The disparity between these two pieces of information has left the Australian public confused. It is clear that any risk posed by the AstraZeneca vaccine is so remote that you have almost as great a chance of being hit by lightning as developing an unusual blood clot associated with the vaccine. The clots occur at an estimated rate of four to six in one million.
While our health chiefs did not have the full picture of incidence and evidence of causation, it would have been prudent to acknowledge from the start these unusual cases of clots, which never were any ordinary clots, may have been a safety signal.
The public accepts that all medicines are associated with some level of risk, usually remote.
Scott Morrison got the message right when he described the AstraZeneca jab on Friday as a lifesaver. The vaccine almost certainly won’t give you a blood clot, but there’s a far higher chance that it could save your life.
However, it is possible to convey the message that the vaccine is a lifesaver while also acknowledging that no medicine is without risk.
Instead, having failed to provide the emerging facts on the blood clot issue in favour of blanket assurances of safety, the government faces a difficult task in getting the public to now trust its health messaging.
The vast majority of people understand the risk-benefit equation, and how far the benefit of the vaccine outweighs any infinitesimal risk. But giving an impression that vaccines may be a type of medicine that carry no risk at all is not helpful, and it does not treat the public with the credit they deserve.
WA Libs vote to scrap welcome-to-country, net-zero targets
The moves pile further pressure on Opposition Leader Sussan Ley as she faces a growing Coalition uprising among the party’s dominant conservative faction.
Australia’s PBS must ‘absolutely’ be protected, says Kennedy medical adviser
The chief medical adviser to Make America Healthy Again campaign has defended Australia’s PBS, as the Trump administration comes under pressure to drag the pharmaceuticals program into tariff negotiations.
It was immediately clear to many doctors that the handful of rare incidents of a very particular type of blood-clotting following the AstraZeneca vaccine that were being reported in Europe was a signal of something unusual.