Shona Craven: It’s not scaremongering to weigh up vaccine risks

I lost count of the number of lists and infographics I’ve seen shared on social media, pointing out to those concerned about the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine that if they are taking the pill they already face a significantly elevated risk of developing a blood clot. They present stats that suggest the risk associated with the vaccine is trivial by comparison – but fail to mention that they are comparing apples and oranges, ie the risk of developing any sort of blood clot vs the specific, rare and serious ones that have been linked to the vaccine.

On the radio I heard an expert state that the benefits of vaccination “infinitely” outweighed those of vaccine side-effects. “Infinitely?” I thought. The risks may be significantly lower, but that’s not the same thing. And are we talking about the risks to an individual or aggregated risks across the population as a whole? Because if there’s one thing everyone knows by now, it’s that a person’s age and sex have a significant impact on their chances of having a serious or fatal case of Covid-19.

Women who should have known better got involved in this widespread “calm down, dears” campaign, only for many to abruptly change their tune when the UK Government announced it would aim to offer everyone under 30 a choice about which vaccine they received. This is based on the available evidence about serious blood clots in people who had recently had the AstraZenica jag, the majority of whom were women.

Suddenly there was a clamour for more information. Now that risk/benefit data was being disaggregated by age, and displayed in charts on TV, why wasn’t the same being done for sex? What was being done to investigate why women seemed to be more vulnerable to this deadly side-effect?

It was a dizzying pivot by those who hours earlier were downplaying vaccine-related fears and telling women to do the maths and roll up their sleeves. The explanation for what may look like greater risks for women – that more of them have so far received the vaccine than men, due to nursing and caring being female-dominated – was lost amid the clamour for more data.

READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon says she will be 'absolutely happy' to have AstraZeneca Covid vaccine

Part of the problem here is that thanks to the spread of anti-vaxx conspiracy theories, many people are on a hair-trigger when it comes to potential vaccine-related scaremongering. The result is an over-correction when anyone expresses the slightest doubt or concern about side-effects, and a bout of what might be called complacency-mongering.

Actually, many women won’t have felt reassured by being told that since they were already putting themselves at risk, they needn’t bother reading any vaccine small print. Not so much in for a penny, in for a pound as in for a pound, in for £1.01, or £1.001, £1.0001, or whatever sum accurately conveys the true additional risk. God knows it’s not easy to determine the true figure amid all the “vaccines are safe, ladies” noise.

One male doctor tweeted some comparative stats for “serious blood clots” and asked how much time women spent “wracking their brains” over their decision to take the pill – earning himself more than 20,000 likes – only to follow up by saying “if any of the stats are wrong or out of date, I’m sorry. These are the most up to date in my head.” I’m guessing that actually, most women do research their contraceptive choices and weigh up their options, rather than just going by whatever information already happens to be in their heads. Women are used to pressing for more options, discussing reproductive healthcare with friends and doing their own research online.

If women decide to take the pill, it’s because for them the benefits (which can include not just pregnancy prevention but also relief from painful periods and a reduction in PMS symptoms) outweigh the risks. A woman makes the choice that is right for her. A straight comparison with choices being made by healthy young women about Covid-19 vaccination – which is about not just personal benefits but societal ones – is flawed.

A decision that might look like a no-brainer for those in middle age is less clear-cut for the next generation. The lower benefits of vaccination for young people must be balanced against the (also low) potential risk associated with one specific vaccine. If the UK didn’t have access to other options, the judgement call around this would have been much trickier. But it does, so it’s realistic to offer under-30s a choice. The problem now is that those over 30 may hesitate to accept the “AZ vaccine” (note the “Oxford” part being quietly dropped) because while the benefits to them may outweigh the risks, who wouldn’t prefer a safer type of jag?

It’s all about keeping risks in perspective. Those who shared statistics about the pill no doubt thought that’s what they were promoting, but a one-jag-suits-all message was unhelpful. By all means let’s have a conversation about how poorly served women are when it comes to reproductive healthcare, but that’s a separate issue from carrying out clear-headed benefit/risk analysis as the vaccination roll-out continues.