I haven't looked into the AstraZeneca vaccine much before this, so this is based on general knowledge, and a cursory glance. I've listed a number of scary things, but I can't say anything about the actual probability of anything bad happening. Uncertainty is definitely an issue with all of these vaccines, but that doesn't mean it may not be overall a benefit, just that there's risk.
--
Some former vaccines have caused ADE (Antibody-Dependant Enhancement). This is where the antibodies produced increase the disease, and produce an extreme immune response when later exposed to the virus, or one similar to it. https://archive.vn/x9iiE
Trials are very important to prove the effectiveness, and check for any potential side effects (including ADE). None of the covid-19 vaccines have had close to enough duration of testing by standard measures. They are all rushed, and therefore any potential effects that will only show up / become obvious years later are not known. Otherwise, it's a matter of significance in how many people included in the study, how many actually became infected, what the included demographics were (and which weren't included), and what the general integrity of the measures used (was it double-blind, etc.) Here's a WIRED article that mentions a number of issues with the AstraZeneca trials https://archive.vn/esJMJ. I only took a quick glance, and like I said, I haven't looked into the AstraZeneca vaccine before (or its studies) so it's worth doing your own research on this. There are important problems with the trials. A cursory search shows different efficacy amounts (60-75%). Efficacy is the reduction of the disease in the most favorable conditions / best case scenario. The mRNA 'vaccines' efficacy seemed to be bullshit from what I could gather. I don't know enough to make a judgement call on this one. The duration of any immunity produced through the vaccine is also unknown, as is immunity from getting the virus normally.
The makers of all Sars Cov 2 vaccines are immune from liabilities. A senior executive at Astra, Ruud Dobber, said to Reuters, "This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in ... four years the vaccine is showing side effects."
The CDC has something called VAERS (The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) that you can look through. https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html This is a video of someone going through it: https://odysee.com/@AnonymousAficionado:9/trim.EF462943-C28E-45AA-B0DF-3DCE0CE832F4:0 In your case, you'd want to specify the AstraZeneca vaccine. These are not all cases of adverse reactions (potentially less than 1%), and cases without adverse reactions are obviously not included.
For your family member, their unique circumstances also matter. What is their exposure to the main virus, and variants? Do they have any health conditions that may make a potential infection more deadly? If they had former disease could it have left lasting damage in a related area (like the lungs)?
The CDC lists a weekly count of deaths related/unrelated to covid-19, and also comorbidities (table 3) for deaths listed as covid-19: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm Note that there are financial incentives for hospitals to list someone as having died of covid, so the belief that someone has covid, or a positive test for sars2 (that at least previously have been too sensitive - including those with too low amounts to have effect, or may have become immune by the time of the test).
There are also other things that can be done. Zinc seems to show a reduction in virus reproduction. UV can kill the virus, so letting sunlight in is good. There seems to be a correlation with lack of vitamin D and more severe infections, I don't know if there is a causation effect, but it's worth ensuring a proper amount anyway. There are also drugs like HQC that show positive signs in heavily reducing severity of infection if taken early enough. The lancet study that was used to discredit HQC was retracted https://archive.vn/esJMJ, and some doctors swear by drug, but he/she should talk to their own doctor about it, or other potential alternative drugs. Not trying to push HQC, it is just one of the drugs some doctors are using.
--
This isn't an easy situation. You have my sympathy.
I haven't looked into the AstraZeneca vaccine much before this, so take that into account. I've listed a number of scary things, but I can't say anything about the actual probability of anything bad happening. I've only done a quick look into the vaccine and added what else I know may be an issue. Uncertainty is definitely an issue with all of these vaccines, but that doesn't mean it may not be overall a benefit, just that there's risk.
--
Some former vaccines have caused ADE (Antibody-Dependant Enhancement). This is where the antibodies produced increase the disease, and produce an extreme immune response when later exposed to the virus, or one similar to it. https://archive.vn/x9iiE
Trials are very important to prove the effectiveness, and check for any potential side effects (including ADE). None of the covid-19 vaccines have had close to enough duration of testing by standard measures. They are all rushed, and therefore any potential effects that will only show up / become obvious years later are not known. Otherwise, it's a matter of significance in how many people included in the study, how many actually became infected, what the included demographics were (and which weren't included), and what the general integrity of the measures used (was it double-blind, etc.) Here's a WIRED article that mentions a number of issues with the AstraZeneca trials https://archive.vn/esJMJ. I only took a quick glance, and like I said, I haven't looked into the AstraZeneca vaccine before (or its studies) so it's worth doing your own research on this.
A cursory search shows different efficacy amounts (60-75%). Efficacy is the reduction of the disease in the most favorable conditions / best case scenario. The mRNA 'vaccines' efficacy seemed to be bullshit from what I could gather. I don't know enough to make a judgement call on this one.
The makers of all Sars Cov 2 vaccines are immune from liabilities. A senior executive at Astra, Ruud Dobber, said to Reuters, "This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in ... for years the vaccine is showing side effects."
The CDC has something called VAERS (The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) that you can look through. https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html This is a video of someone going through it: https://odysee.com/@AnonymousAficionado:9/trim.EF462943-C28E-45AA-B0DF-3DCE0CE832F4:0 In your case, you'd want to specify the AstraZeneca vaccine. These are not all cases of adverse reactions (potentially less than 1%), and cases without adverse reactions are obviously not included.
For your family member, their unique circumstances also matter. What is their exposure to the main virus, and variants? Do they have any health conditions that may make a potential infection more deadly? If they had former disease could it have left lasting damage in a related area (like the lungs)?
There are also other things that can be done. Zinc seems to show a reduction in virus reproduction. UV can kill the virus, so letting sunlight in is good. There seems to be a correlation with lack of vitamin D and more severe infections, I don't know if there is a causation effect, but it's worth ensuring a proper amount anyway. There are also drugs like HQC that show positive signs in heavily reducing severity of infection if taken early enough. The lancet study that was used to discredit HQC was retracted https://archive.vn/esJMJ, and some doctors swear by drug, but he/she should talk to their own doctor about it, or other potential alternative drugs. Not trying to push HQC, it is just one of the drugs some doctors are using.