AstraZeneca and the Pill: why media reporting poses a greater risk than blood clots

Covid19 itself presents a greater risk of blood clots than both AstraZeneca and the contraceptive pill combined, yet the media continues to amplify the risk of these preventative health measures disproportionately.

opinion editorial written in 2021 as part of a university assessment

Image of medical pills via Pexels

Since February 2020 when the pandemic began, the media has been saturated with information about Covid19. Every day there is more news from around the world; case numbers, deaths, restrictions, vaccination rates.  

This information seeps into our everyday conversations, shapes our opinions and ultimately, has a much greater impact on our decisions than we perhaps might think.

Globally, over 4 million people have already died from Covid19. Vaccination is a key step for protecting the international community on the roadmap towards a ‘Covid normal’ world, post pandemic.

Here in Australia however, there remains limited urgency to get vaccinated. In recent months especially, public willingness appears to have decreased due to media discourse about the risk of blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Example of Covid19 saturated media via Pexels

Since March 2021, a constant stream of information from the media has amplified a disproportionate fear of blood clots from the vaccine compared to the relative risk it presents. This has unfortunately been aided by poor messaging from the federal government who, in attempting to curb fears surrounding these clots, stated the vaccine was “safer than taking the combined oral contraceptive pill”.

Soon after, the government decided based on expert advice, the risk of blood clots posed by the AstraZeneca vaccine was too great, ruling it out as the vaccine of preference for those under 50.

This decision has since sparked controversy regarding the safety of the combined oral contraceptive pill. Thousands of women are currently prescribed the pill despite the risk of blood clots having increased since the product was first marketed, doubling between 1960-90 and doubling again between 1990-2015.

This discussion has seen significant media coverage in recent months, with unfortunate public health implications in both domains.

Two key concerns have from discussion 1) why is the pill safe, but not the vaccine; and 2) why is the messaging surrounding each so different? 

COMPARISON IS THE THIEF OF JOY

or in this case, the thief of effective health initiatives… 

Arguably, there are two reasons the messaging is so different – historic gender bias and the rise of modern media. The impact of each differs significantly depending on the time period each health initiative was developed.

In society a prevalent gender bias exists which underpins contemporary cultural norms. When the pill was first released in 1960 women’s health issues were rarely spoken about in mainstream conversation, still considered taboo. Initially, the product was only made available to married women and required a 27.5% luxury tax payment. 

While society has made significant cultural strides for women since the 1960’s, gender bias remains a significant influence in western medicine, a concept which is only now being recognised.

 In the past, women were often excluded from clinical studies, based on variation in hormone levels over the course of their menstrual cycle. Researchers were concerned these variations could potentially complicate results.

Male-only studies were justified by a belief that the results of these trials could be applied directly to women, without any repercussions. This attitude towards women and their health meant there was little information to the contrary and resulted in minimal pushback regarding women’s health initiatives such as the pill.

These attitudes have begun to be rejected and women included in more research trials. Cultural norms have also shifted to a point where women’s health is spoken about in mainstream media with much less stigma and taboo attached.

These factors play a major role in why the contraceptive pill was adopted with minimal pushback from women when released but is now seeing a reignited discussion regarding safety as western medicine course corrects past failings.

Image of women’s march highlighting shifting cultural attitudes via Pexels

MEDIA MADNESS

The second major distinction between 1960 and 2020 has been the rise of modern media, particularly the 24-hour news cycle. ‘Sensationalist’ news has proved a major challenge when implementing public health initiatives as we’ve seen with Covid19 and AstraZeneca.

In 1960 when the pill was released, there was a strong reliance on expert advice. People sought out doctors for health concerns as they had limited ability to access information themselves.

With globalisation and technology making information available anywhere and everywhere, health experts have been made more accessible in the global community. The unfortunate downside is expert opinions can be lost in the sensationalist 24-hour news cycle. The unsustainable demand of the 24-hour news cycle often results in rushed journalism that lacks robust research.

As readers consume these articles their behaviours are subconsciously influenced, especially if the incoming information aligns with their prior values. In fact, there is now evidence to suggest that media reports about vaccine hesitancy have actually increased vaccine hesitancy since March 2021.

Evidently, gender bias and the media can influence whether health initiatives are adopted by society.

PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE

 In recent months, fears about the risk of blood clotting from the pill and AstraZeneca have been heightened disproportionately compared to the actual risk they pose, with the help of the media. Carefully critiquing how this risk is reported is key to minimising potentially disastrous public health consequences.

Image of thorough research via Pexels

According to the Australian Department of Health, between 5-12/10,000 contraceptive pill users will get a blood clot and with a very low fatality rate for those that do.

The likelihood of getting a clot from AstraZeneca is much lower than the pill - approximately one in 88000 people. While Europe indicated a 20% fatality rate, currently in Australia this rate is approximately 4%.

In perspective, people are between 25-28 times more likely to die in a car accident than from a blood clot related to the pill or AstraZeneca.

Those who test positive for Covid19 infection have a 41% chance of developing a blood clot and this figure rises to 95% with severe disease.  

Importantly, the chance of dying after getting a blood clot from Covid19 is significantly higher than both AstraZeneca and the pill, combined.

Using this data, it is evident the media has intensified fear of blood clots when, in reality, they present minimal risk. The pros of getting AstraZeneca or taking the pill far outweigh the risk of getting a potentially fatal blood clot.

HEALTHY STEPS FOR THE FUTURE

So, firstly we need to step back and examine our own biases in order to improve health initiatives for everyone, whether that be gender or cognitive or else.

Secondly, everyone is different and the above statistics will not be applicable to all but, seeking out expert opinions when making decisions about health is paramount.  

Finally, and most importantly, we need to be much more critical of the media. As a collective we need to cast a critical eye over the information presented and use our voice to demand thorough investigative journalism supported by expert opinions and robust evidence if we want to be able to effectively implement public health initiatives and reach our new normal.