Katie Lees

"You are a sunset" – Clementine Ford

Copyright 2022 Katie Lees Family

Contents:

  • SILENCED – An Unspeakable Death Toll of the global COVID-19 pandemic
  • CONTEXT – A Summarised Timeline of tragic deaths as a result of the COVID-19 AstraZeneca vaccine
  • ACTION – Petition
  • The RISK-BENEFIT argument
  • Sexism and risk from AstraZeneca
  • The Australian Government’s response
  • Morrison pushes AstraZeneca
  • Katie’s vaccination experience
  • Katie’s tragic death was preventable by the current government
  • Moral responsibility to acknowledge deaths from AstraZeneca
  • Deaths are described differently depending on how they fit the story we want to hear
  • Disenfranchised grief
  • When we don’t support each other in loss, we all lose
  • ‘One in a million’ risk
  • Additional notes
  • Summary & suggested topics for royal commission in addition to petition

Media enquiries

Request contents as downloadable PDF or to publish by contacting us here. Longer internationally focussed timeline and more writing available. Copyright Katie Lees’ family.

SILENCED –
An Unspeakable Death Toll of the global COVID-19 pandemic

“I watched as the ICU nurse extracted the ventilator tubes out of my daughter’s lungs, throat and mouth. We had spent the previous three and a half days sitting beside her in neurological ICU, Katie deeply unconscious, an indent in her head where the doctors had had to remove a piece of her skull to relieve the pressure in her brain.

Now the moment of final good-bye was here. I had triggered the end of my daughter’s life with a gentle nod to the ICU nurse, Jenny. Jenny carefully completed her work and my daughter lay there still, with the rising and falling of her chest now stopped. After all the noise, phone calls and strain of the past three days, a weary silence settled over the room. The screen displaying heart rate and blood pressure had been turned off. The only display was body temperature. We watched as Katie’s body temperature slowly began to drop. My other daughter started to ask ‘how do we know..’, when the nurse came back in. I looked up at her.

‘Is she gone?’ I asked.

‘Yes, she has’

It was over. The pain and horror of the past three days was over. Katie’s life was over. It was 4.45pm Wednesday 4th August 2021. Our Katie was dead at just thirty-four years old. There were five of us gathered around her bed. Penny, Katie’s mother, Annika, Katie’s younger sister by two years, Jonathan, Katie’s younger brother by five years and Hamish, Katie’s younger brother by seven years. We merged together in a group embrace, sobbing. It felt totally unreal. As we gathered around Katie’s body we watched the temperature slowly dropping from living temperature of 36.5, to 34.2, to 31.0, and then slip into the high 20s and then the mid 20s until we couldn’t look at it anymore. It didn’t matter anymore.

A doctor slipped in through the curtains. He ran through the final checks required to declare Katie dead and to complete her death certificate. Time of death 4.59pm.

‘I’m done,’ said Annika.

I looked at Katie and could see why. It was now about 20 minutes or so since Katie had died and her skin colour was changing from her normal colour to a greying, almost green shade. This body was changing from Katie to a corpse.

We were all done. Slowly we filed out of the curtained off area around the bed. We thanked Jenny the nurse. She had been so kind and caring. The COVID enforced mask covered most of her face but her watering eyes showed her heart. We walked away from Katie for the last time. We walked out of the hospital doors and into the colours and cool air of an early August late afternoon. 5.30pm Wednesday 4th August 2021. Cars drove past. Hospital staff walked home at the end of the day. Joggers on St Johns Oval. People unloaded delivery vans. The world going on.

Katie’s death certificate confirm; cause of death as vaccine-induced thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome. Katie died from the AstraZeneca vaccine.”
– Ian Lees, Father of Katie Lees (deceased – 24.09.1989 – 04.08.2021)

By February 2022, eleven people tragically died from the COVID-19 AstraZeneca vaccine in Australia, 79 tragically in the UK, and more tragic fatalities linked to AstraZeneca have been reported in Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, and possibly other locations which are yet to be recorded/reported. The Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, also known as Vaxzevria, COVI-shield, and ChAdOx1-S,[1] has been administered in approximately one hundred and eighty-three countries[2] (the ABC reports 182 countries).[3]

[1] FOI 2494 document 3 p.99

[2] https://www.ncirs.org.au/covid-19/covid-19-vaccines-frequently-asked-questions

[3] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-02/charting-australias-covid-vaccine-rollout/13197518#dosescontinent  

CONTEXT –
A Summarised Timeline of tragic deaths as a result of the COVID-19 AstraZeneca vaccine

(excerpt below focuses on the risk of TTS from COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca in the Australian context, derived from a more detailed, longer international timeline)

Note on naming conventions: COVID-19 AstraZeneca vaccine is known by the following names: AZD1222, Vaxzevria, COVIshield, Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, and AstraZeneca/Oxford University ChAdOx1-S COVID-19.

What was the sequence of events in Australia and overseas that led to the tragic death of Katie Lees and ten other Australians?

Tragic death toll from AstraZeneca as reported by the TGA (Australia)

ACTION – Petition

Globally, lives of loved ones continue to be tragically lost in the COVID-19 pandemic and others are sadly permanently and temporarily affected and restricted. We acknowledge and pay our deep respects to all those who have died during the pandemic, the loved ones who are left grieving, those who have had their lives and livelihoods restricted, frontline workers, and communities who have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Australia is, and has been, suffering an appalling loss of lives. Australians are living with the debilitating effects of personal and collective grief which so far, is disenfranchised by the actions of the current government.

We are voicing an urgent call for an independent inquiry or royal commission, thoroughly investigating the Australian government’s COVID-19 pandemic response including analysis of decision-making and communication approaches into areas of response. #pandemicroyalcommission

On the 22nd July 2021, Prime Minister of Australia Scott Morrison: “It’s my job as Prime Minister not just to simply accept advice uncritically. Whether it’s sitting in Cabinet meetings or, or in other forums, of course, I challenge the advice that I receive. I ask questions. I drill into it. You would expect me to do that. I think Australians would not expect me to just take this advice simply on the face of it. We must interrogate it.”[1]

Scott Morrison can expect the Australian public to do the same.

Sign the petition for a royal commission into Australia’s
COVID-19 response.

What you can do
There are 3 actions we invite you to consider:

1.     Writing to your local member, or any politician/election candidate at a local/state/federal level. In the letter/e-mail/open letter, share how the government’s response to the pandemic has affected you personally, ask what their position is on a royal commission into COVID-19, share the petition and invite them to make a commitment, set a date, and make it policy to hold a royal commission or independent inquiry into the government’s response to COVID-19 in Australia.

https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Guidelines_for_Contacting_Senators_and_Members

2.     Sharing the petition on social media, with friends, neighbours, colleagues. #auspandemicinquiry #pandemicroyalcommission

3.     Writing to media outlets about your lived experience, write an open letter to the Prime Minister, open up a conversation, speak about it.

[1]https://www.pm.gov.au/media/press-conference-canberra-act-6

The RISK-BENEFIT argument

Introduction:

On the 10th July 2021, a risk-benefit analysis for people aged under 60 in Australia investigated TTS following AstraZeneca: “For the current situation of low incidence of COVID-19, the risk of fatality from possible TTS or serious morbidity such as stroke in healthy younger adults, is unacceptable in Australia, when there is a choice of other vaccines.”[1] Messaging and risk assessment by the government and media failed to transparently communicate the known higher risk at the time of more severe TTS from AZ for younger women.

Throughout 2021, the government presented a risk-benefit argument with more certainty than the evidence indicated. Australia’s risk-benefit model referred to by government for AstraZeneca in Australia for all ages is published in the document ‘Weighing up the potential benefits against risk of harm from COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca.’[1] There are several significant issues with this document.

‘‘Weighing up the potential benefits against risk of harm from COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca’[2] is authored to enable interpretation of risk-benefit assessment to curtain vaccine supply issues, and failures to choose and procure vaccine options for Australians.

28th June 2021, under the heading ‘Estimating harm from TTS’:“While the estimates of risk in Australia are similar to overseas estimates, they are less certain for people aged under 50 years. This is because people in this age group are no longer vaccinated with COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca in Australia.”[3] [Prime Minister Scott Morrison had just announced the same day this document was published that AstraZeneca would be used (and is the only vaccine available) for those aged under 50].

In the document, risk-benefit analysis was based on ATAGI looking at “three scenarios that show the benefits and risks of vaccination with COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca.”[4] However, risk estimates based on data as of 16 June 2021 are incongruent and self-disclosed as “uncertain” as the ‘cases of TTS due to COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca’ are “based on small numbers of vaccinations in people under 50 in Australia.” [5] Estimates do not reflect the increased risk of TTS that occurs with an increase in vaccinations, which at this point [June 2021], is already seen in larger vaccine rollouts in countries such as the UK. Whereas the ‘hospitalisations, ICU and Deaths prevented’ columns seen as ‘potential benefits’ of the AZ vaccine are calculated from confirmed data in Europe and reflect an increase in infection rate similar to varying outbreak scenarios classified as from ‘Australia’ (low), ‘Victoria’ (medium) and ‘Europe in January 2021’ (high).

In the government and media, international data was quoted as it related to COVID-19 the virus, whenever it was convenient to alert the public to increase vaccine uptake, but international experience was not quoted accurately when it came to risks of TTS from the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. If the risk assessment had drawn on existing data from actual events internationally and been comparing ‘apples with apples’ in conveying risk scenarios, the very foundation of risk-benefit in Australia would have been more accurately communicated. Why, with access to international evidence, is that evidence not referred to in comparing the number of vaccines administered in said country, to the covid-19 infection rate in said country? In an evolving situation where a vaccine is globally rolled out to millions (after a mere 12,021 first doses were administered to people aged over 18 in clinical trials), why not look at locations where the most doses have been administered for indication of risks?

Australia’s data estimates in the government document ‘‘Weighing up the potential benefits against risk of harm from COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca’[6] also do not differentiate the risk of TTS based on first and second doses of AstraZeneca, where there is a significantly much higher risk of TTS from the first dose. It is only in September 2021 that the Australian government Department of Health publishes ‘COVID-19 vaccination – vaccination data’ as excel datasets available to view for the general public and the datasets do not differentiate between the types of vaccine, or first and second doses of each type of vaccine, they just use the word ‘vaccine’.[7]

This is a problem with this interpretation of the data. First and second doses of AstraZeneca are combined to assess risk of TTS. However, because the risk of TTS is much lower from a second dose, the results are skewed so it appears the risk of TTS is significantly lower than it would be if the data displayed the risk of TTS from first doses only.

If the TGA released data of how many first doses of AstraZeneca in Australia, and how many TTS cases and fatalities occurred from first doses, we would have an accurate picture of risk assessment for Australia. Globally, as of 14th January 2022, the European Medicines Association (EMA) states that: “[…]out of 1,809 thromboembolic events with thrombocytopenia reported worldwide, 1,643 were reported after the first dose and 166 after the second dose.”[8] It is unknown to us how many first doses of AZ have been administered in the approximate 183 countries where it is supplied worldwide. If we did have this figure, then an approximate global risk of TTS could be surmised. Combining the first and second dose data obscures the risks from the Astrazeneca vaccine associated with the first dose.

Published in January 2022, employees of AstraZeneca publish a study funded by AstraZeneca on ‘Geographical distribution of TTS cases following AZD1222 (ChAd)x1 nCoV-19) vaccination.’ [9] It is the closest study we have been able to locate which compares TTS cases from across the globe, which shows that AstraZeneca the company does hold that data in their global safety database but (for whatever reason) are not going so far as to communicate what proportion of doses are first or second. This is a significant factor in being able to accurately read the risk of TTS from first doses where the risk is much higher, and subsequently an accurate risk from second doses [and third, and fourth…]. If the doses are bundled together as we see in this study, the risk is not accurately displayed. Also, the study has limited the definition of TTS cases to occurring within 21 days of vaccination from AZ, whereas other definitions suggest it can occur within 28 and 30[10] days. The question then is, why is the company AstraZeneca not sharing data of first and second doses globally?

Official weekly updates in Australia by the TGA state that reports of side effects “are generally consistent with what is being observed internationally,”[11] if the estimates of ‘potential risks’ based on data as at 16 June 2021[12] were actually similar to overseas estimates, they would be reflective of that fact that as an e.g. in the UK alone, there had been 68 deaths from 389 reported cases of blood clots with low platelet levels in people who had the AstraZeneca vaccine up to 16th June 2021.[13] Below, a study models “the benefits and risks of Vaxzevria distribution from May – September 2021 in metropolitan France, considering French hospitalisation data and European data on TTS.”[14]

On the 1st July 2021, Eurosurveillance, Europe’s journal on infectious disease surveillance, epidemiology, prevention and control, publishes the study:‘Benefits and risks associated with different uses of the COVID-19 vaccine Vaxzevria: a modelling study, France, May to September 2021’. “When Vaxzevria was used in younger age groups, the benefit–risk balance was no longer as favourable and even reversed in the younger age groups. For instance, using Vaxzevria in the entire adult population would avert four (95% PI: 2–7) COVID-19 deaths in the 18–29 year-olds and six (95% PI: 3–8) in the 30–39 year-olds, but it would be associated with 12 (95% PI: 7–19) and nine (95% PI: 6–14) deaths from TTS in these age groups, respectively.”[15]

With a global pandemic, and a globally administrated vaccine where 12,021 people [aged over 18] received one dose and the rest of the data evolves in real-time in an international rollout, data and information on risks needs to be global, internationally collated, as well as locally.

If there was international collaboration in the form of an independent global safety database for vaccines where health professionals and the public can upload adverse reactions with the results displayed in real-time, and collaboration between medical experts and health researchers amongst countries in the interests of protecting patients from harm, then people would have the knowledge to become informed about their health choices and as a collective we really would be putting safety first.

On 7th December 2021, Dr Joshua E. Porterfield, PhD writes article for John Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center – ‘Why Aren’t We Talking To Each Other About Data?’:

“Data collection from this pandemic has been far from ideal. […] People from different disciplines need to come together to talk about what kinds of data we would like to have prior to the next pandemic — and then put the infrastructure in place to collect them. […] There has been a great deal of frustration in the public and that’s our fault. […] We have to come together if we are going to handle this better in the future.”[16] 

As at March 2022, Australian government funded ‘Vaccine Safety Surveillance’ websites such as ‘AusVax Safety’ – ‘Australia’s active vaccine safety system’ (last update March 2022) ‘AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine safety data states: “There have been no reports of thrombosis thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) following COVID-19 vaccination reported to AusVaxSafety. For more information on all vaccine safety monitoring in Australia and on TTS, see weekly TGA safety updates.”[17] And currently as at March 2022, NSW Department of Health’s ‘COVID-19 Critical Intelligence Unit, Living Evidence – COVID-19 vaccines’ still does not include two tragic deaths caused by Guillan-Barre Syndrome [reported  as a result of the AstraZeneca vaccine.[18] Neither of these government vaccine surveillance websites have a breakdown of risk of fatality and adverse reactions from first and second doses.

“Global collaboration and detailed spontaneous reporting are essential to understand and minimise the risk of very rare adverse events, including TTS.”[19] 

[1] https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/06/covid-19-vaccination-weighing-up-the-potential-benefits-against-risk-of-harm-from-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca_2.pdf

[2] https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/06/covid-19-vaccination-weighing-up-the-potential-benefits-against-risk-of-harm-from-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca_2.pdf

[3] https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/06/covid-19-vaccination-weighing-up-the-potential-benefits-against-risk-of-harm-from-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca_2.pdf

[4] https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/06/covid-19-vaccination-weighing-up-the-potential-benefits-against-risk-of-harm-from-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca_2.pdf

[5] https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/06/covid-19-vaccination-weighing-up-the-potential-benefits-against-risk-of-harm-from-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca_2.pdf

[6] https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/06/covid-19-vaccination-weighing-up-the-potential-benefits-against-risk-of-harm-from-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca_2.pdf

[7] https://www.health.gov.au/resources/collections/covid-19-vaccination-vaccination-data#september-2021

[8] https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/meeting-highlights-pharmacovigilance-risk-assessment-committee-prac-10-13-january-2022

[9] Source is authored and funded by AstraZeneca [accessed 6 Feb 2022]: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(21)00545-3/fulltext

[10] https://www.tga.gov.au/periodic/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-safety-report-17-06-2021

[11] https://www.tga.gov.au/periodic/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-safety-report-01-07-2021

[12] https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/06/covid-19-vaccination-weighing-up-the-potential-benefits-against-risk-of-harm-from-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca_2.pdf

[13] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-57677606

[14] https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.26.2100533?crawler=true

[15] https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.26.2100533?crawler=true

[16] https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/pandemic-data-initiative/expert-insight/q-and-a-why-aren-t-we-talking-to-each-other-about-data

[17] https://ausvaxsafety.org.au/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine/astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-safety-data-all-participants

[18] https://aci.health.nsw.gov.au/covid-19/critical-intelligence-unit/covid-19-vaccines

[19] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(21)00545-3/fulltext

Sexism and risk from AstraZeneca

Compounding issues in communication of risk in the administration of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca is the sexist absence of communication about the higher risk of severe TTS from the AstraZeneca vaccine for younger women.

‘COVID-19 Health Campaign – Don’t be complacent’[1] is released online on 12th July 2021, ten days before Katie receives her first dose of AstraZeneca. Featuring a distressed young [white] woman on a ventilator, the woman is visibly, audibly, struggling to breathe whilst lying in a hospital bed, receiving no assistance. Low-light, with a gritty colour grade, this ad is an attempted [biased] representation of what can be the very real, severe, [and serious] infection from COVID-19. Containing the dialogue “Stay home. Get tested. Book your vaccination.”, the advertisement is another example of a sexist contradiction in risk assessment regarding the AstraZeneca vaccine. Titling suggests she is in the situation because she was ‘complacent’. Apart from lacking diverse community representation, the ad is published at a time when no vaccines are available for people under 50 – except the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is not recommended for people under 60, and which is, to be repetitive, has a higher risk of more severe TTS and therefore fatality to younger women. Many reports describe younger people at the time as enthusiastic[2] about wanting to get vaccinated with Pfizer if it was available to them.[3] 

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison brought body politics into the conversation about the risk of fatality from AstraZeneca by communicating another sexist risk assessment that compared the risk of TTS from AstraZeneca to the risk of getting blood clots from the combined oral contraceptive pill (which quite obviously only women/people with a uterus, of reproductive age, generally – take). A day after Katie died, government website HealthDirect publishes the contraceptive pill risk metaphor, mirroring what Morrison proclaimed.[4] Despite it not actually being correct (TTS from AstraZeneca is different to more common clotting conditions[5]), there is never an excuse for using a woman’s/person with a uterus, or anyone’s, contraceptive choices about her/their own bodies, against them. There is no excuse either, for steamrolling fear into a person’s decision making over their own body as it relates to sexual activity. In doing so, the right to choose a safe contraceptive method without fear of death is weaponised against women/people with a uterus to stoke fear, downplaying risk of death from AstraZeneca in younger women in the hope that it will lead to a faster uptake of vaccines.

Twenty days after Katie’s death, Australian Government Department of Health funded website ‘AstraZeneca vaccine: risk of death is 1 in a million, but what does that mean?’ is published on 24th August 2021:

“1 in a million is really rare. See how it compares.[6] You are more likely to be struck by lightning or die from taking daily aspirin than to die from TTS after vaccination with AstraZeneca.”[7] ‘One in a million’ infers it is so unlikely to happen, that one needn’t worry about the risk, as it suggests that ‘one’ never actually exists. A bizarre infographic website dedicated to comparing the likelihood of Katie’s death occurring to inappicable metaphors.

Created on the sole basis of the slogan ‘one in a million’, attempts to validate the claim are far-reaching, fearmongering, and often gendered. A sickening iceberg, symptomatic of a larger dialogue around the gender health gap, the government needing to bring up a maternal mortality rate as means to convince women to take AstraZeneca is disturbingly misplaced. All these inapplicable metaphors bandied about to try and define a scale to risk of harm (which in August 2021 is higher than one in a million in countries like the UK) are sadly too common of attitudes to women’s health. Exemplifying a dangerous message which reinforces the idea that the value of investment into women’s health is only dependent on her/their ability to produce children. Even in the clinical trials/medical information for AstraZeneca, any reference to women is regarding pregnancy.

In media reporting, the risk is also described to have been ‘overhyped’ – whereas in fact, the higher risk of more severe TTS in younger women, was not communicated at all. A series of media articles right before and shortly after Katie’s death, more common on particular media outlets, promote the uptake of AstraZeneca in younger women with no transparency of facts around risk. A known risk in women’s health was omitted from communications. On 29th June 2021, a day after the announcement by Scott Morrison that AstraZeneca would now be offered to anyone over the age of 18, against expert medical advice, a government authored document including data tables became the foundation of potential risk-benefit analysis for the AstraZeneca vaccine in Australia. Apart from uncertain, incongruent, problematic data comparisons (including bulking the risk of TTS from first and second doses together so the statistically conveyed risk is lower) – the document doesn’t even include the word ‘women’.

Would Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison be willing to share what vaccine Jenny [his wife] and the girls [his daughters] had…? 

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v0Xc4dWYH4

[2] https://www.smh.com.au/national/one-thing-is-clear-young-australians-want-the-jab-but-please-don-t-confuse-us-20210630-p585i6.html

[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-57325514

[4] https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/blog/7-reasons-people-dont-get-covid-19-vaccinations

[5] https://www.health.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/covid-19-vaccines/approved-vaccines/astrazeneca

[6] https://www.science.org.au/curious/people-medicine/astrazeneca-vaccine-risk-death-1-million-what-does-mean

[7] https://www.health.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/covid-19-vaccines/approved-vaccines/astrazeneca

The Australian Government’s response

Almost every turn in the rollout of AstraZeneca in Australia has been riddled with contradiction.

On 12th March 2021, when Scott Morrison (who was the acting Health Minister at the time whilst Greg Hunt was on sick leave) was asked if he was personally worried about the news that Denmark, Norway and Iceland had suspended the use of AstraZeneca, Morrison said he was not,[1] and that the TGA’s advice on the vaccine remained unchanged.[2]

Brad Hazzard, NSW Minister for Health [7th July 2021]: “It’s safe to say that if we had had the [vaccine] supply that we wanted … we wouldn’t now be in this situation [lockdown] here in NSW.”[3]

Citizens in NSW largely abided by restrictions in an almost four-month mandated lockdown during the second half of 2021 to keep each other safe. Gladys Berejiklian, Prime Minister Scott Morrison, and government documents can be quoted as stating at various points in mid-late 2021 that lifting vaccination rates would end lockdowns – lockdowns though, were implemented largely because of low vaccination rates. Had the government procured Pfizer when it was offered to them in mid-2020, more Australians would have been vaccinated, lockdown would have been less likely, and the melting lava of messaging spewing about anyone over the age of 18 having to take AstraZeneca because there was no other option available – would not have occurred.

Peter Dutton [9th July 2021]: “Defence Minister Peter Dutton said AstraZeneca remained safe and effective. “If your doctor advises you that it is safe to have AstraZeneca, please take it,” he said. “More so than ever we need people to be vaccinated.””[4]

Morrison then flipped the vaccine rollout conversation to say “the timelines are now in the hands of all Australians” and “that is entirely up to how the nation responds to this challenge we’re setting for ourselves, each and every one of us.”[5] Following the advice from ATAGI until the 28th June 2021 has saved lives from AstraZeneca in Australia, although it seems Morrison blamed ATAGI doctors for the government’s mistakes in procurement and the slow Covid vaccine rollout.[6]

[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-12/scott-morrison-astrazeneca-pfizer-covid-vaccine-rollout-delays/13241496

[2] https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/no-biological-reason-to-link-blood-clots-to-covid

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/07/nsws-gold-standard-on-covid-tarnished-as-gladys-berejiklian-faces-acid-test

[4] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-09/australia-pfizer-doses-announcement-scott-morrison-vaccines/100280104

[5] https://www.pm.gov.au/media/press-conference-canberra-act-9

[6] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jul/14/scott-morrison-blames-atagi-doctors-for-australias-slow-covid-vaccine-rollout

Morrison pushes AstraZeneca

Scott Morrison made a calculated decision on 28th June 2021, by introducing a new no fault indemnity scheme for general practitioners, making it easier for the public to be recommended AstraZeneca from GP’s who will now be protected against any legal case.

29th June 2021, ABC, 7:30 Report, Laura Tingle interviews Dr Omar Khorsid.

“DR OMAR KHORSID, AMA PRESIDENT: Well, the announcement was quite a surprise to GPs around the country and to the AMA and whilst there certainly are good points in terms of potentially speeding up that rollout, it does add to the confusion around the program because, of course, for those under the age of 60, our experts have recommended the Pfizer vaccine.

So we have tried to really clarify that and say look, the recommendations are Pfizer but the vaccine, the AZ is licensed for those aged over the age of 18 and if they are willing to take it up, then at least the Prime Minister has given them that option as of today.”[1]

A new no fault indemnity scheme for GP’s raises many questions, such as; why would there be a risk of a legal case? Why announce an indemnity scheme for GP’s on 28th June 2021 if there was no risk? Scott Morrison knew about the risk, and went ahead anyway in the wake of media coverage criticising his government’s rollout as one of the worst performers in the OECD with only 3% fully vaccinated as at 17th June 2021.[2] It seems Scott Morrison had his mind set on vaccine targets, and his international reputation. Whilst the UK and US were securing doses of Pfizer in mid 2020,[3] Australian government Health Minister Greg Hunt didn’t take up the opportunity to until five months later.[4] This critical failure left all Australians vulnerable, and the eleven tragic deaths can also be attributed to this decision.

Anecdotally, a GP shared anonymously – “the government lied” [in relation to risks associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine], and another health professional shared “people will die.”

[14th July 2021] Prime Minister Scott Morrison: “It’s [COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca] not banned for people under 60 or 50, never has been. […] Go and talk to your doctor. And, that’s, you know, informed consent. It’s a free country. […] And, yes, I know ATAGI has been very cautious and that had a massive impact on the rollout of the vaccine program. It really did. It slowed it considerably and it put us behind, and we wish that wasn’t the result but it was. Those decisions are made independent of Government, and should be. And so, you know, if we want a system where drug control in Australia is not run by politicians but by the professional medicos, well, sometimes that means they’ll be very cautious in circumstances like this.”[5]

Yet at this point, drug control for AstraZeneca in Australia is being run on Scott Morrison’s 28th June [2021] decision to open AZ for anyone aged over 18. Although ATAGI’s advice since 8th April 2021 was that Pfizer is the preferred vaccine for anyone under the age of 50, and from 17th June 2021 – anyone under the age of 60, it would not be until ten days after Scott’s 28th June decision, that ATAGI would update its official risk/benefits advice on the 24th July 2021 to say that: “All individuals aged 18 years and above in greater Sydney, including adults under 60 years of age, should strongly consider getting vaccinated with any available vaccine including COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca. This is on the basis of the increasing risk of COVID-19 and ongoing constraints of Comirnaty (Pfizer) supplies. […] in a large outbreak, the benefits of the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca are greater than the risk of rare side effects for all age groups.”[6]

Between 28th June 2021 and 24th July 2021, GP’s were acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, and in this period of time, the risks of taking AstraZeneca for people under 60 in Australia did not outweigh the benefits according to ATAGI.

[1] https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/is-the-updated-astrazeneca-health-advice-a-good/13424234

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56825920

[3] https://www.sbs.com.au/news/greg-hunt-defends-pfizer-vaccine-talks-after-claims-he-ignored-early-meeting-request/a5cfadd9-400a-4a9a-90df-19f996cfdd5f

[4] https://www.pm.gov.au/media/australia-secures-further-50-million-doses-covid-19-vaccine

[5] https://www.pm.gov.au/media/interview-ray-hadley-2gb-140721

[6] https://www.health.gov.au/news/atagi-statement-response-to-nsw-covid-19-outbreak-24th-july-2021

Katie’s vaccination experience

Katie Lees received her first dose of COVID-19 AstraZeneca on the 22nd July 2021, after Scott Morrison’s announcement to offer AZ to anyone over 18 [28th June 2021], – where he ignored Chief Health Officers’ advice to abandon AstraZeneca – but before ATAGI’s officially updated advice on 24th July to ‘strongly consider any vaccine including’ AstraZeneca (based on supply issues of COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer). As at the 22nd July 2021, younger people are ineligible for the BioNTech Pfizer vaccine. There were sadly 135 new cases of COVID-19 mostly linked to one cluster in NSW and we were in lockdown.

22nd July 2021, (former) NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian stated in the 11am daily press conference “The vaccine is the key to our freedom. If you’re over 40, NSW Health can provide you with AstraZeneca but even if you’re under 40 and you really want to get the vaccine, please ask your GP.”[1]

Eerily, also on the 22nd July 2021, The Monthly’s Rachel Withers sums up Scott Morrison’s decision to offer AstraZeneca to anyone over the age of 18 on June 28th 2021:

“A small number of people may, in fact, die from taking AstraZeneca, because they “took responsibility” and came forward and got the one vaccine on offer to them. And that will be on the PM who left them with no real choice.”[2]

Katie’s death is an appalling, horrific tragedy. At the time of her first dose, she was one in approximately 76,595 AstraZeneca COVID-19 first doses [statistic from the PM] administered to people aged under 40 since the announcement was made by Scott Morrison [on 28th June 2021] to encourage anyone over the age of 18 in Australia to take AstraZeneca.[3]

“If there’s high prevalence of Covid, more people are likely to end up infected and in critical care, and if they’re over-60, more likely to die. In that case, it makes sense to give Oxford/AstraZeneca to everybody. But when there’s a lower prevalence of Covid, an age limit would be appropriate, she [Dr Sue Pavord, consultant haematologist at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust] said.”[4]

23rd July 2021, NSW 11:00am daily covid-19 press conference providing updates on the state’s COVID-19 crisis [136 locally acquired cases of COVID-19 in the 24 hours to 8pm 22nd July 2021]:

[NSW State Premier Gladys Berejiklian]: “That is the key to our freedom, the key to us living freely and as openly as possible is getting more jabs in arms and containing the virus. […] There’s lots of AstraZeneca available, if you’re over 40, there is no reason today why you shouldn’t be getting the AstraZeneca. […] We’re talking about doses, we’re talking about jabs in arms, that is what we need and we are doing everything we can as a government to make sure that we maximise in particular the use of AstraZeneca as much as possible […] We’re saying to everybody, please get vaccinated. If you have any concerns, go to your GP. Otherwise book with us, we have capacity for more AstraZeneca […] we are in the middle of a serious outbreak and the risk of dying from covid is much higher than having an adverse reaction to AstraZeneca […] The risk of any adverse uh – condition from the jab, is miniscule compared to the serious illness you can get if you get the covid virus and you don’t have any dose of the vaccine. So I would urge everybody to please follow that health advice and we implore that to be national health advice that we can make sure we have as much use of AstraZeneca as we can. Now, beyond that point, if you are someone that wants the vaccine of AstraZeneca under 40, of course you can go to your GP.”[5]

One argument which comes up time and time again, is the ‘but as a young person, she [Katie] could have died from covid’ conversation. A study from 8th December 2020 shows the infection fatality rate (IFR) from COVID-19 to be between 0.003 – 0.005; averaging that to 0.004 for the 0 – 34 age group.[6] On 17th June 2021, the mortality rate from confirmed covid cases and associated deaths in Australia from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS) shows that for the age range 30-39, it was tragically 2 fatalities from 5,464 confirmed cases of COVID-19. This translates to an 0.03% risk of death from confirmed COVID-19 cases in Australia in June 2021.[7] It does not show the low risk of catching covid whilst isolating in a mandated lockdown in NSW, during June-July 2021. Nor does it consider in the risk equation, the data on the efficacy of the AstraZeneca vaccine against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, which as at March 2022, the WHO states as “76%” with the disclaimers: “But this is specific to events from 15 days past second dose, with an inter dose interval of 29 days. […] No substantive data are available related to impact of the vaccine on transmission or viral shedding,” going on to encourage the maintenance of public health and social measures such as masking, physical distancing, ensuring good ventilation…[8]

We shouldn’t have to point out that tragically dying from covid-19 (a serious, transmissible virus capable of causing death) and tragically dying from the AstraZeneca vaccine (human made, government administered, failure of medicine), although both linked explicitly to the COVID-19 pandemic, are two independent events. We’ve already seen frequently throughout our research that other international leaders, experts and studies have informed a decision to protect people from the risk of death from a vaccine whilst still assessing the risk of death from covid-19 transmission by implementing age limits or suspending the use of AstraZeneca altogether out of caution.

It was a Thursday when Katie was vaccinated with AstraZeneca on 22nd July 2021. This matters because the TGA publishes weekly covid-19 safety reports late on Thursday afternoons. It is the only official record. On Thursday 22nd July 2021 late in the afternoon, tragically, two deaths were reported by the TGA of two people in their 40’s. Why are tragic deaths from covid-19 reported daily, whilst deaths from vaccines are reported weekly?

Scott Morrison [22nd July 2021]: “But it is important wherever you are in the country, to please go and see that pharmacist when they’re available or go and see your GP and make sure that you’re getting the AstraZeneca vaccines and similarly, through the state clinics that are providing those AstraZeneca vaccines. And we, of course, encouraging them to do that, that you can go and access them. The vaccines, like any vaccine, with any vaccine, there are there are risks associated, and I won’t go into each of the individual ones because I don’t want to particularly draw attention to anyone. […] I think I’ve been very clear that as Prime Minister I’m responsible for the vaccination program.”[9] 

Surreptitious omissions of vital AstraZeneca vaccine risk assessment information in sweeping slogan-style messaging and NSW State government daily press conferences as it relates to dissemination of medical advice to inform health measures for citizens, is a deceitfulness akin to lying.

Had the government procured enough Pfizer or been as willing to save lives from adverse reactions to vaccines (as seen in other countries), as they were willing to save lives from covid-19, then these tragic deaths could have been reported sooner, and decisions been made with immediate effect to suspend administration of AstraZeneca. Efficiency of reporting deaths from vaccines linked to the situation of being in a pandemic is something we want to see changed in the future. Had the two tragic deaths of people in their 40’s that week been reported as they happened, would GP’s in NSW have been so willing to administer AstraZeneca to younger people?

[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-22/nsw-covid-124-new-cases-announced-by-gladys-berejiklian/100313546

[2] https://www.themonthly.com.au/today/rachel-withers/2021/22/2021/1626932997/spins-and-needles

[3] https://www.pm.gov.au/media/press-conference-canberra-act-6

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/11/oxfordastrazeneca-vaccine-rare-blood-clot-syndrome-has-high-mortality-rate

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVNDPoIFlEU

[6] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7721859/

[7] https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/08/foi-request-2458-covid-19-mortality-data-email-correspondence-covid-19-mortality-data.pdf

[8] https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-what-you-need-to-know

[9] Source: https://www.pm.gov.au/media/press-conference-canberra-act-6

Katie’s tragic death was preventable by the current government

People were asked to make an ‘informed decision’ for the sake of the community, in the likelihood of experiencing a ‘one in a million’ event.

Between 28th June – 24th July 2021, GP’s in Australia were acting on the Prime Minister’s interpretation[1] of ATAGI advice as it related to AstraZeneca. The government published the document containing incongruent, uncertain data tables; ‘Weighing up the potential benefits against risk of harm from COVID-19 AstraZeneca’[2] on the 29th June 2021, the same day healthcare providers could offer AZ to those under 60. There is no mention of risk to women this document; it doesn’t even mention the word ‘women’. There was also assumably little-to-no turn around for GP’s working on the frontline to consider this information before seeing patients. Anecdotally, there are personal accounts of vast inconsistencies in the advice from GP’s with a spectrum ranging from convincing younger people to take AZ (in the case of a female in her 30’s) to trying to talk them out of it (in the case of a male in his 30’s) as two examples.

Making it easier for GP’s to administer AstraZeneca without risk begs the question – under what conditions are doctors given legal protection like the federal government no fault indemnity scheme? As an example, it could be asked – how many people have died from the flu vaccine? What makes the COVID-19 AstraZeneca vaccine different from any other vaccine? How many times previously has the government offered amnesty for GP’s? If it’s the only time – who was responsible for the decision to indemnify GP’s? Because they are now also partly responsible for eleven deaths in Australia caused by the administration of AstraZeneca.

What makes the AstraZeneca vaccine different by introducing indemnity for GP’s, is that the federal government didn’t take ATAGI’s advice, and that observing a living evidence situation evolving internationally, there was a known and mounting risk of fatality. By 28th June 2021, AstraZeneca was known by the government to be a life-saving vaccine that was simultaneously creating its own death tolls across the world. By rolling it out to as many people, there was little doubt that people would die. There is something suggested in the use of indemnity for GP’s – introducing the scheme on 28th June couldn’t do anything other than motivate the uptake of AstraZeneca. Decision-makers were in possession of information that wasn’t made public, so that the consumer couldn’t make an informed choice. How can it be an informed choice, when vital information is omitted regarding recommended age groups and the mountain of evidence suggesting women, and particularly younger women, were more at risk.

What is informed consent if the information to be informed with, is not communicated by the government or medical authorities and therefore is not accessible for the patient to give consent on the basis of being informed? These are important questions to flag both in reflecting on decisions made, but also to for any future precedents that may be set regarding protection from known risks, communication of risks and the emphasis placed on informed consent without access to knowledge.

[1] https://www.pm.gov.au/media/virtual-press-conference-1

[2] https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021/06/covid-19-vaccination-weighing-up-the-potential-benefits-against-risk-of-harm-from-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca_2.pdf

Moral responsibility to acknowledge deaths from AstraZeneca

Scott Morrison’s government ought to morally acknowledge that they forced something onto the public for the benefit of expedience, and that their decision-making process is fraught and flawed. They have a moral obligation to do this.

We call for an immediate commitment with dates confirmed to commence an independent inquiry or royal commission into the government’s pandemic response. An inquiry which only investigates the medical response to the pandemic – misses the point, that it was government decision making for which Scott Morrison claimed responsibility, that needs to be analysed as well.

On the 5th August 2021, we watched [former] NSW State Premier Gladys Berejiklian in the 11am daily press conference report on tragic deaths in NSW from the pandemic, failing to mention Katie. Subsequently, Gladys would say in her resignation speech due to an ICAC corruption investigation: “I have absolutely no regrets during my time in public life. At times we all stumble, we pick ourselves up […].”[1] Katie won’t be picking herself up, her voice was taken from her when she suddenly lost the ability to speak and move, due to a vaccine that Gladys Berejiklian also advocated for younger people in NSW to take without transparently conveying safety risks.

Whilst we are not affiliated nor do we advocate for any political parties, we note that at least one politician showed the moral courage to acknowledge deaths from AstraZeneca:

On the 23rd November 2021, Susan Templeman, Member for Macquarie, spoke in Australian Parliament on behalf of Katie’s family,[2] calling on the Prime Minister to acknowledge the deaths from AZ in Australia:

“I speak about this knowing that there are some in the community who will try and use what the family have said to me for their own purposes. That would be wrong. They are grieving and angry that Katie’s death is a direct consequence of the government’s reliance on AstraZeneca. They acknowledge that many other people have died because of the failure of the federal government to better manage the vaccine program. They know Katie listened to the urging of the government and made the decision to be vaccinated with AstraZeneca after discussions with her GP. For the sake of people’s mental health, she wanted to do her bit to help end the lockdown. They grieve that she was the one in a one-in-a-million risk. What’s added to their grief and distress is the lack of contact initiated from either the government or AstraZeneca.

What they’d like is for Katie’s death and that of others to be recognised in parliament. They’d like a public memorial acknowledging those who died during the pandemic, both as a result of the disease and of the vaccines and public recognition at major gatherings in the form of a minute’s silence. They’d like a vaccine compensation scheme that proactively reaches out to people who’ve lost a family member, one with specific time frames, relying on an expert legal and medical panel that considers impact statements from family members and treats them generously. What they want is reasonable. They also want to see the Prime Minister acknowledge those who have died or been disabled through the vaccination program. They want recognition by the Prime Minister of what these people have experienced and what their families have lost. They have lost this for the sake of the rest of the community.”[3]

The absence of acknowledgement causes more trauma and suffering to the affected families, friends and loved ones of the eleven people who died (twelve if you include a woman reported to have tragically died in the UK after receiving AstraZeneca in Australia as reported by the TGA on 1st July 2021, and thirteen if you include a person who tragically died from unrelated medical conditions while being treated for TTS from AstraZeneca as reported by the TGA on 28th October 2021).

It’s not just acknowledgement or recognition though, the erasure and ‘dumbing down’ of information from the current government goes much deeper. Currently, globally, tragic deaths from AstraZeneca exist in a data loophole where they are not transparently communicated for the public to access. They are not recorded or reported in data of deaths from covid-19. They are not recorded or reported in vaccine rollout statistics showing the amounts administered either. Where they live, if at all, in the public record, is in obscured, abstract locations of large bodies of text on official health websites, far down the page, and in the case of some countries, not even in the risk summary for AstraZeneca. If we’re to follow the government’s lead in employing metaphors for dramatic effect – trying to find specific, accurate information about the AstraZeneca vaccine is like searching for needles in an invisible haystack. In the Our World in Data project at the University of Oxford for instance, the generic ‘COVID-19 vaccine’ is used as an umbrella term for many types of vaccines, the project does not show vaccine doses by type, data does not show adverse reactions to vaccines or deaths from vaccines, and does not differentiate between types of vaccines in most statistics. In the section ‘Which vaccines have been administered in each country?’, data from Australia was not available.[4]

What can be seen in place of inclusion into easily accessible infographic data tables of COVID-19 pandemic statistics, is a resulting scramble from medical experts to publish studies which investigate the risk of TTS from AstraZeneca from the basis of a range of theories including the common comparison of the [uncertain?] risk of blood clots that would naturally occur in the general population at any one time. An obvious reason why this can be seen as an inapplicable foundation for risk assessment is it erases the context in which the vaccine was rolled out as a living evidence experiment, sandwiched in complex, politicised layers in an urgent, global crisis.  Very few studies look at actual real-world evidence in the context in which it occurred to provide analysis of known facts rather than suppositions of unknown risk factors where a deadly virus was not threatening human life on earth.

Is it a serendipitous coincidence that in the same 24 hours as a BBC documentary airing about the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, the TGA in Australia again provisionally approves AstraZeneca as a booster for anyone over the age of 18 on the 9th February 2022?

An elephant in the room whose silence hasn’t been brought to your attention yet, is AstraZeneca the company.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/01/no-regrets-full-text-of-gladys-berejiklians-speech-announcing-her-resignation-as-premier

[2] Source [Hansard text from speech by Susan Templeman, Member for Macquarie, Federation Chamber proceedings, Parliament House, Australia, 23rd November 2021]: https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=561706&operation_mode=parlview

[3] Source: https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=561706&operation_mode=parlview

[4] https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

Deaths are described differently depending on how they fit the story we want to hear

Deaths from all causes are tragic, they are lives lost, and loved ones are left grieving. While people will acknowledge that all deaths are tragic and terrible losses, not all deaths are reported in this way.

Communication and language used varies depending on the cause of death. If there’s deaths from floods – the words used are, it’s a ‘crisis’ with a ‘death toll’ of ‘at least’, ‘more than’, ‘uncountable losses’, ‘a national emergency’; if deaths from 1% of a mosquito-born virus – it’s ‘has been found to have died’, ‘it’s revealed’ and there’s a ‘national alert’; if from a freak weather event such as a wind surge – it’s ‘tragic’, ‘unthinkable’, an ‘accident’ a ‘disaster’; if from a shark attack – it’s ‘unfortunately’, and an ‘incident’ with the ‘victim identified’ and a ‘horrific attack’ – with national tributes evoked from all these causes of death.

We don’t disagree with any of these reports and give our deep respect and sincere condolences to all who have died and loved ones who are left grieving their losses.

Metaphors mask the reality

When reporting on the risk of adverse reactions or fatalities from the AstraZeneca vaccine, the metaphors used by the Australian government compare the risk to dying from a natural disaster or freak weather event such as a lightning strike, or shark attack, (amongst other examples). Inapplicable, incomparable, irrelevant metaphors which absolve the current government of responsibility because their occurrence is inherently out of anyone’s control. In the media and conversations, phrases such as – ‘unlucky’, ‘only 11 deaths’, ‘despite just 11 dying’, ‘dies with’, ‘death possibly linked to’ and simply, ‘has died’, are used, rather than conveying the enormity of this national tragedy.

If the loss of eleven lives due to the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca were anything like that of a freak accident caused by nature, such as a wind surge, lightning strikes, or floods, then the reporting of these deaths would have elicited a different response – actually, any response – because as it stands, there has not yet been any recognition or acknowledgement of what’s happened as a result of failures in a vaccine rollout which the government is responsible for.

Nothing like other deaths

Current reporting of deaths from the AstraZeneca vaccine in Australia, sees an absence of a sense of tragedy, with the focus instead being on the positive of how effective the vaccine is, and how many people were saved from being hospitalised (due to COVID-19). As if the fact that the rest of us didn’t die means it’s ok that some did.

The paradox is, that while so many lives were saved, others were tragically lost and by not recognising the eleven people, they are written out of the records of collective memory, story and data from the COVID-19 pandemic. As loved ones, we feel silenced in our grief and that it’s almost not acceptable to talk about our loss. No space is given in reporting or conversations to honour the eleven people (and international fatalities) or to discuss how they responded to encouragement to be vaccinated to protect their communities and suffered the unthinkable, unspeakably appalling side effects which caused their deaths.

Nothing is like what this is. In evaluating what has happened, AstraZeneca cannot be taken out of the context in which it was rolled out in Australia.

Things like this don’t just ‘happen’. They are not ‘to be expected’. The eleven who tragically died in Australia from AstraZeneca are not ‘unlucky’. There’s being unlucky, then there’s being forced into a situation where there’s the chance to be unlucky. There should have never been the opportunity for that chance to exist. The evidence was clear and known at the time of rolling out AstraZeneca in June 2021. The eleven deaths have a human cause, not a natural one – the current government cannot have it both ways; likening the risk of death to a freak weather event and then treating deaths caused by their vaccine rollout [within their control] as if they didn’t happen.

When responding to events out of their control such as deaths from natural disasters (although one could also argue action on climate change could improve future scenarios), such as a ‘once in a 500-year flood’, the government responds (belatedly) with an apology (for being belated) and cash, but still won’t speak directly with the collective community affected by loss. When responding to events such as deaths from decisions made within their control, such as the vaccine rollout, in the first instance they ignore that people died, and then continue to pretend they didn’t die, by again provisionally approving AstraZeneca for anyone over 18 on 8th February 2022.

Here is the cognitive dissonance: in offering and encouraging anyone aged over 18 to take AstraZeneca from 28th June 2021 (a decision within government control), the government simultaneously compared and promoted the risk of death from AstraZeneca as being the same as a rare natural event (something occurring outside of its control). So that when we lost Katie suddenly, (not only are we in shock, heartbroken and grieving), we’re told that the tragedy of losing her is supposedly like that of a death from a freak weather event. That her death was within her individual control because government messaging asked individuals to take the risk of death from being vaccinated, for the community. Except, everyone is absolved from responsibility, as if it were a tragic natural disaster or phenomenon, and yet, we have been observing what actually happens when there are such unexpectedly devastating events.

Disenfranchised grief

Australia’s current government was so desperate to pitch AstraZeneca to everyone who didn’t die, that ironically, they forgot the ones who [tragically] did. By default, when sharing our loved one’s death, we are made out to be somehow responsible for the life-saving vaccine taking our loved one’s life. Perhaps it is the shock of the news, as we have experienced a spectrum of reactions from horror to sympathy and condolences, to argumentative dismissiveness, silence, and ghosting – simply from sharing that our loved one died. All the while being a few weeks into a four month lockdown, with constant messaging ringing in our ears around covid-19 and vaccinations.

We wonder… how many people would say to a grieving family of someone struck by lightning that it was their loved ones responsibility to not die in a freak weather event? Not only that, We wonder… who would suggest that their loved one’s death doesn’t actually matter at all to the community and doesn’t even warrant being included in history’s daily disaster/pandemic death count and global data set?

We wonder… how many people would say to a grieving family, that it was their loved one’s fault for getting mauled by a shark, struck by lightning, bitten by a mosquito, or drowning in a ‘once in a lifetime’ disaster?

We wonder what kind of leader, of what kind of broken country, wouldn’t even acknowledge deaths caused post-vaccination, by a vaccine rollout within their control, whilst perversely and concurrently scaling the risk of deaths to the magnitude of a natural disaster pre-vaccination? This leader, of this country, we call Australia/many countries.

People did not have to die. A chain of decisions made by leaders in this country, are decisions that ended the lives of innocent, healthy people. Those same leaders are not stepping forward to apologise, acknowledge, recognise, or offer support.

Pre-vaccination, the message was: individuals need to get vaccinated for the health of the collective community, to reduce transmission, hospitalisation and death from COVID-19, ‘we are in this together’.

Post-death-from-vaccine message: the collective has disappeared, replaced with silencing and ghosting – the health of the individual no longer matters to the collective, the death is not reported in the historical memory as being part of the collective that reduced risk of COVID-19.

So where does that leave the loved ones of these 11 people? We can only speak from our own experience (not on behalf of all eleven families), but we can share that it leaves us in a limbo state of disenfranchised grief, where trying to grieve and speak about what happened is met with reactions that echo the government and media responses – hinting that we should be somehow grateful that more people didn’t die, whilst stifling the part of grieving which is sharing our stories about our loved one.

When we don’t support each other in loss, we all lose…

We honour the memory of all those who tragically died during the pandemic and pay our deep respect to their lives lost and loved ones. We actively work towards the creation of public memorials to remember the people who died during the pandemic. It is an important nuance for us to maintain, that these are all people who have died due to the pandemic, and all lives lost are a tragedy.

Returning to the words and language used to report deaths, what we have learned through our soul-shredding grief, is that guidelines are needed to inform the government and media of how to respectfully report, disclose and communicate, deaths from sudden causes and deaths linked to government decisions. We have experienced additional pain from seeing loved one’s deaths so flippantly referred to in public discourse (if they are referred to at all), having government funded websites created after Katie’s death dedicated to convincing people that the risk of her and others dying wasn’t real, and at the same time, altogether ignored. Death is death, humans are human. There are ways to communicate death that is more humane.

We welcome accuracy, transparency, and empathy in research, public discourse and communications that shine light on facts, and which strive for solutions to ensure scenarios like Katie’s and others tragic deaths do not occur in the future – rather than abolishing their existence. We do not accept the baseline reality pedalled by the current Australian government that there is ‘always a risk of death’ with any vaccine. Nor do we find it acceptable that the risk of death from taking a first dose of AstraZeneca is communicated to the public in non-scientific terms such as ‘miniscule’,[1] ‘infinitesimally small’[2] (former NSW State Premier Gladys Berejiklian), ‘really rare’ and ‘around this many’ (government funded website).[3]

We urge funding bodies and experts to be more invested in research into women’s health and encourage everyone to support living evidence research by sharing adverse reactions to vaccines with health bodies to better inform medical responses for everyone.

We grieve the loss of transparency of communicating accurate information as it relates to risks in healthcare by government and media communications. We grieve all the lost opportunities in the chain of decision-making made by Australian government which would have prevented deaths from AstraZeneca.

Most of all, we grieve losing our Katie Lees, to whom we quote Clementine Ford – “You are a sunset…”

The eleven people who died from AstraZeneca and others who live with implications of adverse effects in Australia and throughout the world deserve our respect. They followed government advice, they protected their communities and their loved ones. If COVID-19 didn’t exist, they would not have taken a vaccine for COVID-19. Their deaths need to be included in the global death toll for COVID-19 and human cost of the pandemic.

Language such as ‘Freedom Day’[4] was used to emphasise ending the restrictions on personal freedoms from lockdowns, holding up liberty as a reward for the community if they reached vaccine milestones set out by the politicisation of the vaccine rollout. Katie believed what the government was saying and was proud of the decision to be vaccinated for the good of the community, to end lockdowns. Now that in Australia, most people are living that liberty without them, the very least we can do is honour their lives in the cultural and collective memory of the pandemic.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVNDPoIFlEU

[2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-23/nsw-call-for-vaccines-to-be-focused-on-sydney/100317702

[3] https://www.health.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/covid-19-vaccines/approved-vaccines/astrazeneca

[4] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-22/nsw-covid-124-new-cases-announced-by-gladys-berejiklian/100313546

‘One in a million’ risk

This is the throwaway line that diminished the deaths and suffering from AstraZeneca. We heard it parroted over and over again. It was like a mantra; if we all said it enough we might be able to hide from the tragedy of the AstraZeneca deaths.

We know that many people have and are experiencing great loss as a result of the ongoing pandemic of the past three years. Many people have lost loved ones to COVID. Other people will suffer the effects of long COVID for many years to come. People lost their businesses, their jobs, their relationships and their sanity.

The vaccine rollouts have been deeply polarised. In sharing our grief, in feeling each other’s grief we can have an opportunity to shape a more humane and empathetic society where people are valued as human beings and not merely thought of as expendable statistics.

Additional notes

This is a global pandemic with tragic outcomes everywhere, and whilst this content focuses on our personal loss and localised consequences, we wish to acknowledge and pay our deep respects to all who have died during the pandemic, the loved ones who are left grieving their loss, the collective losses we have all sustained, the tireless efforts of frontline workers, those around the world who retrospectively and currently do not have access to a safe vaccine for their age group, and those who have lost their lives or had their lives and livelihoods restricted as a direct consequence of government decision-making, at any time in Australia’s history. We acknowledge the importance of vaccines in responding to the pandemic and our privilege of being in a country that hopefully (now) has access to (safe) vaccines for all ages, where approximately 64%[1] of the world’s population has received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and only 14.4% of people in low-income countries having received one dose. This content focuses on our loss from one type of vaccine, we acknowledge that there are effective COVID-19 vaccines and advocate for their use to reduce deaths from COVID-19 infections.

We note that World in Data has been created by Oxford University who, with AstraZeneca, created the vaccine which caused Katie’s and many others tragic deaths and whose deaths are not included in the global vaccine rollout data or pandemic death tolls.

[1] Source [accessed 20 March 2022]: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

Summary & suggested terms

We have lost a daughter, sister, family member and friend – our Katie Lees, from an adverse reaction to a provisionally approved vaccine which was not recommended or made available as the preferred vaccine for those aged under 60 until Prime Minister Scott Morrison went against expert medical advice and decided to offer the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca to anyone over the age of 18 on June 28th 2021 when there was no large official outbreak in NSW, Australia. Morrison’s decision came eleven days after ATAGI re-iterated its existing recommendation of not recommending AZ as a preferred vaccine for people under 50, by extending the age to 60 on 17th June 2021, and twenty-six days before ATAGI would declare a large outbreak in NSW sufficient to ‘strongly advise’ anyone over the age of 18 to use AstraZeneca.

In addition to the petition, we call for (in no particular order, covering but not limited to):

  • Katie’s death and that of 10 others who tragically died in Australia from AstraZeneca to be morally acknowledged in Australian parliament. A public memorial acknowledging those who died during the pandemic, both as a result of the disease and of the vaccines and public recognition at major gatherings in the form of a minute’s silence. Prime Minister Scott Morrison to acknowledge those who have died or been disabled through the vaccination program. Recognition by the Prime Minister of what these people have experienced and what their families have lost. They have lost this for the sake of the rest of the community.”[1]
  • Specific research into women’s health, an evaluation of policies, and changes to the communication of risk in medical advice for women from sources across the board from government to media, including opinion pieces promoting AZ for younger women around the time of Katie’s death – as there was no transparency of the higher risk for more severe TTS for younger women, no diversity of media coverage.
  • Funding for grief counselling and grief support groups to be made immediately available for all families and friends who have lost a loved one to the AstraZeneca vaccine in Australia and internationally.
  • A vaccine compensation scheme that proactively reaches out to people who’ve lost a family member, one with specific time frames, relying on an expert legal and medical panel that considers impact statements from family members and treats them generously.
  • Global and local recognition of those who have died during the COVID-19 pandemic, created in consultation with families in the form of public memorials, a minute’s silence, and other memorialisation’s.
  • Vaccine safety monitoring programs around the world to be internationally collated, transparently and efficiently communicated in real-time to inform people of risks concurrent with existing vaccine administration data so people can compare risks as they occur.
  • Establishment of an independent global safety database for vaccines where health professionals and the public can upload adverse reactions with the results displayed in real-time, and global collaboration between medical experts and health professionals in the interests of protecting patients from harm, rather than any ulterior motives.
  • Australian government funded ‘Vaccine Safety Surveillance’ websites such as ‘AusVax Safety’ – ‘Australia’s active vaccine safety system’ and ‘Covid Living Data’ to display real-time data of adverse reactions and fatalities from vaccines as reported by the TGA.
  • A commitment to a confirmed date of commencement and time-frame for an independent inquiry or royal commission into the Australian government’s pandemic response, including analysis of decision-making in vaccine choice, procurement, rollout and the no-fault indemnity scheme in relation to informed consent.
  • Investment into medical research in Australia and internationally so this never happens again.
  • Guidelines for media and government on how to report sudden deaths due to causes such as vaccines, to minimise harm to those connected to the people who died and increase empathy.
  • AstraZeneca the company to acknowledge the deaths linked to the COVID-19 AstraZeneca vaccine and make their global safety database information publicly available to transparently communicate the global and geographical risks of TTS from COVID-19 AstraZeneca, including a breakdown of risk of TTS and fatality from first and second doses, conveyed separately.
  • Fellow Australians to treat everyone affected by vaccine injuries and deaths with compassion, understanding and respect, at the bare minimum…

– Katie Lees’ Family

[1] Source: https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=561706&operation_mode=parlview