CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine

Damage is done... NYC saw a drop in vaccine appointments right after the original ban on J&J happen.

They could have issued a warning first, with the group ages/sex that they were seeing the clots (it was mostly women). Now they are scaring the 'indecisive' part of the population, and just making sure the pandemic will keep going.

Both the CDC and the FDA have completely dropped the ball during this pandemic. They are acting like typical bureaucrats, with the 'you don't fired if you buy IBM' type of mentality, and instead of being aggressive, they are just acting in a way so they don't get fired.

They should have done challenge trials back in April last year, and ask for military style of mobilization on productions, instead of just doing the normal/usual trails.

It would have speedup the vaccine rollout even more, and perhaps save at least 200k lives or more. (mask requirements on the Federal level, would have saved another 100-200k people).

I just read the linked Axios article, so perhaps there is more in the CDC decision, but seems like it would make the most sense to just recommend against the J&J vaccine for anyone at higher risk of clot (e.g. all 6 of the people who had clots were women of childbearing age). With 3 good vaccines available, seems like there is plenty (or shortly will be plenty) to go around even if the J&J vaccine only goes to those at low clot risk.

>Hopefully if anything the pause has shown anti-vax folks that the safety of these vaccines is being taken seriously.

The vast majority of skeptics will not be convinced by this, because their skepticism is not rooted in the science.

I agree with you that the risk of getting Covid-19 far outweigh the risk of blood clots associated with some vaccines, however, I've read this comparison with birth control related blood clots many times and it just doesn't seem to be comparable.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-comparing-blood-clot-r...

> Indeed, government health officials are investigating a type of blood clot called a cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) among the J&J recipients. These clots formed in the draining veins of the brain, combined with a low platelet count, essentially causing a stroke. Hormonal birth control pills, on the other hand, raise the risk of blood clots in the leg that can break off and travel to the lung, causing a pulmonary embolism that blocks blood flow to part of the lung. The latter clots can be treated with anticoagulants, while the J&J clots cannot.

One seems to be far more deadly than the other.

I don't think the usual risk factors for clotting apply here. These cases were rare enough to stand out at just 1 per million. The clotting seems to be a specific immune response similar to some people who clot when given heparin.