Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 232 posts

Re: CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine

#51

Post by void_mint »

option wrote: post #40
void_mint wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true that you can't choose, but lots of places are listing what vaccines they're doing on specific days. You can "choose" by booking an appointment at a location that has the one you want, or by avoiding locations that have ones you don't want. As an example, I booked my appointment specifically at a location that only carried Pfizer.

yeah, when I went (and got Moderna), I saw many people (who booked the appointment) asking staff "Is it Pfizer" and leaving when the answer was No.

My personal take was just to avoid J&J in favor of mRNA vaccines, but only because of my vague obsessive anxiety.

Re: CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine

#53

Post by arsome »

option wrote: post #40
void_mint wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true that you can't choose, but lots of places are listing what vaccines they're doing on specific days. You can "choose" by booking an appointment at a location that has the one you want, or by avoiding locations that have ones you don't want. As an example, I booked my appointment specifically at a location that only carried Pfizer.

yeah, when I went (and got Moderna), I saw many people (who booked the appointment) asking staff "Is it Pfizer" and leaving when the answer was No.

That seems like a really weird decision because both Moderna and Pfizer are using very similar technologies and haven't had much negative press coverage.

Re: CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine

#54

Post by histriosum »

ibejoeb wrote: post #35
elliekelly wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So my point is, I think demand would be higher and concerns lower if you just made it available and let people make their own choice. That's already how it works, though. Everyone is free to decide for themselves whether or not they'd like to be vaccinated.

To an extent. Presently, you won't be thrown in jail if you don't get it. But you can't go to NYU. You can't go to a wedding. You can't go to a concert, or a football game, you can't fly Qantas...

Yes. You are free to make a choice, not free from the consequences of that choice.

Re: CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine

#55

Post by loceng »

In-depth talk with a virologist who believes that all of these vaccines currently be dangerous - and that we should perhaps stop all of them, please watch it before you assume you understand the reasoning:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNyAovuUxro - DarkHorse Podcast with Geert Vanden Bossche & Bret Weinstein

Re: CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine

#56

Post by tzs »

option wrote: post #18
jdavis703 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is being forced to take vaccines. It’s already announced there will be no federal vaccine passport, and many states are banning passports.

at least here, in California, you can not chose which one you get when making the appointment or when arriving at the vaccination site. Also CSU and UC will require vaccinations for return to on-campus. (Though I'm not sure that they will be able to do so until vaccines are under "emergency use" authorization, not a regular one)

Here in Western Washington, I've not seen any site mixing vaccines. One Walgreens might have Moderna and another Pfizer, but any given day any particular store will only have one of them.

Most places say when you sign up which they will have for your appointment, but if they do not you can often tell by looking at the eligibility. If they are offering appointments to people age 16+, they are using Pfizer. If 18+, Moderna.

Most places here also tell you on the signup form that your second appointment will be the same time and place exactly N weeks after the first. If N = 3, they are using Pfizer. If N = 4, Moderna.

Re: CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine

#57

Post by chillacy »

ibejoeb wrote: post #35
elliekelly wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So my point is, I think demand would be higher and concerns lower if you just made it available and let people make their own choice. That's already how it works, though. Everyone is free to decide for themselves whether or not they'd like to be vaccinated.

To an extent. Presently, you won't be thrown in jail if you don't get it. But you can't go to NYU. You can't go to a wedding. You can't go to a concert, or a football game, you can't fly Qantas...

How does one balance that with the counter desire to not want to go to a wedding, concert, football game, or plane with unvaccinated people?

Re: CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine

#58

Post by miked85 »

sjm wrote: post #5

Just makes sense. The benefits far outweigh the risks at six cases of blood clots out of over 6.8 million doses, especially when there's a high risk of blood clots following COVID-19 hospitalization. Not to mention rates of blood clots caused by the pill are more like 1 in 3000. Hopefully if anything the pause has shown anti-vax folks that the safety of these vaccines is being taken seriously.

I am not sure it is about "anti-vax" folks so much in this case. Many are wary of getting a vaccine with < year of testing, not to mention relatively new technology (mRNA). That isn't entirely unreasonable, though I did end up getting the Moderna shot.

Re: CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine

#59

Post by mancerayder »

Fomite wrote: post #44
mancerayder wrote: post #32

Pausing like that causes, not prevents, vaccine skepticism. In an era of declining public trust of institutions (across both political aisles, even if unequally), I argue this pause was poor politics. Science doesn't enter much into it, unfortunately.

Personally, I prefer drug safety protocols be based on science, not what people feel, or whether or not it's "good politics".

This is what I am arguing above. In light of this, would you say the pause was good science and not politics?

Re: CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine

#60

Post by Sebguer »

tldrthelaw wrote: post #28
Sebguer wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Not targeting you on this, just an observation: we should be careful with the terms we use. I don't think "skeptic" or "skepticism" applies to anti-vaxxers.

I guess you can tell the AP to stop using it? https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-vaccine-skepticism-wh...
Post reply on HN