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

71–80 of 232 posts

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

#71

Post by InitialLastName »

void_mint wrote: post #37
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.

> Hopefully if anything the pause has shown anti-vax folks that the safety of these vaccines is being taken seriously. The anti vaxx community is uninterested in science. This won't change anything.

As ever, the thoroughly anti-vax community are going to be unconvinceable, but there is real progress to be made on the margins. There are a large number of people who are not inherently opposed to vaccination who are hesitant (for a wide variety of reasons) to take this vaccine.

I know people who have gone from "The US government has a long history of medical experimentation on people with my skin tone" to vaccination evangelists over the last few months. This isn't yet quite one of those issues where people are locked in to a narrow bimodal distribution.

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

#72

Post by GrifMD »

miked85 wrote: post #58
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.

That’s fair, but I’d prefer to get the vaccine over something developed by bats https://xkcd.com/2397/

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

#73

Post by neither_color »

void_mint wrote: post #50
neither_color wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of this has made sense for months I'm just going with the flow. We get x-ray scanned through our clothes every time we fly what's dignity? It's just another airport document as far as Im concerned.

I'm sorry, I can't really tell how your comment is related to my comment? What does verifying that you took precaution to prevent the spread of covid have to do with dignity?

My mistake. I misread your response as requiring one or the other being the same as forcing. Some people find having to show a negative test or vaccination record for international travel as invasive, and to them I'd say that the real violation of privacy happens at the TSA line.

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

#74

Post by _2d30 »

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".

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

Implicit to this point is that what the CDC/FDA did was "good science" and not bad science.

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

#75

Post by jrochkind1 »

jonplackett wrote: post #17
joe_the_user wrote: post #3

Excellent news. The unfortunate thing is the level of ignorance today mistakes a very careful effort make sure the vaccine is safe with a wanton ignoring of some danger. Beyond talking about the fact that they determined this was safe, at some point educating people on danger in statistical terms is going to be necessary. But I'm not sure how that happens - addiction to headline-logic and single-heart-pulling-events…

I made a website recently to try and do what I think you're talking about. http://whatoneinamillionmeans.com The idea is to compare the risk of death from the AZ vaccine from blood clots (1 in a million so far) with the risks we take all the time without worrying. For there J+J vaccine, it's also a 1 in a million risk, but just of getting the clots, not dying. The point is to show the fallacy of comparing the risk of…

The most important comparison is the risk of getting severe covid and/or dying from it if unvaccinated.

It's tricky cause it depends on what you do (you get to do more once you are vaccinated), as well as the ever-changing rate of infection in the community where you are (which will change as more people get vaccinated among other things).

But in general, your risk of having severe complications from covid if unvaccinated is far more than your risk of complications from the vaccine.

And on the population level, we can say if say 1 million people get the vaccine, X will have blood clot complications (about 1)... if 1 million people go two months without being vaccinated, how many will get covid and have severe complications? (more than X). So if using the J&J gets a million people vaccinated two months earlier, it's a win.

Of course, ALL of this is an embaressment of riches when the USA has access to large quantities of three effective and safe vaccines, when much of the planet still has zero.

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

#76

Post by dawnerd »

nostromo wrote: post #66

Now maybe the US can finally approve the AstraZeneca vaccine and put our 20 million (!) doses on hand to good use. Or not! But if we’re not going to use them, we should send them to another country like Canada or Mexico or Australia or the UK or EU, all of which have approved it and administered millions of doses. Sitting on 10s of millions of vaccines during a pandemic is inexcusable.

100% agree we should send them elsewhere. It seems we’ve reached the point where we’re manufacturing enough to just about meet demand and our neighbors are struggling.

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

#77

Post by _wldu »

I had Covid in March 2020. It almost did me in. Was in ICU for a while.

Had the J&J shot three weeks ago. Did not feel a thing. My arm was slightly sore at injection site. Nothing else. I guess my body was used to it and just sort of shrugged it off.

Some of my friends who got J&J were sick for a few days, but rebounded quickly after that.

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

#78

Post by zamalek »

joe_the_user wrote: post #3

Excellent news. The unfortunate thing is the level of ignorance today mistakes a very careful effort make sure the vaccine is safe with a wanton ignoring of some danger. Beyond talking about the fact that they determined this was safe, at some point educating people on danger in statistical terms is going to be necessary. But I'm not sure how that happens - addiction to headline-logic and single-heart-pulling-events…

Medications (not necessarily vaccines) are universally risky, even a Tylenol. Doctors weight the risk of you dying or suffering from symptoms against the risks involved with taking the medication. Chemotherapy is a good example: the risks and side effects are horrific, but on the other hand it's dealing with cancer.

> Beyond talking about the fact that they determined this was safe

And so there is a miniscule risk associated with J&J - that is the truth, or the half-truth. The whole truth is that your odds of catching and dying from COVID-19 are significantly higher than an adverse reaction to the J&J vaccine.

So, even with the blot clot risk (which can be caught/treated), you should absolutely have the J&J vaccine if you have the chance to.

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

#79

Post by notatoad »

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.

pausing causes vaccine hesitance, but finding out that the authorities knew about potential risks like this and didn't pause the rollout to assess those risks also causes vaccine hesitance, and is also poor politics.

they did the safe thing, regardless of the politics. if you're skeptical about vaccines you should be reassured by that. and if a person is skeptical about vaccines but somehow isn't reassured by the authorities taking responsible safety precautions, they're probably not coming from a place of reason and there's not much point worrying what they think.

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

#80

Post by miked85 »

dawnerd wrote: post #69
miked85 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

JnJ isn’t mRNA just in case that’s what you were implying.

Thanks for clarifying. I didn't mean to imply that.
Post reply on HN