CDC panel recommends resuming use of Johnson and Johnson vaccine • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by Igelau » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 10:55 PM UTC

loceng wrote: post #55

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

I googled him to see if I could find the gist of his claims. I can't find a single thing from him, but I can find a ton of takedown pieces tearing apart this episode.

(Bret Weinstein is leaning hard into the IDW thing. DarkHorse? Really?)

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

#82

Post by void_mint » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 10:56 PM UTC

InitialLastName wrote: post #71

void_mint wrote: post #37

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 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 vaccinati…

It may be splitting hairs, but I wouldn't really call most vaccine skeptics "anti vaxxers". The legitimate "anti vaxx" community are legitimately uninterested in science. These people will never get vaccinated, regardless of data.

A much larger group of people is skeptical of the government and vaccines. These people might get vaccinated, and every piece of information that comes out in favor of vaccination has the possibility to sway some of them.

My post was about the first group, not the second.

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

#83

Post by seriousquestion » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 10:56 PM UTC

loceng wrote: post #55

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

It's worth a watch. Bret Weinstein was a year early on the lab leak hypothesis, when it was taboo to even ask the question. Only now are scientists able to discuss it somewhat openly; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26750452

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

#84

Post by passivate » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 10:56 PM UTC

benchaney wrote: post #42

passivate wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it should fall under basic common sense, not science. In reality, only a handful of people in the world understand in detail all the intricacies of the various ways our body interacts with drug substances. This group varies based on the drug in question. The rest of us are just parroting them. Yes you can try to be informed and read-up but at the end of the day they're still a layperson. I work in biotech (va…

> In reality, only a handful of people in the world understand in detail all the intricacies of the various ways our body interacts with drug substances. That is not science, and it is not what is meant when people talk about trusting the science. Science is empiricism. The science that supports the efficacy of vaccination is the data from the trials that shows a reduction in cases. The science supporting safety is s…

We're not really in disagreement. Let me explain a bit more. Science is a process/methodology of exploring/understanding our natural world/natural phenomenon, Yes? And as such, there is good science, there is average science, and there is junk science. They're all under the same 'Science' umbrella.

>The science that supports the efficacy of vaccination is the data from the trials that shows a reduction in cases. This data is something anyone can understand with sufficient knowledge about probability and statistics.

Yes you have a bunch of numbers, but this doesn't tell you whether the study protocol was good, nor does it tell you about the qualitative aspects like how well the study protocol was adhered to, how tight the controls were, etc. Naturally, this is not a new problem, and we have various safeguards already in place at various levels. You also need a third party like say the FDA to audit and examine what was done.

>This data is something anyone can understand with sufficient knowledge about probability and statistics.

Yes, but that is not all. People need to understand how clinical trials are conducted, and how for e.g. efficacy numbers can't simply be used to trivially compare two vaccine candidates.

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

#85

Post by ibejoeb » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 10:56 PM UTC

chillacy wrote: post #57

ibejoeb wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's a strange desire because what does it matter? If you were worried, you would have gotten vaccinated, and unless you don't believe the vaccine works, you would be protected.

It's also something that is impossible to know because you don't have the right to inspect someone's medical records.

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

#86

Post by InitialLastName » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 10:57 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #4

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…

It's worth noting that young-to-middle-aged women are also over=represented (relative to the general public) among healthcare workers, who have been a primary target for the early rounds of vaccination.

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

#87

Post by jrochkind1 » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 10:57 PM UTC

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.

I think either pausing or not pausing could increase or decrease vaccine confidence.

One could imagine pausing: "oh, they are being careful, great, and NOW after looking at it, they've determined it is safe." (The pausing is actually a consequence of the sped-up approval; the sped-up approval process comes with a requirement to pay extra extra scrutiny to any side effects reported) OR "See, they admit it's not safe, they paused it!"

Same with not pausing: "See they rushed the approval, and now they are ignoring side effects" OR just nobody hears about the side effects without the publicity, or figures they must not be a big deal if they didn't even bother pausig it or whatever.

Could go either way. The difference in either case is probably determined by building up trust over time, by transparency, and by having an effective communications/education/marketing plan (specifically for communications around the side effects/pause).

In the USA, of course, we have none of that. So it was probably going to decrease confidence either way. What a country!

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

#88

Post by graton » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 10:59 PM UTC

loceng wrote: post #55

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

Counter point to Geert Vanden Bossche

https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/03/26/geert-vanden-bossche/

Seems like he has financial interest in claiming the vaccines are dangerous.

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

#89

Post by hcurtiss » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 10:59 PM UTC

grej wrote: post #21

Both my wife and I got the J&J shot before it was cancelled. We both had a period about 12 hours afterwards where we felt like we had a mild flu for about another 12 hours, then it was over and we’ve felt fine. Very happy with this decision.

If we're doing anecdata, I too had the J&J shot right before it was cancelled. Literally no symptoms whatsoever. Very happy with the "one and done" relative to my wife who will go in next week for the second Pfizer shot, which has clobbered everyone else in our neighborhood who took it.

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

#90

Post by jrochkind1 » Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 10:59 PM UTC

mancerayder wrote: post #64

nickff wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been some studies which demonstrated that experts gain credibility when they express uncertainty. Amateurs on the other hand lose credibility when they express uncertainty. I don't have a citation handy, but I thought you might find the perspective useful.

Does the citation include the recent major skepticism of Astra? There are French polls that backed major skepticism of Astra specifically after the pause. The downvotes are puzzling. Are people capable of countering with reason, or is a downvote a proxy vote for how they wish reality to be?

They're perhaps downvoting because what was described was "studies" (not "the citation"), that were about credibility and uncertainly generally, and it's safe to assume they weren't conducted in the past 4 months and have nothing to do with covid vaccines, but you jump in with "well your study means nothing to me unless it was conducted in the past two months and already peer reviewed and published" which is not how it works.